Megan L. Evans, MD, MPH

ILLUSTRATION: PAUL ZWOLAK

While many anticipated the fall of Roe v Wade after the leaked Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case, few may have fully comprehended the myriad of ways this ruling would create a national health care crisis overnight. Since the ruling, abortion has been banned, or a 6-week gestational age limit has been implemented, in a total of 13 states, all within the South and Midwest regions of the country.¹ Many additional states will almost assuredly enact bans on access to reproductive health care in the near future. While the specific case of the 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio and her gynecologic care by Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana ObGyn, has garnered national attention, most of the devastating effects have not yet been realized.² Recent published data highlights the substantially negative impact these legislative changes already have had regarding the treatment of early spontaneous abortions and premature rupture of membranes.^3,4 Physicians could face legal consequences for treating emergencies, such as ectopic pregnancies, in some states.⁵

The 2022 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Annual Clinical and Scientific Meeting, held shortly after the leaked SCOTUS opinion, was unlike most others. ACOG staff appropriately recognized the vastly different ways this ruling would affect patients and providers alike, simply based on the states in which they reside. ACOG staff organized the large group of attendees according to self-identified status (ie, whether they worked in states with protected, restricted, or threatened access to abortion care). Since this is such a vast topic, attendees also were asked to identify an area upon which to focus, such as the provision of health care, advocacy, or education. As a clinician practicing in Massachusetts, Dr. Bradley found herself meeting with an ACOG leader from California as they brainstormed how to best help our own communities. In conversing with attendees from other parts of the country, it became apparent the challenges others would be facing elsewhere were far more substantive than those we would be facing in “blue states.” After the Dobbs ruling, those predictions became harsh realities.

As we begin to see and hear reports of the devastating consequences of this ruling in “red states,” those of us in protected states have been struggling to try and ascertain how to help. Many of us have worked with our own legislatures to further enshrine protections for our patients and clinicians. New York and Massachusetts exemplify these efforts.^6,7 These legislative efforts have included liability protections for patients and their clinicians who care for those who travel from restricted to protected states. Others involve codifying the principles of Roe and clarifying existing law to improve access. An online fundraiser organized by physicians to assist Dr. Bernard with her legal costs as she faces politically motivated investigation by Indiana state authorities has raised more than $260,000.⁸ Many expressed the potential legal and medical peril for examiners and examinees if the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology held in-person oral examinations in Texas as previously scheduled.⁹ An online petition to change the format to virtual had 728 signatories, and the format was changed back to virtual.¹⁰

The implications on medical schools, residencies, and fellowships cannot be overstated. The Dobbs ruling almost immediately affected nearly half of the training programs, which is particularly problematic given the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirement that all ObGyn residents have access to abortion training.¹¹ Other programs already are starting to try to meet this vast training need. The University of California San Francisco started offering training to physicians from Texas who were affected by the strict restrictions that predated Dobbs in the SB8 legislation, which turned ordinary citizens into vigilantes.¹²

ACOG has created an online resource (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential) with a number of different sections regarding clinical care, education and training, advocacy at the state level, and how to use effective language when talking about abortion in our communities. Planned Parenthood also suggests a myriad of ways those directly and indirectly affected could get involved:

1. Donate to the National Network of Abortion Funds. This fund (https://secure.actblue.com/donate/fundabortionnow) facilitates care for those without the financial means to obtain it, supporting travel, lodging, and child care.
2. Share #AbortionAccess posts on social media. These stories are a powerful reminder of the incredibly harmful impact this legislation can have on our patients.
3. Donate to the If When How’s Legal Repro Defense Fund (https:/www.ifwhenhow.org/), which helps cover legal costs for those facing state persecution related to reproductive health care.
4. Volunteer to help protect abortion health care at the state level.
5. Engage with members of Congress in their home districts. (https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member)
6. Contact the Planned Parenthood Local Engagement Team to facilitate your group, business, or organization’s involvement.
7. Partner. Facilitate your organization and other companies to partner with Planned Parenthood and sign up for Bans off our Bodies (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdrmxwMcwNXJ8I NE8S2gYjDDXuT76ws_Fr7CLm3 qbtR8dcZHw/viewform).
8. Record your perspective about abortion (https://www.together.plannedparenthood.org/articles/6-share-abortion-story), whether it’s having had one, supported someone who had one, or advocated for others to have access to the procedure.¹³

ACOG also outlines several ways those of us in protected states could help shape the landscape in other communities in addition to advocating for state medical society resolutions, writing op-eds and letters to the editor, and utilizing ACOG’s social media graphics.¹⁴ In recognition of the often sensitive, polarizing nature of these discussions, ACOG is offering a workshop entitled “Building Evidence-Based Skills for Effective Conversations about Abortion.”¹⁵

Abortion traditionally was a policy issue other medical organizations shied away from developing official policy on and speaking out in support of, but recognizing the devastating scope of the public health crisis, 75 medical professional organizations recently released a strongly worded joint statement noting, “As leading medical and health care organizations dedicated to patient care and public health, we condemn this and all interference in the patient–clinician relationship.”¹⁶ Clinicians could work to expand this list to include all aspects of organized medicine. Initiatives to get out the vote may be helpful in vulnerable states, as well.

Clinicians in protected states are not necessarily directly affected in our daily interactions with patients, but we stand in solidarity with those who are. We must remain united as a profession as different state legislatures seek to divide us. We must support those who are struggling every day. Our colleagues and fellow citizens deserve nothing less. ●

ILLUSTRATION: PAUL ZWOLAK

While many anticipated the fall of Roe v Wade after the leaked Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case, few may have fully comprehended the myriad of ways this ruling would create a national health care crisis overnight. Since the ruling, abortion has been banned, or a 6-week gestational age limit has been implemented, in a total of 13 states, all within the South and Midwest regions of the country.¹ Many additional states will almost assuredly enact bans on access to reproductive health care in the near future. While the specific case of the 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio and her gynecologic care by Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana ObGyn, has garnered national attention, most of the devastating effects have not yet been realized.² Recent published data highlights the substantially negative impact these legislative changes already have had regarding the treatment of early spontaneous abortions and premature rupture of membranes.^3,4 Physicians could face legal consequences for treating emergencies, such as ectopic pregnancies, in some states.⁵

The 2022 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Annual Clinical and Scientific Meeting, held shortly after the leaked SCOTUS opinion, was unlike most others. ACOG staff appropriately recognized the vastly different ways this ruling would affect patients and providers alike, simply based on the states in which they reside. ACOG staff organized the large group of attendees according to self-identified status (ie, whether they worked in states with protected, restricted, or threatened access to abortion care). Since this is such a vast topic, attendees also were asked to identify an area upon which to focus, such as the provision of health care, advocacy, or education. As a clinician practicing in Massachusetts, Dr. Bradley found herself meeting with an ACOG leader from California as they brainstormed how to best help our own communities. In conversing with attendees from other parts of the country, it became apparent the challenges others would be facing elsewhere were far more substantive than those we would be facing in “blue states.” After the Dobbs ruling, those predictions became harsh realities.

As we begin to see and hear reports of the devastating consequences of this ruling in “red states,” those of us in protected states have been struggling to try and ascertain how to help. Many of us have worked with our own legislatures to further enshrine protections for our patients and clinicians. New York and Massachusetts exemplify these efforts.^6,7 These legislative efforts have included liability protections for patients and their clinicians who care for those who travel from restricted to protected states. Others involve codifying the principles of Roe and clarifying existing law to improve access. An online fundraiser organized by physicians to assist Dr. Bernard with her legal costs as she faces politically motivated investigation by Indiana state authorities has raised more than $260,000.⁸ Many expressed the potential legal and medical peril for examiners and examinees if the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology held in-person oral examinations in Texas as previously scheduled.⁹ An online petition to change the format to virtual had 728 signatories, and the format was changed back to virtual.¹⁰

The implications on medical schools, residencies, and fellowships cannot be overstated. The Dobbs ruling almost immediately affected nearly half of the training programs, which is particularly problematic given the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirement that all ObGyn residents have access to abortion training.¹¹ Other programs already are starting to try to meet this vast training need. The University of California San Francisco started offering training to physicians from Texas who were affected by the strict restrictions that predated Dobbs in the SB8 legislation, which turned ordinary citizens into vigilantes.¹²

ACOG has created an online resource (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential) with a number of different sections regarding clinical care, education and training, advocacy at the state level, and how to use effective language when talking about abortion in our communities. Planned Parenthood also suggests a myriad of ways those directly and indirectly affected could get involved:

1. Donate to the National Network of Abortion Funds. This fund (https://secure.actblue.com/donate/fundabortionnow) facilitates care for those without the financial means to obtain it, supporting travel, lodging, and child care.
2. Share #AbortionAccess posts on social media. These stories are a powerful reminder of the incredibly harmful impact this legislation can have on our patients.
3. Donate to the If When How’s Legal Repro Defense Fund (https:/www.ifwhenhow.org/), which helps cover legal costs for those facing state persecution related to reproductive health care.
4. Volunteer to help protect abortion health care at the state level.
5. Engage with members of Congress in their home districts. (https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member)
6. Contact the Planned Parenthood Local Engagement Team to facilitate your group, business, or organization’s involvement.
7. Partner. Facilitate your organization and other companies to partner with Planned Parenthood and sign up for Bans off our Bodies (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdrmxwMcwNXJ8I NE8S2gYjDDXuT76ws_Fr7CLm3 qbtR8dcZHw/viewform).
8. Record your perspective about abortion (https://www.together.plannedparenthood.org/articles/6-share-abortion-story), whether it’s having had one, supported someone who had one, or advocated for others to have access to the procedure.¹³

ACOG also outlines several ways those of us in protected states could help shape the landscape in other communities in addition to advocating for state medical society resolutions, writing op-eds and letters to the editor, and utilizing ACOG’s social media graphics.¹⁴ In recognition of the often sensitive, polarizing nature of these discussions, ACOG is offering a workshop entitled “Building Evidence-Based Skills for Effective Conversations about Abortion.”¹⁵

Abortion traditionally was a policy issue other medical organizations shied away from developing official policy on and speaking out in support of, but recognizing the devastating scope of the public health crisis, 75 medical professional organizations recently released a strongly worded joint statement noting, “As leading medical and health care organizations dedicated to patient care and public health, we condemn this and all interference in the patient–clinician relationship.”¹⁶ Clinicians could work to expand this list to include all aspects of organized medicine. Initiatives to get out the vote may be helpful in vulnerable states, as well.

Clinicians in protected states are not necessarily directly affected in our daily interactions with patients, but we stand in solidarity with those who are. We must remain united as a profession as different state legislatures seek to divide us. We must support those who are struggling every day. Our colleagues and fellow citizens deserve nothing less. ●

ILLUSTRATION: PAUL ZWOLAK

While many anticipated the fall of Roe v Wade after the leaked Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case, few may have fully comprehended the myriad of ways this ruling would create a national health care crisis overnight. Since the ruling, abortion has been banned, or a 6-week gestational age limit has been implemented, in a total of 13 states, all within the South and Midwest regions of the country.¹ Many additional states will almost assuredly enact bans on access to reproductive health care in the near future. While the specific case of the 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio and her gynecologic care by Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana ObGyn, has garnered national attention, most of the devastating effects have not yet been realized.² Recent published data highlights the substantially negative impact these legislative changes already have had regarding the treatment of early spontaneous abortions and premature rupture of membranes.^3,4 Physicians could face legal consequences for treating emergencies, such as ectopic pregnancies, in some states.⁵

The 2022 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Annual Clinical and Scientific Meeting, held shortly after the leaked SCOTUS opinion, was unlike most others. ACOG staff appropriately recognized the vastly different ways this ruling would affect patients and providers alike, simply based on the states in which they reside. ACOG staff organized the large group of attendees according to self-identified status (ie, whether they worked in states with protected, restricted, or threatened access to abortion care). Since this is such a vast topic, attendees also were asked to identify an area upon which to focus, such as the provision of health care, advocacy, or education. As a clinician practicing in Massachusetts, Dr. Bradley found herself meeting with an ACOG leader from California as they brainstormed how to best help our own communities. In conversing with attendees from other parts of the country, it became apparent the challenges others would be facing elsewhere were far more substantive than those we would be facing in “blue states.” After the Dobbs ruling, those predictions became harsh realities.

As we begin to see and hear reports of the devastating consequences of this ruling in “red states,” those of us in protected states have been struggling to try and ascertain how to help. Many of us have worked with our own legislatures to further enshrine protections for our patients and clinicians. New York and Massachusetts exemplify these efforts.^6,7 These legislative efforts have included liability protections for patients and their clinicians who care for those who travel from restricted to protected states. Others involve codifying the principles of Roe and clarifying existing law to improve access. An online fundraiser organized by physicians to assist Dr. Bernard with her legal costs as she faces politically motivated investigation by Indiana state authorities has raised more than $260,000.⁸ Many expressed the potential legal and medical peril for examiners and examinees if the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology held in-person oral examinations in Texas as previously scheduled.⁹ An online petition to change the format to virtual had 728 signatories, and the format was changed back to virtual.¹⁰

The implications on medical schools, residencies, and fellowships cannot be overstated. The Dobbs ruling almost immediately affected nearly half of the training programs, which is particularly problematic given the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirement that all ObGyn residents have access to abortion training.¹¹ Other programs already are starting to try to meet this vast training need. The University of California San Francisco started offering training to physicians from Texas who were affected by the strict restrictions that predated Dobbs in the SB8 legislation, which turned ordinary citizens into vigilantes.¹²

ACOG has created an online resource (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential) with a number of different sections regarding clinical care, education and training, advocacy at the state level, and how to use effective language when talking about abortion in our communities. Planned Parenthood also suggests a myriad of ways those directly and indirectly affected could get involved:

1. Donate to the National Network of Abortion Funds. This fund (https://secure.actblue.com/donate/fundabortionnow) facilitates care for those without the financial means to obtain it, supporting travel, lodging, and child care.
2. Share #AbortionAccess posts on social media. These stories are a powerful reminder of the incredibly harmful impact this legislation can have on our patients.
3. Donate to the If When How’s Legal Repro Defense Fund (https:/www.ifwhenhow.org/), which helps cover legal costs for those facing state persecution related to reproductive health care.
4. Volunteer to help protect abortion health care at the state level.
5. Engage with members of Congress in their home districts. (https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member)
6. Contact the Planned Parenthood Local Engagement Team to facilitate your group, business, or organization’s involvement.
7. Partner. Facilitate your organization and other companies to partner with Planned Parenthood and sign up for Bans off our Bodies (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdrmxwMcwNXJ8I NE8S2gYjDDXuT76ws_Fr7CLm3 qbtR8dcZHw/viewform).
8. Record your perspective about abortion (https://www.together.plannedparenthood.org/articles/6-share-abortion-story), whether it’s having had one, supported someone who had one, or advocated for others to have access to the procedure.¹³

ACOG also outlines several ways those of us in protected states could help shape the landscape in other communities in addition to advocating for state medical society resolutions, writing op-eds and letters to the editor, and utilizing ACOG’s social media graphics.¹⁴ In recognition of the often sensitive, polarizing nature of these discussions, ACOG is offering a workshop entitled “Building Evidence-Based Skills for Effective Conversations about Abortion.”¹⁵

Abortion traditionally was a policy issue other medical organizations shied away from developing official policy on and speaking out in support of, but recognizing the devastating scope of the public health crisis, 75 medical professional organizations recently released a strongly worded joint statement noting, “As leading medical and health care organizations dedicated to patient care and public health, we condemn this and all interference in the patient–clinician relationship.”¹⁶ Clinicians could work to expand this list to include all aspects of organized medicine. Initiatives to get out the vote may be helpful in vulnerable states, as well.

Clinicians in protected states are not necessarily directly affected in our daily interactions with patients, but we stand in solidarity with those who are. We must remain united as a profession as different state legislatures seek to divide us. We must support those who are struggling every day. Our colleagues and fellow citizens deserve nothing less. ●

For many, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case that removed the constitutional right to an abortion has introduced outrage, fear, and confusion throughout the country. While the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) clearly has established that abortion is essential health care and has published resources regarding the issue (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential), and many providers know what to do medically, they do not know what they can do legally. In a country where 45% of pregnancies are unplanned and 25% of women will access abortion services in their lifetime, this decision will completely change the landscape of providing and receiving abortion care. This decision will affect every provider and their patients and will affect them differently in each state. The country likely will be divided into 24 destination states that will protect the right to abortion and another 26 states that have or will soon ban abortion or severely restrict access to it.

Regardless of the state you practice in, it is clear that our voices, actions, and advocacy are essential during these challenging times. It can feel difficult to find ways to advocate, especially if you are in a state or have an employer that supports anti-abortion legislation or has been silent after the Dobbs decision was released. We have created a guide to help and encourage all ObGyn providers to find ways to advocate, no matter their zip code.

1. Donate

Many of our patients will need to travel out of state to seek abortion care. The cost of abortion care can be expensive, and travel, child care, and time off of work add to the costs of the procedure itself, making access to abortion care financially out of reach for some. There are many well-established abortion funds throughout the country; consider donating to one of them or organizing a fundraiser in your community. Go to abortionfunds.org/funds to find an abortion fund that will support patients in your community, or donate generally to support them all.

2. Save your stories

We already are hearing the devastating impact abortion bans have on patient care around the country. If you had to deny or delay care because of the new legal landscape surrounding abortion, write down or record the experience. Your stories can be critical in discussing the impact of legislation. If you choose to share on social media, ask the involved patients if they are comfortable with their story being shared online (as long as their identity is protected).

3. Talk about it

Talking about abortion is a critical step in destigmatizing it and supporting our patients as well as our field. These conversations can be challenging, but ACOG has provided an important guide that includes key phrases and statements to help shape the conversation and avoid polarizing language (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/come-prepared). This guide also can be helpful to keep in mind when talking to members of the media.

Continue to: 4. Write about it...

4. Write about it

There are many opportunities to write about the impact of the Dobbs decision, especially locally. As a clinician and trusted member of the community, you can uniquely share your and your patients’ experiences. Your article does not have to appear in a major publication; you can still have an important impact in your local paper. See resources on how to write an op-ed and letter to the editor (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/connect-in-your-community/legislative-rx-op-eds-and-letters-to-the-editor).

5. Teach about it

These legislative changes uniquely impact our ObGyn residents; 44% of residents likely will be in a training program in a state that will ban or severely restrict abortion access. Abortion is health care, and a vast majority of our residents could graduate without important skills to save lives. As we strategize to ensure all ObGyn residents are able to receive this important training, work on incorporating an advocacy curriculum into your residents’ educational experience. Teaching about how to advocate is an important skill for supporting our patients and ensuring critical health policy. ACOG has published guides focused on education and training (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/education-and-training). We also have included our own medical center’s advocacy curriculum (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1STxLzE0j55mlDEbF0_wZbo9O QryAcs6RpfZ47Mwfs4I/edit).

6. Get involved and seek out allies

It’s important that ObGyns be at the table for all discussions surrounding abortion care and reproductive health. Join hospital committees and help influence policy within your own institution. Refer back to those abortion talking points—this will help in some of these challenging conversations.

7. Get on social media

Using social media can be a powerful tool for advocacy. You can help elevate issues and encourage others to get active as well. Using a common hashtag, such as #AbortionisHealthcare, on different platforms can help connect you to other advocates. Share simple and important graphics provided by ACOG on important topics in our field (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state/social-media) and review ACOG’s recommendation for professionalism in social media (https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2019/10/professional-use-of-digital-and-social-media).

8. Get active locally

We have seen the introduction of hundreds of bills in states around the country not only on abortion but also on other legislation that directly impacts the care we provide. It is critical that we get involved in advocating for important reproductive health legislation and against bills that cause harm and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Stay up to date on legislative issues with your local ACOG and medical chapters (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state). Consider testifying at your State house, providing written or oral testimony. Connect with ACOG or your state medical chapter to help with talking points!

9. Read up

There have been many new policies at the federal level that could impact the care you provide. Take some time to read up on these new changes. Patients also may ask you about self-managed abortion. There are guides and resources (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/practice-management) for patients that may seek medication online, and we want to ensure that patients have the resources to make informed decisions.

10. Hit the Capitol

Consider making time to come to the annual Congressional Leadership Conference in Washington, DC (https://www.acog.org/education-and-events/meetings/acog-congressional-leadership-conference), or other advocacy events offered through the American Medical Association or other subspecialty organizations. When we all come together as an organization, a field, and a community, it sends a powerful message that we are standing up together for our patients and our colleagues.

Make a difference

There is no advocacy too big or too small. It is critical that we continue to use our voices and our platforms to stand up for health care and access to critical services, including abortion care. ●

For many, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case that removed the constitutional right to an abortion has introduced outrage, fear, and confusion throughout the country. While the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) clearly has established that abortion is essential health care and has published resources regarding the issue (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential), and many providers know what to do medically, they do not know what they can do legally. In a country where 45% of pregnancies are unplanned and 25% of women will access abortion services in their lifetime, this decision will completely change the landscape of providing and receiving abortion care. This decision will affect every provider and their patients and will affect them differently in each state. The country likely will be divided into 24 destination states that will protect the right to abortion and another 26 states that have or will soon ban abortion or severely restrict access to it.

Regardless of the state you practice in, it is clear that our voices, actions, and advocacy are essential during these challenging times. It can feel difficult to find ways to advocate, especially if you are in a state or have an employer that supports anti-abortion legislation or has been silent after the Dobbs decision was released. We have created a guide to help and encourage all ObGyn providers to find ways to advocate, no matter their zip code.

1. Donate

Many of our patients will need to travel out of state to seek abortion care. The cost of abortion care can be expensive, and travel, child care, and time off of work add to the costs of the procedure itself, making access to abortion care financially out of reach for some. There are many well-established abortion funds throughout the country; consider donating to one of them or organizing a fundraiser in your community. Go to abortionfunds.org/funds to find an abortion fund that will support patients in your community, or donate generally to support them all.

