Physical, sexual, and psychological violence against women is a major public health and human rights problem rooted in gender inequality, and affects the lives and health of millions of women and girls worldwide. Department of Health and Human Services, offers evidence-based information and tools related to numerous health and wellness topics to support its mission of improving health for all Americans. It has established benchmarks and monitored progress over time to encourage collaborations across communities and sectors, empower individuals to make informed health decisions, and measure the impact of prevention efforts.
This National Academies report summarizes the proceedings of a workshop on handling health inequities across This National Academies report summarizes the proceedings of a workshop on handling health inequities across racial and ethnic boundaries. Amid the COVID pandemic, which presented the greatest public health threat in generations and exposed long-present systemic inequities in the U. The Guttmacher Institute, which tracks state-level abortion legislation, has marked as the most devastating state legislative session for abortion rights in history.
Wade to 1, Number of those introduced abortion-restrictive statutes enacted into law as of August These newly enacted restrictions compound the harms of abortion-restrictive laws that preceded them. Of the 97 new measures, more than 80 were signed into law in states that already have onerous abortion restrictions, making abortion even harder to access.
Mississippi, for example, whose week ban is at the center of Dobbs v. The abortion restrictions and bans that have passed in states this year come in a range of forms, all of which have the ultimate goal of ending access to legal abortion care in the United States.
They include both established tactics and some new and incredibly extreme provisions designed to make abortion care inaccessible, including the following:. This bounty hunter scheme was designed to thwart judicial intervention to protect abortion access before the law could take effect, and it has succeeded in that objective.
Although a federal district court scheduled a hearing to consider whether the law should be enjoined, the Fifth Circuit intervened before the hearing took place and concluded that the law could go into effect. Certain state legislatures have stood out this year as particularly hostile to abortion care. Arkansas has enacted 10 restrictive abortion bills so far in Of the new restrictions enacted this year, 12 fall under the category of an abortion ban, including near-total bans, trigger bans, reason bans, and gestational bans.
Additional broadly restrictive bills enacted this year include trigger bans passed in Oklahoma and Texas that would ban abortion if Roe is overturned or gutted, 24 joining 10 other states that have already passed such bans.
The coronavirus pandemic showed the importance of telehealth in expanding access to health care and ensuring continuity of care, as well as the critical role of medication abortion in expanding safe options for abortion. Yet while many states acted to expand access to telehealth, some explicitly excluded abortion from their expansions and enacted further restrictions on medication abortion. Arizona, Indiana, Montana, Ohio, and Oklahoma all enacted laws requiring medication abortion care to be provided in person, thereby banning telemedicine for abortion care.
In a year when policymakers have a particular responsibility to act to protect and expand access to quality, comprehensive health care, many have done just the opposite. If the Supreme Court undermines abortion rights in Dobbs v. These impacts would disproportionately harm people of color, people with low incomes, young people, people with disabilities, transgender and nonbinary people, immigrants, and people living in the South and Midwest. The law at issue is a ban.
Relying on courts is insufficient protection, and proactive action is necessary to stop the harms of these state laws and safeguard and expand access to abortion care. In the midst of this onslaught of bans and restrictions, some states have taken important steps to advance legislation that protects and expands access to abortion care:. In addition to expanding providers, states have also acted to expand insurance coverage for abortion and undo restrictions on coverage:.
That act expanded who can perform abortions and eliminated onerous and medically unnecessary restrictions, including a mandatory hour waiting period, forced ultrasounds, mandatory biased counseling, and a requirement for abortion providers to meet unnecessary building requirements.
For example, in some states where abortion is recognized as essential health care, some providers are already experiencing an influx of patients as a result of the six-week ban in Texas. Demographic changes over the last two decades highlight the need for a reassessment of why women decide to have abortions.
Methods: In , a structured survey was completed by 1, abortion patients at 11 large providers, and in-depth interviews were conducted with 38 women at four sites.
Bivariate analyses examined differences in the reasons for abortion across subgroups, and multivariate logistic regression models assessed associations between respondent characteristics and reported reasons.
0コメント