The group of people who received an abortion in their second trimester, more than doubled in states that force almost total abortion prohibitions after the Supreme Court had been destroyed Roe v. Wade, Has discovered new research.
The study, published in the American Journal of Public Health On Thursday, the share of abortions that took place on or after 13 weeks of pregnancy discovered from 8% before a ban was enforced to 17% thereafter. The average point in pregnancy When the people who participated in the examination were able to obtain an abortion also rose, from 7.7 weeks of pregnancy pre-Ban to 8.8 weeks of pregnancy after the spell.
The vast majority of abortions take place during the first trimester: in 2022 almost 93% of the abortions took place before or after 13 weeks of pregnancy, according to the Centers for disease control and prevention. Diana Greene Foster, the senior author of the study published on Thursday and Professor at the University of California, San Francisco, says that the increase in her studies in Abortuses in the second trimester was probably not what legislators had meant behind the prohibitions, but it was an “unintended effect” of the laws.
“If you increase the logistics burden to get an abortion, the delays of snowball. If people are later during pregnancy, they have to continue traveling to a provider that can take care of them,” says Foster. “Every pregnancy is risky, and [for] People who don’t want to be pregnant, making them pregnant longer are a real burden. There is an increased risk and trouble for their well -being. “
Foster and her Colleagues Conducted a Survey of about 855 Residents in the 14 States That, At The Time, Had Implemented Near-Total Abortion Bans: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Olahomaa, Olahomaa, Olahomaaomaaomaaomaaoma, Olahomaomaaomaaomaaomaaomaaomaaomaaomaaomaomaaomaaomaaomaaomaaomaaomaomaomaomaoma, Olahomaoma, Olahomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaomaoma, Olahomaomaomaomaomaomaomaoma. Virginia, and Wisconsin. Researchers asked clinics in those states to invite patients who received an abortion for two weeks before a prohibition was enforced, as well as those whose appointment was canceled or who could not make an appointment because of the new law, to participate in the survey. Researchers also asked call centers who help people connect with abortion services to invite callers who live in those 14 states to participate in the study. Of the 855 people who participated in the study, 19, 19, an abortion received before a ban was enforced and 659 had canceled their agreements or contacting clinics or call centers after a prohibition was in force.
The survey asked the participants to tell their experiences in search of care and their pregnancy results, in addition to other questions, every few months from June 2022 to June 2024. The time it took before people traveled to obtain an abortion increased from 2.8 hours before a ban was implemented to 11.3 hours after a ban was enforced. Similarly, the average costs related to travel to access to care from $ 179 pre-Ban to $ 372 after the ban. And the share of the participants in the survey who had to spend the night after traveling to seek abortion care, jumped from 5% pre-Ban to 58% after the spell.
Read more: ‘An exodus of OB-Gyns’: how the Dobbs decision has shaken the reproductive health landscape
Despite these challenges, the study showed that most people who were looking for an abortion could get one. About 81% of the respondents of the survey who recorded contact with a clinic or call center after a ban in their state came into force, said they traveled to another state to get an abortion; Only about 3-11% of people who contact a clinic or call center continued their pregnancy to birth, according to the study.
“The fact that so many people get their abortions shows that even if it is difficult, people understand the consequences of not being able to get care, and they do the best they can to get care,” says Foster. “Some people still fall through the cracks and cannot get any care. But people are willing to go to the extreme – literally – to get an abortion if they think they need one.”
Previously released data has shown that the number of abortions that have been provided in most of the country has increased in recent years, even after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that enabled many states to carry out restrictions. Research suggest That part of that increase is probably powered by patients who receive abortion pills by post via TeleHealth. Studies have also shown that tens of thousands of people travel about state lines every year to get abortions; According to data released by the Guttmacher Institute in April, around 155,100 people from the State traveled for an abortion in 2024.
Read more: What are laws for abortion shield?
Foster says that her research shows that the effect of abortion bans “has been to make the burden to get an abortion much bigger – to let people travel and to get the night away from their children or work and simply be pregnant for longer than they want.”
“Even when abortion is made illegal, [given] The circumstances in which people are when they are pregnant and cannot support another child, they will not feel bound by the Studies Act [and] They will do everything they can to get a safe – preferably legal – somewhere else, “says Foster.” Their needs are too great to let a state policy decide for them. “
While working on this research, Foster and her colleagues received a subsidy from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The subsidy, which started in September, was intended to last five years. But a few months ago, Foster and her colleagues received a notification with the announcement that the NIH subsidy had been canceled and that they had to stop their research immediately.
“Their reason was that the study did not match priorities, and specifically that research into gender identity is not scientifically useful, which is so bizarre because – never worse is that gender identity research should really be done – this subsidy has nothing to do with it,” says Foster.
On his first day at the office, President Donald Trump signed a number of executive orders, including a focus on dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (dei). Trump also signed an executive order in which it was stated that the federal government would only recognize “two sexes, male and female”. Weeks later, the NIH announced mass cutbacks in the financing it offers to research grants.
Foster was planning to use the financing of the NIH subsidy to continue to study the impact that abortion restrictions have the access of people to care; She had already started working on a project to collect data on how pregnant people are treated in emergency department. There have been many report People who experience pregnancy complications are rejected from the first aid in states that have banned abortion.
Foster and her colleagues appealed against the decision in the hope of restoring the NIH subsidy, but have not heard anything yet. For the time being Foster says that she has some private financing that she can use to continue with her research. But to remove the NIH subsidy “is deeply painful,” she says.
“It is extremely frustrating because this work is important,” says Foster. “It is important for the inevitable debates and judicial questions that will come [up] About these abortion prohibitions. We must have actual information to make decisions. We cannot simply endanger the health of people for ideology; We must understand what the impact will be and limit that damage if there is damage. “
“But I never felt that I would stop working,” she says. “I just knew that we should be resourceful and find other sources because it is too important not to do it.”
#Abortion #bans #abortions #trimester