2. Save your stories

We already are hearing the devastating impact abortion bans have on patient care around the country. If you had to deny or delay care because of the new legal landscape surrounding abortion, write down or record the experience. Your stories can be critical in discussing the impact of legislation. If you choose to share on social media, ask the involved patients if they are comfortable with their story being shared online (as long as their identity is protected).

3. Talk about it

Talking about abortion is a critical step in destigmatizing it and supporting our patients as well as our field. These conversations can be challenging, but ACOG has provided an important guide that includes key phrases and statements to help shape the conversation and avoid polarizing language (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/come-prepared). This guide also can be helpful to keep in mind when talking to members of the media.

Continue to: 4. Write about it...

4. Write about it

There are many opportunities to write about the impact of the Dobbs decision, especially locally. As a clinician and trusted member of the community, you can uniquely share your and your patients’ experiences. Your article does not have to appear in a major publication; you can still have an important impact in your local paper. See resources on how to write an op-ed and letter to the editor (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/connect-in-your-community/legislative-rx-op-eds-and-letters-to-the-editor).

5. Teach about it

These legislative changes uniquely impact our ObGyn residents; 44% of residents likely will be in a training program in a state that will ban or severely restrict abortion access. Abortion is health care, and a vast majority of our residents could graduate without important skills to save lives. As we strategize to ensure all ObGyn residents are able to receive this important training, work on incorporating an advocacy curriculum into your residents’ educational experience. Teaching about how to advocate is an important skill for supporting our patients and ensuring critical health policy. ACOG has published guides focused on education and training (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/education-and-training). We also have included our own medical center’s advocacy curriculum (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1STxLzE0j55mlDEbF0_wZbo9O QryAcs6RpfZ47Mwfs4I/edit).

6. Get involved and seek out allies

It’s important that ObGyns be at the table for all discussions surrounding abortion care and reproductive health. Join hospital committees and help influence policy within your own institution. Refer back to those abortion talking points—this will help in some of these challenging conversations.

7. Get on social media

Using social media can be a powerful tool for advocacy. You can help elevate issues and encourage others to get active as well. Using a common hashtag, such as #AbortionisHealthcare, on different platforms can help connect you to other advocates. Share simple and important graphics provided by ACOG on important topics in our field (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state/social-media) and review ACOG’s recommendation for professionalism in social media (https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2019/10/professional-use-of-digital-and-social-media).

8. Get active locally

We have seen the introduction of hundreds of bills in states around the country not only on abortion but also on other legislation that directly impacts the care we provide. It is critical that we get involved in advocating for important reproductive health legislation and against bills that cause harm and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Stay up to date on legislative issues with your local ACOG and medical chapters (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state). Consider testifying at your State house, providing written or oral testimony. Connect with ACOG or your state medical chapter to help with talking points!

9. Read up

There have been many new policies at the federal level that could impact the care you provide. Take some time to read up on these new changes. Patients also may ask you about self-managed abortion. There are guides and resources (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/practice-management) for patients that may seek medication online, and we want to ensure that patients have the resources to make informed decisions.

10. Hit the Capitol

Consider making time to come to the annual Congressional Leadership Conference in Washington, DC (https://www.acog.org/education-and-events/meetings/acog-congressional-leadership-conference), or other advocacy events offered through the American Medical Association or other subspecialty organizations. When we all come together as an organization, a field, and a community, it sends a powerful message that we are standing up together for our patients and our colleagues.

Make a difference

There is no advocacy too big or too small. It is critical that we continue to use our voices and our platforms to stand up for health care and access to critical services, including abortion care. ●

For many, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case that removed the constitutional right to an abortion has introduced outrage, fear, and confusion throughout the country. While the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) clearly has established that abortion is essential health care and has published resources regarding the issue (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential), and many providers know what to do medically, they do not know what they can do legally. In a country where 45% of pregnancies are unplanned and 25% of women will access abortion services in their lifetime, this decision will completely change the landscape of providing and receiving abortion care. This decision will affect every provider and their patients and will affect them differently in each state. The country likely will be divided into 24 destination states that will protect the right to abortion and another 26 states that have or will soon ban abortion or severely restrict access to it.

Regardless of the state you practice in, it is clear that our voices, actions, and advocacy are essential during these challenging times. It can feel difficult to find ways to advocate, especially if you are in a state or have an employer that supports anti-abortion legislation or has been silent after the Dobbs decision was released. We have created a guide to help and encourage all ObGyn providers to find ways to advocate, no matter their zip code.

1. Donate

Many of our patients will need to travel out of state to seek abortion care. The cost of abortion care can be expensive, and travel, child care, and time off of work add to the costs of the procedure itself, making access to abortion care financially out of reach for some. There are many well-established abortion funds throughout the country; consider donating to one of them or organizing a fundraiser in your community. Go to abortionfunds.org/funds to find an abortion fund that will support patients in your community, or donate generally to support them all.

2. Save your stories

We already are hearing the devastating impact abortion bans have on patient care around the country. If you had to deny or delay care because of the new legal landscape surrounding abortion, write down or record the experience. Your stories can be critical in discussing the impact of legislation. If you choose to share on social media, ask the involved patients if they are comfortable with their story being shared online (as long as their identity is protected).

3. Talk about it

Talking about abortion is a critical step in destigmatizing it and supporting our patients as well as our field. These conversations can be challenging, but ACOG has provided an important guide that includes key phrases and statements to help shape the conversation and avoid polarizing language (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/come-prepared). This guide also can be helpful to keep in mind when talking to members of the media.

Continue to: 4. Write about it...

4. Write about it

There are many opportunities to write about the impact of the Dobbs decision, especially locally. As a clinician and trusted member of the community, you can uniquely share your and your patients’ experiences. Your article does not have to appear in a major publication; you can still have an important impact in your local paper. See resources on how to write an op-ed and letter to the editor (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/connect-in-your-community/legislative-rx-op-eds-and-letters-to-the-editor).

5. Teach about it

These legislative changes uniquely impact our ObGyn residents; 44% of residents likely will be in a training program in a state that will ban or severely restrict abortion access. Abortion is health care, and a vast majority of our residents could graduate without important skills to save lives. As we strategize to ensure all ObGyn residents are able to receive this important training, work on incorporating an advocacy curriculum into your residents’ educational experience. Teaching about how to advocate is an important skill for supporting our patients and ensuring critical health policy. ACOG has published guides focused on education and training (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/education-and-training). We also have included our own medical center’s advocacy curriculum (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1STxLzE0j55mlDEbF0_wZbo9O QryAcs6RpfZ47Mwfs4I/edit).

6. Get involved and seek out allies

It’s important that ObGyns be at the table for all discussions surrounding abortion care and reproductive health. Join hospital committees and help influence policy within your own institution. Refer back to those abortion talking points—this will help in some of these challenging conversations.

7. Get on social media

Using social media can be a powerful tool for advocacy. You can help elevate issues and encourage others to get active as well. Using a common hashtag, such as #AbortionisHealthcare, on different platforms can help connect you to other advocates. Share simple and important graphics provided by ACOG on important topics in our field (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state/social-media) and review ACOG’s recommendation for professionalism in social media (https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2019/10/professional-use-of-digital-and-social-media).

8. Get active locally

We have seen the introduction of hundreds of bills in states around the country not only on abortion but also on other legislation that directly impacts the care we provide. It is critical that we get involved in advocating for important reproductive health legislation and against bills that cause harm and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Stay up to date on legislative issues with your local ACOG and medical chapters (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state). Consider testifying at your State house, providing written or oral testimony. Connect with ACOG or your state medical chapter to help with talking points!

9. Read up

There have been many new policies at the federal level that could impact the care you provide. Take some time to read up on these new changes. Patients also may ask you about self-managed abortion. There are guides and resources (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/practice-management) for patients that may seek medication online, and we want to ensure that patients have the resources to make informed decisions.

10. Hit the Capitol

Consider making time to come to the annual Congressional Leadership Conference in Washington, DC (https://www.acog.org/education-and-events/meetings/acog-congressional-leadership-conference), or other advocacy events offered through the American Medical Association or other subspecialty organizations. When we all come together as an organization, a field, and a community, it sends a powerful message that we are standing up together for our patients and our colleagues.

Make a difference

There is no advocacy too big or too small. It is critical that we continue to use our voices and our platforms to stand up for health care and access to critical services, including abortion care. ●

Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) is the most extreme antiabortion legislation currently in effect in the United States. SB8 was introduced by the Texas legislature on March 11, 2021, and signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on May 19, 2021.¹ The law went into effect on September 1, 2021, despite an appeal to the US Supreme Court to block the law until the courts could weigh in on its constitutionality. The bill prohibits all abortion care in the state of Texas after cardiac activity has been identified, typically at 6 weeks’ gestational age. The majority of pregnant people may be unaware at that point that they are pregnant, particularly if their menstrual cycles are irregular.² An estimated 85% of abortions in Texas occur after the 6-week mark, leaving millions of Texans without the constitutionally protected rights assured to them in Roe v Wade.^3,4 This has and will disproportionately impact communities of color and low-income people seeking abortion care.

SB8 does not contain exceptions in case of a pregnancy that results from rape, sexual assault, or incest, but it does contain an exemption for abortion care because of a medical emergency, as approved by a physician. The physician is required to note the medical emergency in the patient’s chart, stating that the “medical emergency necessitated the abortion” and “prevented compliance” with SB8.⁵ In practice, this exception is so vague as to leave clinicians concerned that routine management of medical conditions and complications, as in ectopic pregnancy, places them at risk of legal action against them and their colleagues should they authorize abortion care.

In Texas, abortion restrictions are nothing new. Texas patients are already subject to a 2-trip requirement: Since 2011 they have been required to have a mandatory ultrasound in one visit and schedule a second visit, 24 hours later, for the procedure.⁶ As of 2003, Texas law also mandates that providers discuss with patients the medical risks, adoption alternatives, and developmental stages of the pregnancy.⁶ There are no medical indications for either of these laws, and their impact is to delay patient care. Unfortunately, laws such as these have been increasingly common in the past decade, with 106 abortion restrictions enacted in 2021 alone.^7,8

What is different about SB8?

SB8 is unique in that it deputizes private citizens to enforce the law. This represents a major change in the antichoice movement’s tactics, as previous bills have made violations a criminal offense. SB8 allows a citizen to sue anyone associated with abortion care, with a minimum penalty of $10,000. In practice, a citizen of another state, who has no connection to the patient receiving care, can sue under this Texas law.⁹ Anyone “aiding and abetting a violation” can be found liable for up to 4 years after the date of care, including, for example, a ride-hailing driver called to ferry the patient to the appointment, the health care team providing abortion care, or insurance companies covering the costs of care. In addition, anyone found guilty of “aiding and abetting” a violation of the bill is responsible for all costs and attorney fees associated with the civil case.^5,10

Furthermore, SB8 outlines defenses that cannot be used to preempt a finding of civil liability, including “ignorance or mistake of the law,” “belief of the law’s unconstitutionality,” and “consent of the [patient] to the abortion.”⁵ This additional layer of restriction makes it difficult to appeal the bill and convolutes an individual’s ability to challenge the law. The law also forbids the state (Texas), a state official, a court, or a district attorney from intervening on behalf of the law—upending typical courses of appeal. This legislation also complicates both federal and state intervention regarding SB8’s constitutionality, as the state has no role in enforcing the law as it is written.⁵

Continue to: What has been the response?...

What has been the response?

As expected, abortion foes reacted positively to SB8, while abortion advocates expressed outrage that the law went into effect. Many were additionally confused that the Supreme Court chose not to intervene to stay the law while the courts adjudicate its constitutionality, as is typical in other cases concerning abortion restrictions.¹¹

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court allowed SB8 to take effect on September 1, issuing its decision on the “Shadow Docket.” As such, a decision was handed down on an expedited timeline in response to an emergency appeal without any oral arguments or a lengthy opinion explaining the ruling.^11,12 The majority delivered a brief, one-paragraph order summarizing their decision, explaining that their refusal to grant the injunction was not a commentary on the law’s constitutionality. The High Court stated that they could not initially comment on the law’s constitutionality before it went into effect, citing that per the law, the state had no role in enforcement, and at the time, no private actions had yet been brought under the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, stating, “The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”¹³

Following the Supreme Court’s refusal to act, US Attorney General Merrick Garland commented that “the Justice Department was evaluating all options to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons.” Just one week later, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas, arguing that SB8 was unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause (federal law takes precedence over state law) and the Fourteenth Amendment.^14,15

On October 6, in response to the Department of Justice’s challenge, District Judge Robert Pitman issued an injunction to prevent enforcement of SB8. In a 113-page ruling, Judge Pitman explained that “a person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established.” Judge Pittman held SB8 unconstitutional, stating, “Women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution... Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.”¹⁶

Just 48 hours after the injunction issued by Judge Pitman, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the injunction, and SB8 went back into effect while litigation on its constitutionality proceeded.^2,17 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is widely considered to be one of the most conservative courts in the country.¹⁸

On October 15, 2021, the Department of Justice appealed the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision and asked the US Supreme Court to intervene, requesting that the Court issue an emergency halt to the law.^19,20 On October 22, 2021, the Court declined to halt the law but scheduled oral arguments on the case for November 1, 2021. This is a stunningly fast briefing schedule for a case of such constitutional importance.

Given the legal back-and-forth, many clinicians are not providing abortion care in Texas as the litigation unfolds. SB8 permits retroactive enforcement, mandating that those “aiding and abetting” of abortion care may be civilly liable for up to 4 years after providing the care.⁵

Continue to: Potential outcomes, and what comes next...

Potential outcomes, and what comes next

Since the ascension of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the High Court, there has been a nationwide increase in antiabortion legislation. Between January and July 2021, more than 90 abortion restrictions were passed, more restrictions in any single year since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973.⁸ In the past decade, more than 500 laws that restrict abortion have been passed across the United States, and studies indicate that 87% to 90% of American counties today are without a single abortion provider.^21,22 Abortion supporters are particularly concerned about the future of Roe v Wade, with a conservative Supreme Court set to hear the challenge to SB8 on November 1, 2021, followed by a second case from Mississippi challenging the constitutionality of a 15-week ban on abortion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (read about this case in “Supreme Court Case: Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization: What you need to know,” at https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/article/245853/practice-management/supreme-court-case-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health).^23,24

At the time of this article writing, we do not know how the Supreme Court will rule on the variety of challenges to the right to privacy. That said, advocates believe it is safe to assume that the landscape of abortion access is likely to change dramatically in the coming year.

Action items: What can you do?

It is important to remember that not only does SB8 severely limit access to safe and legal abortion but also it makes pregnancy dangerous for all pregnant people in Texas and places doubt in providers’ minds on how to manage medical care for their patients.

On the federal level, many advocates are focusing on codifying the right to choose and protecting abortion care from medically unnecessary restrictions. The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 (WHPA) was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Veronica Escobar (D-TX), and it passed in the US House of Representatives in a 218-211 vote.²⁵ WHPA now awaits a vote in a deeply divided US Senate. Although WHPA has wide popular support—an estimated 61% of Americans support the legislation—its future is unclear in the Senate.²⁶ Currently, WHPA has 48 supporters, all Democrats. You can contact your legislators via the links below to encourage them to pass WHPA. If you have friends and colleagues in states in which the Senator does not support WHPA, forward these links and encourage them to sign on: 

• Equal Access to Abortion, Everywhere: https://actforwomen.org/take-action/
• Physicians for Reproductive Rights: https://secure.everyaction.com/p/MOuAyW7F3Ua-FmaGtGD4Kw2
• Center for Reproductive Rights: https://reproductiverights.org/whpa-take-action/

Many also are organizing a crowdfunding campaign to support abortion providers as well as legislative resources. Additional groups to donate specifically to SB8 efforts include²⁷:

• Equal Access to Abortion, Everywhere: https://actforwomen.org/whpa-faqs/
• Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, Inc: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-texas/senate-bill-8
• Texas Equal Access Fund: https://secure.everyaction.com/ztEh8Qeh80-k2k1Yuo5gTw2
• ActBlue Charities: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/txfunds

Furthermore, it is more important than ever to support work within states to support abortion rights. State-specific abortion advocacy groups and their efforts include:

• Avow Foundation for Abortion Access: https://avowtexas.org/support/
• Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, Inc: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-texas
• NARAL Pro-Choice Texas: https://prochoicetexas.org/
• Texas Abortion Access Network: https://txabortionaccessnetwork.org/

Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) is the most extreme antiabortion legislation currently in effect in the United States. SB8 was introduced by the Texas legislature on March 11, 2021, and signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on May 19, 2021.¹ The law went into effect on September 1, 2021, despite an appeal to the US Supreme Court to block the law until the courts could weigh in on its constitutionality. The bill prohibits all abortion care in the state of Texas after cardiac activity has been identified, typically at 6 weeks’ gestational age. The majority of pregnant people may be unaware at that point that they are pregnant, particularly if their menstrual cycles are irregular.² An estimated 85% of abortions in Texas occur after the 6-week mark, leaving millions of Texans without the constitutionally protected rights assured to them in Roe v Wade.^3,4 This has and will disproportionately impact communities of color and low-income people seeking abortion care.

SB8 does not contain exceptions in case of a pregnancy that results from rape, sexual assault, or incest, but it does contain an exemption for abortion care because of a medical emergency, as approved by a physician. The physician is required to note the medical emergency in the patient’s chart, stating that the “medical emergency necessitated the abortion” and “prevented compliance” with SB8.⁵ In practice, this exception is so vague as to leave clinicians concerned that routine management of medical conditions and complications, as in ectopic pregnancy, places them at risk of legal action against them and their colleagues should they authorize abortion care.

In Texas, abortion restrictions are nothing new. Texas patients are already subject to a 2-trip requirement: Since 2011 they have been required to have a mandatory ultrasound in one visit and schedule a second visit, 24 hours later, for the procedure.⁶ As of 2003, Texas law also mandates that providers discuss with patients the medical risks, adoption alternatives, and developmental stages of the pregnancy.⁶ There are no medical indications for either of these laws, and their impact is to delay patient care. Unfortunately, laws such as these have been increasingly common in the past decade, with 106 abortion restrictions enacted in 2021 alone.^7,8

What is different about SB8?

SB8 is unique in that it deputizes private citizens to enforce the law. This represents a major change in the antichoice movement’s tactics, as previous bills have made violations a criminal offense. SB8 allows a citizen to sue anyone associated with abortion care, with a minimum penalty of $10,000. In practice, a citizen of another state, who has no connection to the patient receiving care, can sue under this Texas law.⁹ Anyone “aiding and abetting a violation” can be found liable for up to 4 years after the date of care, including, for example, a ride-hailing driver called to ferry the patient to the appointment, the health care team providing abortion care, or insurance companies covering the costs of care. In addition, anyone found guilty of “aiding and abetting” a violation of the bill is responsible for all costs and attorney fees associated with the civil case.^5,10

Furthermore, SB8 outlines defenses that cannot be used to preempt a finding of civil liability, including “ignorance or mistake of the law,” “belief of the law’s unconstitutionality,” and “consent of the [patient] to the abortion.”⁵ This additional layer of restriction makes it difficult to appeal the bill and convolutes an individual’s ability to challenge the law. The law also forbids the state (Texas), a state official, a court, or a district attorney from intervening on behalf of the law—upending typical courses of appeal. This legislation also complicates both federal and state intervention regarding SB8’s constitutionality, as the state has no role in enforcing the law as it is written.⁵

Continue to: What has been the response?...

What has been the response?

As expected, abortion foes reacted positively to SB8, while abortion advocates expressed outrage that the law went into effect. Many were additionally confused that the Supreme Court chose not to intervene to stay the law while the courts adjudicate its constitutionality, as is typical in other cases concerning abortion restrictions.¹¹

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court allowed SB8 to take effect on September 1, issuing its decision on the “Shadow Docket.” As such, a decision was handed down on an expedited timeline in response to an emergency appeal without any oral arguments or a lengthy opinion explaining the ruling.^11,12 The majority delivered a brief, one-paragraph order summarizing their decision, explaining that their refusal to grant the injunction was not a commentary on the law’s constitutionality. The High Court stated that they could not initially comment on the law’s constitutionality before it went into effect, citing that per the law, the state had no role in enforcement, and at the time, no private actions had yet been brought under the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, stating, “The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”¹³

Following the Supreme Court’s refusal to act, US Attorney General Merrick Garland commented that “the Justice Department was evaluating all options to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons.” Just one week later, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas, arguing that SB8 was unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause (federal law takes precedence over state law) and the Fourteenth Amendment.^14,15

On October 6, in response to the Department of Justice’s challenge, District Judge Robert Pitman issued an injunction to prevent enforcement of SB8. In a 113-page ruling, Judge Pitman explained that “a person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established.” Judge Pittman held SB8 unconstitutional, stating, “Women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution... Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.”¹⁶

Just 48 hours after the injunction issued by Judge Pitman, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the injunction, and SB8 went back into effect while litigation on its constitutionality proceeded.^2,17 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is widely considered to be one of the most conservative courts in the country.¹⁸

On October 15, 2021, the Department of Justice appealed the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision and asked the US Supreme Court to intervene, requesting that the Court issue an emergency halt to the law.^19,20 On October 22, 2021, the Court declined to halt the law but scheduled oral arguments on the case for November 1, 2021. This is a stunningly fast briefing schedule for a case of such constitutional importance.

Given the legal back-and-forth, many clinicians are not providing abortion care in Texas as the litigation unfolds. SB8 permits retroactive enforcement, mandating that those “aiding and abetting” of abortion care may be civilly liable for up to 4 years after providing the care.⁵

Continue to: Potential outcomes, and what comes next...

