Monday, June 20, 2016

ACLU of Texas Demands DSHS Stop Concealing Abortion Statistics

ACLU of Texas (June 15, 2016), t ACLU of Texas Demands DSHS Stop Concealing Abortion Statistics, by Anna Núñez

The Texas department of State Health Services has gathered abortion statistics for 2014, after the passage of the restrictive HB2, which is currently being challenged as unconstitutional because it imposes an undue burden on women seeking abortions.  The ACLU of Texas is alleging the concealment of the findings. The ACLU said in the linked statement above that they requested the stats "dozens" times, only to be rebuffed by the agency and falsely told that the statistics were not yet ready, though the findings were apparently final in March. The ACLU believes that the reasoning is clear - that DSHS isn't releasing the information because it is damaging to HB2: 

    “The State of Texas claims that HB2 protects women’s health. If that’s true, why wouldn’t our public health agency want to trumpet its success?” said     Terri Burke, executive director for the ACLU of Texas.

The letter also states that supervisors instructed employees to lie about the statistics and avoid mentioning them, in an apparent attempt to circumvent     the legal requirements of the Texas Public Information Act."

The ACLU has also written and released a letter aimed at the defendant in the pending SCOTUS case, Commissioner Hellerstedt, also linked in the above article. 

 

June 20, 2016 in Abortion, Abortion Bans, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, June 3, 2016

New Scholarship on Reproductive Justice

Linda Edwards, Catherine Walsh, and Michelle Goodwin have recently published articles on reproductive justice.  The abridged abstracts follow:

Hearing Voices: Non-Party Stories in Abortion and Gay Rights Advocacy, by Linda Edwards:

Among the amicus briefs filed in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists  (1986) was one submitted by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Like the famous "Brandeis Brief" in Muller v. Oregon (1908), the NARAL brief relies on sources outside the trial court record. Unlike the Brandeis Brief, however, the NARAL brief does not treat women as the objects of social science research. Instead, living, breathing women, speaking with the first-person pronoun “I,” tell their own abortion stories.  This article tells the story of that first “voices” brief, its young author, and its amazing civil rights legacy.

Inadequate Access: Reforming Reproductive Health Care Policies for Women Incarcerated in New York State Correctional Facilities, by Catherine Walsh:

Women in New York State prisons face poor-quality care and assaults on their basic human dignity and reproductive rights.  Three issues of particular concern are incarcerated women’s access to gynecological examinations, sanitary supplies, and contraception. This article examines New York State policies addressing reproductive health care for incarcerated women, identifies problems with them, and makes recommendations for reform. perspectives. It recommends bringing New York’s policies in line with legal, medical, and international standards and using existing federal and state programs to provide funding for reproductive care both prior to and after release.

The Pregnancy Penalty, by Michelle Goodwin:

A multitude of state actions serve to sanction and punish pregnant women. It is a fallacy that such punitive state actions “advance” women’s best interest while promoting informed consent. Poor women are symbolically and medically trapped civilly and criminally where extended wait periods, targeted regulations of abortion providers (TRAP laws), and other indignities  burden their constitutional rights. These issues take on a new urgency as lawmakers continue to undermine women’s health care rights.

June 3, 2016 in Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

New Thinking on Abortion Liberty from Ann Furedi and Maya Manian

The Moral Case for Abortion by Ann Furedi.

Ann Furedi is a provider of abortion services in the UK.  In her new book, she asserts that true respect for human life and true regard for individual conscience demand that we respect a woman’s right to decide, and that support for a woman’s right to a termination has moral foundations and ethical integrity.  Drawing on the traditions of sociological thinking and moral philosophy,

                                                                 Images

Furedi maintains that there is a strong moral case for recognizing autonomy in personal decision-making about reproductive intentions. She argues moreover that to prevent a woman from making her own choice to continue or end her pregnancy is to undermine the essence of her humanity. This fresh perspective on abortion will interest both pro- and anti-choice individuals and organizations, along with academics in the fields of gender studies, philosophy, ethics and religion. 

