DeBie Kelly A, Keller Kayleigh P, Peel Jennifer L, Gutilla Margaret J, Neophytou Andreas M
Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Department of Statistics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO; Colorado School of Public Health, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2025 May 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2025.04.071.
Access to abortion has changed dramatically in the United States in recent years, both at the federal and state level. For nearly 50 years, the right to abortion was considered a federally protected right under the Roev. Wade (1973) recognition of privacy rights under the 14th Amendment. In September 2021, Texas passed State Bill 8 which implemented a 6-week restriction on access to abortion. The following year, in 2022, the Supreme Court issued the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. Dobbs reversed Roe v. Wade and shifted determinations about legal access to the states, several of which already had trigger bans awaiting the potential removal of this constitutional right. To explore how these legal alterations to access are associated with changes in travel into abortion rights-protective states for abortions by residents of abortion-restrictive states, we sought to measure monthly abortion trends. Specifically, our goal is to compare monthly abortion utilization in Colorado by resident status before and after the introduction of abortion access restrictions, while adjusting for overall temporal trends.
Utilizing monthly count data for induced abortions from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment from 2018 to 2024, an interrupted time series analysis was used to assess the association between changes in federal and state law and the number of out-of-state patients traveling to Colorado for abortions. Secondary analysis focused specifically on Texas residents. Quasi-Poisson time series regression models adjusted for time in two ways: first, we used a linear time adjustment to account for any long-term trends and second, we used harmonic terms to account for any seasonal variation present in the data.
Out-of-state residents were over twice as likely to travel to Colorado after Dobbs compared to before: rate ratio (RR), 2.14 (95% confidence interval, 1.54, 2.99; P<.001). Texas residents were over 7 times more likely to travel to Colorado for abortions after the enactment of State Bill 8. Rate ratio, 7.86 (95% confidence interval, 3.30, 20.09, P<.001). Although initial spikes in travel to Colorado, particularly by Texas residents, have shown a gradual reduction over time, these patterns have not returned to baseline. This may indicate a long-term shift in how abortion care is provided and obtained in the United States in the wake of changes in the law.
There has been a substantial increase in the number of patients traveling to Colorado for abortions associated with changes to both federal and state laws, carrying implications for clinicians and patients alike. While some of the initial demand for abortions from out-of-state residents appears to have reduced in Colorado, it has not returned to baseline and may reflect a permanent shift in how and where abortion care is provided.
近年来,美国在联邦和州层面,堕胎的可及性都发生了巨大变化。近50年来,根据罗诉韦德案(1973年)对第十四修正案隐私权的认可,堕胎权被视为一项受联邦保护的权利。2021年9月,得克萨斯州通过了第8号州法案,该法案对堕胎可及性实施了6周的限制。次年,即2022年,最高法院发布了多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案的判决。多布斯案推翻了罗诉韦德案,并将合法堕胎权的决定权移交给了各州,其中几个州已经制定了触发禁令,等待这项宪法权利的潜在取消。为了探究这些堕胎可及性方面的法律变更与堕胎限制州居民前往堕胎权保护州进行堕胎的出行变化之间的关联,我们试图衡量每月的堕胎趋势。具体而言,我们的目标是比较科罗拉多州堕胎可及性限制实施前后按居民身份划分的每月堕胎利用率,同时对整体时间趋势进行调整。
利用科罗拉多州卫生与环境部2018年至2024年人工流产的每月计数数据,采用中断时间序列分析来评估联邦和州法律变化与前往科罗拉多州进行堕胎的州外患者数量之间的关联。二次分析特别关注得克萨斯州居民。准泊松时间序列回归模型通过两种方式对时间进行调整:第一,我们使用线性时间调整来考虑任何长期趋势;第二,我们使用调和项来考虑数据中存在的任何季节性变化。
与多布斯案判决前相比,判决后前往科罗拉多州的州外居民人数增加了两倍多:率比(RR)为2.14(95%置信区间为1.54,2.99;P<0.001)。第8号州法案颁布后,得克萨斯州居民前往科罗拉多州进行堕胎的可能性增加了7倍多。率比为7.86(95%置信区间为3.30,20.09,P<0.001)。尽管前往科罗拉多州的出行人数最初出现了激增,尤其是得克萨斯州居民,但随着时间的推移,这种激增逐渐减少,不过这些模式并未恢复到基线水平。这可能表明,法律变化后,美国堕胎护理的提供和获取方式发生了长期转变。
与联邦和州法律的变化相关,前往科罗拉多州进行堕胎的患者数量大幅增加,这对临床医生和患者都有影响。虽然科罗拉多州来自州外居民的一些最初堕胎需求似乎有所减少,但并未恢复到基线水平,这可能反映了堕胎护理提供方式和地点的永久性转变。