Potential outcomes, and what comes next

Since the ascension of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the High Court, there has been a nationwide increase in antiabortion legislation. Between January and July 2021, more than 90 abortion restrictions were passed, more restrictions in any single year since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973.⁸ In the past decade, more than 500 laws that restrict abortion have been passed across the United States, and studies indicate that 87% to 90% of American counties today are without a single abortion provider.^21,22 Abortion supporters are particularly concerned about the future of Roe v Wade, with a conservative Supreme Court set to hear the challenge to SB8 on November 1, 2021, followed by a second case from Mississippi challenging the constitutionality of a 15-week ban on abortion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (read about this case in “Supreme Court Case: Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization: What you need to know,” at https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/article/245853/practice-management/supreme-court-case-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health).^23,24

At the time of this article writing, we do not know how the Supreme Court will rule on the variety of challenges to the right to privacy. That said, advocates believe it is safe to assume that the landscape of abortion access is likely to change dramatically in the coming year.

Action items: What can you do?

It is important to remember that not only does SB8 severely limit access to safe and legal abortion but also it makes pregnancy dangerous for all pregnant people in Texas and places doubt in providers’ minds on how to manage medical care for their patients.

On the federal level, many advocates are focusing on codifying the right to choose and protecting abortion care from medically unnecessary restrictions. The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 (WHPA) was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Veronica Escobar (D-TX), and it passed in the US House of Representatives in a 218-211 vote.²⁵ WHPA now awaits a vote in a deeply divided US Senate. Although WHPA has wide popular support—an estimated 61% of Americans support the legislation—its future is unclear in the Senate.²⁶ Currently, WHPA has 48 supporters, all Democrats. You can contact your legislators via the links below to encourage them to pass WHPA. If you have friends and colleagues in states in which the Senator does not support WHPA, forward these links and encourage them to sign on: 

• Equal Access to Abortion, Everywhere: https://actforwomen.org/take-action/
• Physicians for Reproductive Rights: https://secure.everyaction.com/p/MOuAyW7F3Ua-FmaGtGD4Kw2
• Center for Reproductive Rights: https://reproductiverights.org/whpa-take-action/

Many also are organizing a crowdfunding campaign to support abortion providers as well as legislative resources. Additional groups to donate specifically to SB8 efforts include²⁷:

• Equal Access to Abortion, Everywhere: https://actforwomen.org/whpa-faqs/
• Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, Inc: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-texas/senate-bill-8
• Texas Equal Access Fund: https://secure.everyaction.com/ztEh8Qeh80-k2k1Yuo5gTw2
• ActBlue Charities: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/txfunds

Furthermore, it is more important than ever to support work within states to support abortion rights. State-specific abortion advocacy groups and their efforts include:

• Avow Foundation for Abortion Access: https://avowtexas.org/support/
• Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, Inc: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-texas
• NARAL Pro-Choice Texas: https://prochoicetexas.org/
• Texas Abortion Access Network: https://txabortionaccessnetwork.org/

Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) is the most extreme antiabortion legislation currently in effect in the United States. SB8 was introduced by the Texas legislature on March 11, 2021, and signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on May 19, 2021.¹ The law went into effect on September 1, 2021, despite an appeal to the US Supreme Court to block the law until the courts could weigh in on its constitutionality. The bill prohibits all abortion care in the state of Texas after cardiac activity has been identified, typically at 6 weeks’ gestational age. The majority of pregnant people may be unaware at that point that they are pregnant, particularly if their menstrual cycles are irregular.² An estimated 85% of abortions in Texas occur after the 6-week mark, leaving millions of Texans without the constitutionally protected rights assured to them in Roe v Wade.^3,4 This has and will disproportionately impact communities of color and low-income people seeking abortion care.

SB8 does not contain exceptions in case of a pregnancy that results from rape, sexual assault, or incest, but it does contain an exemption for abortion care because of a medical emergency, as approved by a physician. The physician is required to note the medical emergency in the patient’s chart, stating that the “medical emergency necessitated the abortion” and “prevented compliance” with SB8.⁵ In practice, this exception is so vague as to leave clinicians concerned that routine management of medical conditions and complications, as in ectopic pregnancy, places them at risk of legal action against them and their colleagues should they authorize abortion care.

In Texas, abortion restrictions are nothing new. Texas patients are already subject to a 2-trip requirement: Since 2011 they have been required to have a mandatory ultrasound in one visit and schedule a second visit, 24 hours later, for the procedure.⁶ As of 2003, Texas law also mandates that providers discuss with patients the medical risks, adoption alternatives, and developmental stages of the pregnancy.⁶ There are no medical indications for either of these laws, and their impact is to delay patient care. Unfortunately, laws such as these have been increasingly common in the past decade, with 106 abortion restrictions enacted in 2021 alone.^7,8

What is different about SB8?

SB8 is unique in that it deputizes private citizens to enforce the law. This represents a major change in the antichoice movement’s tactics, as previous bills have made violations a criminal offense. SB8 allows a citizen to sue anyone associated with abortion care, with a minimum penalty of $10,000. In practice, a citizen of another state, who has no connection to the patient receiving care, can sue under this Texas law.⁹ Anyone “aiding and abetting a violation” can be found liable for up to 4 years after the date of care, including, for example, a ride-hailing driver called to ferry the patient to the appointment, the health care team providing abortion care, or insurance companies covering the costs of care. In addition, anyone found guilty of “aiding and abetting” a violation of the bill is responsible for all costs and attorney fees associated with the civil case.^5,10

Furthermore, SB8 outlines defenses that cannot be used to preempt a finding of civil liability, including “ignorance or mistake of the law,” “belief of the law’s unconstitutionality,” and “consent of the [patient] to the abortion.”⁵ This additional layer of restriction makes it difficult to appeal the bill and convolutes an individual’s ability to challenge the law. The law also forbids the state (Texas), a state official, a court, or a district attorney from intervening on behalf of the law—upending typical courses of appeal. This legislation also complicates both federal and state intervention regarding SB8’s constitutionality, as the state has no role in enforcing the law as it is written.⁵

Continue to: What has been the response?...

What has been the response?

As expected, abortion foes reacted positively to SB8, while abortion advocates expressed outrage that the law went into effect. Many were additionally confused that the Supreme Court chose not to intervene to stay the law while the courts adjudicate its constitutionality, as is typical in other cases concerning abortion restrictions.¹¹

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court allowed SB8 to take effect on September 1, issuing its decision on the “Shadow Docket.” As such, a decision was handed down on an expedited timeline in response to an emergency appeal without any oral arguments or a lengthy opinion explaining the ruling.^11,12 The majority delivered a brief, one-paragraph order summarizing their decision, explaining that their refusal to grant the injunction was not a commentary on the law’s constitutionality. The High Court stated that they could not initially comment on the law’s constitutionality before it went into effect, citing that per the law, the state had no role in enforcement, and at the time, no private actions had yet been brought under the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, stating, “The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”¹³

Following the Supreme Court’s refusal to act, US Attorney General Merrick Garland commented that “the Justice Department was evaluating all options to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons.” Just one week later, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas, arguing that SB8 was unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause (federal law takes precedence over state law) and the Fourteenth Amendment.^14,15

On October 6, in response to the Department of Justice’s challenge, District Judge Robert Pitman issued an injunction to prevent enforcement of SB8. In a 113-page ruling, Judge Pitman explained that “a person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established.” Judge Pittman held SB8 unconstitutional, stating, “Women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution... Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.”¹⁶

Just 48 hours after the injunction issued by Judge Pitman, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the injunction, and SB8 went back into effect while litigation on its constitutionality proceeded.^2,17 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is widely considered to be one of the most conservative courts in the country.¹⁸

On October 15, 2021, the Department of Justice appealed the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision and asked the US Supreme Court to intervene, requesting that the Court issue an emergency halt to the law.^19,20 On October 22, 2021, the Court declined to halt the law but scheduled oral arguments on the case for November 1, 2021. This is a stunningly fast briefing schedule for a case of such constitutional importance.

Given the legal back-and-forth, many clinicians are not providing abortion care in Texas as the litigation unfolds. SB8 permits retroactive enforcement, mandating that those “aiding and abetting” of abortion care may be civilly liable for up to 4 years after providing the care.⁵

Continue to: Potential outcomes, and what comes next...

Potential outcomes, and what comes next

Since the ascension of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the High Court, there has been a nationwide increase in antiabortion legislation. Between January and July 2021, more than 90 abortion restrictions were passed, more restrictions in any single year since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973.⁸ In the past decade, more than 500 laws that restrict abortion have been passed across the United States, and studies indicate that 87% to 90% of American counties today are without a single abortion provider.^21,22 Abortion supporters are particularly concerned about the future of Roe v Wade, with a conservative Supreme Court set to hear the challenge to SB8 on November 1, 2021, followed by a second case from Mississippi challenging the constitutionality of a 15-week ban on abortion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (read about this case in “Supreme Court Case: Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization: What you need to know,” at https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/article/245853/practice-management/supreme-court-case-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health).^23,24

At the time of this article writing, we do not know how the Supreme Court will rule on the variety of challenges to the right to privacy. That said, advocates believe it is safe to assume that the landscape of abortion access is likely to change dramatically in the coming year.

Action items: What can you do?

It is important to remember that not only does SB8 severely limit access to safe and legal abortion but also it makes pregnancy dangerous for all pregnant people in Texas and places doubt in providers’ minds on how to manage medical care for their patients.

On the federal level, many advocates are focusing on codifying the right to choose and protecting abortion care from medically unnecessary restrictions. The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 (WHPA) was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Veronica Escobar (D-TX), and it passed in the US House of Representatives in a 218-211 vote.²⁵ WHPA now awaits a vote in a deeply divided US Senate. Although WHPA has wide popular support—an estimated 61% of Americans support the legislation—its future is unclear in the Senate.²⁶ Currently, WHPA has 48 supporters, all Democrats. You can contact your legislators via the links below to encourage them to pass WHPA. If you have friends and colleagues in states in which the Senator does not support WHPA, forward these links and encourage them to sign on: 

• Equal Access to Abortion, Everywhere: https://actforwomen.org/take-action/
• Physicians for Reproductive Rights: https://secure.everyaction.com/p/MOuAyW7F3Ua-FmaGtGD4Kw2
• Center for Reproductive Rights: https://reproductiverights.org/whpa-take-action/

Many also are organizing a crowdfunding campaign to support abortion providers as well as legislative resources. Additional groups to donate specifically to SB8 efforts include²⁷:

• Equal Access to Abortion, Everywhere: https://actforwomen.org/whpa-faqs/
• Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, Inc: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-texas/senate-bill-8
• Texas Equal Access Fund: https://secure.everyaction.com/ztEh8Qeh80-k2k1Yuo5gTw2
• ActBlue Charities: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/txfunds

Furthermore, it is more important than ever to support work within states to support abortion rights. State-specific abortion advocacy groups and their efforts include:

• Avow Foundation for Abortion Access: https://avowtexas.org/support/
• Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, Inc: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-texas
• NARAL Pro-Choice Texas: https://prochoicetexas.org/
• Texas Abortion Access Network: https://txabortionaccessnetwork.org/

This fall, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will announce when they will hear oral arguments for Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court will examine a Mississippi law, known as the “Gestational Age Act,” originally passed in 2018, that sought to “limit abortions to fifteen weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal abnormality.”¹ This sets the stage for SCOTUS to make a major ruling on abortion, one which could affirm or upend landmark decisions and nearly 50 years of abortion legislative precedent. Additionally, SCOTUS’ recent decision to not intervene on Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which essentially bans all abortions after 6 weeks’ gestational age, may foreshadow how this case will be decided. The current abortion restrictions in Texas and the implications of SB8 will be discussed in a forthcoming column.

SCOTUS and abortion rights

The decision to hear this case comes on the heels of another recent decision regarding a Louisiana law in June Medical Services v Russo. This case examined Louisiana Act 620, which would have required physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.² The law was deemed constitutionally invalid, with the majority noting the law would have drastically burdened a woman’s right to access abortion services. The Court ruled similarly in 2016 in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v Hellerstedt, in which WWH challenged Texas House Bill 2, a nearly identical law requiring admitting privileges for abortion care providers. In both of these cases, SCOTUS pointed to precedent set by Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, which established that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ The precedent to this, Roe v Wade, and 5 decades of abortion legislation set may be upended by a SCOTUS decision this next term.

Dobbs v Jackson

On March 19, 2018, Mississippi enacted the “Gestational Age Act” into law. The newly enacted law would limit abortions to 15 weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal anomalies. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only licensed abortion provider in the state, challenged the constitutionality of the law with legal support from Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). The US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgement in favor of the clinic and placed an injunction on the law’s enforcement. The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the district court decision in a 3-0 decision in November 2019. Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court, with their petition focusing on multiple questions from the appeals process. After repeatedly rescheduling the case, and multiple reviews in conference, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case. Most recently, the state has narrowed its argument, changing course, and attacking Roe v Wade directly. In a brief submitted in July 2021, the state argues the court should hold that all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional.

Interestingly, during this time the Mississippi legislature also passed a law, House Bill 2116, also known as the “fetal heartbeat bill,” banning abortion with gestational ages after detection of a fetal heartbeat. This was also challenged, deemed unconstitutional, and affirmed on appeal by the Fifth US Circuit Court.

While recent challenges have focused on the “undue burden” state laws placed on those trying to access abortion care, this case will bring the issue of “viability” and gestational age limits to the forefront.^4,5 In addition to Roe v Wade, the Court will have the opportunity to reexamine other relevant precedent, such as Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, in considering the most recent arguments of the state. In this most recent brief, the state argues that the Court should, “reject viability as a barrier to prohibiting elective abortions” and that a “viability rule has no constitutional basis.” The state goes on to argue the “Constitution does not protect a right to abortion or limit States’ authority to restrict it.”⁶ The language and tone in this brief are more direct and aggressive than the states’ petition submitted last June.

However, the composition of the Court is different than in the past. This case will be argued with Justice Amy Coney Barrett seated in place of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a strong advocate for women’s rights.⁷ She joins Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also appointed by President Donald Trump and widely viewed as conservative judges, tipping the scales to a more conservative Supreme Court. This case will also be argued in a polarized political environment.^8,9 Given the conservative Supreme Court in the setting of an increasingly politically charged environment, reproductive right advocates are understandably worried that members of the anti-abortion movement view this as an opportunity to weaken or remove federal constitutional protections for abortion.

Continue to: Potential outcome of Dobbs v Jackson...

Should SCOTUS choose to rule in favor of Mississippi, it could severely weaken, or even overturn Roe v Wade. This would leave a legal path for states with pre-Roe abortion bans and currently unenforced post-Roe bans to take effect. These “trigger” laws are bans or severe restrictions on abortion providers and patients intended to take effect if Roe were to be overturned. Alternatively, the Court may overturn Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, but maintain Roe v Wade, essentially leaving the regulation of pre-viability abortion care to individual states. Currently 21 states have laws that would restrict the legal status of abortion.¹⁰ In addition, state legislatures are aggressively introducing abortion restrictions. As of June 2021, there have been 561 abortion restrictions, including 165 abortion bans, introduced across 47 states, putting 2021 on course to be the most devastating anti-abortion state legislative session in decades.¹¹

The damage caused by such restriction on abortion care would be significant. It would block or push access out of reach for many. The negative effects of such legislative action would most heavily burden those already marginalized by systemic, structural inequalities including those of low socioeconomic status, people of color, young people, those in rural communities, and members of the LGBTQ community. The medical community has long recognized the harm caused by restricting access to abortion care. Restriction of access to safe abortion care paradoxically has been shown not to decrease the incidence of abortion, but rather increases the number of unsafe abortions.¹² The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) acknowledge “individuals require access to safe, legal abortion” and that this represents “a necessary component for comprehensive health care.”^13,14 They joined the American Medical Association and other professional groups in a 2019 amicus brief to SCOTUS opposing restrictions on abortion access.¹⁵ In addition, government laws restricting access to abortion care undermine the fundamental relationship between a person and their physician, limiting a physician’s obligation to honor patient autonomy and provide appropriate medical care.

By taking up the question whether all pre-viability bans on elective abortions violate the Constitution, SCOTUS is indicating a possible willingness to revisit the central holding of abortion jurisprudence. Their decision regarding this case will likely be the most significant ruling regarding the legal status of abortion care in decades, and will significantly affect the delivery of abortion care in the future.

Action items

• Reach out to your representatives to support the Women’s Health Protection Act, an initiative introduced to Congress to protect access to abortion care. If you reside in a state where your federal representatives support the Women’s Health Protection Act, reach out to friends and colleagues in states without supportive elected officials and ask them to call their representatives and ask them to support the bill.
• Get involved with local grassroots groups fighting to protect abortion access.
• Continue to speak out against laws and policies designed to limit access to safe abortion care.
• Connect with your local ACOG chapter for more ways to become involved.
• As always, make sure you are registered to vote, and exercise your right whenever you can.

This fall, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will announce when they will hear oral arguments for Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court will examine a Mississippi law, known as the “Gestational Age Act,” originally passed in 2018, that sought to “limit abortions to fifteen weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal abnormality.”¹ This sets the stage for SCOTUS to make a major ruling on abortion, one which could affirm or upend landmark decisions and nearly 50 years of abortion legislative precedent. Additionally, SCOTUS’ recent decision to not intervene on Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which essentially bans all abortions after 6 weeks’ gestational age, may foreshadow how this case will be decided. The current abortion restrictions in Texas and the implications of SB8 will be discussed in a forthcoming column.

SCOTUS and abortion rights

The decision to hear this case comes on the heels of another recent decision regarding a Louisiana law in June Medical Services v Russo. This case examined Louisiana Act 620, which would have required physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.² The law was deemed constitutionally invalid, with the majority noting the law would have drastically burdened a woman’s right to access abortion services. The Court ruled similarly in 2016 in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v Hellerstedt, in which WWH challenged Texas House Bill 2, a nearly identical law requiring admitting privileges for abortion care providers. In both of these cases, SCOTUS pointed to precedent set by Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, which established that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ The precedent to this, Roe v Wade, and 5 decades of abortion legislation set may be upended by a SCOTUS decision this next term.

Dobbs v Jackson

On March 19, 2018, Mississippi enacted the “Gestational Age Act” into law. The newly enacted law would limit abortions to 15 weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal anomalies. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only licensed abortion provider in the state, challenged the constitutionality of the law with legal support from Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). The US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgement in favor of the clinic and placed an injunction on the law’s enforcement. The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the district court decision in a 3-0 decision in November 2019. Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court, with their petition focusing on multiple questions from the appeals process. After repeatedly rescheduling the case, and multiple reviews in conference, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case. Most recently, the state has narrowed its argument, changing course, and attacking Roe v Wade directly. In a brief submitted in July 2021, the state argues the court should hold that all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional.

Interestingly, during this time the Mississippi legislature also passed a law, House Bill 2116, also known as the “fetal heartbeat bill,” banning abortion with gestational ages after detection of a fetal heartbeat. This was also challenged, deemed unconstitutional, and affirmed on appeal by the Fifth US Circuit Court.

While recent challenges have focused on the “undue burden” state laws placed on those trying to access abortion care, this case will bring the issue of “viability” and gestational age limits to the forefront.^4,5 In addition to Roe v Wade, the Court will have the opportunity to reexamine other relevant precedent, such as Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, in considering the most recent arguments of the state. In this most recent brief, the state argues that the Court should, “reject viability as a barrier to prohibiting elective abortions” and that a “viability rule has no constitutional basis.” The state goes on to argue the “Constitution does not protect a right to abortion or limit States’ authority to restrict it.”⁶ The language and tone in this brief are more direct and aggressive than the states’ petition submitted last June.

However, the composition of the Court is different than in the past. This case will be argued with Justice Amy Coney Barrett seated in place of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a strong advocate for women’s rights.⁷ She joins Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also appointed by President Donald Trump and widely viewed as conservative judges, tipping the scales to a more conservative Supreme Court. This case will also be argued in a polarized political environment.^8,9 Given the conservative Supreme Court in the setting of an increasingly politically charged environment, reproductive right advocates are understandably worried that members of the anti-abortion movement view this as an opportunity to weaken or remove federal constitutional protections for abortion.

Continue to: Potential outcome of Dobbs v Jackson...

Should SCOTUS choose to rule in favor of Mississippi, it could severely weaken, or even overturn Roe v Wade. This would leave a legal path for states with pre-Roe abortion bans and currently unenforced post-Roe bans to take effect. These “trigger” laws are bans or severe restrictions on abortion providers and patients intended to take effect if Roe were to be overturned. Alternatively, the Court may overturn Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, but maintain Roe v Wade, essentially leaving the regulation of pre-viability abortion care to individual states. Currently 21 states have laws that would restrict the legal status of abortion.¹⁰ In addition, state legislatures are aggressively introducing abortion restrictions. As of June 2021, there have been 561 abortion restrictions, including 165 abortion bans, introduced across 47 states, putting 2021 on course to be the most devastating anti-abortion state legislative session in decades.¹¹

The damage caused by such restriction on abortion care would be significant. It would block or push access out of reach for many. The negative effects of such legislative action would most heavily burden those already marginalized by systemic, structural inequalities including those of low socioeconomic status, people of color, young people, those in rural communities, and members of the LGBTQ community. The medical community has long recognized the harm caused by restricting access to abortion care. Restriction of access to safe abortion care paradoxically has been shown not to decrease the incidence of abortion, but rather increases the number of unsafe abortions.¹² The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) acknowledge “individuals require access to safe, legal abortion” and that this represents “a necessary component for comprehensive health care.”^13,14 They joined the American Medical Association and other professional groups in a 2019 amicus brief to SCOTUS opposing restrictions on abortion access.¹⁵ In addition, government laws restricting access to abortion care undermine the fundamental relationship between a person and their physician, limiting a physician’s obligation to honor patient autonomy and provide appropriate medical care.

