PERSPECTIVE

Abortion rights are health care rights

Enze Xing,1 Rieham Owda,2 Charisse Loder,2 and Kathleen Collins1,3
Medical Science Training Program, 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and 3Department of Internal Medicine,
1

University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Historical perspective on abortion in the United States

The practice of abortion is deeply rooted in American history. The practice of “restoring the menses” was
prevalent among European colonists, Indigenous tribes, and enslaved Africans, with many women using
herbal recipes shared by mothers, aunts, daughters, and sisters (1). Even health manuals that provided
guidance were published. By the mid-18th century, premade abortifacients were available in New England
and sold by traveling salesmen (1). Induction of miscarriage was considered part of a woman’s self-care
regimen and was acceptable up to the point of “quickening,” when the fetus first kicks — only then was
abortion considered illegal and immoral (2). The first laws banning the use of abortifacients after quicken-
ing were passed in the 1820s and 1830s, with the intent to protect women from potentially poisonous rem-
edies for so-called “menstrual obstruction” and the men who coerced their use (1). By the 1840s, women
received abortion care through mail-order pharmacy or by procedural specialists (3).
The American Medical Association (AMA) started the antiabortion movement in 1857 to wrest
control of reproductive health from the purview of midwives. Criminalization of abortion at every
stage, except for those deemed medically necessary by a physician, restricted clientele from the mid-
wives and homeopaths who previously dominated maternal health and women’s health care (3). Female
physicians were initially also accused of performing illegal abortion procedures to undermine their
legitimacy as health care providers; however, by the 1890s, female physicians joined and even led the
national anti-midwife, anti-abortion campaign (3). Finally, the AMA rallied support by claiming that
decreasing birth rates from White Protestant families due to abortion access would result in overpop-
ulation by minorities, especially “Indians,” Chinese, Mexicans, Blacks, and Catholics, a sentiment still
echoed in “Great Replacement” conspiracy theories that continue to exist today (3). This movement led
to a century of criminalized abortion in the United States, pushing women, especially women of color,
to risk their lives by visiting unregulated underground providers, or by using bleach, turpentine, crochet
hooks, clothing hangers, or chicken feathers at home (3).
One hundred years later, social activism refocused on women’s rights and spurred a pro-choice move-
ment. In 1965, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut protected reproductive decisions in the
form of contraception use under the implied right to privacy granted by the Constitution (4). Individual
states also started reevaluating their stance on abortion, with Hawaii and New York legalizing the proce-
dure in 1970, but there was no unified, federal decision regarding the legality of abortion bans. In 1969,
Texas’s abortion ban was challenged as unconstitutional by attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington,
representing Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe in the ensuing court cases) against Henry Wade, McCorvey’s
district attorney. Although a Texas district court ruled the state’s abortion ban was illegal, Wade affirmed
Conflict of interest: CL receives he would continue to prosecute physicians who performed abortions. The case was eventually appealed to
research support from Merck Sharp & the US Supreme Court in the case Roe v. Wade. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Texas’s
Dohme and Sebela Pharmaceuticals abortion ban on January 22, 1973, citing a woman’s right to abortion was implicitly protected by the right
for contraceptive clinical trials. to privacy in the 14th Amendment, once again legalizing the procedure for all Americans (5).
Copyright: © 2023, Xing et al. This is Despite the federal protection conferred by Roe v. Wade, for 49 years abortion access varied by state.
an open access article published under Many states enacted mandatory 24- to 48-hour waiting periods and enforced ultrasonography before preg-
the terms of the Creative Commons nant patients could undergo medical or procedural abortions (8). Additionally, anti-choice groups successfully
Attribution 4.0 International License. lobbied for 1,381 increasingly severe abortion restrictions between 1973 and 2022, with some states adopting
Submitted: April 25, 2023 bans as early as 6 weeks after the last menstrual period (6, 7). On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that
Accepted: April 25, 2023 the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (9). This
Published: June 8, 2023 landmark decision overturned the precedent set by Roe v. Wade, thus ending federal protection for abortion
Reference information: JCI Insight.
rights and allowing individual states to dictate abortion access for their residents. At the time of writing, 13
2023;8(11):e171798. states have completely banned abortion, 5 states have gestational limits within the first or second trimester, and
https://doi.org/10.1172/jci. 7 states have bans temporarily blocked by district judges (10). Many of these bans allow no exceptions for rape,
insight.171798. incest, or fetal anomaly incompatible with life, and some even refuse exceptions to save the life of the mother.

