No abstract

Purpose of review To review the current state of self-managed or self-induced abortion in the United States and the emerging legal, political, and research questions surrounding this issue. Recent findings With the exponential rise of restrictive antiabortion laws in the United States, it has become increasingly difficult to access safe and legal abortion services. One response to this hostile environment for reproductive care access is an increased interest in methods of self-induced or self-managed abortions, primarily by medications sourced outside the medical setting. Medication abortion is established as a safe and effective method of ending a pregnancy. Compared with clinic-based care, the two most pressing concerns regarding the safety of self-managed abortion are that people seeking abortion will incorrectly self-identifying as appropriate candidates and that they will not know or be able to access medical care if needed. There is therefore an increasing need for medical providers to learn about and researchers to evaluate the incidence, safety and efficacy of self-management of abortion. Simultaneously, reproductive law experts must continue to develop and educate on the legal frameworks to protect and decriminalize people seeking self-managed abortion as well as their care providers. Summary Emerging research suggests that abortion outside the medical setting, or self-managed abortion, is an overall safe and effective way to end a pregnancy. However, significant legal barriers and stigma remain. The safest environment for self-managed abortion (SMA) is one where accurate information is available, medical care is accessible when needed, and all methods of abortion remain legal.

Abortion is essential health care, and abortion training and education are essential at all levels of medical education. Among the most common procedures performed in obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), abortion is a core competency for OB/GYN residency programs. For nearly 50 years, the procedure was federally protected by the U.S. Supreme Court’s January 22, 1973, Roe v Wade decision. On June 24, 2022, amidst increasing state restrictions limiting abortion access, the Court’s decision on Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization effectively reversed Roe. As a result, immediate bans on abortion went into effect across the country, removing access to abortion for millions of people and newly limiting training and education in this core competency for many medical residents. As of June 2022, nearly half of U.S. OB/GYN residency programs and more than 40% of residents are located in states that have banned or are likely to ban abortion. In states where abortion is restricted or illegal, states must adapt quickly to ensure their residents meet training requirements. This adaptation may include developing and leveraging relationships with programs in states where access is protected, depending on simulation, and placing greater emphasis on education and training in pregnancy loss management and postabortion care. None of these is a comprehensive solution and even all together, they are insufficient to train residents and medical students. Ultimately, many future physicians will not receive the training they need to provide full reproductive health care to their pregnant patients. Legal and other systems of support are needed to ensure that current and future physicians can provide compassionate, evidence-based reproductive health care, including essential abortion care.

No abstract

The portrayal of abortion onscreen, in the news, and online through social media has a significant impact on cultural, personal, and political beliefs in the United States. This is an emerging field of research with wide spread potential impact across several arenas: medicine, policy, public health.

Purpose of reviewPeople seeking reproductive care experience trauma on many levels including personal, structural, in medical care, and in barriers to care. This article reviews key aspects of a Trauma-Informed Care approach in abortion and reproductive healthcare. Recent findingsExperiences of trauma are common and compounding, including systemic trauma, such as racism, sexism, and transphobia. Reproductive healthcare itself traumatizes and re-traumatizes. Trauma Informed Care (TIC) approach to individual abortion care includes maximize patient safety, choice, and privacy. TIC approach to systemic abortion care includes dismantling barriers to care and stigma.

Purpose of reviewThe Dobbs vs Jackson case (Dobbs) decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2022 rescinded the constitutional right to abortion care, resulting in immediate state bans and severe restrictions on abortion care in almost half of the states at the time of submission. This article reviews the current state of abortion education and training as well as available curricula and programmes to support continued training. Recent findingsPrior to Dobbs, a national residency-level training programme, the Ryan Residency Training Program, has helped expand abortion care training in residency programs nationally, yet there remained many barriers to incorporating this training into practice, including practice and hospital restrictions. New state restrictions now additionally constrain almost half of all the Ob-Gyn residency programmes. Medical students benefit from education on options counselling and values exploration. SummaryAbortion care education and training is in crisis. Almost half of the Ob-Gyn residents are training in states that have banned or severely restricted abortion care. This threatens to create a workforce without critical early pregnancy management knowledge and skills. Residents are more likely to provide abortion care when they have scheduled routine training. Medical students can apply options counselling and values exploration knowledge broadly. Online education resources provide some patchwork solutions to continue abortion care education and training in this heavily restrictive landscape.

BackgroundThere remains considerable global unmet contraceptive need, with almost 200 million women reporting desire to limit or space childbearing without contraceptive use. Researchers have documented worldwide interest in an oral, on-demand contraceptive option were it available. Candidates for use include ulipristal acetate (UA), levonorgestrel and cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors alone or in combination.MethodsWe performed an exploratory, prospective study of matched menstrual cycles: one baseline cycle and one treatment cycle of UA 30 mg plus meloxicam 30 mg just prior to ovulation. The primary outcome was ovulation disruption, defined as unruptured dominant follicle for 5 days. Secondary outcomes included comparing cycle length, endometrial stripe thickness, and side effects.ResultsNine participants completed all study procedures in both cycles. Ovulatory disruption occurred in 66.7% (n=6) of treatment cycles and all but one demonstrated features of ovulatory dysfunction. Cycle length (mean±SD) was longer in the treatment cycle (31.9±4.0 vs 28.6±3.5 days, p<0.01). Secondary outcomes did not differ between the two cycles.ConclusionsUA plus the COX-2 inhibitor meloxicam disrupts ovulation at peak luteal surge and is a promising candidate for evaluation as a pericoital oral contraceptive.Trial registration numberNCT03354117.