By taking up the question whether all pre-viability bans on elective abortions violate the Constitution, SCOTUS is indicating a possible willingness to revisit the central holding of abortion jurisprudence. Their decision regarding this case will likely be the most significant ruling regarding the legal status of abortion care in decades, and will significantly affect the delivery of abortion care in the future.

Action items

• Reach out to your representatives to support the Women’s Health Protection Act, an initiative introduced to Congress to protect access to abortion care. If you reside in a state where your federal representatives support the Women’s Health Protection Act, reach out to friends and colleagues in states without supportive elected officials and ask them to call their representatives and ask them to support the bill.
• Get involved with local grassroots groups fighting to protect abortion access.
• Continue to speak out against laws and policies designed to limit access to safe abortion care.
• Connect with your local ACOG chapter for more ways to become involved.
• As always, make sure you are registered to vote, and exercise your right whenever you can.

This fall, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will announce when they will hear oral arguments for Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court will examine a Mississippi law, known as the “Gestational Age Act,” originally passed in 2018, that sought to “limit abortions to fifteen weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal abnormality.”¹ This sets the stage for SCOTUS to make a major ruling on abortion, one which could affirm or upend landmark decisions and nearly 50 years of abortion legislative precedent. Additionally, SCOTUS’ recent decision to not intervene on Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which essentially bans all abortions after 6 weeks’ gestational age, may foreshadow how this case will be decided. The current abortion restrictions in Texas and the implications of SB8 will be discussed in a forthcoming column.

SCOTUS and abortion rights

The decision to hear this case comes on the heels of another recent decision regarding a Louisiana law in June Medical Services v Russo. This case examined Louisiana Act 620, which would have required physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.² The law was deemed constitutionally invalid, with the majority noting the law would have drastically burdened a woman’s right to access abortion services. The Court ruled similarly in 2016 in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v Hellerstedt, in which WWH challenged Texas House Bill 2, a nearly identical law requiring admitting privileges for abortion care providers. In both of these cases, SCOTUS pointed to precedent set by Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, which established that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ The precedent to this, Roe v Wade, and 5 decades of abortion legislation set may be upended by a SCOTUS decision this next term.

Dobbs v Jackson

On March 19, 2018, Mississippi enacted the “Gestational Age Act” into law. The newly enacted law would limit abortions to 15 weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal anomalies. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only licensed abortion provider in the state, challenged the constitutionality of the law with legal support from Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). The US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgement in favor of the clinic and placed an injunction on the law’s enforcement. The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the district court decision in a 3-0 decision in November 2019. Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court, with their petition focusing on multiple questions from the appeals process. After repeatedly rescheduling the case, and multiple reviews in conference, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case. Most recently, the state has narrowed its argument, changing course, and attacking Roe v Wade directly. In a brief submitted in July 2021, the state argues the court should hold that all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional.

Interestingly, during this time the Mississippi legislature also passed a law, House Bill 2116, also known as the “fetal heartbeat bill,” banning abortion with gestational ages after detection of a fetal heartbeat. This was also challenged, deemed unconstitutional, and affirmed on appeal by the Fifth US Circuit Court.

While recent challenges have focused on the “undue burden” state laws placed on those trying to access abortion care, this case will bring the issue of “viability” and gestational age limits to the forefront.^4,5 In addition to Roe v Wade, the Court will have the opportunity to reexamine other relevant precedent, such as Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, in considering the most recent arguments of the state. In this most recent brief, the state argues that the Court should, “reject viability as a barrier to prohibiting elective abortions” and that a “viability rule has no constitutional basis.” The state goes on to argue the “Constitution does not protect a right to abortion or limit States’ authority to restrict it.”⁶ The language and tone in this brief are more direct and aggressive than the states’ petition submitted last June.

However, the composition of the Court is different than in the past. This case will be argued with Justice Amy Coney Barrett seated in place of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a strong advocate for women’s rights.⁷ She joins Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also appointed by President Donald Trump and widely viewed as conservative judges, tipping the scales to a more conservative Supreme Court. This case will also be argued in a polarized political environment.^8,9 Given the conservative Supreme Court in the setting of an increasingly politically charged environment, reproductive right advocates are understandably worried that members of the anti-abortion movement view this as an opportunity to weaken or remove federal constitutional protections for abortion.

Continue to: Potential outcome of Dobbs v Jackson...

Should SCOTUS choose to rule in favor of Mississippi, it could severely weaken, or even overturn Roe v Wade. This would leave a legal path for states with pre-Roe abortion bans and currently unenforced post-Roe bans to take effect. These “trigger” laws are bans or severe restrictions on abortion providers and patients intended to take effect if Roe were to be overturned. Alternatively, the Court may overturn Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, but maintain Roe v Wade, essentially leaving the regulation of pre-viability abortion care to individual states. Currently 21 states have laws that would restrict the legal status of abortion.¹⁰ In addition, state legislatures are aggressively introducing abortion restrictions. As of June 2021, there have been 561 abortion restrictions, including 165 abortion bans, introduced across 47 states, putting 2021 on course to be the most devastating anti-abortion state legislative session in decades.¹¹

The damage caused by such restriction on abortion care would be significant. It would block or push access out of reach for many. The negative effects of such legislative action would most heavily burden those already marginalized by systemic, structural inequalities including those of low socioeconomic status, people of color, young people, those in rural communities, and members of the LGBTQ community. The medical community has long recognized the harm caused by restricting access to abortion care. Restriction of access to safe abortion care paradoxically has been shown not to decrease the incidence of abortion, but rather increases the number of unsafe abortions.¹² The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) acknowledge “individuals require access to safe, legal abortion” and that this represents “a necessary component for comprehensive health care.”^13,14 They joined the American Medical Association and other professional groups in a 2019 amicus brief to SCOTUS opposing restrictions on abortion access.¹⁵ In addition, government laws restricting access to abortion care undermine the fundamental relationship between a person and their physician, limiting a physician’s obligation to honor patient autonomy and provide appropriate medical care.

By taking up the question whether all pre-viability bans on elective abortions violate the Constitution, SCOTUS is indicating a possible willingness to revisit the central holding of abortion jurisprudence. Their decision regarding this case will likely be the most significant ruling regarding the legal status of abortion care in decades, and will significantly affect the delivery of abortion care in the future.

Action items

• Reach out to your representatives to support the Women’s Health Protection Act, an initiative introduced to Congress to protect access to abortion care. If you reside in a state where your federal representatives support the Women’s Health Protection Act, reach out to friends and colleagues in states without supportive elected officials and ask them to call their representatives and ask them to support the bill.
• Get involved with local grassroots groups fighting to protect abortion access.
• Continue to speak out against laws and policies designed to limit access to safe abortion care.
• Connect with your local ACOG chapter for more ways to become involved.
• As always, make sure you are registered to vote, and exercise your right whenever you can.

In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with other organizations and physicians (Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, Honor MacNaughton, MD), filed a civil action against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the requirements of in-person mifepristone dispensing, which was one of the 3 restrictions placed on the medicine as part of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). The requirements, which also include provider certification and patient signatures on specified consent forms, specifically target dosages of mifepristone for use related to abortions and miscarriages but do not apply when prescribing mifepristone for other medical conditions, even with higher doses. During the pandemic, the FDA suspended the REMS requirements for many other medications, including those more toxic than mifepristone. Additionally, the HHS activated a “telemedicine exception” that allows physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids, while minimizing the patient’s and provider’s risk of exposure to COVID-19 with in-person appointments. Notably, mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage management was excluded from this relaxation of the REMS requirement.

On July 13, 2020, a Federal District Court concluded that the in-person requirements were a “substantial obstacle” for women seeking abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements for mifepristone. We wrote about what that decision meant for ObGyns and urged clinicians to advocate to make the injunction permanent (OBG Manag. 2020;32(12):13-14, 23, 38. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0034.)

From there, however, the FDA worked to reverse that decision, which included applications to the District Court and to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. If successful, this would suspend the injunction while the case was pending. In October, after the Supreme Court deferred review of the application (preferring a review by the lower courts), the District Court upheld the injunction of the in-person requirements citing the worsening pandemic crisis.

In-person requirement re-instated

On January 12, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted the stay of the District Court’s injunction, which allowed the federal government to enforce the in-person requirement for mifepristone once again. The decision came down to a vote of 6 to 3. As is typical for decisions on stay orders, the court did not release a majority opinion explaining the reasoning behind this decision. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision was not a judgment of if the requirements for in-person dispensing of mifepristone imposed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Instead, the Chief Justice explained that the decision came down to if a District Court could order the FDA to change their regulations based on “the court’s own evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic,” maintaining that the court could not overrule “the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”¹ No other justices joined his opinion.

A worrisome pattern of a conservative supermajority

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the government’s “statistically insignificant, cherry-picked data” and argued that the government did not provide any explanation from an FDA or HHS official explaining why mifepristone’s in-person requirement is more important than the in-person requirements of other drugs that have been waived during the pandemic.² Therefore, she explained, there is “no reasoned decision” by any health official anywhere on which they can base the decision to grant the stay.

This ruling was the Supreme Court’s first major decision on reproductive health since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and may be an insight into future decisions of the new conservative supermajority on abortion and reproductive health issues. Particularly worrisome is what this decision could mean for stays in abortion cases that dictate whether or not the regulation is enforced during an active case. Even if cases are ruled in favor of patients and abortion providers, if the courts continue to allow enforcement of abortion restrictions during litigation, this could result in permanent closure of abortion clinics and prevent many individuals from accessing safe and legal abortion.

Looking toward the future

In the setting of almost 29 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 526,000 deaths, this stay order requires women seeking a medication abortion to make an appointment at a clinic, risking possible exposure to COVID-19, in order to access mifepristone.^3,4 The Biden administration can and should remove the FDA requirement for in-person delivery of mifepristone, which would mitigate the effects of the stay order and allow women to obtain medication abortions during the pandemic.

Take action

• Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe mifepristone after this stay order
• Minimize a patient’s wait time for mifepristone administration by blocking time in your weekly schedule for patients seeking abortion care
• Work with other providers and health care professionals in your area to submit petitions to the FDA

In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with other organizations and physicians (Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, Honor MacNaughton, MD), filed a civil action against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the requirements of in-person mifepristone dispensing, which was one of the 3 restrictions placed on the medicine as part of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). The requirements, which also include provider certification and patient signatures on specified consent forms, specifically target dosages of mifepristone for use related to abortions and miscarriages but do not apply when prescribing mifepristone for other medical conditions, even with higher doses. During the pandemic, the FDA suspended the REMS requirements for many other medications, including those more toxic than mifepristone. Additionally, the HHS activated a “telemedicine exception” that allows physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids, while minimizing the patient’s and provider’s risk of exposure to COVID-19 with in-person appointments. Notably, mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage management was excluded from this relaxation of the REMS requirement.

On July 13, 2020, a Federal District Court concluded that the in-person requirements were a “substantial obstacle” for women seeking abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements for mifepristone. We wrote about what that decision meant for ObGyns and urged clinicians to advocate to make the injunction permanent (OBG Manag. 2020;32(12):13-14, 23, 38. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0034.)

From there, however, the FDA worked to reverse that decision, which included applications to the District Court and to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. If successful, this would suspend the injunction while the case was pending. In October, after the Supreme Court deferred review of the application (preferring a review by the lower courts), the District Court upheld the injunction of the in-person requirements citing the worsening pandemic crisis.

In-person requirement re-instated

On January 12, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted the stay of the District Court’s injunction, which allowed the federal government to enforce the in-person requirement for mifepristone once again. The decision came down to a vote of 6 to 3. As is typical for decisions on stay orders, the court did not release a majority opinion explaining the reasoning behind this decision. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision was not a judgment of if the requirements for in-person dispensing of mifepristone imposed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Instead, the Chief Justice explained that the decision came down to if a District Court could order the FDA to change their regulations based on “the court’s own evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic,” maintaining that the court could not overrule “the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”¹ No other justices joined his opinion.

A worrisome pattern of a conservative supermajority

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the government’s “statistically insignificant, cherry-picked data” and argued that the government did not provide any explanation from an FDA or HHS official explaining why mifepristone’s in-person requirement is more important than the in-person requirements of other drugs that have been waived during the pandemic.² Therefore, she explained, there is “no reasoned decision” by any health official anywhere on which they can base the decision to grant the stay.

This ruling was the Supreme Court’s first major decision on reproductive health since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and may be an insight into future decisions of the new conservative supermajority on abortion and reproductive health issues. Particularly worrisome is what this decision could mean for stays in abortion cases that dictate whether or not the regulation is enforced during an active case. Even if cases are ruled in favor of patients and abortion providers, if the courts continue to allow enforcement of abortion restrictions during litigation, this could result in permanent closure of abortion clinics and prevent many individuals from accessing safe and legal abortion.

Looking toward the future

In the setting of almost 29 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 526,000 deaths, this stay order requires women seeking a medication abortion to make an appointment at a clinic, risking possible exposure to COVID-19, in order to access mifepristone.^3,4 The Biden administration can and should remove the FDA requirement for in-person delivery of mifepristone, which would mitigate the effects of the stay order and allow women to obtain medication abortions during the pandemic.

Take action

• Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe mifepristone after this stay order
• Minimize a patient’s wait time for mifepristone administration by blocking time in your weekly schedule for patients seeking abortion care
• Work with other providers and health care professionals in your area to submit petitions to the FDA

In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with other organizations and physicians (Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, Honor MacNaughton, MD), filed a civil action against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the requirements of in-person mifepristone dispensing, which was one of the 3 restrictions placed on the medicine as part of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). The requirements, which also include provider certification and patient signatures on specified consent forms, specifically target dosages of mifepristone for use related to abortions and miscarriages but do not apply when prescribing mifepristone for other medical conditions, even with higher doses. During the pandemic, the FDA suspended the REMS requirements for many other medications, including those more toxic than mifepristone. Additionally, the HHS activated a “telemedicine exception” that allows physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids, while minimizing the patient’s and provider’s risk of exposure to COVID-19 with in-person appointments. Notably, mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage management was excluded from this relaxation of the REMS requirement.

On July 13, 2020, a Federal District Court concluded that the in-person requirements were a “substantial obstacle” for women seeking abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements for mifepristone. We wrote about what that decision meant for ObGyns and urged clinicians to advocate to make the injunction permanent (OBG Manag. 2020;32(12):13-14, 23, 38. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0034.)

From there, however, the FDA worked to reverse that decision, which included applications to the District Court and to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. If successful, this would suspend the injunction while the case was pending. In October, after the Supreme Court deferred review of the application (preferring a review by the lower courts), the District Court upheld the injunction of the in-person requirements citing the worsening pandemic crisis.

In-person requirement re-instated

On January 12, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted the stay of the District Court’s injunction, which allowed the federal government to enforce the in-person requirement for mifepristone once again. The decision came down to a vote of 6 to 3. As is typical for decisions on stay orders, the court did not release a majority opinion explaining the reasoning behind this decision. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision was not a judgment of if the requirements for in-person dispensing of mifepristone imposed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Instead, the Chief Justice explained that the decision came down to if a District Court could order the FDA to change their regulations based on “the court’s own evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic,” maintaining that the court could not overrule “the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”¹ No other justices joined his opinion.

A worrisome pattern of a conservative supermajority

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the government’s “statistically insignificant, cherry-picked data” and argued that the government did not provide any explanation from an FDA or HHS official explaining why mifepristone’s in-person requirement is more important than the in-person requirements of other drugs that have been waived during the pandemic.² Therefore, she explained, there is “no reasoned decision” by any health official anywhere on which they can base the decision to grant the stay.

This ruling was the Supreme Court’s first major decision on reproductive health since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and may be an insight into future decisions of the new conservative supermajority on abortion and reproductive health issues. Particularly worrisome is what this decision could mean for stays in abortion cases that dictate whether or not the regulation is enforced during an active case. Even if cases are ruled in favor of patients and abortion providers, if the courts continue to allow enforcement of abortion restrictions during litigation, this could result in permanent closure of abortion clinics and prevent many individuals from accessing safe and legal abortion.

Looking toward the future

In the setting of almost 29 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 526,000 deaths, this stay order requires women seeking a medication abortion to make an appointment at a clinic, risking possible exposure to COVID-19, in order to access mifepristone.^3,4 The Biden administration can and should remove the FDA requirement for in-person delivery of mifepristone, which would mitigate the effects of the stay order and allow women to obtain medication abortions during the pandemic.

Take action

• Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe mifepristone after this stay order
• Minimize a patient’s wait time for mifepristone administration by blocking time in your weekly schedule for patients seeking abortion care
• Work with other providers and health care professionals in your area to submit petitions to the FDA

CASE Black woman in stable labor expresses fear 
 

A 29-year-old Black woman (G1) at 39 0/7 weeks’ gestation presents to your labor and delivery unit reporting leaking fluid and contractions. She is found to have ruptured membranes and reassuring fetal testing. Her cervix is 4 cm dilated, and you recommend admission for expectant management of labor. She is otherwise healthy and has no significant medical history. 

As you are finishing admitting this patient, you ask if she has any remaining questions. She asks quietly, “Am I going to die today?”

You provide reassurance of her stable clinical picture, then pause and ask the patient about her fears. She looks at you and says, “They didn’t believe Serena Williams, so why would they believe me?”

Your patient is referencing Serena Williams’ harrowing and public postpartum course, complicated by a pulmonary embolism and several reoperations.¹ While many of us in the medical field may read this account as a story of challenges with an ultimate triumph, many expectant Black mothers hold Serena’s experience as a cautionary tale about deep-rooted inequities in our health care system that lead to potentially dangerous outcomes. 

Disparities in care 

They are right to be concerned. In the United States, Black mothers are 4 times more likely to die during or after pregnancy, mostly from preventable causes,² and nearly 50% more likely to have a preterm delivery.³ These disparities extend beyond the delivery room to all aspects of ObGyn care. Black women are 2 to 3 times more likely to die from cervical cancer, and they are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage, thus rendering treatment less effective.⁴ Black patients also have a higher burden of obesity, diabetes, and cardiac disease, and when they present to the hospital, receive evidence-based treatment at lower rates compared with White patients.⁵

Mourning the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, amongst the many other Black lives taken unjustly in the United States, has highlighted egregious practices against people of color embedded within the systems meant to protect and serve our communities. We as ObGyn physicians must take professional onus to recognize a devastating but humbling truth—systemic racism has long pervaded our health care practices and systems, and now more than ever, we must do more to stand by and for our patients. 

As ObGyns, we help support patients through some of the happiest, most vulnerable, and potentially most dire moments of their lives. We help patients through the birth of their children, reproductive struggles, gynecologic concerns, and cancer diagnoses. Many of us chose this field for the privilege of caring for patients at these critical moments in their lives, but we have often neglected the racism present in our practices, our hospital settings, and the medical system itself. We often fail to acknowledge our own implicit bias and the role that we play in contributing to acts and experiences of racism that our patients and our colleagues face on a daily basis. 

Racism in our origins 

The history of obstetrics and gynecology shows us a long record of physicians perpetrating injustices that target marginalized communities of color. Dr. James Sims, often given the title of “father of modern gynecology,” performed numerous experiments on unanesthetized Black female slaves to develop procedures for fistulae repair and other surgical techniques.⁶ Throughout the twentieth century, dating as recent as 1979, state laws written in the name of public safety forcibly sterilized women of color to control an “undesirable population.”⁷ When a patient of color declines a method of long-acting reversible contraception, birth control pills, or tubal ligation, do you take the time to reflect on the potential context of the patient’s decision? 

It is critical to recognize the legacy that these acts have on our patients today, leading to a higher burden of disease and an understandable distrust of the medical system. The uncovering of the unethical practices of the National Institutions of Health‒funded Tuskegee syphilis study, in which hundreds of Black men with latent syphilis were passively monitored despite the knowledge of a proven treatment, has attributed to a measurable decrease in life expectancy among Black males.⁸ Even as we face the COVID-19 pandemic, the undercurrent of racism continues to do harm. Black patients are 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than their White counterparts. This disparity, in part, is a product of a higher burden of comorbidities and the privilege associated with shelter-in-place policies, which disproportionately strain communities of color.⁹

We as a medical community need to do better for our patients. No matter how difficult to confront, each of us must acknowledge our own biases and our duty to combat persistent and perpetual racism in our medical system. We need to commit to amplifying the voices of our Black patients and colleagues. It is not enough to celebrate diversity for performance sake—it is time to recognize that diversity saves lives.

We have a responsibility to rectify these traditions of injustice and work toward a safer, more equitable, healthy future for our patients and their families. While this pledge may seem daunting, changes at individual and systems levels can make a difference for all patients that come through our doors. In addition, to honor our oath to “do no harm,” we must act; Black lives matter, and we are charged as medical providers to help our patients thrive, especially those from historically oppressed communities and who continue to suffer inexcusable injustices in health care and beyond. 

Take action

Here is a collection of ways to institute an antiracist environment and more equitable care for your patients.
 

Self-reflect and educate

• Learn about the role racism plays in ObGyn and modern medicine. One place to start: read “Medical Bondage: Race, Gender and the Origins of American Gynecology” by Deidre Cooper Owens. Also check out articles and key readings curated by the Black Mamas Matter Alliance. 
• Introduce and sustain antiracism training for all staff in your clinic or hospital system. To start, consider taking these free and quick implicit bias tests at a staff or department meeting. 
• Familiarize yourself and your colleagues with facets of reproductive justice—the human right to have children, to not have children, and to nurture children in a safe and healthy environment—and incorporate these values in your practice. Request trainings in reproductive justice from community groups like Sister Song. 
• Sign up for updates for state and national bills addressing health inequity and access to reproductive health services. Show your support by calling your congress-people, testifying, or donating to a cause that promotes these bills.  You can stay up to date on national issues with government affairs newsletters from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Sign up here. 
• Continue the conversation and re-evaluate your personal and institution’s efforts to combat racism and social and reproductive injustices. 

