Ethical research when abortion access is legally restricted

The legal landscape surrounding abortion in the United States has shifted dramatically since the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated a nationwide right to abortion (1) In the year since, roughly half of US states have expanded abortion restrictions. Some consequences of heightened restrictions—including increased maternal morbidity and mortality and deepening socioeconomic and racial inequities—have quickly come into view. However, little attention has focused on the ethical, legal, and practical implications that such restrictions have for research involving people who could become pregnant during research and research staff. Notably, limited access to abortion can pose risks to clinical research participants and potentially compromise the scientific and social value of some research. As a result, assessments of potential research risks and benefits may be altered. We outline points for various stakeholders [such as sponsors, investigators, research sites, and institutional review boards (IRBs)] to consider in addressing these issues.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
UNC Libraries
Published
2025-03-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17615/dkew-m148
Primary Topic
Reproductive Health and Contraception
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ethical research when abortion access is legally restricted

Kathleen M. MacQueen, Danielle M. Wenner, Robert Klitzman, Florencia Luna et al.
UNC Libraries
Reproductive Health and Contraception
article

Ethical research when abortion access is legally restricted

Kathleen M. MacQueen, Danielle M. Wenner, Robert Klitzman, Florencia Luna, Leslie Meltzer Henry, Stuart Rennie, Jeremy Sugarman, Annette Rid, Lawrence O. Gostin, Jerome Amir Singh
article en

Abstract

The legal landscape surrounding abortion in the United States has shifted dramatically since the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated a nationwide right to abortion (1) In the year since, roughly half of US states have expanded abortion restrictions. Some consequences of heightened restrictions—including increased maternal morbidity and mortality and deepening socioeconomic and racial inequities—have quickly come into view. However, little attention has focused on the ethical, legal, and practical implications that such restrictions have for research involving people who could become pregnant during research and research staff. Notably, limited access to abortion can pose risks to clinical research participants and potentially compromise the scientific and social value of some research. As a result, assessments of potential research risks and benefits may be altered. We outline points for various stakeholders [such as sponsors, investigators, research sites, and institutional review boards (IRBs)] to consider in addressing these issues.

UNC Libraries
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH Clinical Center
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Reproductive Health and Contraception
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.