Which Harms to Patients Affect Family-Building Decision-Making in States in Which Legislatures Ban or Restrict Abortion Care?

AbstractAbortion bans and restrictions harm patients and are not evidence based. Bans express poor understanding of the clinical complexity of many patients' need for early intervention and need to avoid mortality or morbidity. Restrictions delay clinically indicated care and avoidable complications and contribute to poor physical and mental health outcomes; they also intrude in family decision-making and contribute to poor neonatal outcomes. This commentary on a case considers how bans and restrictions ignore patients' views about their and their family's quality of life and ignore patients' risk tolerance, including in response to threats to their survival. State-by-state legal variation poses logistical and financial barriers to clinically indicated services, causes delays, and exacerbates inequity.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Clinical Ethics
Published
2026-05-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1086/740413
Primary Topic
Reproductive Health and Contraception
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Which Harms to Patients Affect Family-Building Decision-Making in States in Which Legislatures Ban or Restrict Abortion Care?

Alena Hoover, Carrie Cwiak
The Journal of Clinical Ethics
Reproductive Health and Contraception
article

Which Harms to Patients Affect Family-Building Decision-Making in States in Which Legislatures Ban or Restrict Abortion Care?

Alena Hoover, Carrie Cwiak
article en

Abstract

AbstractAbortion bans and restrictions harm patients and are not evidence based. Bans express poor understanding of the clinical complexity of many patients' need for early intervention and need to avoid mortality or morbidity. Restrictions delay clinically indicated care and avoidable complications and contribute to poor physical and mental health outcomes; they also intrude in family decision-making and contribute to poor neonatal outcomes. This commentary on a case considers how bans and restrictions ignore patients' views about their and their family's quality of life and ignore patients' risk tolerance, including in response to threats to their survival. State-by-state legal variation poses logistical and financial barriers to clinically indicated services, causes delays, and exacerbates inequity.

The Journal of Clinical EthicsVol. 37(2)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
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.