Browse the Archive

Induced abortion is defined as a procedure done to end a pregnancy in such a manner as to avoid a live birth ie intentional feticide. Many physicians will encounter patients considering intentional feticide (induced abortion) for various reasons. Such interactions present an opportunity not only to create a lasting bond with the patient, but also to open doors for her to explore possibilities she may not have considered, and thereby enable her to make a life-affirming decision. Given the importance of offering accurate information about induced abortion and continuation of pregnancy, this Guideline provides guidance and resources for the prolife physician encountering an abortion-vulnerable patient.

While both induced abortion and natural pregnancy loss have been associated with subsequent mental health problems, population-based studies directly comparing these two pregnancy outcomes are rare. We sought to compare mental health morbidity after an induced abortion or natural loss.

In a recent American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 900 professors submitted a Special Report calling for reinstating federal protection for abortion. Here, we provide an alternative consensus statement. Induced abortion is not a constitutional right. We, too, value patient autonomy, but autonomy does not allow for causing harm to another human being, in this case, the human fetus. We share concern about maternal mortality in the United States, but evidence shows that induced abortion increases, not decreases, maternal mortality.

Mary Harmed, J.D., and Ingrid Skop, M.D., in this article, correct misleading statements in a recent Obstetrics & Gynecology article. No state has an abortion law that is a total ban on abortion. Every state law permits abortion when necessary to save a mother’s life. Texas law does not require an “imminent” risk and allows a doctor to use his “reasonable medical judgment” to determine if an abortion is necessary to prevent a “risk” of maternal death. Similarly, Idaho allows a doctor to use his “good faith medical judgment” to determine when to intervene, without need for “immediacy.”

Ingrid Skop, M.D., et al., in this article, discusses the implications of the U.S. FDA permanently removing the in-person prescribing requirements that previously safeguarded the use of mifepristone/misoprostol medical abortions, allowing prescribing through telemedicine or on-line ordering and distribution through the mail and pharmacies, without standard pre-abortion testing. This will increase the risk of complications due to failure to adequately determine the gestational age or rule out ectopic pregnancy by ultrasound or physical exam, failure to perform labs to document whether RhoGAM is indicated, and failure to obtain appropriate informed consent to prevent unwanted abortions, among other concerns. The FDA justified this action by referencing flawed studies with significantly undercounted complications. The details of these study deficiencies are examined in this article.

In this article, Olena Korolchuk et al. examines state regulation of medical care quality post-COVID and during martial law in Ukraine, identifying areas for improvement. It emphasizes state roles in healthcare standardization, continuous feedback monitoring, and studying patient satisfaction. Interrelationships among Ukraine’s state regulation mechanisms are determined, highlighting the need to enhance tools such as criteria and quality indicators for medical care assurance. The authors utilize various scientific methods, including analysis, synthesis, induction, and deduction, as well as historical and legal, formal legal, and comparative legal methods to examine the state regulation of ensuring the quality of medical care during martial law in Ukraine. The article considers the interrelationships of mechanisms and instruments of state regulation of quality assurance of medical care in Ukraine. It concludes that the state should enhance medical care quality regulation, drawing on international experiences from the EU and the USA and adapting best practices to national circumstances. The resilience of the healthcare system depends on effective quality assurance, ensuring preparedness, stability, and ongoing improvement prospects.