3 years after abortion rights were overturned, contraception access is at risk
The Dobbs ruling, which overturned Roe v. Wade, has vastly reshaped the national abortion landscape. Three years on, many states have severely restricted access to abortion care. But the decision has also had a less well-recognized outcome: It is increasingly jeopardizing access to contraception.
We are a physician scientist and a sociologist and health services researcher studying women's health care and policy, including access to contraception. We see a worrisome situation emerging.
Even while the growing limits on abortion in the U.S. heighten the need for effective contraception, family planning providers are less available in many states, and health insurance coverage of some of the most effective types of contraception is at risk.
Abortion restrictions have proliferated around the country since the Dobbs decision. As of June 2025, 12 states have near-total abortion bans and 10 states ban abortion before 23 or 24 weeks of gestation, which is when a fetus is generally deemed viable. Of the remaining states, 19 restrict abortion after viability and nine states and Washington have no gestational limits.
It's no surprise that women living in states that ban or severely restrict abortion may be especially motivated to avoid unintended pregnancy. Even planned pregnancies have grown riskier, with health care providers fearing legal repercussions for treating pregnancy-related medical emergencies such as miscarriages. Such concerns may in part explain emerging research that suggests the use of long-acting contraception such as intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and permanent contraception – namely, sterilization – are on the rise.
A national survey conducted in 2024 asked women ages 18 to 49 if they have changed their contraception practices 'as a result of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.' It found that close to 1 in 5 women began using contraception for the first time, switched to a more effective contraceptive method, received a sterilization procedure or purchased emergency contraception to keep on hand.
A study in Ohio hospitals found a nearly 16% increase in women choosing long-acting contraception methods or sterilization in the six months after the Dobbs decision, and a 33% jump in men receiving vasectomies. Another study, which looked at both female and male sterilization in academic medical centers across the country, also reported an uptick in sterilization procedures for young adults ages 18 to 30 after the Dobbs decision, through 2023.
Ironically, banning or severely restricting abortion statewide may also diminish capacity to provide contraception.
To date, there is no compelling evidence that OB-GYN doctors are leaving states with strict abortion laws in significant numbers. One study found that states with severe abortion restrictions saw a 4.2% decrease in such practitioners compared with states without abortion restrictions.
However, the Association of American Medical Colleges reports declining applications to residency training programs located in states that have abortion bans – not just for OB-GYN training programs, but for residency training of all specialties. This drop suggests that doctors may be overall less likely to train in states that restrict medical practice. And given that physicians often stay on to practice in the states where they do their training, it may point to a long-term decline in physicians in those states.
But the most significant drop in contraceptive services likely comes from the closure of abortion clinics in states with the most restrictive abortion policies. That's because such clinics generally provide a wide range of reproductive services, including contraception. The 12 states with near-total abortion bans had 57 abortion clinics in 2020, all of which were closed as of March 2024. One study reported a 4.1% decline in oral contraceptives dispensed in those states.
The Dobbs decision has also encouraged ongoing efforts to incorrectly redefine some of the most effective contraceptives as medications that cause abortion. These efforts target emergency contraceptive pills, known as Plan B over-the-counter and Ella by prescription, as well as certain IUDs. Emergency contraceptive pills are up to 98% effective at preventing pregnancy after unprotected sex, and IUDs are 99% effective.
Neither method terminates a pregnancy, which by definition begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Instead, emergency contraceptive pills prevent an egg from being released from the ovaries, while IUDs, depending on the type, prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg or prevent an egg from implanting in the uterus.
Conflating contraception and abortion spreads misinformation and causes confusion. People who believe that certain types of contraception cause abortions may be dissuaded from using those methods and rely on less effective methods. What's more, it may affect health insurance coverage.
Medicaid, which provides health insurance for low-income children and adults, has been required to cover family planning services at no cost to patients since 1972. Since 2012, the Affordable Care Act has required private health insurers to cover certain women's health preventive services at no cost to patients, including the full-range of contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
According to our research, the insurance coverage required by the Affordable Care Act has increased use of IUDs, which can be prohibitively expensive when paid out of pocket. But if IUDs and emergency contraceptive pills were reclassified as interventions that induce abortion, they likely would not be covered by Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act, since neither type of health insurance requires coverage for abortion care. Thus, access to some of the most effective contraceptive methods could be jeopardized at a time when the right to terminate an unintended or nonviable pregnancy has been rolled back in much of the country.
Indeed, Project 2025, the conservative policy agenda that the Trump administration appears to be following, specifically calls for removing Ella from the Affordable Care Act contraception coverage mandate because it is a 'potential abortifacient.' And politicians in multiple states have expressed support for the idea of restricting these contraceptive methods, as well as contraception more broadly.