Provide access to high-quality reproductive health care

• Ask your patients what barriers they faced to come to your clinic and receive the care they needed. Consider incorporating the following screening tools regarding social determinants of health: PRAPARE screening tool, AAFP screening tool. 
• Promote access to insurance and support programs, including nutrition, exercise and wellness, and safe home and school environments. Look up resources available to your patients by their zip codes using AAFP’s Neighborhood Navigator. 
• Help patients access their medications at affordable prices in their neighborhoods by using free apps. Use the GoodRx app to identify discounts for prescriptions at various pharmacies, and search the Bedsider app to find out how your patients can get their birth control for free and delivered to their homes.
• Expand access to language services for patients who do not speak English as their first language. If working in a resource-limited setting, use the Google Translate app. Print out these free handouts for birth control fact sheets in different languages. 
• Establish standardized protocols for common treatment paradigms to reduce the influence of bias in clinical scenarios. For example, institute a protocol for managing postoperative pain to ensure equal access to treatment. 
• Institute the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) patient safety bundle on the Reduction of Peripartum Racial/Ethnic Disparities. Learn more about AIM’s maternal safety and quality improvement initiative to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality here. 

Support a diverse workforce

• Designate and/or hire a Diversity and Inclusion Officer at your institution to ensure that hiring practices actively achieve a diverse workforce and that employees feel supported in the work environment. Consider coalition-building between hospitals, like the UPHS-CHOP Alliance of Minority Physicians.
• Recruit diverse applicants by advertising positions to groups that focus on the advancement of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Engage with your local chapter of the National Medical Association and American Medical Women’s Association. 
• Have a system in place for anonymous reporting of incidents involving bias or discrimination against staff, and develop a protocol to ensure action is taken in case of such incidents.
• Institute a recurring conference or Grand Rounds across disciplines to discuss the impacts of bias and discrimination on patients and providers at your institution. View examples of these conferences here.
• Ensure invited speakers and other educational opportunities are comprised of diverse representation.
• Create a work environment with safe spaces for the discussion of racism, discrimination, and bias. 

CASE Black woman in stable labor expresses fear 
 

A 29-year-old Black woman (G1) at 39 0/7 weeks’ gestation presents to your labor and delivery unit reporting leaking fluid and contractions. She is found to have ruptured membranes and reassuring fetal testing. Her cervix is 4 cm dilated, and you recommend admission for expectant management of labor. She is otherwise healthy and has no significant medical history. 

As you are finishing admitting this patient, you ask if she has any remaining questions. She asks quietly, “Am I going to die today?”

You provide reassurance of her stable clinical picture, then pause and ask the patient about her fears. She looks at you and says, “They didn’t believe Serena Williams, so why would they believe me?”

Your patient is referencing Serena Williams’ harrowing and public postpartum course, complicated by a pulmonary embolism and several reoperations.¹ While many of us in the medical field may read this account as a story of challenges with an ultimate triumph, many expectant Black mothers hold Serena’s experience as a cautionary tale about deep-rooted inequities in our health care system that lead to potentially dangerous outcomes. 

Disparities in care 

They are right to be concerned. In the United States, Black mothers are 4 times more likely to die during or after pregnancy, mostly from preventable causes,² and nearly 50% more likely to have a preterm delivery.³ These disparities extend beyond the delivery room to all aspects of ObGyn care. Black women are 2 to 3 times more likely to die from cervical cancer, and they are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage, thus rendering treatment less effective.⁴ Black patients also have a higher burden of obesity, diabetes, and cardiac disease, and when they present to the hospital, receive evidence-based treatment at lower rates compared with White patients.⁵

Mourning the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, amongst the many other Black lives taken unjustly in the United States, has highlighted egregious practices against people of color embedded within the systems meant to protect and serve our communities. We as ObGyn physicians must take professional onus to recognize a devastating but humbling truth—systemic racism has long pervaded our health care practices and systems, and now more than ever, we must do more to stand by and for our patients. 

As ObGyns, we help support patients through some of the happiest, most vulnerable, and potentially most dire moments of their lives. We help patients through the birth of their children, reproductive struggles, gynecologic concerns, and cancer diagnoses. Many of us chose this field for the privilege of caring for patients at these critical moments in their lives, but we have often neglected the racism present in our practices, our hospital settings, and the medical system itself. We often fail to acknowledge our own implicit bias and the role that we play in contributing to acts and experiences of racism that our patients and our colleagues face on a daily basis. 

Racism in our origins 

The history of obstetrics and gynecology shows us a long record of physicians perpetrating injustices that target marginalized communities of color. Dr. James Sims, often given the title of “father of modern gynecology,” performed numerous experiments on unanesthetized Black female slaves to develop procedures for fistulae repair and other surgical techniques.⁶ Throughout the twentieth century, dating as recent as 1979, state laws written in the name of public safety forcibly sterilized women of color to control an “undesirable population.”⁷ When a patient of color declines a method of long-acting reversible contraception, birth control pills, or tubal ligation, do you take the time to reflect on the potential context of the patient’s decision? 

It is critical to recognize the legacy that these acts have on our patients today, leading to a higher burden of disease and an understandable distrust of the medical system. The uncovering of the unethical practices of the National Institutions of Health‒funded Tuskegee syphilis study, in which hundreds of Black men with latent syphilis were passively monitored despite the knowledge of a proven treatment, has attributed to a measurable decrease in life expectancy among Black males.⁸ Even as we face the COVID-19 pandemic, the undercurrent of racism continues to do harm. Black patients are 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than their White counterparts. This disparity, in part, is a product of a higher burden of comorbidities and the privilege associated with shelter-in-place policies, which disproportionately strain communities of color.⁹

We as a medical community need to do better for our patients. No matter how difficult to confront, each of us must acknowledge our own biases and our duty to combat persistent and perpetual racism in our medical system. We need to commit to amplifying the voices of our Black patients and colleagues. It is not enough to celebrate diversity for performance sake—it is time to recognize that diversity saves lives.

We have a responsibility to rectify these traditions of injustice and work toward a safer, more equitable, healthy future for our patients and their families. While this pledge may seem daunting, changes at individual and systems levels can make a difference for all patients that come through our doors. In addition, to honor our oath to “do no harm,” we must act; Black lives matter, and we are charged as medical providers to help our patients thrive, especially those from historically oppressed communities and who continue to suffer inexcusable injustices in health care and beyond. 

Take action

Here is a collection of ways to institute an antiracist environment and more equitable care for your patients.
 

Self-reflect and educate

• Learn about the role racism plays in ObGyn and modern medicine. One place to start: read “Medical Bondage: Race, Gender and the Origins of American Gynecology” by Deidre Cooper Owens. Also check out articles and key readings curated by the Black Mamas Matter Alliance. 
• Introduce and sustain antiracism training for all staff in your clinic or hospital system. To start, consider taking these free and quick implicit bias tests at a staff or department meeting. 
• Familiarize yourself and your colleagues with facets of reproductive justice—the human right to have children, to not have children, and to nurture children in a safe and healthy environment—and incorporate these values in your practice. Request trainings in reproductive justice from community groups like Sister Song. 
• Sign up for updates for state and national bills addressing health inequity and access to reproductive health services. Show your support by calling your congress-people, testifying, or donating to a cause that promotes these bills.  You can stay up to date on national issues with government affairs newsletters from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Sign up here. 
• Continue the conversation and re-evaluate your personal and institution’s efforts to combat racism and social and reproductive injustices. 

Provide access to high-quality reproductive health care

• Ask your patients what barriers they faced to come to your clinic and receive the care they needed. Consider incorporating the following screening tools regarding social determinants of health: PRAPARE screening tool, AAFP screening tool. 
• Promote access to insurance and support programs, including nutrition, exercise and wellness, and safe home and school environments. Look up resources available to your patients by their zip codes using AAFP’s Neighborhood Navigator. 
• Help patients access their medications at affordable prices in their neighborhoods by using free apps. Use the GoodRx app to identify discounts for prescriptions at various pharmacies, and search the Bedsider app to find out how your patients can get their birth control for free and delivered to their homes.
• Expand access to language services for patients who do not speak English as their first language. If working in a resource-limited setting, use the Google Translate app. Print out these free handouts for birth control fact sheets in different languages. 
• Establish standardized protocols for common treatment paradigms to reduce the influence of bias in clinical scenarios. For example, institute a protocol for managing postoperative pain to ensure equal access to treatment. 
• Institute the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) patient safety bundle on the Reduction of Peripartum Racial/Ethnic Disparities. Learn more about AIM’s maternal safety and quality improvement initiative to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality here. 

Support a diverse workforce

• Designate and/or hire a Diversity and Inclusion Officer at your institution to ensure that hiring practices actively achieve a diverse workforce and that employees feel supported in the work environment. Consider coalition-building between hospitals, like the UPHS-CHOP Alliance of Minority Physicians.
• Recruit diverse applicants by advertising positions to groups that focus on the advancement of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Engage with your local chapter of the National Medical Association and American Medical Women’s Association. 
• Have a system in place for anonymous reporting of incidents involving bias or discrimination against staff, and develop a protocol to ensure action is taken in case of such incidents.
• Institute a recurring conference or Grand Rounds across disciplines to discuss the impacts of bias and discrimination on patients and providers at your institution. View examples of these conferences here.
• Ensure invited speakers and other educational opportunities are comprised of diverse representation.
• Create a work environment with safe spaces for the discussion of racism, discrimination, and bias. 

CASE Black woman in stable labor expresses fear 
 

A 29-year-old Black woman (G1) at 39 0/7 weeks’ gestation presents to your labor and delivery unit reporting leaking fluid and contractions. She is found to have ruptured membranes and reassuring fetal testing. Her cervix is 4 cm dilated, and you recommend admission for expectant management of labor. She is otherwise healthy and has no significant medical history. 

As you are finishing admitting this patient, you ask if she has any remaining questions. She asks quietly, “Am I going to die today?”

You provide reassurance of her stable clinical picture, then pause and ask the patient about her fears. She looks at you and says, “They didn’t believe Serena Williams, so why would they believe me?”

Your patient is referencing Serena Williams’ harrowing and public postpartum course, complicated by a pulmonary embolism and several reoperations.¹ While many of us in the medical field may read this account as a story of challenges with an ultimate triumph, many expectant Black mothers hold Serena’s experience as a cautionary tale about deep-rooted inequities in our health care system that lead to potentially dangerous outcomes. 

Disparities in care 

They are right to be concerned. In the United States, Black mothers are 4 times more likely to die during or after pregnancy, mostly from preventable causes,² and nearly 50% more likely to have a preterm delivery.³ These disparities extend beyond the delivery room to all aspects of ObGyn care. Black women are 2 to 3 times more likely to die from cervical cancer, and they are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage, thus rendering treatment less effective.⁴ Black patients also have a higher burden of obesity, diabetes, and cardiac disease, and when they present to the hospital, receive evidence-based treatment at lower rates compared with White patients.⁵

Mourning the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, amongst the many other Black lives taken unjustly in the United States, has highlighted egregious practices against people of color embedded within the systems meant to protect and serve our communities. We as ObGyn physicians must take professional onus to recognize a devastating but humbling truth—systemic racism has long pervaded our health care practices and systems, and now more than ever, we must do more to stand by and for our patients. 

As ObGyns, we help support patients through some of the happiest, most vulnerable, and potentially most dire moments of their lives. We help patients through the birth of their children, reproductive struggles, gynecologic concerns, and cancer diagnoses. Many of us chose this field for the privilege of caring for patients at these critical moments in their lives, but we have often neglected the racism present in our practices, our hospital settings, and the medical system itself. We often fail to acknowledge our own implicit bias and the role that we play in contributing to acts and experiences of racism that our patients and our colleagues face on a daily basis. 

Racism in our origins 

The history of obstetrics and gynecology shows us a long record of physicians perpetrating injustices that target marginalized communities of color. Dr. James Sims, often given the title of “father of modern gynecology,” performed numerous experiments on unanesthetized Black female slaves to develop procedures for fistulae repair and other surgical techniques.⁶ Throughout the twentieth century, dating as recent as 1979, state laws written in the name of public safety forcibly sterilized women of color to control an “undesirable population.”⁷ When a patient of color declines a method of long-acting reversible contraception, birth control pills, or tubal ligation, do you take the time to reflect on the potential context of the patient’s decision? 

It is critical to recognize the legacy that these acts have on our patients today, leading to a higher burden of disease and an understandable distrust of the medical system. The uncovering of the unethical practices of the National Institutions of Health‒funded Tuskegee syphilis study, in which hundreds of Black men with latent syphilis were passively monitored despite the knowledge of a proven treatment, has attributed to a measurable decrease in life expectancy among Black males.⁸ Even as we face the COVID-19 pandemic, the undercurrent of racism continues to do harm. Black patients are 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than their White counterparts. This disparity, in part, is a product of a higher burden of comorbidities and the privilege associated with shelter-in-place policies, which disproportionately strain communities of color.⁹

We as a medical community need to do better for our patients. No matter how difficult to confront, each of us must acknowledge our own biases and our duty to combat persistent and perpetual racism in our medical system. We need to commit to amplifying the voices of our Black patients and colleagues. It is not enough to celebrate diversity for performance sake—it is time to recognize that diversity saves lives.

We have a responsibility to rectify these traditions of injustice and work toward a safer, more equitable, healthy future for our patients and their families. While this pledge may seem daunting, changes at individual and systems levels can make a difference for all patients that come through our doors. In addition, to honor our oath to “do no harm,” we must act; Black lives matter, and we are charged as medical providers to help our patients thrive, especially those from historically oppressed communities and who continue to suffer inexcusable injustices in health care and beyond. 

Take action

Here is a collection of ways to institute an antiracist environment and more equitable care for your patients.
 

Self-reflect and educate

• Learn about the role racism plays in ObGyn and modern medicine. One place to start: read “Medical Bondage: Race, Gender and the Origins of American Gynecology” by Deidre Cooper Owens. Also check out articles and key readings curated by the Black Mamas Matter Alliance. 
• Introduce and sustain antiracism training for all staff in your clinic or hospital system. To start, consider taking these free and quick implicit bias tests at a staff or department meeting. 
• Familiarize yourself and your colleagues with facets of reproductive justice—the human right to have children, to not have children, and to nurture children in a safe and healthy environment—and incorporate these values in your practice. Request trainings in reproductive justice from community groups like Sister Song. 
• Sign up for updates for state and national bills addressing health inequity and access to reproductive health services. Show your support by calling your congress-people, testifying, or donating to a cause that promotes these bills.  You can stay up to date on national issues with government affairs newsletters from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Sign up here. 
• Continue the conversation and re-evaluate your personal and institution’s efforts to combat racism and social and reproductive injustices. 

Provide access to high-quality reproductive health care

• Ask your patients what barriers they faced to come to your clinic and receive the care they needed. Consider incorporating the following screening tools regarding social determinants of health: PRAPARE screening tool, AAFP screening tool. 
• Promote access to insurance and support programs, including nutrition, exercise and wellness, and safe home and school environments. Look up resources available to your patients by their zip codes using AAFP’s Neighborhood Navigator. 
• Help patients access their medications at affordable prices in their neighborhoods by using free apps. Use the GoodRx app to identify discounts for prescriptions at various pharmacies, and search the Bedsider app to find out how your patients can get their birth control for free and delivered to their homes.
• Expand access to language services for patients who do not speak English as their first language. If working in a resource-limited setting, use the Google Translate app. Print out these free handouts for birth control fact sheets in different languages. 
• Establish standardized protocols for common treatment paradigms to reduce the influence of bias in clinical scenarios. For example, institute a protocol for managing postoperative pain to ensure equal access to treatment. 
• Institute the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) patient safety bundle on the Reduction of Peripartum Racial/Ethnic Disparities. Learn more about AIM’s maternal safety and quality improvement initiative to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality here. 

Support a diverse workforce

• Designate and/or hire a Diversity and Inclusion Officer at your institution to ensure that hiring practices actively achieve a diverse workforce and that employees feel supported in the work environment. Consider coalition-building between hospitals, like the UPHS-CHOP Alliance of Minority Physicians.
• Recruit diverse applicants by advertising positions to groups that focus on the advancement of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Engage with your local chapter of the National Medical Association and American Medical Women’s Association. 
• Have a system in place for anonymous reporting of incidents involving bias or discrimination against staff, and develop a protocol to ensure action is taken in case of such incidents.
• Institute a recurring conference or Grand Rounds across disciplines to discuss the impacts of bias and discrimination on patients and providers at your institution. View examples of these conferences here.
• Ensure invited speakers and other educational opportunities are comprised of diverse representation.
• Create a work environment with safe spaces for the discussion of racism, discrimination, and bias. 

On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear opening arguments for June Medical Services v. Russo. (Please note that this case was originally referred to as June Medical Services v. Gee. However, Secretary Rebekah Gee resigned from her position on January 31, 2020, and was replaced by Interim Secretary Stephen Russo.) The case will examine a Louisiana law (Louisiana Act 620, or LA 620), originally passed in 2014, that requires physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.¹ When LA 620 was signed into law in 2014, 5 of Louisiana’s 6 abortion clinics would not have met the standards created by this legislation and would have been forced to close, potentially leaving the vast majority of women in Louisiana without access to an abortion provider, and disproportionately impacting poor and rural women. Prior to enactment of this law, physicians at these 5 clinics attempted to obtain admitting privileges, and all were denied. The denials occurred due to two main reasons—because the providers admitted too few patients each year to qualify for hospital privileges or simply because they provided abortion care.² Shortly after this legislation was signed into law, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) challenged the law, citing the undue burden it created for patients attempting to access abortion care.
 

Prior case also considered question of hospital privileges for abortion providers

Interestingly, SCOTUS already has ruled on this very question. In 1992, the Court ruled in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ And in 2016, when considering whether or not requiring abortion providers to obtain hospital privileges creates an undue burden in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court’s answer was yes, it does. WWH, with legal aid from CRR, challenged Texas House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), which similar to LA 620, required abortion providers to have local admitting privileges. Based largely on the precedent set in Casey, SCOTUS ruled 5-3 in favor of WWH.

The Louisiana law currently in question was written and challenged in district court simultaneous to the Supreme Court’s review of WWH. The district court declared LA 620 invalid and permanently enjoined its enforcement, finding the law would “drastically burden women’s right to choose abortions.”⁴ However, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and overturned the district court decision, finding the lower court’s analysis erroneous and stating, “no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of [LA 620].” The Fifth Circuit panel ruled that, despite the precedent of WWH, LA 620 did not create an undue burden because of state-level differences in admitting privileges, demographics, and geography. They also found that only 30% of the 2 million women living in Louisiana would be impacted by the law, predominantly via longer wait times, and argued that this does not represent significant burden. The plaintiffs filed for an emergency stay with SCOTUS, who granted the stay pending a full hearing. On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear arguments to determine if the Fifth Circuit was correct in drawing a distinction between LA 620 and the SCOTUS verdict in WWH.

Targeted restrictions on abortion providers

LA 620 joins a long series of laws meant to enact targeted restrictions on abortion providers, or “TRAP” laws. TRAP laws are written to limit access to abortion under the guise of improving patient safety, despite ample evidence to the contrary, and include such various regulations as admitting privileges, facilities requirements, waiting periods, and parental or partner notification. Many such laws have been enacted in the last decade, and many struck down based on judicial precedent.

How the Supreme Court has ruled in the past

When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the court can either decline to hear the case, thereby leaving the lower courts’ ruling in place, or choose to hear the case in full and either affirm or overturn the lower court’s decision. After issuing a ruling in WWH, the 2016-2017 Roberts Court declined to hear challenges from other states with similarly overturned laws, leaving the laws struck down. In electing to hear June Medical Services v. Russo, the court has the opportunity to uphold or overturn the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision. However, today’s Supreme Court differs greatly from the Supreme Court in 2016.

In 2016, the court ruled 5-3 to overturn H.B. 2 in WWH shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia was replaced by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Constitutional originalist who has never directly ruled on an abortion case.⁵ In 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the court’s majority opinion on Casey and was among the majority on WWH, retired, and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has ruled once on the right to abortion in Garza v. Hargan in 2017, where he argued that precedent states that the government has “permissible interests in favoring fetal life…and refraining from facilitating abortion,” and that significant delay in care did not constitute undue burden.⁶ In regard to the 5-4 stay issued by the court in June Medical Services, Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in voting to deny the application for stay, and was the only justice to issue an opinion alongside the ruling, arguing that because the doctors in question had not applied for and been denied admitting privileges since the WWH ruling, the case hinges on theoretical rather than demonstrable undue burden.⁷ Appointed by President Donald Trump, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are widely considered to be conservative judges, and while neither has a strong judicial record on abortion rights, both are anticipated to side with the conservative majority on the court.

The Supreme Court rarely overturns its own precedent, but concerns are high

The question of precedent will be central in SCOTUS hearing June Medical Services v. Russo so quickly after the WWH decision. Additionally, in hearing this case, the court will have the opportunity to reexamine all relevant precedent, including the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision and even Roe v. Wade. With a conservative court and an increasingly charged political environment, reproductive rights advocates fear that the June Medical Services v. Russo ruling may be the first step toward dismantling judicial protection of abortion rights in the United States.