1
 PERSPECTIVE

Impact of abortion bans on pregnant patients

Abortion bans are commonly justified as laws to protect the unborn fetus, especially in cases of unintended
pregnancy. However, these arguments neglect to consider the nuanced nature of reproductive care or con-
sider the underlying causes that push women to seek pregnancy termination. Pregnancy is imperfect, and
various complications that threaten the health and well-being of both the mother and fetus commonly arise.
While criminalization of abortion will indeed affect women seeking to terminate an unintended pregnancy,
it will also target a wide variety of patients seeking care for other reasons.
An immediate example are women with strongly desired pregnancies who require an abortion due to a
life-threatening diagnosis. Pregnancy can be dangerous, and the United States currently possesses the high-
est rate of maternal mortality of high-income countries — the risk of dying from childbirth is 50–130 times
greater than abortion (11–13). For patients experiencing severe medical conditions, abortion is not only
safer than birth, it becomes a life-saving procedure. However, even for states that allow exceptions to pre-
serve the life of the mother, the legal terminology is vague. How high and imminent must the risk of death
be before treatment is allowed? Do patients who develop complications, such as pulmonary hypertension
or cardiomyopathy, that incur a 20%–50% risk of death with ongoing pregnancy, qualify for treatment (13,
14)? What about women who are diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy? Due to the teratogenic nature
of many oncological treatments, therapies may be withheld from these patients while pregnant. For these
patients, the risk of death can be dramatically reduced by abortion and immediate cancer treatment; how-
ever, life-saving treatment may be delayed for months or even years. There is a myriad of similar situations,
and until legal battles are fought concerning these details, uncertainty will lead providers to refuse and/or
delay care for these complex cases.
Similarly, serious obstetric complications illustrate the complex decision-making process women must
face regarding the termination or continuation of a pregnancy. One such example is previable preterm pre-
mature rupture of membranes (PPROM), defined as loss of amniotic fluid prior to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Previable PPROM complicates approximately 1% of pregnancies in the United States, resulting in a 50%
risk of developing intrauterine infection, which can progress to sepsis and death without intervention (15).
Previable PPROM also associates with neonatal morbidity and mortality, secondary to incomplete fetal
development and complications of extremely premature birth, with fetal death occurring in approximately
32% of affected pregnancies. After thorough counseling with their health care providers, including weigh-
ing fetal and maternal risks, some women may choose to continue their pregnancy while others may choose
to terminate. In a recent study, 57% of patients with a diagnosis of previable PPROM experienced signif-
icant maternal morbidity, even when expectantly managed (16). Abortion restrictions significantly affect
the medical care that patients receive and prevent patients from accessing lifesaving, evidence-based care.
It’s important to consider that fetal anomalies are most commonly diagnosed in the mid-to-late second tri-
mester. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 3% of pregnancies are com-
plicated by a fetal anomaly (10). Congenital malformations, such as CNS and chromosomal abnormalities,
are the leading cause of infant mortality in the United States, accounting for 10% of intrauterine fetal demises
and 20% of infant deaths (17, 18). Patients and their families are often considering multiple factors, including
fetal risk, maternal risk, and the desire to reduce suffering, when making decisions following diagnosis of fetal
anomaly. Given the increased risk of fetal death in utero in these scenarios, some women may decide to termi-
nate their pregnancy instead of carrying a nonviable pregnancy and waiting for spontaneous intrauterine fetal
demise to occur. A study of 53,000 pregnancies showed differential abortion rates, depending on the severity
of the fetal anomaly. Mild anomalies, such as minimal renal pelvic dilation or pericardial effusions, did not
associate with abortion, while 78% of women chose to terminate fetuses with severe anomalies, such as renal
agenesis or anencephaly (19). Some women decide to terminate to alleviate any suffering that their fetus may
endure. For others, the risk of remaining pregnant for the sake of a nonviable pregnancy is too high. This risk is
important to take into account, because maternal mortality rates in the United States indicate childbirth is not
innocuous, and abortion greatly reduces the risk of death from pregnancy (11–13). Patients should be empow-
ered to choose the option that is best for them, their families, and the current pregnancy.
Unfortunately, even those experiencing miscarriage or spontaneous abortion will be negatively affect-
ed and even criminalized by abortion bans. Miscarriage, defined as the unexpected loss of a pregnancy
before 20 weeks of gestation, is a common early complication that affects over 1 in 4 pregnancies (20).
Pregnancy loss significantly traumatizes women physically and emotionally, and women undergoing
miscarriage crucially need the care and support of their health care providers (21). While some instances