Minors, Parents, and Minor Parents, by Maya Manian

In her new article in the Missouri Law Review, Maya Manian, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, exposes the law's incoherent approach to adolescent reproduction. Her research indicates that states overwhelmingly allow a teenage girl to independently consent to pregnancy care and medical treatment for her child and even to give up her child for adoption, all without notice to her parents, but require parental notice or consent for abortion. Manian theorizes that the unrecognized policy underlying these seemingly contradictory positions is to punish teenage sexuality and undermine adolescents’ reproductive rights. 

                                                                             Untitled

May 10, 2016 in Abortion, Scholarship and Research, Teenagers and Children | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, February 12, 2016

Gene Editing Permitted in Britain

New York Times (Feb. 2, 2016): Britain Allows New Method to Edit Genes, by Nicholas Wade:

Gene editing refers to cutting and pasting DNA in and out of human embryos, eggs and sperm.  Used for reproductive purposes, these alterations would be passed down to subsequent generations.  A voluntary worldwide moratorium on making changes to DNA that could be passed down in this way, issued by the United States, Britain and China in December, will remain in place even after the British government's recent decision to allow gene editing of embryos that will not be implanted in a womb.  Researchers want to study "the cascade of genetic switches" thrown during a pre-embryo's progression through its first few divisions.  The research may lead to new and better ways to treat infertility, but the news also figures prominently in the anxious message of researchers that countries should tailor their regulations in order to become stronger competitors in the global race to be first in making advances in reproductive biology. 

February 12, 2016 in Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, October 2, 2015

Sarah Weddington Writing Contest for Student Scholarship in Reproductive Rights

Law Students for Reproductive Justice: 2016 Sarah Weddington Prize for Student Scholarship in Reproductive Rights: Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ), the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), and the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice (CRRJ) at Berkeley Law School have announced details about the 2016 Sarah Weddington Writing Prize. Although the scholarship may be about any reproductive rights or reproductive justice topic, the requested theme for submissions is “Restoring Public Insurance Coverage for Abortion.” This is an excellent opportunity for students to potentially have their scholarship published and/or receive a cash prize if their paper comes in first, second, or third place. Submissions are due by January 18, 2016.

October 2, 2015 in Abortion, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, May 8, 2015

New Scholarship from Dov Fox

Dov Fox (University of San Diego Law) has posted new scholarship on SSRN. Below are the abstracts:

Dov Fox

Race Sorting in Family Formation:

Our laws afford enormous freedom not only to parents, but also to the intermediaries — adoption agencies, social workers, sperm banks, and egg vendors — that bring them together with (future) children. These middlemen routinely exercise this discretion to emphasize race in matching parents to the same-race gamete donors or adoptive children they tend to prefer. 

This Symposium Essay provides a conceptual framework to govern the use of race in decisions about family formation. This spectrum of salience-varying ways to manage racial information ranges from those that lay the greatest emphasis on race to those that soften or altogether exclude its expression. 

The Essay locates the operation of these different approaches in the law and practice of adoption and assisted reproduction. That race tends to reproduce itself within the family makes these unique contexts from which to ask what sort of racial self-understandings our multiracial democracy should seek to embody.
 

The State's Interest in Potential Life:

Courts have resolved a range of controversies by casual appeal to the state’s interest in “potential life” that the Supreme Court has held capable of overriding even fundamental rights. My analysis of this potential-life interest reveals its use to mean not one but four species of government concern that I call prenatal welfare, postnatal welfare, social values, and social effects. I demonstrate how these distinct state interests operate -- across a range of different contexts with varying levels of justificatory strength -- to resolve reproductive disputes in more precise and sound ways. I respond to institutional competence and social mediation challenges to disentangling potential-life interests. 
 

