State Law Approaches to Facility Regulation of Abortion and Other Office Interventions

Bibliographic Data

ID11019090
AuthorsBonnie Scott Jones (University of California, San Francisco, corresponding author), Sara Daniel (0000-0002-7430-6139, 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.), Lindsay K Cloud (0000-0001-5601-8179, 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.)
Year2018
Volume108
Issue4
Pages486-492
Publication date2018-04-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0090-0036 • E-ISSN: 1541-0048
PublisherAmerican Public Health Association (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.2105/ajph.2017.304278
PMID29470114
OpenAlexW2788513949
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited18

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

Abortion · Business · Legitimacy · Political science · Politics · Pregnancy · Psychological intervention · State (computer science) · Supreme court · Trap (plumbing) · Computer Science · Engineering · Ethics in medical practice · Law · Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions · Medicine · Nursing · Reproductive Health and Contraception

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access