JCI Insight 2023;8(11):e171798 https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.171798 2

 PERSPECTIVE

of miscarriage can be expectantly managed, patients may also need medical or surgical management
for complications such as incomplete uterine emptying, infection, or excessive bleeding (22). The best
evidence-based medical management for spontaneous abortion is a combination of mifepristone and
misoprostol, the same medications used in abortion care (13). However, abortion restrictions force pro-
viders to be hesitant about managing patients with these medications, as use of these medications may
result in accusations of criminal activity despite providing best-practice care. Additionally, spontaneous
pregnancy loss is clinically indistinguishable from medication-induced abortion, and patients presenting
with bleeding in pregnancy or pregnancy loss are vulnerable to the threat of reporting, arrest, and deten-
tion, regardless of the cause of their symptoms (13). Despite the lack of legislation requiring reports of
suspected self-managed abortion, health care providers have already been demonstrated to be more likely
to report pregnant patients who are Black or low income (23). Between 2006 and 2020, there was a 3-fold
increase in arrest, detention, and convictions secondary to pregnancy-related outcomes compared with
1973–2005. We have already seen instances of patients being reported by medical providers and being
prosecuted in states, including Indiana and Texas (24, 25), that have enacted strict abortion restrictions.
In the wake of Roe v. Wade being overturned and increased criminalization of abortion, we only expect
the number of women criminalized based on their pregnancy-related health care choices to increase.
Patients will also have increased difficulty accessing appropriate surgical management of miscarriage
when abortion bans are enforced. One of the best predictors for a physician providing the full spectrum of
miscarriage management, including appropriate surgical intervention, is having had abortion care training
as a resident (13). However, with the overturn of Roe v. Wade, 44% of current obstetrics and gynecology
trainees in the United States are certain or likely to lack access to abortion training, with the number of
trainees receiving abortion training predicted to drop from 92% to 56% (26). When abortions are criminal-
ized, obstetrics and gynecology providers will no longer receive training in pregnancy termination, and this
directly translates to lower quality of care for patients seeking termination or miscarriage management,
especially in emergent situations. As health care providers become increasingly cautious in providing care
for patients experiencing miscarriage due to fear of prosecution, patients have already experienced unbe-
lievable horror stories. Numerous women have reported being denied medical and surgical interventions
after presenting to their physician, and having to carry their dead fetuses for weeks, sometimes until they
were actively febrile (27–30). One patient, who was also a health care provider, stated she “[fought] with
the doctors for a while, but none of them would help me until I was actively sick. I was just dumbfounded.
Especially as a nurse, no one comes into an E.R. and we wait to see how sick they can get” (28).
Overall, abortion bans will significantly affect both pregnancy-related and nonobstetric outcomes for
pregnant women. If the United States bans abortion, maternal mortality associated with pregnancy-re-
lated causes is expected to increase 21%, with Black women incurring a 33% increase compared with
13% among White women (31). Shockingly, even more women are expected to die due to interpersonal
violence. Women who are pregnant or recently postpartum are 16% more likely to be murdered than those
who are nongravid (32). In fact, pregnant and postpartum women are more than twice as likely to die by
homicide than bleeding or placental disorders and are often killed by an intimate partner (32). In short,
abortion is an essential component of health care, and outlawing abortion will result in lasting effects on
women’s health, including a significant increase in preventable death.

Wider effects of abortion bans on the health care system

Legislation that restricts or bans abortion care can have far-reaching effects on the health care system and
will result in disruptions of the lives of patients outside the realm of reproductive care. An illuminating
example that has already emerged is pharmacists declining to fill medications associated with abortion. In
the wake of the Dobbs decision, there have been multiple reports of patients being denied access to neces-
sary medications, such as methotrexate, misoprostol, and mifepristone (33–37). While these medications
are widely recognized as treatments for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, and induction of medical abor-
tions, they are also routinely used in the management of chronic diseases, including countless autoimmune
conditions, cancer, gastric ulcers, and Cushing’s disease. At the time of writing, the use of mifepristone
has been banned in Wyoming, and a Texas judge may force the US FDA to withdraw its approval of mife-
pristone, affecting accessibility not only in states with abortion restrictions, but also in states where abor-
tion is legal. The uncertainty surrounding these medications will be debilitating for patients with chronic
conditions who rely on these prescriptions to keep their disease well controlled. Abortion restrictions will

JCI Insight 2023;8(11):e171798 https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.171798 3

 PERSPECTIVE

continue to negatively impact the health care system in a multitude of unpredictable ways, and the full
consequences of these legislative decisions on patients will not be clear for many years.

