Attitudes Among Society of Women in Urology Members Toward Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate attitudes of women in urology regarding the Supreme Court ruling Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, including impacts on personal/professional decision-making and the urology workforce.

METHODS

An IRB-exempt survey including Likert questions on participant views and free text questions was distributed to 1200 members of the Society of Women in Urology on 9/2/2022. Participants were medical students, urology residents, fellows, and practicing/retired urologists over 18. Responses were anonymous and aggregated. Quantitative responses were characterized with descriptive statistics and free-text responses were analyzed using thematic mapping. To complement this analysis, urologist density was mapped by county using 2021 National Provider Identifier data. State abortion laws were categorized based on Guttmacher Institute data on 10/20/2022. Data were analyzed using logistic regression, Poisson regression, and multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

329 respondents completed the survey. 88% disagree/strongly disagree with the Dobbs ruling. 42% of trainees may have changed their rank list if current abortion laws existed during their match. 60% of respondents said Dobbs will impact where they choose their next job. 61.5% of counties had zero urologists in 2021, 76% of which were in states with restrictive abortion laws. Urologist density was inversely associated with abortion law restrictiveness compared with the most protective counties.

CONCLUSION

The Dobbs ruling will significantly impact the urology workforce. Trainees may change how they rank programs in states with restrictive abortion laws, and urologists may consider abortion laws when choosing jobs. Restrictive states are at higher risk for worsening access to urologic care.