Religion and the Unborn under the First Amendment:

Assisted reproduction, stem cell research, and abortion are among the primary social controversies in which religion tends to play a conspicuous role. A prominent objection to government restrictions on such unborn-protective practices holds that they involve judgments about nascent human life that hew too closely to religion under constitutional principles that govern the separation of church and state. I argue that this Establishment Clause challenge trades on a misunderstanding of religion and its relationship to ideas about the unborn. It conflates four influences commonly associated with religion. The first three — compulsions of faith, promises of salvation, and obedience to God — are the ones that government may not endorse. But there is a fourth, involving broader visions about what makes society good, that legitimately animates state action. And it is this fourth influence, I will try to show, that best explains most efforts to protect fetuses and embryos. This isn't to say such laws don't have other constitutional problems; just that the First Amendment isn't one.

May 8, 2015 in Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Student Scholarship: A Different Approach to Regulating Abortion Clinics

Jessica Ettinger (Notre Dame) has posted Seeking Common Ground in the Abortion Regulation Debate on SSRN. Here is the abstract: 

This Note argues that requiring abortion clinics to adhere to the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers is unconstitutional, at least in the context of those clinics that provide only medication abortion, because it unduly burdens a woman’s right to choose whether to obtain an abortion. Although there may be a rational basis to require abortion clinics offering surgical abortion procedures to meet surgical facility standards, no such basis attends the imposition of those requirements on clinics that provide nonsurgical services. Given the number of clinics that continue to close in the face of this new regulatory legislation — which significantly reduces access to abortion services, increases their cost, and makes them logistically more difficult to procure due to increased geographic travel — it is arguable that even requiring surgical abortion clinics to meet ambulatory surgical center standards will result in an undue burden.

At the same time, however, state legislators have a valid interest in ensuring that abortion procedures are conducted in a safe manner. Although abortion clinics currently are subject to regulatory oversight outside the realm of state-specific statutes, the requirements currently in place govern the privacy of patients’ health records, laboratory testing practices, and workplace health and safety, but do not address directly the regulation of surgical procedures.

In light of the constitutional problems embedded in current state efforts to regulate abortion clinic facilities and the shortcomings of federal regulatory efforts, it may be time to entertain a different approach to abortion clinic regulation. Part I presents the legal framework and standards currently governing abortion legislation. Part II utilizes this foundation to evaluate current problems in state regulatory practices, spotlighting two pieces of recent state legislation that seek to impose ambulatory surgical center standards on all abortion clinic facilities within their borders. Lastly, Part III introduces and outlines an alternate means of regulation — accreditation — that offers common ground in the abortion debate by serving everyone’s interest in providing safe, accessible medical services to women.

April 30, 2015 in Scholarship and Research, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Alyson Zureick on Denial of Abortion as a Form of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

Alyson Zureick (J.D. 2014, NYU Law) has posted (En)Gendering Suffering: Denial of Abortion as a Form of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment on SSRN. Here is the abstract: 

The regulation of abortion has long been considered a prerogative of the state. In recent years, however, international human rights bodies have begun to consider the conformity of domestic abortion regulations with a state’s human rights obligations. This paper examines a notable trend among human rights bodies: namely, finding that denying or obstructing a woman’s access to abortion can amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under multiple human rights treaties. First, human rights bodies have found that states can be responsible for CIDT inflicted on women who are harassed and denied services that are legally available to them under the state’s laws. Second, human rights bodies have found that the application of restrictive abortion laws themselves may inflict CIDT by depriving women of an abortion in particularly serious cases, such as rape or when the woman’s life is threatened. I argue that these findings reflect an understanding that certain restrictions on abortion — or the state’s failure to act to prevent de facto restrictions from arising — are unjustifiable and disproportionate to lawful state aims. They also demonstrate a limited but important recognition that deprivations of autonomy in the reproductive rights context can lead to the kind of pain and suffering that is unacceptable in modern societies. At the same time, I argue that human rights bodies should further strengthen their understanding of women’s autonomy interests in this context, particularly the ways in which the frustration of their reproductive autonomy can inflict severe and unacceptable pain or suffering tantamount to CIDT.

