Suppr超能文献

德克萨斯州实施一项限制性法律后堕胎服务的变化。

Change in abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas.

作者信息

Grossman Daniel, Baum Sarah, Fuentes Liza, White Kari, Hopkins Kristine, Stevenson Amanda, Potter Joseph E

机构信息

Texas Policy Evaluation Project, Austin, TX; Ibis Reproductive Health, Oakland, CA; Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA.

Texas Policy Evaluation Project, Austin, TX; Ibis Reproductive Health, Oakland, CA.

出版信息

Contraception. 2014 Nov;90(5):496-501. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.07.006. Epub 2014 Jul 22.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

In 2013, Texas passed omnibus legislation restricting abortion services. Provisions restricting medical abortion, banning most procedures after 20 weeks and requiring physicians to have hospital-admitting privileges were enforced in November 2013; by September 2014, abortion facilities must meet the requirements of ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). We aimed to rapidly assess the change in abortion services after the first three provisions went into effect.

STUDY DESIGN

We requested information from all licensed Texas abortion facilities on abortions performed between November 2012 and April 2014, including the abortion method and gestational age (< 12 weeks vs. ≥ 12 weeks).

RESULTS

In May 2013, there were 41 facilities providing abortion in Texas; this decreased to 22 in November 2013. Both clinics closed in the Rio Grande Valley, and all but one closed in West Texas. Comparing November 2012-April 2013 to November 2013-April 2014, there was a 13% decrease in the abortion rate (from 12.9 to 11.2 abortions/1000 women age 15-44). Medical abortion decreased by 70%, from 28.1% of all abortions in the earlier period to 9.7% after November 2013 (p<0.001). Second-trimester abortion increased from 13.5% to 13.9% of all abortions (p<0.001). Only 22% of abortions were performed in the state's six ASCs.

CONCLUSIONS

The closure of clinics and restrictions on medical abortion in Texas appear to be associated with a decline in the in-state abortion rate and a marked decrease in the number of medical abortions.

IMPLICATIONS

Supply-side restrictions on abortion - especially restrictions on medical abortion - can have a profound impact on access to services. Access to abortion care will become even further restricted in Texas when the ASC requirement goes into effect in 2014.

摘要

目标

2013年,得克萨斯州通过了全面立法,限制堕胎服务。限制药物流产、禁止20周后大多数堕胎程序以及要求医生具备医院准入特权的条款于2013年11月开始实施;到2014年9月,堕胎机构必须符合门诊手术中心(ASC)的要求。我们旨在快速评估前三项条款生效后堕胎服务的变化情况。

研究设计

我们向得克萨斯州所有持牌堕胎机构索取了2012年11月至2014年4月期间堕胎情况的信息,包括堕胎方法和孕周(<12周与≥12周)。

结果

2013年5月,得克萨斯州有41家机构提供堕胎服务;2013年11月降至22家。里奥格兰德河谷的两家诊所关闭,西德克萨斯除一家外的所有诊所均关闭。将2012年11月至2013年4月与2013年11月至2014年4月进行比较,堕胎率下降了13%(从每1000名15 - 44岁女性中有12.9例堕胎降至11.2例)。药物流产减少了70%,从早期所有堕胎的28.1%降至2013年11月后的9.7%(p<0.001)。中期堕胎从所有堕胎的13.5%增至13.9%(p<0.001)。该州六个门诊手术中心仅进行了22%的堕胎手术。