The role of health care providers in patient advocacy

What can medical professionals do in this critical time to support their patients? The first step is recogniz-
ing that many patients are afraid of becoming pregnant in this political landscape and will likely reach out
to their trusted medical provider to discuss their concerns. It is important that we create a nonjudgmental
space for patients to disclose these concerns and allow for a healthy discussion. Primary care providers will
be on the front lines and provide reproductive health care, including contraception counseling, evaluation
and diagnosis of pregnancy, and pregnancy options counseling. It will be essential to provide this care to all
patients, but especially to those who do not want to become pregnant or those with multiple comorbidities
that would make pregnancy life-threatening, as abortion access is no longer guaranteed. Providers will need
to be knowledgeable about these topics and will also need to be aware of resources within the community
to provide patients with the best care. We should trust that our patients know what is best for them and
empower them to take charge of their reproductive health. Our duty in this time is to be advocates for our
patients and support them in making the best decisions for themselves.
Next, we can ensure that care providers know about emergency care and are also aware of legal impli-
cations for patients. Emergency medicine providers are another group that will encounter patients navigat-
ing the spectrum of reproductive health and will see a variety of patients who may be experiencing early
pregnancy, miscarriage, or even abortion complications. As of 2018, it was estimated that 14 out of every
100,000 emergency department visits for women 14 to 59 years old were related to induced abortion, a
number that will likely increase as more abortion restrictions go into place. It is imperative that emergency
medicine providers remain up to date on the management of early pregnancy and abortion complications
to allow for prompt evaluation and intervention if necessary. It is important to remember that spontaneous
and induced abortion are indistinguishable from each other but present with the same complications. Pro-
viders must keep this in mind to provide the necessary medical care to patients in a timely fashion and avoid
reporting patients to authorities, leaving them vulnerable to prosecution. This burden will mostly be felt by
people from historically marginalized communities and may exacerbate mistrust in the medical system (23).
It is important to note that emergency medicine providers are not the only health care providers that
will interact with women accessing the health care system during a time of need. It is the duty of all medi-
cal providers to put aside personal values to prioritize the well-being of our patients.

Consideration of harm reduction models in the United States

Restrictions on abortion do not lower abortion rates, indicating women will continue to seek mechanisms
of pregnancy termination outside of the health care system. While it may no longer be possible for pro-
viders to directly aid patients in these circumstances, there are changes in practice that should be consid-
ered in order to provide some level of protection. Abortion care limitations are not unique to the United
States, and international health care providers, including those in Indonesia, Uruguay, Argentina, Peru,
Zambia, Nepal, Kenya, and Tanzania, have been able to implement harm reduction models that respect
legal boundaries while maintaining a close eye on the health of their patients (38, 39). These models center
on the self-administration of misoprostol as opposed to abdominal trauma or self-instrumentation, which
leads to a reduction in maternal mortality (40, 41). During harm reduction consultations, women are given
guidance regarding pregnancy options, including how to safely use misoprostol, and provided in-person
and telephone follow-up opportunities to monitor for medical complications or ongoing pregnancy (39).
These models have been shown to be effective in ensuring the safety of women undergoing pregnancy ter-
minations. In fact, the robustly documented, nationwide Uruguayan model resulted in a stunning 29.4%
drop in maternal mortality during the decade it was implemented (42). Of course, there are also legal and
ethical implications of harm reduction to examine in the context of the United States. Harm reduction con-
sultations may result in the arrest of the woman attempting self-induced abortion, as utilization of abortive
medications becomes a legislative target, and especially if physicians are required to report disclosures of
abortion attempts in the future (38). Furthermore, women of color and those of low-income backgrounds
are more likely to experience unintended pregnancy and subsequent abortion, and are the most likely to
incur the consequences of harm reduction models (38). However, the advantages provided by adopting a
harm reduction model make it an important consideration moving forward in the current political climate.