April 9, 2015 in Abortion, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Cook and Dickens on Types of Consent in Reproductive Health Care

Rebecca J. Cook (University of Toronto) and Bernard M. Dickens (University of Toronto) have posted Types of Consent in Reproductive Health Care on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Healthcare providers require prior consent to treat patients. Consent can be different for legal purposes, and be expressed in different ways. Simple consent affords providers protection from liability for assault, but negligence can arise if the consent is inadequately informed. 

Bernard Dickens Rebecca CookProviders cannot coerce or improperly induce consent; patients’ agreement that a provider wrongly influences is compliance, not true consent. Attempts to rescue patients in peril may be lawful on the presumption of their implied consent, unless patients negate the presumption. In special cases, laws may require that consent be written, but generally consent can be given by speech or conduct. Informed consent depends on patients’ comprehension, but consent for treatment of uncomprehending patients may come from third parties, including legally recognized substitutes or judges. There may be legal limits to reproductive procedures to which patients may consent, under laws that can be respectfully tested, but have to be obeyed.

February 12, 2015 in Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Ciara O'Connell on Reproductive Rights Cases in the Inter-American System of Human Rights

Ciara O'ConnellCiara O'Connell (University of Sussex) has posted Women's Reproductive Rights in the Inter-American System of Human Rights: Conclusions from the Field, June - September 2014 on SSRN.  Here is the abstract: 

The Inter-American System of Human Rights has proven to be a forum for the advancement of women’s reproductive rights in the Inter-American region. However, the Inter-American System faces significant challenges in promoting structural transformative change that enables women’s enjoyment of their reproductive health rights. This report examines three reproductive rights cases from the Inter- American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: María Mamerita Mestanza Chávez v. Peru; Paulina Ramirez Jacinto v. Mexico; and Artavia Murillo et al. v. Costa Rica. In the summer of 2014, interviews were conducted with representatives in each of the case study countries, with the objective of the research being two-fold: (1) to understand how each of the cases developed, and the subsequent challenges and advancements; and (2) to learn from these cases in order to suggest recommendations for how actors can make better use of the Inter-American System as one of several avenues for protecting, promoting and fulfilling women’s reproductive rights. The report first discusses challenges in implementing women’s reproductive health rights, and then explores how the Inter-American System can strengthen its work on women’s reproductive health rights.

February 11, 2015 in International, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Richmond Journal of Law & the Public Interest: Call for Papers

From the Richmond Journal of Law & the Public Interest:

The Richmond Journal of Law & the Public Interest is seeking submissions for our 2015 Spring volume.  We welcome high quality and well cited submissions from academics, judges, and established practitioners who would like to take part in the conversation of the evolution of law and its impact on citizens.

We currently have five total openings for articles for the two general issues of our volume.  As a Journal that centers in large part on the Public Interest, we would be happy to accept and review articles on a broad range of topics that affect citizens on a national level or in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  For a sense of what we are seeking for our general issues, please feel free to visit http://rjolpi.richmond.edu/archive.php. 

If you would like to submit an article for review and possibly publication, or if you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to contact our Lead Articles Editors - Rich Forzani and Hillary Wallace.  They can be reached, respectively, at rich.forzani@richmond.edu and hillary.wallace@richmond.edu.

October 15, 2014 in Law School, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, June 6, 2014

New Report on Sex-Selective Abortions

The University of Chicago Law School International Human Rights Clinic, National Asian Pacific Women's Forum, and Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health: Replacing Myths With Facts: Sex-Selective Abortions In the United States:

Sex selection is the practice of attempting to control the sex of one’s offspring in order to achieve a desired sex. One method of sex selection is sex-selective abortion. Laws banning sex-selective abortion are proliferating in the United States. Eight states have enacted laws prohibiting sex- selective abortion. Twenty-one states and the federal government have considered such laws since 2009. Those laws prohibit the performance of an abortion if sought based on the sex of the fetus and provide for both criminal and civil penalties in most cases...

