Search

The U.S. FDA has permanently removed the in-person prescribing requirements that previously safeguarded the use of mifepristone/misoprostol medical abortions, allowing prescribing through telemedicine or on-line ordering and distribution through the mail and pharmacies, without standard pre-abortion testing. This will increase the risk of complications due to failure to adequately determine the gestational age or rule out ectopic pregnancy by ultrasound or physical exam, failure to perform labs to document whether RhoGAM is indicated, and failure to obtain appropriate informed consent to prevent unwanted abortions, among other concerns. The FDA justified this action by referencing flawed studies with significantly undercounted complications. The details of these study deficiencies are examined in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Misleading statements in a recent Obstetrics & Gynecology article require correction. No state has an abortion law that is a total ban on abortion. Every state law permits abortion when necessary to save a mother's life. Texas law does not require an "imminent" risk and allows a doctor to use his "reasonable medical judgment" to determine if an abortion is necessary to prevent a "risk" of maternal death. Similarly, Idaho allows a doctor to use his "good faith medical judgment" to determine when to intervene, without need for "immediacy". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the U.S., legal abortion is considered extremely safe, and abortion-related mortality is reported to be far lower than mortality associated with term childbirth. Yet, the voluntary nature of abortion complication reporting and ideological selection biases obscure the poor quality of the data used to support these assumptions. Worldwide, the World Health Organization reports that illegal abortion is extremely unsafe, killing and injuring vast numbers of women yearly. They advocate for the liberalization of abortion laws so that women can access safer abortions. Yet, their calculations are based largely on subjective opinions from a limited number of health care providers, with little objective verification from external sources. The limitations in the data should prompt calls for improved studies and more objective estimates of complications and deaths resulting from abortion, both legal and illegal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While both induced abortion and natural pregnancy loss have been associated with subsequent mental health problems, population-based studies directly comparing these two pregnancy outcomes are rare. We sought to compare mental health morbidity after an induced abortion or natural loss., Methods: Continuously eligible Medicaid beneficiaries age 16 in 1999 were assigned to two cohorts based upon the first pregnancy outcome: abortion (n = 1,331) or natural loss (n = 605). Outcomes were mental health outpatient visits, inpatient hospital admissions and hospital days of stay per patient per year. Average exposure periods before and after the first pregnancy outcome for each cohort were used to adjust the mental health service rates., Results: Prior to the first pregnancy outcome, all three utilization rates were significantly higher for the natural loss cohort compared to the abortion cohort. For the abortion cohort, the per-patient per-year increase from the pre- to post-pregnancy periods was significant for all three rates: 2.04 times for outpatient visits (p < 0.0001), 3.04 times for inpatient admissions (p = 0.0003), and 3.01 times for hospital days of stay (p = 0.0112). None of the pre-to-post rate increases were significant for the natural loss cohort., Conclusion: Higher pre-pregnancy use rates for women who experience a natural pregnancy loss indicate that increased mental health services use following abortion cannot be solely attributed to pre-existing mental illness. Only the abortion cohort, but not the natural loss cohort, experienced significant increases in mental health services use following the first pregnancy outcome., (Copyright © 2024 by the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, Inc.)

Background: The current measuring metric and reporting methods for assessing maternal mortality are seriously flawed. Evidence-based prevention strategies require consistently reported surveillance data and validated measurement metrics. Main Body: The denominator of live births used in the maternal mortality ratio reinforces the mistaken notion that all maternal deaths are consequent to a live birth and, at the same time, inappropriately inflates the value of the ratio for subpopulations of women with the highest percentage of pregnancies ending in outcomes other than a live birth. Inadequate methods for identifying induced or spontaneous abortion complications assure that most maternal deaths associated with those pregnancy outcomes are unlikely to be attributed. Absent the ability to identify all maternal deaths, and without the ability to differentiate those deaths by specific pregnancy outcomes, existing variations in pregnancy outcome-specific maternal deaths are masked by the use of an aggregated (all outcome) numerator. Under these circumstances, clear and accurate data is not available to inform evidence-based preventive strategies. As the result, algorithms applied for analyzing maternal mortality data may return distorted results Conclusion: Improvement in the effectiveness of maternal mortality surveillance will require: mandatory certification of all fetal losses; linkage of death, birth and all fetal loss (induced and natural) certificates; modification of the structure of the overall maternal mortality ratio to enable pregnancy outcome-specific ratio calculations; development of the appropriate ICD codes which are specific to induced and spontaneous abortions; education for providers on identifying and reporting early pregnancy losses; and, flexible information systems and methods which integrate these capabilities and inform users., Competing Interests: Competing interests:The authors declare that they have no competing interests, (This is an Open Access article. Authors own copyright of their articles appearing in the Journal of Public Health Informatics. Readers may copy articles without permission of the copyright owner(s), as long as the author and OJPHI are acknowledged in the copy and the copy is used for educational, not-for-profit purposes.)

Induced abortion is a controversial topic among obstetricians. "100 Professors" extolled the benefits of elective abortion in a Clinical Opinion published in AJOG. However, scientific balance requires the consideration of a second opinion from practitioners who care for both patients, and who recognize the humanity of both. Alternative approaches to the management of a problem pregnancy, as well as short and long term risks to women as published in the peer reviewed medical literature are discussed. Maintaining a position of "pro-choice" requires that practitioners also be given a right to exercise Hippocratic principles in accordance with their conscience.