If SCOTUS rules against June Medical Services, stating that admitting privileges do not cause an undue burden for women seeking to access abortion care, other states likely will introduce and enact similar legislation. These TRAP laws have the potential to limit or eliminate access to abortion for 25 million people of reproductive age. Numerous studies have demonstrated that limiting access to abortion care does not decrease the number of abortions but can result in patients using unsafe means to obtain an abortion.⁸

The medical community recognizes the danger of enacting restrictive legislation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with the American Medical Association, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Association for Sexual and Reproductive Medicine, the American Association of Family Practitioners, and many others, filed an amicus curiae in support of the June Medical Services plaintiffs.⁹ These brief filings are critical to ensuring the courts hear physician voices in this important legal decision, and ACOG’s briefs have been quoted in several previous Supreme Court opinions, concurrences, and dissents.
 

Action items

• Although June Medical Services v. Russo’s decision will not be made until early summer 2020, we can continue to use our voices and expertise to speak out against laws designed to limit access to abortion—at the state and federal levels. As women’s health clinicians, we see the impact abortion restrictions have on our patients, especially our low income and rural patients. Sharing these stories with our legislators, testifying for or against legislation, and speaking out in our communities can have a powerful impact. Check with your local ACOG chapter or with ACOG’s state and government affairs office for more information.
• Follow along with this case at SCOTUS Blog.
• Lastly, make sure you are registered to vote. We are in an election year, and using our voices in and out of the ballot box is critical. You can register here.

On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear opening arguments for June Medical Services v. Russo. (Please note that this case was originally referred to as June Medical Services v. Gee. However, Secretary Rebekah Gee resigned from her position on January 31, 2020, and was replaced by Interim Secretary Stephen Russo.) The case will examine a Louisiana law (Louisiana Act 620, or LA 620), originally passed in 2014, that requires physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.¹ When LA 620 was signed into law in 2014, 5 of Louisiana’s 6 abortion clinics would not have met the standards created by this legislation and would have been forced to close, potentially leaving the vast majority of women in Louisiana without access to an abortion provider, and disproportionately impacting poor and rural women. Prior to enactment of this law, physicians at these 5 clinics attempted to obtain admitting privileges, and all were denied. The denials occurred due to two main reasons—because the providers admitted too few patients each year to qualify for hospital privileges or simply because they provided abortion care.² Shortly after this legislation was signed into law, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) challenged the law, citing the undue burden it created for patients attempting to access abortion care.
 

Prior case also considered question of hospital privileges for abortion providers

Interestingly, SCOTUS already has ruled on this very question. In 1992, the Court ruled in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ And in 2016, when considering whether or not requiring abortion providers to obtain hospital privileges creates an undue burden in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court’s answer was yes, it does. WWH, with legal aid from CRR, challenged Texas House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), which similar to LA 620, required abortion providers to have local admitting privileges. Based largely on the precedent set in Casey, SCOTUS ruled 5-3 in favor of WWH.

The Louisiana law currently in question was written and challenged in district court simultaneous to the Supreme Court’s review of WWH. The district court declared LA 620 invalid and permanently enjoined its enforcement, finding the law would “drastically burden women’s right to choose abortions.”⁴ However, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and overturned the district court decision, finding the lower court’s analysis erroneous and stating, “no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of [LA 620].” The Fifth Circuit panel ruled that, despite the precedent of WWH, LA 620 did not create an undue burden because of state-level differences in admitting privileges, demographics, and geography. They also found that only 30% of the 2 million women living in Louisiana would be impacted by the law, predominantly via longer wait times, and argued that this does not represent significant burden. The plaintiffs filed for an emergency stay with SCOTUS, who granted the stay pending a full hearing. On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear arguments to determine if the Fifth Circuit was correct in drawing a distinction between LA 620 and the SCOTUS verdict in WWH.

Targeted restrictions on abortion providers

LA 620 joins a long series of laws meant to enact targeted restrictions on abortion providers, or “TRAP” laws. TRAP laws are written to limit access to abortion under the guise of improving patient safety, despite ample evidence to the contrary, and include such various regulations as admitting privileges, facilities requirements, waiting periods, and parental or partner notification. Many such laws have been enacted in the last decade, and many struck down based on judicial precedent.

How the Supreme Court has ruled in the past

When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the court can either decline to hear the case, thereby leaving the lower courts’ ruling in place, or choose to hear the case in full and either affirm or overturn the lower court’s decision. After issuing a ruling in WWH, the 2016-2017 Roberts Court declined to hear challenges from other states with similarly overturned laws, leaving the laws struck down. In electing to hear June Medical Services v. Russo, the court has the opportunity to uphold or overturn the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision. However, today’s Supreme Court differs greatly from the Supreme Court in 2016.

In 2016, the court ruled 5-3 to overturn H.B. 2 in WWH shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia was replaced by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Constitutional originalist who has never directly ruled on an abortion case.⁵ In 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the court’s majority opinion on Casey and was among the majority on WWH, retired, and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has ruled once on the right to abortion in Garza v. Hargan in 2017, where he argued that precedent states that the government has “permissible interests in favoring fetal life…and refraining from facilitating abortion,” and that significant delay in care did not constitute undue burden.⁶ In regard to the 5-4 stay issued by the court in June Medical Services, Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in voting to deny the application for stay, and was the only justice to issue an opinion alongside the ruling, arguing that because the doctors in question had not applied for and been denied admitting privileges since the WWH ruling, the case hinges on theoretical rather than demonstrable undue burden.⁷ Appointed by President Donald Trump, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are widely considered to be conservative judges, and while neither has a strong judicial record on abortion rights, both are anticipated to side with the conservative majority on the court.

The Supreme Court rarely overturns its own precedent, but concerns are high

The question of precedent will be central in SCOTUS hearing June Medical Services v. Russo so quickly after the WWH decision. Additionally, in hearing this case, the court will have the opportunity to reexamine all relevant precedent, including the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision and even Roe v. Wade. With a conservative court and an increasingly charged political environment, reproductive rights advocates fear that the June Medical Services v. Russo ruling may be the first step toward dismantling judicial protection of abortion rights in the United States.

If SCOTUS rules against June Medical Services, stating that admitting privileges do not cause an undue burden for women seeking to access abortion care, other states likely will introduce and enact similar legislation. These TRAP laws have the potential to limit or eliminate access to abortion for 25 million people of reproductive age. Numerous studies have demonstrated that limiting access to abortion care does not decrease the number of abortions but can result in patients using unsafe means to obtain an abortion.⁸

The medical community recognizes the danger of enacting restrictive legislation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with the American Medical Association, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Association for Sexual and Reproductive Medicine, the American Association of Family Practitioners, and many others, filed an amicus curiae in support of the June Medical Services plaintiffs.⁹ These brief filings are critical to ensuring the courts hear physician voices in this important legal decision, and ACOG’s briefs have been quoted in several previous Supreme Court opinions, concurrences, and dissents.
 

Action items

• Although June Medical Services v. Russo’s decision will not be made until early summer 2020, we can continue to use our voices and expertise to speak out against laws designed to limit access to abortion—at the state and federal levels. As women’s health clinicians, we see the impact abortion restrictions have on our patients, especially our low income and rural patients. Sharing these stories with our legislators, testifying for or against legislation, and speaking out in our communities can have a powerful impact. Check with your local ACOG chapter or with ACOG’s state and government affairs office for more information.
• Follow along with this case at SCOTUS Blog.
• Lastly, make sure you are registered to vote. We are in an election year, and using our voices in and out of the ballot box is critical. You can register here.

On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear opening arguments for June Medical Services v. Russo. (Please note that this case was originally referred to as June Medical Services v. Gee. However, Secretary Rebekah Gee resigned from her position on January 31, 2020, and was replaced by Interim Secretary Stephen Russo.) The case will examine a Louisiana law (Louisiana Act 620, or LA 620), originally passed in 2014, that requires physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.¹ When LA 620 was signed into law in 2014, 5 of Louisiana’s 6 abortion clinics would not have met the standards created by this legislation and would have been forced to close, potentially leaving the vast majority of women in Louisiana without access to an abortion provider, and disproportionately impacting poor and rural women. Prior to enactment of this law, physicians at these 5 clinics attempted to obtain admitting privileges, and all were denied. The denials occurred due to two main reasons—because the providers admitted too few patients each year to qualify for hospital privileges or simply because they provided abortion care.² Shortly after this legislation was signed into law, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) challenged the law, citing the undue burden it created for patients attempting to access abortion care.
 

Prior case also considered question of hospital privileges for abortion providers

Interestingly, SCOTUS already has ruled on this very question. In 1992, the Court ruled in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ And in 2016, when considering whether or not requiring abortion providers to obtain hospital privileges creates an undue burden in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court’s answer was yes, it does. WWH, with legal aid from CRR, challenged Texas House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), which similar to LA 620, required abortion providers to have local admitting privileges. Based largely on the precedent set in Casey, SCOTUS ruled 5-3 in favor of WWH.

The Louisiana law currently in question was written and challenged in district court simultaneous to the Supreme Court’s review of WWH. The district court declared LA 620 invalid and permanently enjoined its enforcement, finding the law would “drastically burden women’s right to choose abortions.”⁴ However, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and overturned the district court decision, finding the lower court’s analysis erroneous and stating, “no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of [LA 620].” The Fifth Circuit panel ruled that, despite the precedent of WWH, LA 620 did not create an undue burden because of state-level differences in admitting privileges, demographics, and geography. They also found that only 30% of the 2 million women living in Louisiana would be impacted by the law, predominantly via longer wait times, and argued that this does not represent significant burden. The plaintiffs filed for an emergency stay with SCOTUS, who granted the stay pending a full hearing. On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear arguments to determine if the Fifth Circuit was correct in drawing a distinction between LA 620 and the SCOTUS verdict in WWH.

Targeted restrictions on abortion providers

LA 620 joins a long series of laws meant to enact targeted restrictions on abortion providers, or “TRAP” laws. TRAP laws are written to limit access to abortion under the guise of improving patient safety, despite ample evidence to the contrary, and include such various regulations as admitting privileges, facilities requirements, waiting periods, and parental or partner notification. Many such laws have been enacted in the last decade, and many struck down based on judicial precedent.

How the Supreme Court has ruled in the past

When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the court can either decline to hear the case, thereby leaving the lower courts’ ruling in place, or choose to hear the case in full and either affirm or overturn the lower court’s decision. After issuing a ruling in WWH, the 2016-2017 Roberts Court declined to hear challenges from other states with similarly overturned laws, leaving the laws struck down. In electing to hear June Medical Services v. Russo, the court has the opportunity to uphold or overturn the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision. However, today’s Supreme Court differs greatly from the Supreme Court in 2016.

In 2016, the court ruled 5-3 to overturn H.B. 2 in WWH shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia was replaced by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Constitutional originalist who has never directly ruled on an abortion case.⁵ In 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the court’s majority opinion on Casey and was among the majority on WWH, retired, and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has ruled once on the right to abortion in Garza v. Hargan in 2017, where he argued that precedent states that the government has “permissible interests in favoring fetal life…and refraining from facilitating abortion,” and that significant delay in care did not constitute undue burden.⁶ In regard to the 5-4 stay issued by the court in June Medical Services, Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in voting to deny the application for stay, and was the only justice to issue an opinion alongside the ruling, arguing that because the doctors in question had not applied for and been denied admitting privileges since the WWH ruling, the case hinges on theoretical rather than demonstrable undue burden.⁷ Appointed by President Donald Trump, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are widely considered to be conservative judges, and while neither has a strong judicial record on abortion rights, both are anticipated to side with the conservative majority on the court.

The Supreme Court rarely overturns its own precedent, but concerns are high

The question of precedent will be central in SCOTUS hearing June Medical Services v. Russo so quickly after the WWH decision. Additionally, in hearing this case, the court will have the opportunity to reexamine all relevant precedent, including the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision and even Roe v. Wade. With a conservative court and an increasingly charged political environment, reproductive rights advocates fear that the June Medical Services v. Russo ruling may be the first step toward dismantling judicial protection of abortion rights in the United States.

If SCOTUS rules against June Medical Services, stating that admitting privileges do not cause an undue burden for women seeking to access abortion care, other states likely will introduce and enact similar legislation. These TRAP laws have the potential to limit or eliminate access to abortion for 25 million people of reproductive age. Numerous studies have demonstrated that limiting access to abortion care does not decrease the number of abortions but can result in patients using unsafe means to obtain an abortion.⁸

The medical community recognizes the danger of enacting restrictive legislation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with the American Medical Association, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Association for Sexual and Reproductive Medicine, the American Association of Family Practitioners, and many others, filed an amicus curiae in support of the June Medical Services plaintiffs.⁹ These brief filings are critical to ensuring the courts hear physician voices in this important legal decision, and ACOG’s briefs have been quoted in several previous Supreme Court opinions, concurrences, and dissents.
 

Action items

• Although June Medical Services v. Russo’s decision will not be made until early summer 2020, we can continue to use our voices and expertise to speak out against laws designed to limit access to abortion—at the state and federal levels. As women’s health clinicians, we see the impact abortion restrictions have on our patients, especially our low income and rural patients. Sharing these stories with our legislators, testifying for or against legislation, and speaking out in our communities can have a powerful impact. Check with your local ACOG chapter or with ACOG’s state and government affairs office for more information.
• Follow along with this case at SCOTUS Blog.
• Lastly, make sure you are registered to vote. We are in an election year, and using our voices in and out of the ballot box is critical. You can register here.

A new American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) committee opinion addresses how contraception access can be improved through over-the-counter (OTC) hormonal contraception for people of all ages—including oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), progesterone-only pills, the patch, vaginal rings, and depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA). Although ACOG endorses OTC contraception, some health care providers may be hesitant to support the increase in accessibility for a variety of reasons. We are hopeful that we address these concerns and that all clinicians can move to support ACOG’s position.

Easing access to hormonal contraception is a first step

OCPs are the most widely used contraception among teens and women of reproductive age in the United States.¹ Although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated health insurance coverage for contraception, many barriers continue to exist, including obtaining a prescription. Only 13 states have made it legal to obtain hormonal contraception through a pharmacist.² There also has been an increase in the number of telemedicine and online services that deliver contraceptives to individuals’ homes. While these efforts have helped to decrease barriers to hormonal contraception access for some patients, they only reach a small segment of the population. As clinicians, we should strive to make contraception universally accessible and affordable to everyone who desires to use it. OTC provision can bring us closer to this goal.

Addressing the misconceptions about contraception

Adverse events with hormonal contraception are rarer than one may think. There are few risks associated with hormonal contraception. Venous thromboembolus (VTE) is a serious, although rare, adverse effect (AE) of hormonal contraception. The rate of VTE with combined oral contraception is estimated at 3 to 8 events per 10,000 patient-years, and VTE is even less common with progestin-only contraception (1 to 5 per 10,000 patient-years). For both types of hormonal contraception, the risk of VTE is smaller than with pregnancy, which is 5 to 20 per 10,000 patient-years.³ There are comorbidities that increase the risk of VTE and other AEs of hormonal contraception. In the setting of OTC hormonal contraception, individuals would self-screen for contraindications in order to reduce these complications.

Patients have the aptitude to self-screen for contraindications. Studies looking at the ability of patients over the age of 18 to self-screen for contraindications to hormonal contraception have found that patients do appropriately screen themselves. In fact, they are often more conservative than a physician in avoiding hormonal contraceptive methods.⁴ Patients younger than age 18 rarely have contraindications to hormonal contraception, but limited studies have shown that they too are able to successfully self-screen.⁵ ACOG recommends self-screening tools be provided with all OTC combined hormonal contraceptive methods to aid an individual’s contraceptive choice.

Most patients continue their well person care. Some opponents to ACOG’s position also have expressed concern that people who access their contraception OTC will forego their annual exam with their provider. However, studies have shown that the majority of people will continue to make their preventative health care visits.^6,7

We need to invest in preventing unplanned pregnancy

Currently, hormonal contraception is covered by health insurance under the ACA, with some caveats. Without a prescription, patients may have to pay full price for their contraception. However, one can find generic OCPs for less than $10 per pack out of pocket. Any cost can be prohibitive to many patients; thus, transition to OTC access to contraception also should ensure limiting the cost to the patient. One possible solution to mitigate costs is to require insurance companies to cover the cost of OTC hormonal contraceptives. (See action item below.)

Reduction in unplanned pregnancies improves public health and public expense, and broadening access to effective forms of contraception is imperative in reducing unplanned pregnancies. Every $1 invested in contraception access realizes $7.09 in savings.⁸ By making hormonal contraception widely available OTC, access could be improved dramatically—although pharmacist provision of hormonal contraception may be a necessary intermediate step. ACOG’s most recent committee opinion encourages all reproductive health care providers to be strong advocates for this improvement in access. As women’s health providers, we should work to decrease access barriers for our patients; working toward OTC contraception is a critical step in equal access to birth control methods for all of our patients.

Action items

Remember, before a pill can move to OTC access, the manufacturing (pharmaceutical) company must submit an application to the US Food and Drug Administration to obtain this status. Once submitted, the process may take 3 to 4 years to be completed. Currently, no company has submitted an OTC application and no hormonal birth control is available OTC. Find resources for OTC birth control access here: http://ocsotc.org/ and www.freethepill.org.

• Talk to your state representatives about why both OTC birth control access and direct pharmacy availability are important to increasing access and decreasing disparities in reproductive health care. Find your local and federal representatives here and check the status of OCP access in your state here.
• Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) both have introduced legislation—the Affordability is Access Act (HR 3296/S1847)—to ensure insurance coverage for OTC contraception. Call your representative and ask them to cosponsor this legislation.
• Be mindful of legislation that promotes OTC OCPs but limits access to some populations (minors) and increases cost sharing to the patient. This type of legislation can create harmful barriers to access for some of our patients

A new American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) committee opinion addresses how contraception access can be improved through over-the-counter (OTC) hormonal contraception for people of all ages—including oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), progesterone-only pills, the patch, vaginal rings, and depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA). Although ACOG endorses OTC contraception, some health care providers may be hesitant to support the increase in accessibility for a variety of reasons. We are hopeful that we address these concerns and that all clinicians can move to support ACOG’s position.

Easing access to hormonal contraception is a first step

OCPs are the most widely used contraception among teens and women of reproductive age in the United States.¹ Although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated health insurance coverage for contraception, many barriers continue to exist, including obtaining a prescription. Only 13 states have made it legal to obtain hormonal contraception through a pharmacist.² There also has been an increase in the number of telemedicine and online services that deliver contraceptives to individuals’ homes. While these efforts have helped to decrease barriers to hormonal contraception access for some patients, they only reach a small segment of the population. As clinicians, we should strive to make contraception universally accessible and affordable to everyone who desires to use it. OTC provision can bring us closer to this goal.

Addressing the misconceptions about contraception

Adverse events with hormonal contraception are rarer than one may think. There are few risks associated with hormonal contraception. Venous thromboembolus (VTE) is a serious, although rare, adverse effect (AE) of hormonal contraception. The rate of VTE with combined oral contraception is estimated at 3 to 8 events per 10,000 patient-years, and VTE is even less common with progestin-only contraception (1 to 5 per 10,000 patient-years). For both types of hormonal contraception, the risk of VTE is smaller than with pregnancy, which is 5 to 20 per 10,000 patient-years.³ There are comorbidities that increase the risk of VTE and other AEs of hormonal contraception. In the setting of OTC hormonal contraception, individuals would self-screen for contraindications in order to reduce these complications.

Patients have the aptitude to self-screen for contraindications. Studies looking at the ability of patients over the age of 18 to self-screen for contraindications to hormonal contraception have found that patients do appropriately screen themselves. In fact, they are often more conservative than a physician in avoiding hormonal contraceptive methods.⁴ Patients younger than age 18 rarely have contraindications to hormonal contraception, but limited studies have shown that they too are able to successfully self-screen.⁵ ACOG recommends self-screening tools be provided with all OTC combined hormonal contraceptive methods to aid an individual’s contraceptive choice.

Most patients continue their well person care. Some opponents to ACOG’s position also have expressed concern that people who access their contraception OTC will forego their annual exam with their provider. However, studies have shown that the majority of people will continue to make their preventative health care visits.^6,7

We need to invest in preventing unplanned pregnancy

Currently, hormonal contraception is covered by health insurance under the ACA, with some caveats. Without a prescription, patients may have to pay full price for their contraception. However, one can find generic OCPs for less than $10 per pack out of pocket. Any cost can be prohibitive to many patients; thus, transition to OTC access to contraception also should ensure limiting the cost to the patient. One possible solution to mitigate costs is to require insurance companies to cover the cost of OTC hormonal contraceptives. (See action item below.)

Reduction in unplanned pregnancies improves public health and public expense, and broadening access to effective forms of contraception is imperative in reducing unplanned pregnancies. Every $1 invested in contraception access realizes $7.09 in savings.⁸ By making hormonal contraception widely available OTC, access could be improved dramatically—although pharmacist provision of hormonal contraception may be a necessary intermediate step. ACOG’s most recent committee opinion encourages all reproductive health care providers to be strong advocates for this improvement in access. As women’s health providers, we should work to decrease access barriers for our patients; working toward OTC contraception is a critical step in equal access to birth control methods for all of our patients.

Action items

Remember, before a pill can move to OTC access, the manufacturing (pharmaceutical) company must submit an application to the US Food and Drug Administration to obtain this status. Once submitted, the process may take 3 to 4 years to be completed. Currently, no company has submitted an OTC application and no hormonal birth control is available OTC. Find resources for OTC birth control access here: http://ocsotc.org/ and www.freethepill.org.

• Talk to your state representatives about why both OTC birth control access and direct pharmacy availability are important to increasing access and decreasing disparities in reproductive health care. Find your local and federal representatives here and check the status of OCP access in your state here.
• Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) both have introduced legislation—the Affordability is Access Act (HR 3296/S1847)—to ensure insurance coverage for OTC contraception. Call your representative and ask them to cosponsor this legislation.
• Be mindful of legislation that promotes OTC OCPs but limits access to some populations (minors) and increases cost sharing to the patient. This type of legislation can create harmful barriers to access for some of our patients

A new American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) committee opinion addresses how contraception access can be improved through over-the-counter (OTC) hormonal contraception for people of all ages—including oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), progesterone-only pills, the patch, vaginal rings, and depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA). Although ACOG endorses OTC contraception, some health care providers may be hesitant to support the increase in accessibility for a variety of reasons. We are hopeful that we address these concerns and that all clinicians can move to support ACOG’s position.