结论

得克萨斯州诊所的关闭以及对药物流产的限制似乎与该州堕胎率下降和药物流产数量显著减少有关。

启示

对堕胎的供应方限制——尤其是对药物流产的限制——会对服务可及性产生深远影响。当2014年门诊手术中心要求生效时,得克萨斯州的堕胎护理可及性将受到进一步限制。

相似文献

1
Change in abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas.
Contraception. 2014 Nov;90(5):496-501. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.07.006. Epub 2014 Jul 22.
2
Women's experiences seeking abortion care shortly after the closure of clinics due to a restrictive law in Texas.
Contraception. 2016 Apr;93(4):292-297. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.12.017. Epub 2016 Jan 6.
3
Change in Second-Trimester Abortion After Implementation of a Restrictive State Law.
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Apr;133(4):771-779. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003183.
4
Factors associated with abortion at 12 or more weeks gestation after implementation of a restrictive Texas law.
Contraception. 2020 Nov;102(5):314-317. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2020.06.007. Epub 2020 Jun 25.
5
Impact of Clinic Closures on Women Obtaining Abortion Services After Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas.
Am J Public Health. 2016 May;106(5):857-64. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303134. Epub 2016 Mar 17.
6
Medication abortion use among low-income and rural Texans before and during state-imposed restrictions and after FDA-updated labeling.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;223(2):236.e1-236.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.02.028. Epub 2020 Feb 25.
7
Traveling for rights: Abortion trends in New Mexico after passage of restrictive Texas legislation.
Contraception. 2020 Aug;102(2):115-118. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2020.05.003. Epub 2020 May 19.
8
Does information about abortion safety affect Texas voters' opinions about restrictive laws? A randomized study.
Contraception. 2017 Dec;96(6):381-387. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.08.007. Epub 2017 Sep 1.
10
Implications for women of Louisiana's law requiring abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges.
Contraception. 2015 May;91(5):368-72. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.02.001. Epub 2015 Mar 2.

引用本文的文献

1
Behavioral Innovations to Access Abortion Post-Dobbs: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis of Reddit's r/abortion Community in 2022.
Inquiry. 2025 Jan-Dec;62:469580251351192. doi: 10.1177/00469580251351192. Epub 2025 Jun 27.
2
Making sense of the economics of abortion in the United States.
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2024 Sep;56(3):199-210. doi: 10.1111/psrh.12288. Epub 2024 Nov 13.
4
5
Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2021.
MMWR Surveill Summ. 2023 Nov 24;72(9):1-29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss7209a1.
6
Estimation of Multiyear Consequences for Abortion Access in Georgia Under a Law Limiting Abortion to Early Pregnancy.
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Mar 1;6(3):e231598. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.1598.
8
Comparing preference for and use of medication abortion in Texas after policy changes in 2014 and 2018.
Contraception. 2023 Mar;119:109912. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2022.11.003. Epub 2022 Dec 5.
9
Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2020.
MMWR Surveill Summ. 2022 Nov 25;71(10):1-27. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss7110a1.
10
Patient and provider experiences using a site-to-site telehealth model for medication abortion.
Mhealth. 2022 Oct 30;8:32. doi: 10.21037/mhealth-22-12. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
Births: final data for 2012.
Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2013 Dec 30;62(9):1-68.
2
Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2011.
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2014 Mar;46(1):3-14. doi: 10.1363/46e0414. Epub 2014 Feb 3.
3
The public health threat of anti-abortion legislation.
Contraception. 2014 Feb;89(2):73-4. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.10.012. Epub 2013 Nov 4.
4
Cutting family planning in Texas.
N Engl J Med. 2012 Sep 27;367(13):1179-81. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1207920.
5
First-trimester medical abortion with mifepristone 200 mg and misoprostol: a systematic review.
Contraception. 2013 Jan;87(1):26-37. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.06.011. Epub 2012 Aug 13.
6
The supply-side economics of abortion.
N Engl J Med. 2011 Oct 20;365(16):1466-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1109889.
7
Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008.
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2011 Mar;43(1):41-50. doi: 10.1363/4304111. Epub 2011 Jan 10.
8
Self-induction of abortion among women in the United States.
Reprod Health Matters. 2010 Nov;18(36):136-46. doi: 10.1016/S0968-8080(10)36534-7.
9
Obstacles to the integration of abortion into obstetrics and gynecology practice.
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2010 Sep;42(3):146-51. doi: 10.1363/4214610.
10
Determinants of demand: method selection and provider preference among US women seeking abortion services.
Contraception. 2008 Jun;77(6):397-404. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.02.003. Epub 2008 Apr 18.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验