Sara K. Redd and Sarah C. Blake are with the Department of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Roula AbiSamra is with the Amplify Georgia Collaborative, Atlanta. Kelli A. Komro and Whitney S. Rice are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health. Rachel Neal is with the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, School of Medicine, Emory University. Kelli S. Hall is with the Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Am J Public Health. 2023 Feb;113(2):202-212. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2022.307140.
To longitudinally examine the legal landscape of laws requiring abortion patients be informed about the possibility of medication abortion (MAB) "reversal" (in quotes as it does not refer to an evidence-based medical procedure). We collected legal data on enacted state MAB-reversal laws across all 50 US states and Washington, DC, (collectively, states) from 2012 through 2021. We descriptively analyzed these laws to identify legal variation over time and geography, and conducted a content analysis to identify qualitative themes and patterns in MAB-reversal laws. As of 2021, 14 states (27%)-mostly in the midwestern and southern United States-have enacted MAB-reversal laws. States largely use explicit language to describe reversal, require patients receive information during preabortion counseling, require physicians or physicians' agents to inform patients, instruct patients to contact a health care provider or visit "abortion pill reversal" resources for more information, and require reversal information be posted on state-managed Web sites. Reversal laws continue a dangerous precedent of using unsound science to justify laws regulating abortion access, intrude upon the patient‒provider relationship, and may negatively affect the emotional and physical health of patients seeking an MAB. ( 2023;113(2):202-212. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307140).
为了纵向考察要求告知堕胎患者药物流产(MAB)“逆转”可能性的法律规定(加引号是因为它并非指基于证据的医疗程序)的法律状况。我们收集了 2012 年至 2021 年全美所有 50 个州和华盛顿特区(统称为各州)颁布的州级 MAB 逆转法律的相关数据。我们对这些法律进行了描述性分析,以确定其在时间和地理上的法律变化,并进行了内容分析,以确定 MAB 逆转法律中的定性主题和模式。截至 2021 年,有 14 个州(27%)——主要集中在美国中西部和南部——颁布了 MAB 逆转法律。各州主要使用明确的语言来描述逆转,要求患者在堕胎前咨询时接受信息,要求医生或医生代理人告知患者,指示患者联系医疗保健提供者或访问“堕胎药逆转”资源以获取更多信息,并要求将逆转信息发布在州管理的网站上。逆转法律延续了使用不可靠的科学来证明监管堕胎的法律的危险先例,侵犯了医患关系,并可能对寻求 MAB 的患者的身心健康产生负面影响。(2023;113(2):202-212. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307140)。