Easing access to hormonal contraception is a first step

OCPs are the most widely used contraception among teens and women of reproductive age in the United States.¹ Although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated health insurance coverage for contraception, many barriers continue to exist, including obtaining a prescription. Only 13 states have made it legal to obtain hormonal contraception through a pharmacist.² There also has been an increase in the number of telemedicine and online services that deliver contraceptives to individuals’ homes. While these efforts have helped to decrease barriers to hormonal contraception access for some patients, they only reach a small segment of the population. As clinicians, we should strive to make contraception universally accessible and affordable to everyone who desires to use it. OTC provision can bring us closer to this goal.

Addressing the misconceptions about contraception

Adverse events with hormonal contraception are rarer than one may think. There are few risks associated with hormonal contraception. Venous thromboembolus (VTE) is a serious, although rare, adverse effect (AE) of hormonal contraception. The rate of VTE with combined oral contraception is estimated at 3 to 8 events per 10,000 patient-years, and VTE is even less common with progestin-only contraception (1 to 5 per 10,000 patient-years). For both types of hormonal contraception, the risk of VTE is smaller than with pregnancy, which is 5 to 20 per 10,000 patient-years.³ There are comorbidities that increase the risk of VTE and other AEs of hormonal contraception. In the setting of OTC hormonal contraception, individuals would self-screen for contraindications in order to reduce these complications.

Patients have the aptitude to self-screen for contraindications. Studies looking at the ability of patients over the age of 18 to self-screen for contraindications to hormonal contraception have found that patients do appropriately screen themselves. In fact, they are often more conservative than a physician in avoiding hormonal contraceptive methods.⁴ Patients younger than age 18 rarely have contraindications to hormonal contraception, but limited studies have shown that they too are able to successfully self-screen.⁵ ACOG recommends self-screening tools be provided with all OTC combined hormonal contraceptive methods to aid an individual’s contraceptive choice.

Most patients continue their well person care. Some opponents to ACOG’s position also have expressed concern that people who access their contraception OTC will forego their annual exam with their provider. However, studies have shown that the majority of people will continue to make their preventative health care visits.^6,7

We need to invest in preventing unplanned pregnancy

Currently, hormonal contraception is covered by health insurance under the ACA, with some caveats. Without a prescription, patients may have to pay full price for their contraception. However, one can find generic OCPs for less than $10 per pack out of pocket. Any cost can be prohibitive to many patients; thus, transition to OTC access to contraception also should ensure limiting the cost to the patient. One possible solution to mitigate costs is to require insurance companies to cover the cost of OTC hormonal contraceptives. (See action item below.)

Reduction in unplanned pregnancies improves public health and public expense, and broadening access to effective forms of contraception is imperative in reducing unplanned pregnancies. Every $1 invested in contraception access realizes $7.09 in savings.⁸ By making hormonal contraception widely available OTC, access could be improved dramatically—although pharmacist provision of hormonal contraception may be a necessary intermediate step. ACOG’s most recent committee opinion encourages all reproductive health care providers to be strong advocates for this improvement in access. As women’s health providers, we should work to decrease access barriers for our patients; working toward OTC contraception is a critical step in equal access to birth control methods for all of our patients.

Action items

Remember, before a pill can move to OTC access, the manufacturing (pharmaceutical) company must submit an application to the US Food and Drug Administration to obtain this status. Once submitted, the process may take 3 to 4 years to be completed. Currently, no company has submitted an OTC application and no hormonal birth control is available OTC. Find resources for OTC birth control access here: http://ocsotc.org/ and www.freethepill.org.

• Talk to your state representatives about why both OTC birth control access and direct pharmacy availability are important to increasing access and decreasing disparities in reproductive health care. Find your local and federal representatives here and check the status of OCP access in your state here.
• Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) both have introduced legislation—the Affordability is Access Act (HR 3296/S1847)—to ensure insurance coverage for OTC contraception. Call your representative and ask them to cosponsor this legislation.
• Be mindful of legislation that promotes OTC OCPs but limits access to some populations (minors) and increases cost sharing to the patient. This type of legislation can create harmful barriers to access for some of our patients

Physician burnout has been labeled a public health crisis by the Harvard School of Public Health and other institutions.¹ A 2018 Physician’s Foundation survey found that 78% of physicians had symptoms of burnout,² which result from chronic workplace stress and include feeling depleted of energy or exhausted, mentally distanced from or cynical about one’s job, and problems getting one’s job done successfully.³ Among ObGyns, almost half (46%) report burnout.⁴ One-third of ObGyns responded on a recent Medscape Burnout Report that the computerization of practice is contributing to their burnout, and 54% said too many bureaucratic tasks, including charting, were adding to their burnout.⁵

Inefficient electronic medical records (EMRs) have been implicated as one reason for burnout, with improvements in efficiency cited as one of several potential resolutions to the problem. About 96% of hospitals have adopted EMRs today, compared with only 9% in 2008,⁶ and many physicians report recognizing value in the technology. For instance, 60% of participants in Stanford Medicine’s 2018 National Physician Poll said EMRs had led to improved patient care. At the same time, however, about as many (59%) said EMRs needed a “complete overhaul” and that the systems had detracted from their professional satisfaction (54%) as well as from their clinical effectiveness (49%).⁷

With this roundtable, we explore the concerns with hours spent on the EMR with several experts, and whether it is a problem that has been contributing to burnout among staff at their institutions. In addition, are there solutions that their institutions have implemented that they can share to help to cope with the problem?
 

OBG Management: ObGyns report that the computerization of practice and too many bureaucratic tasks, including charting, are contributing to burnout. Do you see this problem at your institution?

John J. Dougherty, MD, MBA: Yes, absolutely. There is not a day that goes by that I don’t hear about or experience “Epic Fails.” (We use Epic’s EMR product at our institution.) Too many clicks are needed to navigate even the simplest tasks—finding notes or results, documenting visits, and billing for services are all unnecessarily complex. In addition, we are being held accountable for achieving a long and growing list of “metrics” measures, education projects (HealthStream), and productivity goals. When do we have time to treat patients? And it is not just practicing physicians and clinicians. Our resident physicians spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the computer documenting, placing orders, and transferring patients using a system with a very inefficient user interface, to say the least.

Megan L. Evans, MD, MPH: I absolutely agree. Over the years, my institution has created a conglomerate of EMRs, requiring physicians across the hospital to be fluent in a multitude of systems. For example, you finish your clinic notes in one system, sign off on discharge summaries in another, and complete your operative notes in an entirely different system. As busy attendings, it is hard to keep ahead of all of these tasks, especially when the systems do not talk to one another. Fortunately, my hospital is changing our EMR to a single system within the next year. Until then, however, we will work in this piecemeal system.

Mark Woodland, MS, MD: EMR and computerization of medicine is the number 1 issue relating to dissatisfaction by ObGyn providers in our institution. Providers are earnest in their attempt to be compliant with EMR requirements, but the reality is that they are dealing with an automated system that does not have realistic expectations for management of results, follow-up tasks, and patient communications for a human provider. The actual charting, ordering of tests and consults, and communication between providers has been enhanced. However, the “in-basket” of tasks to be accomplished are extraordinary and much of it relies on the provider, which requires an inordinate amount of time. Additionally, while other members of the medical staff are stationary at a desk, physicians and other providers are not. They are mobile between inpatient units, labor and delivery, operating rooms, and emergency rooms. Time management does not always allow for providers to access computers from all of these areas to facilitate their managing the expectations of the EMR. This requires providers to access the EMR at off hours, extending their workload. Finally, the EMR is neither personal nor friendly. It is not designed with the clinician in mind, and it is not fun or engaging for a provider.

Continue to: OBG Management: What solutions have been instituted...

OBG Management: What solutions have been instituted in order to help physicians with data entry into the EMR?

Dr. Dougherty: When our institution compared EMR offerings, EMR companies put their best collective marketing feet forward. The general notion, at least with the Epic EMR, was that “you can customize Epic to your liking.” It did not take long for a bunch of motivated Epic users to create “smart” stuff (lists, phrases, and texts) in an effort to customize workflows and create fancy-looking electronic notes. Shortly thereafter, it was obvious that, as an institution, our reporting efforts kept coming up short—our reports lacked accuracy and meaning. Everyone was documenting in different ways and in different areas. Considering that reports are currently generated using (mostly) discrete data entries (data placed in specific fields within the EMR), it became obvious that our data entry paradigm needed to change. Therefore, standardization became the leading buzzword. Our institution recently initiated a project aimed at standardizing our workflows and documentation habits. In addition, we have incorporated a third-party information exchange product into our health system data aggregation and analysis workflow. Much more needs to be done, but it is a start.

Dr. Evans: At my institution, as a group, we have created templates for routine procedures and visits that also auto populate billing codes. I know that some departments have used scribes. From the hospital side, there has been improved access to the EMR from home. Some of my colleagues like this feature; however, others, like myself, believe this contributes to some of our burnout. I like to leave work at work. Having the ability to continue working at home is not a solution in my mind.

Dr. Woodland: At our institution, we have engaged our chaperones and medical assistants to help facilitate completion of the medical records during the office visit. Providers work with their assistants to accommodate documentation of history and physical findings while also listening to the provider as they are speaking in order to document patient care plans and orders. This saves the clinicians time in reviewing and editing the record as well as making sure the appropriate care plan is instituted. Our EMR provider recently has begun experimenting with personalization of color themes as well as pictures as part of the interface. Having said this, I still ask, “Why have medical professionals allowed non–clinical agencies and information technology groups to run this show?” It is also inconceivable to me that this unfunded mandate—that has increased cost, decreased clinical efficiency, and decreased clinician satisfaction—has not been addressed by national and international medical communities.

OBG Management: What changes do you feel your EMR system needs to undergo?

Dr. Woodland: I feel that we need to appropriately manage expectations of the EMR and the institution with relation to EMR and providers. By this I mean that we need to make the EMR more user-friendly and appropriate for different clinicians as well as patients. We also need to manage expectations of our patients. In a digital age where immediate contact is the norm, we need to address the issue that the EMR is not social media but rather a communication tool for routine contact and information transmission. Emergencies are not typically addressed well through the EMR platform; they are better handled with a more appropriate communication interface.

Dr. Dougherty: I feel that the biggest change needed is a competent, simple, and standard user-interface. Our old charting methods were great on a number of levels. For instance, if I wanted to add an order, I flipped to the ”Orders” tab and entered an order. If I needed to document a note, I flipped to the “Notes” tab and started writing, etc. Obviously, manual charting had its downsides—like trying to decipher handwriting art! EMRs could easily adopt the stuff that worked from our old methods of documentation, while leveraging the advantages that computerized workflows can bring to practitioners, including efficient transfer of records, meaningful reporting, simple electronic ordering, and interprofessional communication portals.

Dr. Evans: Our systems need to better communicate with one another. I am in an academic practice, and I should be able to see labs, consultant notes, imaging, all in one spot to improve efficiency and ease with patient visits. Minimizing clicks would be helpful as well. I try to write as much as I can while in the room with a patient to avoid after-hours note writing, but it takes away from my interaction with each patient.

Continue to: OBG Management: With an aim toward alleviating burnout...

OBG Management: With an aim toward alleviating burnout, are there any tips you can offer your colleagues on interfacing with the EMR?

Dr. Evans: When I first started as a new attending, it would take me hours to finish my notes, partly because of the level of detail I would write in my history of present illness (HPI) and assessment and plan. One great piece of advice I received was to be satisfied with good notes, not perfect notes. I worked to consolidate my thoughts and use preconstructed phrases/paragraphs on common problems I saw. This saved time to focus on other aspects of my academic job.

Dr. Dougherty: We need to refocus on the patient first, and mold our systems to meet that priority. Much too often, we have our backs to the patients or spend too much time interfacing with our EMR systems, and our patients are not happy about it (as many surveys have demonstrated). More importantly, a renewed focus on patient care, not EMR care, would allow our practitioners to do what they signed up for—treating patients. In the meantime, I would suggest that practitioners stay away from EMR gimmicks and go back to old-style documentation practices (like those established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 1997 and 1998), and ask the IT folks to help with molding the EMR systems to meet your own standards, not the standards established by EMR companies. I am also very hopeful that the consumer will drive most of the health care-related data collection in the near future, thereby marginalizing the current generation of EMR systems.

Dr. Woodland: I would add that providers need to manage the EMR and not let the EMR manage them. Set up task reminders at point times to handle results and communications from the EMR and set up time in your schedule where you can facilitate meeting these tasks. When providers are out on vacation, make sure to have an out-of-office reminder built into their EMR so that patients and others know timing of potential responses. Try to make the EMR as enjoyable as possible and focus on the good points of the EMR, such as legibility, order verification, safety, and documentation.
 

OBG Management: Do you feel that the EMR has led to improved patient care?

Dr. Evans: Yes and no. Yes, in that it can be much easier to follow a patient’s health care history from other provider notes or prior surgeries. Information is searchable and legible. If an EMR is built correctly, it can save time for providers, through smart phrases and templates, and it can help providers with proper billing codes and documentation requirements. No, in that it can take away from important patient interaction. We are required to see more patients in less time all while using, at times, a cumbersome EMR system.

Dr. Woodland: This is a tricky question because the EMR has both positive and negative attributes. Certainly, the legibility and order verification has improved, but the ease of accessing information in the EMR has changed. Additionally, there has been a drastic increase in provider dissatisfaction that has not been addressed. Provider dissatisfaction can lead to problems in patient care. If there was a clear-cut increased value for the cost, I do not think the EMR would be such a huge focus of negative attention. Providers need to take back control of their EMR and their profession so that they can utilize the EMR as the tool it was supposed to be and not the dissatisfier that it has become.

Dr. Dougherty: I do not believe patient care has been improved by EMR systems, for all of the reasons we have discussed, and then some. But there is an enormous amount of potential, if we get the interface between humans and EMR systems right!

Physician burnout has been labeled a public health crisis by the Harvard School of Public Health and other institutions.¹ A 2018 Physician’s Foundation survey found that 78% of physicians had symptoms of burnout,² which result from chronic workplace stress and include feeling depleted of energy or exhausted, mentally distanced from or cynical about one’s job, and problems getting one’s job done successfully.³ Among ObGyns, almost half (46%) report burnout.⁴ One-third of ObGyns responded on a recent Medscape Burnout Report that the computerization of practice is contributing to their burnout, and 54% said too many bureaucratic tasks, including charting, were adding to their burnout.⁵

Inefficient electronic medical records (EMRs) have been implicated as one reason for burnout, with improvements in efficiency cited as one of several potential resolutions to the problem. About 96% of hospitals have adopted EMRs today, compared with only 9% in 2008,⁶ and many physicians report recognizing value in the technology. For instance, 60% of participants in Stanford Medicine’s 2018 National Physician Poll said EMRs had led to improved patient care. At the same time, however, about as many (59%) said EMRs needed a “complete overhaul” and that the systems had detracted from their professional satisfaction (54%) as well as from their clinical effectiveness (49%).⁷

With this roundtable, we explore the concerns with hours spent on the EMR with several experts, and whether it is a problem that has been contributing to burnout among staff at their institutions. In addition, are there solutions that their institutions have implemented that they can share to help to cope with the problem?
 

OBG Management: ObGyns report that the computerization of practice and too many bureaucratic tasks, including charting, are contributing to burnout. Do you see this problem at your institution?

John J. Dougherty, MD, MBA: Yes, absolutely. There is not a day that goes by that I don’t hear about or experience “Epic Fails.” (We use Epic’s EMR product at our institution.) Too many clicks are needed to navigate even the simplest tasks—finding notes or results, documenting visits, and billing for services are all unnecessarily complex. In addition, we are being held accountable for achieving a long and growing list of “metrics” measures, education projects (HealthStream), and productivity goals. When do we have time to treat patients? And it is not just practicing physicians and clinicians. Our resident physicians spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the computer documenting, placing orders, and transferring patients using a system with a very inefficient user interface, to say the least.

Megan L. Evans, MD, MPH: I absolutely agree. Over the years, my institution has created a conglomerate of EMRs, requiring physicians across the hospital to be fluent in a multitude of systems. For example, you finish your clinic notes in one system, sign off on discharge summaries in another, and complete your operative notes in an entirely different system. As busy attendings, it is hard to keep ahead of all of these tasks, especially when the systems do not talk to one another. Fortunately, my hospital is changing our EMR to a single system within the next year. Until then, however, we will work in this piecemeal system.

Mark Woodland, MS, MD: EMR and computerization of medicine is the number 1 issue relating to dissatisfaction by ObGyn providers in our institution. Providers are earnest in their attempt to be compliant with EMR requirements, but the reality is that they are dealing with an automated system that does not have realistic expectations for management of results, follow-up tasks, and patient communications for a human provider. The actual charting, ordering of tests and consults, and communication between providers has been enhanced. However, the “in-basket” of tasks to be accomplished are extraordinary and much of it relies on the provider, which requires an inordinate amount of time. Additionally, while other members of the medical staff are stationary at a desk, physicians and other providers are not. They are mobile between inpatient units, labor and delivery, operating rooms, and emergency rooms. Time management does not always allow for providers to access computers from all of these areas to facilitate their managing the expectations of the EMR. This requires providers to access the EMR at off hours, extending their workload. Finally, the EMR is neither personal nor friendly. It is not designed with the clinician in mind, and it is not fun or engaging for a provider.

Continue to: OBG Management: What solutions have been instituted...

OBG Management: What solutions have been instituted in order to help physicians with data entry into the EMR?

Dr. Dougherty: When our institution compared EMR offerings, EMR companies put their best collective marketing feet forward. The general notion, at least with the Epic EMR, was that “you can customize Epic to your liking.” It did not take long for a bunch of motivated Epic users to create “smart” stuff (lists, phrases, and texts) in an effort to customize workflows and create fancy-looking electronic notes. Shortly thereafter, it was obvious that, as an institution, our reporting efforts kept coming up short—our reports lacked accuracy and meaning. Everyone was documenting in different ways and in different areas. Considering that reports are currently generated using (mostly) discrete data entries (data placed in specific fields within the EMR), it became obvious that our data entry paradigm needed to change. Therefore, standardization became the leading buzzword. Our institution recently initiated a project aimed at standardizing our workflows and documentation habits. In addition, we have incorporated a third-party information exchange product into our health system data aggregation and analysis workflow. Much more needs to be done, but it is a start.

Dr. Evans: At my institution, as a group, we have created templates for routine procedures and visits that also auto populate billing codes. I know that some departments have used scribes. From the hospital side, there has been improved access to the EMR from home. Some of my colleagues like this feature; however, others, like myself, believe this contributes to some of our burnout. I like to leave work at work. Having the ability to continue working at home is not a solution in my mind.

Dr. Woodland: At our institution, we have engaged our chaperones and medical assistants to help facilitate completion of the medical records during the office visit. Providers work with their assistants to accommodate documentation of history and physical findings while also listening to the provider as they are speaking in order to document patient care plans and orders. This saves the clinicians time in reviewing and editing the record as well as making sure the appropriate care plan is instituted. Our EMR provider recently has begun experimenting with personalization of color themes as well as pictures as part of the interface. Having said this, I still ask, “Why have medical professionals allowed non–clinical agencies and information technology groups to run this show?” It is also inconceivable to me that this unfunded mandate—that has increased cost, decreased clinical efficiency, and decreased clinician satisfaction—has not been addressed by national and international medical communities.

OBG Management: What changes do you feel your EMR system needs to undergo?

Dr. Woodland: I feel that we need to appropriately manage expectations of the EMR and the institution with relation to EMR and providers. By this I mean that we need to make the EMR more user-friendly and appropriate for different clinicians as well as patients. We also need to manage expectations of our patients. In a digital age where immediate contact is the norm, we need to address the issue that the EMR is not social media but rather a communication tool for routine contact and information transmission. Emergencies are not typically addressed well through the EMR platform; they are better handled with a more appropriate communication interface.

Dr. Dougherty: I feel that the biggest change needed is a competent, simple, and standard user-interface. Our old charting methods were great on a number of levels. For instance, if I wanted to add an order, I flipped to the ”Orders” tab and entered an order. If I needed to document a note, I flipped to the “Notes” tab and started writing, etc. Obviously, manual charting had its downsides—like trying to decipher handwriting art! EMRs could easily adopt the stuff that worked from our old methods of documentation, while leveraging the advantages that computerized workflows can bring to practitioners, including efficient transfer of records, meaningful reporting, simple electronic ordering, and interprofessional communication portals.

Dr. Evans: Our systems need to better communicate with one another. I am in an academic practice, and I should be able to see labs, consultant notes, imaging, all in one spot to improve efficiency and ease with patient visits. Minimizing clicks would be helpful as well. I try to write as much as I can while in the room with a patient to avoid after-hours note writing, but it takes away from my interaction with each patient.

Continue to: OBG Management: With an aim toward alleviating burnout...

OBG Management: With an aim toward alleviating burnout, are there any tips you can offer your colleagues on interfacing with the EMR?

Dr. Evans: When I first started as a new attending, it would take me hours to finish my notes, partly because of the level of detail I would write in my history of present illness (HPI) and assessment and plan. One great piece of advice I received was to be satisfied with good notes, not perfect notes. I worked to consolidate my thoughts and use preconstructed phrases/paragraphs on common problems I saw. This saved time to focus on other aspects of my academic job.