A great deal of misinformation exists regarding sex selection in the United States. We have identified six inaccuracies commonly associated with sex-selective abortion and laws prohibiting it. They appear, among other places, in statements made by legislators, testimony submitted to legislatures, and reports issued by legislative committees that have considered or adopted laws banning sex- selective abortion. We present each piece of inaccurate information as a “myth.” This Report draws on legal research, empirical analysis of U.S. birth data, field-work, and an extensive review of scholarly publications in social sciences, law and other disciplines to replace these myths with facts. . . .

June 6, 2014 in Abortion, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Researchers Conclude that Judges with Daughters Tend To Vote "In a More Feminist Fashion"

NPR:  Research: Children Of Judges May Influence Court Decisions, by Shankar Vedantam:

It's been suspected that judges are swayed by their personal beliefs and affiliations. An analysis found that judges become more likely to rule in "pro-feminist" ways if the judges have daughters. . . .

Listen to the story.  Here is the abtract of the paper:

In this paper, we ask whether personal relationships can affect the way that judges decide cases. To do so, we leverage the natural experiment of a child's gender to identify the effect of having daughters on the votes of judges. Using new data on the family lives of U.S. Courts of Appeals judges, we find that, conditional on the number of children a judge has, judges with daughters consistently vote in a more feminist fashion on gender issues than judges who have only sons. This result survives a number of robustness tests and appears to be driven primarily by Republican judges. More broadly, this result demonstrates that personal experiences influence how judges make decisions, and it is the first paper to show that empathy may indeed be a component in how judges decide cases. . . .

May 28, 2014 in In the Courts, In the Media, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, May 11, 2014

U.S. Teen Pregnancy, Birth, And Abortion Rates Reach Historic Lows

The Guttmacher Institute news release:  U.S. TEEN PREGNANCY, BIRTH AND ABORTION RATES REACH HISTORIC LOWS:

Teen Pregnancy Rates Declined in Every State and Among All Racial and Ethnic Groups

Rates of teen pregnancy, birth and abortion have declined dramatically in the United States since their peak in the early 1990s. In 2010, some 614,000 pregnancies occurred among teenage women aged 15–19, for a rate of 57.4 pregnancies per 1,000 women that age. This marks a 51% decline from the 1990 peak, and a 15% decline in just two years, from 67.8 in 2008, according to “U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions, 2010: National and State Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity,” a new study by the Guttmacher Institute. Similarly, the teen birthrate declined 44% from the peak in 1991 (from 61.8 births per 1,000 to 34.4 per 1,000); and the teen abortion rate declined 66% between its 1988 peak and 2010 (from 43.5 abortions per 1,000 to 14.7 per 1,000). . . .

May 11, 2014 in Abortion, Pregnancy & Childbirth, Scholarship and Research, Teenagers and Children | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, March 7, 2014

Study Shows Free Contraception Does Not Increase Risky Behavior Among Women

live.science: Free Birth Control Has Little Effect on Women's Sexual Behavior, Study Suggests, by Cari Nierenberg:

Offering free contraception to women and teenage girls does not cause them to increase their risky sexual behavior over time, a new study suggests.

Researchers found that after receiving free birth control, most women reported no change in their number of sexual partners, and only a modest increase in sex frequency, from an average of four times a month before getting free birth control to six times a month after receiving it. . . .

March 7, 2014 in Contraception, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Faundes et al. on Brazilians' Views on Abortion Legality

Anibel Faundes, et al., have posted Brazilians Have Different Views on When Abortion Should Be Legal, But Most Do Not Agree with Imprisoning Women for Abortion on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Unsafe abortions remain a major public health problem in countries with very restrictive abortion laws. In Brazil, parliamentarians − who have the power to change the law − are influenced by “public opinion”, often obtained through surveys and opinion polls. This paper presents the findings from two studies. One was carried out in February–December 2010 among 1,660 public servants and the other in February–July 2011 with 874 medical students from three medical schools, both in São Paulo State, Brazil. Both groups of respondents were asked two sets of questions to obtain their opinion about abortion: 1) under which circumstances abortion should be permitted by law, and 2) whether or not women in general and women they knew who had had an abortion should be punished with prison, as Brazilian law mandates. The differences in their answers were enormous: the majority of respondents were against putting women who have had abortions in prison. Almost 60% of civil servants and 25% of medical students knew at least one woman who had had an illegal abortion; 85% of medical students and 83% of civil servants thought this person(s) should not be jailed. Brazilian parliamentarians who are currently reviewing a reform in the Penal Code need to have this information urgently. . . .