JCI Insight 2023;8(11):e171798 https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.171798 4

 PERSPECTIVE

Conclusion
The United States has had a tumultuous relationship with abortion. Once practiced by women, for
women, it became a weapon wielded against minorities and midwives, then legalized and utilized as
an essential part of health care, and finally, abortion has been politicized and made inaccessible again.
Abortion bans do not selectively affect women seeking abortions — they punish patients who suffer
pregnancy complications, patients who experience severe medical comorbidities while pregnant, and
even patients outside the scope of reproductive health who happen to require drugs associated with
abortion. Nuances of many abortion cases make it such that any legislation dictating access to abortion
care will inevitably have wide-ranging and unpredictable negative effects on both patients and the medi-
cal system. The exact ramifications of these legislative changes will not be clear for years. As health care
providers once again navigate this restrictive and challenging landscape, it is important to consider one
of the highest tenets of medical practice: patient autonomy. Medical professionals must examine their
biases to continue providing patient-led, evidence-based care, regardless of personal opinion.

Acknowledgments
Address correspondence to: Kathleen Collins, 1150 W Medical Center Dr #5570, Ann Arbor, Michigan
48109, USA. Email: klcollin@med.umich.edu.

1. POLITICO. Opinion| What Alito Gets Wrong About the History of Abortion in America. https://www.politico.com/news/
magazine/2022/06/02/alitos-anti-roe-argument-wrong-00036174. Accessed April 25, 2023.
2. The Atlantic. Abortion in American History. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/05/abortion-in-ameri-
can-history/376851/. Accessed April 25, 2023.
3. Reagan LJ, ed. When Abortion Was a Crime. University of California Press; 1997.
4. Lord AM. The Revolutionary 1965 Supreme Court Decision That Declared Sex a Private Affair. https://www.smithsonianmag.
com/smithsonian-institution/the-revolutionary-1965-supreme-court-decision-that-declared-sex-was-a-private-affair-180980089/.
Published May 9, 2022. Accessed April 25, 2023.
5. JUSTIA. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/. Accessed Apri 25, 2023.
6. Nash E, et al. State Policy Trends 2018: With Roe v. Wade in Jeopardy, States Continued to Add New Abortion Restric-
tions. https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2018/12/state-policy-trends-2018-roe-v-wade-jeopardy-states-continued-add-
new-abortion. Accessed Apri 25, 2023.
7. Guttmacher Institute. US States Have Enacted 1,381 Abortion Restrictions Since Roe v. Wade Was Decided in 1973. https://
www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2022/us-states-have-enacted-1381-abortion-restrictions-roe-v-wade-was-decided-1973.
Accessed April 25, 2023.
8. Guttmacher Institute. Requirements for Ultrasound. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/requirements-ultrasound.
Accessed April 25, 2023.
9. Supreme Court of the United States. (2021). Dobbs, state health officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson
Women’s Health Organization et al. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf. Accessed April 25, 2023.
10. The New York Times. Tracking the States Where Abortion Is Now Banned. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/
abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html. Accessed April 25, 2023.
11. Gunja MZ, et al. Health and Health Care for Women of Reproductive Age. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publica-
tions/issue-briefs/2022/apr/health-and-health-care-women-reproductive-age. Accessed April 25, 2023.
12. Tikkanen R, et al. Maternal Mortality and Maternity Care in the US Compared to 10 Other Developed Countries.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/nov/maternal-mortality-maternity-care-us-
compared-10-countries. Accessed April 25, 2023.
13. Harris LH. Navigating loss of abortion services - a large academic medical center prepares for the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
N Engl J Med. 2022;386(22):2061–2064.
14. Thorne SA. Pregnancy in heart disease. Heart. 2004;90(4):450–456.
15. Waters TP, Mercer BM. The management of preterm premature rupture of the membranes near the limit of fetal viability. Am J
Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(3): 230–240.
16. Nambiar A, et al. Maternal morbidity and fetal outcomes among pregnant women at 22 weeks’ gestation or less with complica-
tions in 2 Texas hospitals after legislation on abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;227(4):648–650.
17. Matthews TJ, et al. Infant mortality statistics from the 2013 period linked birth/infant death data set. Natl Vital Stat Rep.
2015;64(9):1–30.
18. Gregory ECW, et al. National vital statistics reports volume 70, number 11 October 26, 2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2019;70(11):1–20.
19. Schechtman KB, et al. Decision-making for termination of pregnancies with fetal anomalies: analysis of 53,000 pregnancies.
Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(2):216–222.
20. Dugas C, Slane VH, eds. Miscarriage. StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2022.
21. Blackmore ER, et al. Previous prenatal loss as a predictor of perinatal depression and anxiety. Br J Psychiatry. 2011;198(5):373–378.
22. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Early Pregnancy Loss. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/
practice-bulletin/articles/2018/11/early-pregnancy-loss. Accessed April 25, 2023.
23. Paltrow LM, Flavin J. Arrests of and forced interventions on pregnant women in the United States, 1973-2005: implications for
women’s legal status and public health. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38(2):299–343.

