Bonnie S Jones1, Sara Daniel1, Lindsay K Cloud1. 1. Bonnie S. Jones and Sara Daniel are with Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, Oakland. Lindsay K. Cloud is with the Policy Surveillance Program of the Center for Public Health Law Research, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence and characteristics of facility laws governing abortion provision specifically (targeted regulation of abortion providers [TRAP] laws); office-based surgeries, procedures, sedation or anesthesia (office interventions) generally (OBS laws); and other procedures specifically. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional legal assessments of state facility laws for office interventions in effect as of August 1, 2016. We coded characteristics for each law and compared characteristics across categories of laws. RESULTS: TRAP laws (n = 55; in 34 states) were more prevalent than OBS laws (n = 25; in 25 states) or laws targeting other procedures (n = 1; in 1 state). TRAP laws often regulated facilities that would not be regulated under OBS laws (e.g., all TRAP laws, but only 2 OBS laws, applied regardless of sedation or anesthesia used). TRAP laws imposed more numerous and more stringent requirements than OBS laws. CONCLUSIONS: Many states regulate abortion-providing facilities differently, and more stringently, than facilities providing other office interventions. The Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt casts doubt on the legitimacy of that differential treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence and characteristics of facility laws governing abortion provision specifically (targeted regulation of abortion providers [TRAP] laws); office-based surgeries, procedures, sedation or anesthesia (office interventions) generally (OBS laws); and other procedures specifically. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional legal assessments of state facility laws for office interventions in effect as of August 1, 2016. We coded characteristics for each law and compared characteristics across categories of laws. RESULTS: TRAP laws (n = 55; in 34 states) were more prevalent than OBS laws (n = 25; in 25 states) or laws targeting other procedures (n = 1; in 1 state). TRAP laws often regulated facilities that would not be regulated under OBS laws (e.g., all TRAP laws, but only 2 OBS laws, applied regardless of sedation or anesthesia used). TRAP laws imposed more numerous and more stringent requirements than OBS laws. CONCLUSIONS: Many states regulate abortion-providing facilities differently, and more stringently, than facilities providing other office interventions. The Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt casts doubt on the legitimacy of that differential treatment.
Authors: Ushma D Upadhyay; Sheila Desai; Vera Zlidar; Tracy A Weitz; Daniel Grossman; Patricia Anderson; Diana Taylor Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Daniel Grossman; Sarah Baum; Liza Fuentes; Kari White; Kristine Hopkins; Amanda Stevenson; Joseph E Potter Journal: Contraception Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Sarah C M Roberts; Nancy Beam; Guodong Liu; Ushma D Upadhyay; Douglas L Leslie; Djibril Ba; Jennifer L Kerns Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 2.243