Dr. Dougherty: We need to refocus on the patient first, and mold our systems to meet that priority. Much too often, we have our backs to the patients or spend too much time interfacing with our EMR systems, and our patients are not happy about it (as many surveys have demonstrated). More importantly, a renewed focus on patient care, not EMR care, would allow our practitioners to do what they signed up for—treating patients. In the meantime, I would suggest that practitioners stay away from EMR gimmicks and go back to old-style documentation practices (like those established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 1997 and 1998), and ask the IT folks to help with molding the EMR systems to meet your own standards, not the standards established by EMR companies. I am also very hopeful that the consumer will drive most of the health care-related data collection in the near future, thereby marginalizing the current generation of EMR systems.

Dr. Woodland: I would add that providers need to manage the EMR and not let the EMR manage them. Set up task reminders at point times to handle results and communications from the EMR and set up time in your schedule where you can facilitate meeting these tasks. When providers are out on vacation, make sure to have an out-of-office reminder built into their EMR so that patients and others know timing of potential responses. Try to make the EMR as enjoyable as possible and focus on the good points of the EMR, such as legibility, order verification, safety, and documentation.
 

OBG Management: Do you feel that the EMR has led to improved patient care?

Dr. Evans: Yes and no. Yes, in that it can be much easier to follow a patient’s health care history from other provider notes or prior surgeries. Information is searchable and legible. If an EMR is built correctly, it can save time for providers, through smart phrases and templates, and it can help providers with proper billing codes and documentation requirements. No, in that it can take away from important patient interaction. We are required to see more patients in less time all while using, at times, a cumbersome EMR system.

Dr. Woodland: This is a tricky question because the EMR has both positive and negative attributes. Certainly, the legibility and order verification has improved, but the ease of accessing information in the EMR has changed. Additionally, there has been a drastic increase in provider dissatisfaction that has not been addressed. Provider dissatisfaction can lead to problems in patient care. If there was a clear-cut increased value for the cost, I do not think the EMR would be such a huge focus of negative attention. Providers need to take back control of their EMR and their profession so that they can utilize the EMR as the tool it was supposed to be and not the dissatisfier that it has become.

Dr. Dougherty: I do not believe patient care has been improved by EMR systems, for all of the reasons we have discussed, and then some. But there is an enormous amount of potential, if we get the interface between humans and EMR systems right!

Physician burnout has been labeled a public health crisis by the Harvard School of Public Health and other institutions.¹ A 2018 Physician’s Foundation survey found that 78% of physicians had symptoms of burnout,² which result from chronic workplace stress and include feeling depleted of energy or exhausted, mentally distanced from or cynical about one’s job, and problems getting one’s job done successfully.³ Among ObGyns, almost half (46%) report burnout.⁴ One-third of ObGyns responded on a recent Medscape Burnout Report that the computerization of practice is contributing to their burnout, and 54% said too many bureaucratic tasks, including charting, were adding to their burnout.⁵

Inefficient electronic medical records (EMRs) have been implicated as one reason for burnout, with improvements in efficiency cited as one of several potential resolutions to the problem. About 96% of hospitals have adopted EMRs today, compared with only 9% in 2008,⁶ and many physicians report recognizing value in the technology. For instance, 60% of participants in Stanford Medicine’s 2018 National Physician Poll said EMRs had led to improved patient care. At the same time, however, about as many (59%) said EMRs needed a “complete overhaul” and that the systems had detracted from their professional satisfaction (54%) as well as from their clinical effectiveness (49%).⁷

With this roundtable, we explore the concerns with hours spent on the EMR with several experts, and whether it is a problem that has been contributing to burnout among staff at their institutions. In addition, are there solutions that their institutions have implemented that they can share to help to cope with the problem?
 

OBG Management: ObGyns report that the computerization of practice and too many bureaucratic tasks, including charting, are contributing to burnout. Do you see this problem at your institution?

John J. Dougherty, MD, MBA: Yes, absolutely. There is not a day that goes by that I don’t hear about or experience “Epic Fails.” (We use Epic’s EMR product at our institution.) Too many clicks are needed to navigate even the simplest tasks—finding notes or results, documenting visits, and billing for services are all unnecessarily complex. In addition, we are being held accountable for achieving a long and growing list of “metrics” measures, education projects (HealthStream), and productivity goals. When do we have time to treat patients? And it is not just practicing physicians and clinicians. Our resident physicians spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the computer documenting, placing orders, and transferring patients using a system with a very inefficient user interface, to say the least.

Megan L. Evans, MD, MPH: I absolutely agree. Over the years, my institution has created a conglomerate of EMRs, requiring physicians across the hospital to be fluent in a multitude of systems. For example, you finish your clinic notes in one system, sign off on discharge summaries in another, and complete your operative notes in an entirely different system. As busy attendings, it is hard to keep ahead of all of these tasks, especially when the systems do not talk to one another. Fortunately, my hospital is changing our EMR to a single system within the next year. Until then, however, we will work in this piecemeal system.

Mark Woodland, MS, MD: EMR and computerization of medicine is the number 1 issue relating to dissatisfaction by ObGyn providers in our institution. Providers are earnest in their attempt to be compliant with EMR requirements, but the reality is that they are dealing with an automated system that does not have realistic expectations for management of results, follow-up tasks, and patient communications for a human provider. The actual charting, ordering of tests and consults, and communication between providers has been enhanced. However, the “in-basket” of tasks to be accomplished are extraordinary and much of it relies on the provider, which requires an inordinate amount of time. Additionally, while other members of the medical staff are stationary at a desk, physicians and other providers are not. They are mobile between inpatient units, labor and delivery, operating rooms, and emergency rooms. Time management does not always allow for providers to access computers from all of these areas to facilitate their managing the expectations of the EMR. This requires providers to access the EMR at off hours, extending their workload. Finally, the EMR is neither personal nor friendly. It is not designed with the clinician in mind, and it is not fun or engaging for a provider.

Continue to: OBG Management: What solutions have been instituted...

OBG Management: What solutions have been instituted in order to help physicians with data entry into the EMR?

Dr. Dougherty: When our institution compared EMR offerings, EMR companies put their best collective marketing feet forward. The general notion, at least with the Epic EMR, was that “you can customize Epic to your liking.” It did not take long for a bunch of motivated Epic users to create “smart” stuff (lists, phrases, and texts) in an effort to customize workflows and create fancy-looking electronic notes. Shortly thereafter, it was obvious that, as an institution, our reporting efforts kept coming up short—our reports lacked accuracy and meaning. Everyone was documenting in different ways and in different areas. Considering that reports are currently generated using (mostly) discrete data entries (data placed in specific fields within the EMR), it became obvious that our data entry paradigm needed to change. Therefore, standardization became the leading buzzword. Our institution recently initiated a project aimed at standardizing our workflows and documentation habits. In addition, we have incorporated a third-party information exchange product into our health system data aggregation and analysis workflow. Much more needs to be done, but it is a start.

Dr. Evans: At my institution, as a group, we have created templates for routine procedures and visits that also auto populate billing codes. I know that some departments have used scribes. From the hospital side, there has been improved access to the EMR from home. Some of my colleagues like this feature; however, others, like myself, believe this contributes to some of our burnout. I like to leave work at work. Having the ability to continue working at home is not a solution in my mind.

Dr. Woodland: At our institution, we have engaged our chaperones and medical assistants to help facilitate completion of the medical records during the office visit. Providers work with their assistants to accommodate documentation of history and physical findings while also listening to the provider as they are speaking in order to document patient care plans and orders. This saves the clinicians time in reviewing and editing the record as well as making sure the appropriate care plan is instituted. Our EMR provider recently has begun experimenting with personalization of color themes as well as pictures as part of the interface. Having said this, I still ask, “Why have medical professionals allowed non–clinical agencies and information technology groups to run this show?” It is also inconceivable to me that this unfunded mandate—that has increased cost, decreased clinical efficiency, and decreased clinician satisfaction—has not been addressed by national and international medical communities.

OBG Management: What changes do you feel your EMR system needs to undergo?

Dr. Woodland: I feel that we need to appropriately manage expectations of the EMR and the institution with relation to EMR and providers. By this I mean that we need to make the EMR more user-friendly and appropriate for different clinicians as well as patients. We also need to manage expectations of our patients. In a digital age where immediate contact is the norm, we need to address the issue that the EMR is not social media but rather a communication tool for routine contact and information transmission. Emergencies are not typically addressed well through the EMR platform; they are better handled with a more appropriate communication interface.

Dr. Dougherty: I feel that the biggest change needed is a competent, simple, and standard user-interface. Our old charting methods were great on a number of levels. For instance, if I wanted to add an order, I flipped to the ”Orders” tab and entered an order. If I needed to document a note, I flipped to the “Notes” tab and started writing, etc. Obviously, manual charting had its downsides—like trying to decipher handwriting art! EMRs could easily adopt the stuff that worked from our old methods of documentation, while leveraging the advantages that computerized workflows can bring to practitioners, including efficient transfer of records, meaningful reporting, simple electronic ordering, and interprofessional communication portals.

Dr. Evans: Our systems need to better communicate with one another. I am in an academic practice, and I should be able to see labs, consultant notes, imaging, all in one spot to improve efficiency and ease with patient visits. Minimizing clicks would be helpful as well. I try to write as much as I can while in the room with a patient to avoid after-hours note writing, but it takes away from my interaction with each patient.

Continue to: OBG Management: With an aim toward alleviating burnout...

OBG Management: With an aim toward alleviating burnout, are there any tips you can offer your colleagues on interfacing with the EMR?

Dr. Evans: When I first started as a new attending, it would take me hours to finish my notes, partly because of the level of detail I would write in my history of present illness (HPI) and assessment and plan. One great piece of advice I received was to be satisfied with good notes, not perfect notes. I worked to consolidate my thoughts and use preconstructed phrases/paragraphs on common problems I saw. This saved time to focus on other aspects of my academic job.

Dr. Dougherty: We need to refocus on the patient first, and mold our systems to meet that priority. Much too often, we have our backs to the patients or spend too much time interfacing with our EMR systems, and our patients are not happy about it (as many surveys have demonstrated). More importantly, a renewed focus on patient care, not EMR care, would allow our practitioners to do what they signed up for—treating patients. In the meantime, I would suggest that practitioners stay away from EMR gimmicks and go back to old-style documentation practices (like those established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 1997 and 1998), and ask the IT folks to help with molding the EMR systems to meet your own standards, not the standards established by EMR companies. I am also very hopeful that the consumer will drive most of the health care-related data collection in the near future, thereby marginalizing the current generation of EMR systems.

Dr. Woodland: I would add that providers need to manage the EMR and not let the EMR manage them. Set up task reminders at point times to handle results and communications from the EMR and set up time in your schedule where you can facilitate meeting these tasks. When providers are out on vacation, make sure to have an out-of-office reminder built into their EMR so that patients and others know timing of potential responses. Try to make the EMR as enjoyable as possible and focus on the good points of the EMR, such as legibility, order verification, safety, and documentation.
 

OBG Management: Do you feel that the EMR has led to improved patient care?

Dr. Evans: Yes and no. Yes, in that it can be much easier to follow a patient’s health care history from other provider notes or prior surgeries. Information is searchable and legible. If an EMR is built correctly, it can save time for providers, through smart phrases and templates, and it can help providers with proper billing codes and documentation requirements. No, in that it can take away from important patient interaction. We are required to see more patients in less time all while using, at times, a cumbersome EMR system.

Dr. Woodland: This is a tricky question because the EMR has both positive and negative attributes. Certainly, the legibility and order verification has improved, but the ease of accessing information in the EMR has changed. Additionally, there has been a drastic increase in provider dissatisfaction that has not been addressed. Provider dissatisfaction can lead to problems in patient care. If there was a clear-cut increased value for the cost, I do not think the EMR would be such a huge focus of negative attention. Providers need to take back control of their EMR and their profession so that they can utilize the EMR as the tool it was supposed to be and not the dissatisfier that it has become.

Dr. Dougherty: I do not believe patient care has been improved by EMR systems, for all of the reasons we have discussed, and then some. But there is an enormous amount of potential, if we get the interface between humans and EMR systems right!

CASE Patient has adverse effects from halted estrogen pills

JR twists her hands nervously as you step into the room. “They stopped my hormones,” she sighs as you pull up her lab results.

JR recently had been admitted to an inpatient cardiology unit for several days for a heart failure exacerbation. Her ankles are still swollen beneath her floral print skirt, but she is breathing much easier now. She is back at your primary care office, hoping to get clearance to restart her estrogen pills.

JR reports having mood swings and terrible nightmares while not taking her hormones, which she has been taking for more than 3 years. She hesitates before sharing, “One of the doctors kept asking me questions about my sex life that had nothing to do with my heart condition. I don’t want to go back there.”

Providing compassionate and comprehensive care to gender-nonconforming individuals is challenging for a multitude of reasons, from clinician ignorance to systemic discrimination. About 33% of transgender patients reported being harassed, denied care, or even being assaulted when seeking health care, while 23% reported avoiding going to the doctor altogether when sick or injured out of fear of discrimination.¹

Unfortunately, now, further increases to barriers to care may be put in place. In late May of this year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed new regulations that would reverse previous regulations granted through section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—the Health Care Rights Law—which affirmed the rights of gender nonbinary persons to medical care. Among the proposed changes is the elimination of protections against discrimination in health care based on gender identity.² The proposed regulation changes come on the heels of a federal court case, which seeks to declare that hospital systems may turn away patients based on gender identity.³

Unraveling rights afforded under the ACA

The Health Care Rights Law was passed under the ACA; it prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability in health programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Multiple lower courts have supported that the rights of transgender individuals is included within these protections against discrimination on the basis of sex.⁴ These court rulings not only have ensured the ability of gender-diverse individuals to access care but also have enforced insurance coverage of therapies for gender dysphoria. It was only in 2014 that Medicaid began providing coverage for gender-affirming surgeries and eliminating language that such procedures were “experimental” or “cosmetic.” The 2016 passage of the ACA mandated that private insurance companies follow suit. Unfortunately, the recent proposed regulation changes to the Health Care Rights Law may spark a reversal from insurance companies as well. Such a setback would affect gender-diverse individuals’ hormone treatments as well as their ability to access a full spectrum of care within the health care system.

Continue to: ACOG urges nondiscriminatory practices...

ACOG urges nondiscriminatory practices

The proposed regulation changes to the Health Care Rights Law are from the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division of the HHS Office for Civil Rights, which was established in 2018 and has been advocating for the rights of health care providers to refuse to treat patients based on their own religious beliefs.⁵ We argue, however, that providing care to persons of varying backgrounds is not an assault on our individual liberties but rather a privilege as providers. As obstetrician-gynecologists, it may be easy to only consider cis-gendered women our responsibility. But our field also emphasizes individual empowerment above all else—we fight every day for our patients’ rights to contraception, fertility, pregnancy, parenthood, and sexual freedoms. Let us continue speaking up for the rights of all those who need gynecologic care, regardless of the pronouns they use.

“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists urges health care providers to foster nondiscriminatory practices and policies to increase identification and to facilitate quality health care for transgender individuals, both in assisting with the transition if desired as well as providing long-term preventive health care.”⁶

We urge you to take action

• Reach out to your local representatives about protecting transgender health access
• Educate yourself on the unique needs of transgender individuals
• Read personal accounts
• Share your personal story
• Find referring providers near your practice

CASE Patient has adverse effects from halted estrogen pills

JR twists her hands nervously as you step into the room. “They stopped my hormones,” she sighs as you pull up her lab results.

JR recently had been admitted to an inpatient cardiology unit for several days for a heart failure exacerbation. Her ankles are still swollen beneath her floral print skirt, but she is breathing much easier now. She is back at your primary care office, hoping to get clearance to restart her estrogen pills.

JR reports having mood swings and terrible nightmares while not taking her hormones, which she has been taking for more than 3 years. She hesitates before sharing, “One of the doctors kept asking me questions about my sex life that had nothing to do with my heart condition. I don’t want to go back there.”

Providing compassionate and comprehensive care to gender-nonconforming individuals is challenging for a multitude of reasons, from clinician ignorance to systemic discrimination. About 33% of transgender patients reported being harassed, denied care, or even being assaulted when seeking health care, while 23% reported avoiding going to the doctor altogether when sick or injured out of fear of discrimination.¹

Unfortunately, now, further increases to barriers to care may be put in place. In late May of this year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed new regulations that would reverse previous regulations granted through section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—the Health Care Rights Law—which affirmed the rights of gender nonbinary persons to medical care. Among the proposed changes is the elimination of protections against discrimination in health care based on gender identity.² The proposed regulation changes come on the heels of a federal court case, which seeks to declare that hospital systems may turn away patients based on gender identity.³

Unraveling rights afforded under the ACA

The Health Care Rights Law was passed under the ACA; it prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability in health programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Multiple lower courts have supported that the rights of transgender individuals is included within these protections against discrimination on the basis of sex.⁴ These court rulings not only have ensured the ability of gender-diverse individuals to access care but also have enforced insurance coverage of therapies for gender dysphoria. It was only in 2014 that Medicaid began providing coverage for gender-affirming surgeries and eliminating language that such procedures were “experimental” or “cosmetic.” The 2016 passage of the ACA mandated that private insurance companies follow suit. Unfortunately, the recent proposed regulation changes to the Health Care Rights Law may spark a reversal from insurance companies as well. Such a setback would affect gender-diverse individuals’ hormone treatments as well as their ability to access a full spectrum of care within the health care system.

Continue to: ACOG urges nondiscriminatory practices...

ACOG urges nondiscriminatory practices

The proposed regulation changes to the Health Care Rights Law are from the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division of the HHS Office for Civil Rights, which was established in 2018 and has been advocating for the rights of health care providers to refuse to treat patients based on their own religious beliefs.⁵ We argue, however, that providing care to persons of varying backgrounds is not an assault on our individual liberties but rather a privilege as providers. As obstetrician-gynecologists, it may be easy to only consider cis-gendered women our responsibility. But our field also emphasizes individual empowerment above all else—we fight every day for our patients’ rights to contraception, fertility, pregnancy, parenthood, and sexual freedoms. Let us continue speaking up for the rights of all those who need gynecologic care, regardless of the pronouns they use.

“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists urges health care providers to foster nondiscriminatory practices and policies to increase identification and to facilitate quality health care for transgender individuals, both in assisting with the transition if desired as well as providing long-term preventive health care.”⁶

We urge you to take action

• Reach out to your local representatives about protecting transgender health access
• Educate yourself on the unique needs of transgender individuals
• Read personal accounts
• Share your personal story
• Find referring providers near your practice

CASE Patient has adverse effects from halted estrogen pills

JR twists her hands nervously as you step into the room. “They stopped my hormones,” she sighs as you pull up her lab results.

JR recently had been admitted to an inpatient cardiology unit for several days for a heart failure exacerbation. Her ankles are still swollen beneath her floral print skirt, but she is breathing much easier now. She is back at your primary care office, hoping to get clearance to restart her estrogen pills.

JR reports having mood swings and terrible nightmares while not taking her hormones, which she has been taking for more than 3 years. She hesitates before sharing, “One of the doctors kept asking me questions about my sex life that had nothing to do with my heart condition. I don’t want to go back there.”

Providing compassionate and comprehensive care to gender-nonconforming individuals is challenging for a multitude of reasons, from clinician ignorance to systemic discrimination. About 33% of transgender patients reported being harassed, denied care, or even being assaulted when seeking health care, while 23% reported avoiding going to the doctor altogether when sick or injured out of fear of discrimination.¹

Unfortunately, now, further increases to barriers to care may be put in place. In late May of this year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed new regulations that would reverse previous regulations granted through section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—the Health Care Rights Law—which affirmed the rights of gender nonbinary persons to medical care. Among the proposed changes is the elimination of protections against discrimination in health care based on gender identity.² The proposed regulation changes come on the heels of a federal court case, which seeks to declare that hospital systems may turn away patients based on gender identity.³

Unraveling rights afforded under the ACA

The Health Care Rights Law was passed under the ACA; it prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability in health programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Multiple lower courts have supported that the rights of transgender individuals is included within these protections against discrimination on the basis of sex.⁴ These court rulings not only have ensured the ability of gender-diverse individuals to access care but also have enforced insurance coverage of therapies for gender dysphoria. It was only in 2014 that Medicaid began providing coverage for gender-affirming surgeries and eliminating language that such procedures were “experimental” or “cosmetic.” The 2016 passage of the ACA mandated that private insurance companies follow suit. Unfortunately, the recent proposed regulation changes to the Health Care Rights Law may spark a reversal from insurance companies as well. Such a setback would affect gender-diverse individuals’ hormone treatments as well as their ability to access a full spectrum of care within the health care system.

Continue to: ACOG urges nondiscriminatory practices...

ACOG urges nondiscriminatory practices

The proposed regulation changes to the Health Care Rights Law are from the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division of the HHS Office for Civil Rights, which was established in 2018 and has been advocating for the rights of health care providers to refuse to treat patients based on their own religious beliefs.⁵ We argue, however, that providing care to persons of varying backgrounds is not an assault on our individual liberties but rather a privilege as providers. As obstetrician-gynecologists, it may be easy to only consider cis-gendered women our responsibility. But our field also emphasizes individual empowerment above all else—we fight every day for our patients’ rights to contraception, fertility, pregnancy, parenthood, and sexual freedoms. Let us continue speaking up for the rights of all those who need gynecologic care, regardless of the pronouns they use.

“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists urges health care providers to foster nondiscriminatory practices and policies to increase identification and to facilitate quality health care for transgender individuals, both in assisting with the transition if desired as well as providing long-term preventive health care.”⁶

We urge you to take action

• Reach out to your local representatives about protecting transgender health access
• Educate yourself on the unique needs of transgender individuals
• Read personal accounts
• Share your personal story
• Find referring providers near your practice