February 26, 2014 in Abortion Bans, International, Public Opinion, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Caitlin Borgmann on the Importance of the Facts Underlying Abortion Legislation

My commentary, In Abortion Litigation, It's the Facts that Matter, has been published by the Harvard Law Review Forum.  Here is a summary:

This brief commentary argues that courts need to do a better job of closely examining the facts underlying abortion legislation.  Courts applying the undue burden standard generally demand from the plaintiffs fact-intensive proof that an abortion law will cause harm. At the same time, courts are highly deferential to the states’ own fact-based assertions about why these laws are needed.  Although the “purpose prong” of the undue burden standard has largely been written off as toothless, courts can smoke out illegitimate purposes indirectly by looking more skeptically at the factual foundations supposedly necessitating abortion laws.  Recent challenges to virtually identical abortion restrictions have turned on judges’ willingness or refusal to examine more closely the governments’ factual assumptions.  This explains the opposite (preliminary) conclusions reached by the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, respectively, on the constitutionality of laws requiring abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, an issue the Supreme Court appears likely to consider.

February 6, 2014 in Abortion, Scholarship and Research, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Study Shows Pre-Abortion Ultrasounds Do Not Dissuade Women from Abortion

abcNEWS.com: Viewing Ultrasound Unlikely to Deter Women from Abortion, Study Finds, by Gillian Mohney:

A new study has found that pregnant women who plan on having an abortion are not often dissuaded by viewing an ultrasound.

The study, designed to find out if pregnant women who view their ultrasounds are significantly less likely to go through with a planned abortion, was published this month in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal. It looked at the cases of more than 15,000 women, the total number of pregnant women who went to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Los Angeles in 2011 and were planning to have an abortion. . . .

February 1, 2014 in Mandatory Delay/Biased Information Laws, Scholarship and Research, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, January 13, 2014

Caroline Corbin on Distortions in Abortion Jurisprudence

Caroline CorbinCaroline Mala Corbin (University of Miami Law School) has posted Abortion Distortions on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Two types of distortions often arise in abortion jurisprudence. The first is distortion of scientific fact. Too often abortion opponents distort medical facts and courts accept those distortions as true. Take, for example, the claim that abortion makes women depressed and suicidal. In fact, no reputable study supports any such causal link. Equally without scientific foundation is the claim that morning after pills like Plan B act as abortifacients. They do not. 

The second kind of distortion that occurs in abortion jurisprudence is that the normal doctrine does not apply. Thus, despite the fact that compelling someone to articulate the government’s ideology is anathema in free speech jurisprudence, courts have upheld mandatory abortion counseling laws that force doctors to serve as mouthpieces for the state’s viewpoint. Similarly, despite the fact that for-profit corporations have never been held to have religious rights, several courts have stayed application of the new contraception mandate on the grounds that it might violate the corporation’s "conscience." This abortion exceptionalism is problematic for women and for First Amendment jurisprudence.

January 13, 2014 in Abortion, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, January 11, 2014

In Large Study, 98.4% of Women Who Viewed Ultrasound Images Still Chose Abortion

Slate - XX Factor blog: Does Looking at the Ultrasound Before an Abortion Change Women's Minds?, by Katy Waldman:

The journal Obstetrics & Gynecology published an important study this month: the deepest inquiry yet into whether viewing ultrasound images can influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. . . . 

Researchers analyzed 15,575 medical records from an urban abortion care provider in Los Angeles. . . . 

January 11, 2014 in Abortion, Scholarship and Research, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)