JCI Insight 2023;8(11):e171798 https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.171798 5

 PERSPECTIVE

24. The New York Times. Purvi Patel Could Be Just the Beginning. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/magazine/purvi-
patel-could-be-just-the-beginning.html. Accessed April 25, 2023.
25. National Public Radio. A Texas Woman Has Been Charged With Murder After a So-Called ’Self-Induced Abortion’. https://
www.npr.org/2022/04/10/1091927639/a-texas-woman-has-been-charged-with-murder-after-a-so-called-self-induced-aborti.
Accessed April 25, 2023.
26. Vinekar K, et al. Projected implications of overturning Roe v Wade on abortion training in U.S. obstetrics and gynecology resi-
dency programs. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;140(2):146–149.
27. The New York Times. Women Face Risks as Doctors Struggle With Medical Exceptions on Abortion. https://www.nytimes.
com/2022/07/20/us/abortion-save-mothers-life.html. Accessed April 25, 2023.
28. The New York Times. They Had Miscarriages, and New Abortion Laws Obstructed Treatment. https://www.nytimes.
com/2022/07/17/health/abortion-miscarriage-treatment.html. Accessed April 25, 2023.
29. CNN. In Some States, Doctors Weigh ‘Ruinous’ Litigation Against Proper Care for Women Who Have Miscarriages. https://
www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/health/doctors-weigh-litigation-miscarriage-care/index.html. Accessed April 25, 2023.
30. The Washington Post. Woman Says She Carried Dead Fetus for 2 Weeks After Texas Abortion Ban. https://www.washington-
post.com/politics/2022/07/20/abortion-miscarriage-texas-fetus-stell/. Accessed April 25, 2023.
31. Stevenson AJ. The pregnancy-related mortality impact of a total abortion ban in the United States: a research note on increased
deaths due to remaining pregnant. Demography. 2021;58(6):2019–2028.
32. Wallace M, et al. Homicide during pregnancy and the postpartum period in the United States, 2018-2019. Obstet Gynecol.
2021;138(5):762–769.
33. Los Angeles Times. Post-Roe, Many Autoimmune Patients Lose access to ‘Gold Standard’ Drug. https://www.latimes.com/
california/story/2022-07-11/post-roe-many-autoimmune-patients-lose-access-to-gold-standard-drug. Accessed April 25, 2023.
34. Cautercucci C. Abortion Bans Are Already Messing Up Access to Other Vital Meds. https://slate.com/news-and-poli-
tics/2022/05/abortion-texas-pharmacies-refusing-prescriptions-misoprostol-methotrexate.html. Accessed April 25, 2023.
35. Horowitch R. State Abortion Bans Prevent Women From Getting Essential Medication. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/
state-abortion-bans-prevent-women-getting-essential-medication-2022-07-14/. Accessed April 25, 2023.
36. Woodruff E. As Abortion Ban is Reinstated, Doctors Describe ‘Chilling Effect’ on Women’s Care. https://www.nola.com/
news/healthcare_hospitals/article_238af184-ff02-11ec-9bce-dfd660a21ce1.html. Accessed April 25, 2023.
37. Feibel C. Pharmacies May Violate Civil Rights if They Refuse Meds Linked to Abortion, Feds Warn. https://www.npr.org/
sections/health-shots/2022/07/13/1111348722/pharmacies-may-violate-civil-rights-if-they-refuse-meds-linked-to-abortion-
feds-. Accessed April 25, 2023.
38. Tasset J, Harris LH. Harm reduction for abortion in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(4):621–624.
39. Grossman D, et al. A harm-reduction model of abortion counseling about misoprostol use in Peru with telephone and in-person
follow-up: a cohort study. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0189195.
40. Labandera A, et al. Implementation of the risk and harm reduction strategy against unsafe abortion in Uruguay: from a univer-
sity hospital to the entire country. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;134(s1):S7–S11.
41. Hyman A, et al. Misoprostol in women’s hands: a harm reduction strategy for unsafe abortion. Contraception. 2013;87(2):128–130.
42. Briozzo L, et al. Overall and abortion-related maternal mortality rates in Uruguay over the past 25years and their association
with policies and actions aimed at protecting women’s rights. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;134 suppl 1: S20–S23.

JCI Insight 2023;8(11):e171798 https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.171798 6