Advertisement

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

Published:September 26, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.008
      Barriers to women’s reproductive health care access, particularly for termination of pregnancy, are increasing at the local, regional, and national levels through numerous institutional, legislative, and regulatory restrictions. Lack of access to reproductive health care has negative consequences for women’s health. Twelve women’s health care organizations affirm their support for access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      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.

        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
        Increasing access to abortion. ACOG Committee opinion no. 613.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 124: 1060-1065
      2. A statement on abortion by one hundred professors of obstetrics.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1972; 112: 992-998
        • 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
        • 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)
        • 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)
      3. Guttmacher Institute. An overview of abortion laws. Available at: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws. Accessed Aug. 7, 2018.

        • Donovan M.K.
        In real life: federal restrictions on abortion coverage and the women they impact.
        Guttmacher Policy Review. 2017; 20: 1-7
        • Steinauer J.
        • Darney P.
        Proposed changes to the Title X family planning program.
        Lancet. 2018; 392: e6
        • 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
        • 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
        • 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
        • 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
        • Temmerman M.
        • Khosla R.
        • Laski L.
        • Mathews Z.
        • Say L.
        Women's health priorities and interventions.
        BMJ. 2015; 351: h4147
        • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
        The safety and quality of abortion care in the United States.
        National Academies Press, Washington (DC)2018
        • Gold R.B.
        • Nash E.
        Flouting the facts: state abortion restrictions flying in the face of science.
        Guttmacher Policy Rev. 2017; 20: 53-59
        • Roberts S.C.
        • Gould H.
        • Upadhyay U.D.
        Implications of Georgia's 20-week abortion ban.
        Am J Public Health. 2015; 105: e77-e82
        • 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
        • 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
        • 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
        • 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
        • Ramesh S.
        • Zimmerman L.
        • Patel A.
        Impact of parental notification on Illinois minors seeking abortion.
        J Adolesc Health. 2016; 58: 290-294
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
        Abortion training and education. ACOG Committee opinion no. 612.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 124: 1055-1059
      4. 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.

      5. 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.

        • 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
      6. APGO Medical Student Educational Objectives, 10th 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.

      7. 11th 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.