The importance of access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion: a statement from women’s health professional organizations

References

1. Guttmacher Institute. Policy trends in the states, 2017. Available at: https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2018/01/policy-trends-states-2017. Accessed May 1, 2018.

   View in Article

   • Google Scholar
2. • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
   Increasing access to abortion. ACOG Committee opinion no. 613.
   Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 124: 1060-1065
   View in Article

   • Scopus (36)
   • PubMed
   • Crossref
   • Google Scholar
3. A statement on abortion by one hundred professors of obstetrics.
   Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1972; 112: 992-998
   View in Article

   • Scopus (17)
   • PubMed
   • Abstract
   • Full Text PDF
   • Google Scholar
4. • One Hundred Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology
   A statement on abortion by 100 professors of obstetrics: 40 years later.
   Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209: 193-199
   View in Article

   • Scopus (17)
   • PubMed
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full Text PDF
   • Google Scholar
5. • Stulberg D.B.
   • Dude A.M.
   • Dahlquist I.
   • Curlin F.A.
   Obstetrician-gynecologists, religious institutions, and conflicts regarding patient-care policies.
   Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207 (73.e71–5)
   View in Article

   • Scopus (34)
   • PubMed
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full Text PDF
   • Google Scholar
6. • Eisenberg D.L.
   • Leslie V.C.
   Threats to reproductive health care: time for obstetrician-gynecologists to get involved.
   Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 216 (256.e251–4)
   View in Article

   • Scopus (6)
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full Text PDF
   • Google Scholar

7. Guttmacher Institute. An overview of abortion laws. Available at: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws. Accessed Aug. 7, 2018.

   View in Article

   • Google Scholar
8. • Donovan M.K.
   In real life: federal restrictions on abortion coverage and the women they impact.
   Guttmacher Policy Review. 2017; 20: 1-7
   View in Article

   • Google Scholar
9. • Steinauer J.
   • Darney P.
   Proposed changes to the Title X family planning program.
   Lancet. 2018; 392: e6
   View in Article

   • Scopus (2)
   • PubMed
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full Text PDF
   • Google Scholar
10. • Foster D.G.
    • Biggs M.A.
    • Ralph L.
    • Gerdts C.
    • Roberts S.
    • Glymour M.M.
    Socioeconomic outcomes of women who receive and women who are denied wanted abortions in the United States.
    Am J Public Health. 2018; 108: 407-413
    View in Article

    • Scopus (108)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
11. • Ganatra B.
    • Gerdts C.
    • Rossier C.
    • et al.
    Global, regional, and subregional classification of abortions by safety, 2010-14: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model.
    Lancet. 2017; 390: 2372-2381
    View in Article

    • Scopus (354)
    • PubMed
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full Text PDF
    • Google Scholar
12. • Henshaw S.K.
    • Joyce T.J.
    • Dennis A.
    • Finer L.B.
    • Blanchard K.
    Restrictions on Medicaid funding for abortions: a literature review.
    Guttmacher Institute, New York (NY)2009
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
13. • Temmerman M.
    • Khosla R.
    • Bhutta Z.A.
    • Bustreo F.
    Towards a new global strategy for women's, children's and adolescents' health.
    BMJ. 2015; 351: h4414
    View in Article

    • Scopus (35)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
14. • Temmerman M.
    • Khosla R.
    • Laski L.
    • Mathews Z.
    • Say L.
    Women's health priorities and interventions.
    BMJ. 2015; 351: h4147
    View in Article

    • Scopus (23)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
15. • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
    The safety and quality of abortion care in the United States.
    National Academies Press, Washington (DC)2018
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
16. • Gold R.B.
    • Nash E.
    Flouting the facts: state abortion restrictions flying in the face of science.
    Guttmacher Policy Rev. 2017; 20: 53-59
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
17. • Roberts S.C.
    • Gould H.
    • Upadhyay U.D.
    Implications of Georgia's 20-week abortion ban.
    Am J Public Health. 2015; 105: e77-e82
    View in Article

    • Scopus (10)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
18. • Farrell R.M.
    • Mabel H.
    • Reider M.W.
    • Coleridge M.
    • Yoder Katsuki M.
    Implications of Ohio's 20-week abortion ban on prenatal patients and the assessment of fetal anomalies.
    Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 129: 795-799
    View in Article

    • Scopus (5)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
19. • Berglas N.F.
    • Gould H.
    • Turok D.K.
    • Sanders J.N.
    • Perrucci A.C.
    • Roberts S.C.M.
    State-mandated (mis)information and women's endorsement of common abortion myths.
    Womens Health Issues. 2017; 27: 129-135
    View in Article

    • Scopus (18)
    • PubMed
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full Text PDF
    • Google Scholar
20. • Dennis A.
    • Henshaw S.K.
    • Joyce T.J.
    • Finer L.B.
    • Blanchard K.
    The impact of laws requiring parental involvement for abortion: a literature review.
    Guttmacher Institute, New York (NY)2009
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
21. • Ralph L.J.
    • King E.
    • Belusa E.
    • Foster D.G.
    • Brindis C.D.
    • Biggs M.A.
    The impact of a parental notification requirement on Illinois minors' access to and decision-making around abortion.
    J Adolesc Health. 2018; 62: 281-287
    View in Article

    • Scopus (13)
    • PubMed
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full Text PDF
    • Google Scholar
22. • Ramesh S.
    • Zimmerman L.
    • Patel A.
    Impact of parental notification on Illinois minors seeking abortion.
    J Adolesc Health. 2016; 58: 290-294
    View in Article

    • Scopus (9)
    • PubMed
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full Text PDF
    • Google Scholar
23. • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
    Abortion training and education. ACOG Committee opinion no. 612.
    Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 124: 1055-1059
    View in Article

    • Scopus (30)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar

24. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG statement of policy: access to women’s health care; July 2016. Available at: https://www.acog.org/-/media/Statements-of-Policy/Public/64AccesstoWomenHlthCare2016-1.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20180827T2019508668. Accessed August 7, 2018.

    View in Article

    • Google Scholar

25. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG statement of policy: abortion policy; July 2017. Available at: https://www.acog.org/-/media/Statements-of-Policy/Public/sop069.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20180827T2012475534. Accessed August 7, 2018.

    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
26. • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
    The limits of conscientious refusal in reproductive medicine. ACOG Committee opinion no. 385.
    Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110: 1203-1208
    View in Article

    • Scopus (143)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar

27. APGO Medical Student Educational Objectives, 10^th Edition. Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics (APGO), 2014. Available at: https://www.apgo.org/educational-resources/apgo-medical-student-educational-objectives/. Accessed October 12, 2018.

    View in Article

    • Google Scholar

28. 11^th Edition of Educational Objectives: Core Curriculum in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology (CREOG), 2016. Available at: https://www.acog.org/-/media/Departments/Members-Only/CREOG/CREOGEducationalObjectives11thEdition.pdf?dmc=1. Accessed October 12, 2018.

    View in Article

    • Google Scholar