On the third anniversary of the Dobbs decision, it is clear that its ripple effects include threats to contraception. Considering that contraception use is almost universal among women in their reproductive years, in our view these threats should be taken seriously.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Cynthia H. Chuang, Penn State and Carol S. Weisman, Penn State
Read more:
Abortion bans are changing what it means to be young in America
'A revolutionary ruling – and not just for abortion': A Supreme Court scholar explains the impact of Dobbs
Anti-mifepristone court decisions rely on medical misinformation about abortion and questionable legal reasoning
Cynthia H. Chuang receives funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Carol S. Weisman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
26 minutes ago
- Forbes
Novel Access Model For Sickle Cell Disease Gene Therapy Could Be Template
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced in July that 33 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico will join a new voluntary program intended to improve patient access to and lower costs for gene therapies targeting sickle cell disease. This was a Biden administration initiative, which the Trump administration decided to continue to implement. It ties payment for two novel gene therapies to positive clinical outcomes. This could make such treatments that cost millions be more widely accessible for patients. And if successful, it may serve as a template for future cell and gene therapy agreements. Medicaid, the joint federal and state program that provides health coverage to low-income individuals, is the main insurer for SCD patients. The Biden administration announced last year that the manufacturers of Lyfgenia and Casgevy had entered into agreements with CMS to participate in the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model, which allows CMS to negotiate outcomes-based agreements on behalf of state Medicaid programs for cell and gene therapies, beginning with sickle cell disease treatments. Essentially this means that CMS will reimburse based on whether certain agreed-upon clinical thresholds are reached in patients. According to CMS, the participating states in the newly established access initiative represent about 84% of Medicaid beneficiaries with SCD. The program could contribute towards a sizable expansion of access to potentially transformative care in the form of two extraordinarily expensive gene therapies. The launch prices for Casgevy (exagamglogene autotemcel) and Lyfgenia (lovotibeglogene autotemcel) were $2.2 million and $3.1 million, respectively. SCD is a group of congenital red blood cell disorders, named sickle cell for their crescent shape. The condition affects millions of people worldwide. In the United States, approximately 100,000 individuals are living with the disease, which predominantly impacts people of sub-Saharan African descent. The disease alters the structure of hemoglobin, the molecule in red blood cells that delivers oxygen to organs and tissue throughout the body. As a consequence, this causes severe pain, anemia, organ damage and infections. Individuals with the disease have a shorter life expectancy, by more than 20 years on average. The most common sickle cell disorder type is sickle cell anemia. Besides pain medications to relieve symptoms as well as antibiotics to treat infections, hydroxyurea—a bone marrow suppressive agent that decreases red blood cell production—can be used to reduce the frequency of painful episodes. It has been in use since the 1980s. The Food and Drug Administration has approved several new therapeutics in the past ten years, but none are as promising as Lyfgenia and Casgevy. These two novel therapies can decrease or potentially eliminate pain crises in patients. Gene therapies such as Lyfgenia and Casgevy are administered in an inpatient hospital setting but are considered covered outpatient drugs because they're directly reimbursed and subject to standard, federally mandated Medicaid rebates. Manufacturers of the two treatments must also provide states with supplemental rebates (post-hoc discounts off of the list price) reflecting model-negotiated terms. In turn, states are obligated to implement an agreed-upon access policy for patients. According to CMS, there is also optional federal support of up to $9.55 million per state available to help with implementation of the arrangements, outreach and data tracking. In the cell and gene therapy space, science has generally outpaced commercialization. Access to very costly treatments is a challenge. Whether in the public or commercial sector, payers must find novel ways of paying for cell and gene therapies while generating evidence with respect to their real-world effectiveness and safety. Questions insurers must find answers to include: What are the health outcomes for patients in real-world settings? Do treatments fulfill the promise of a one-time cure for certain serious illnesses or disorders? Are there particular safety concerns that appear in real-world settings? Are side effects manageable? Coordinating evidence gathering as well as contracts across state Medicaid agencies is likely to yield a more efficient process while improving access for a substantial majority of SCD sufferers nationwide. It's not just SCD gene therapies that confront a formidable set of barriers to access. All cell and gene therapy manufacturers face a challenging environment. The regulatory hurdles are enormous to begin with, but manufacturing challenges following approval are considerable, too. Furthermore, patient preparation, side effect and adverse event profiles can be intolerable. This can deter patients from signing up to initiate treatment. On top of all of this, payers concerned about the high per unit costs often impose coverage restrictions, as the Tufts Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health describes. Nonetheless, gene therapies in particular hold the promise of delivering groundbreaking improvements in health outcomes across multiple disease areas. Therefore, overcoming obstacles to optimal patient access is crucial. If successful, the SCD model being experimented with could serve as a blueprint for other cell and gene therapies that have faced considerable barriers with respect to patient access.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Check Your Kitchen—Experts Say These 10 Foods Contain The Most Microplastics
"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links." Microplastics are found in many everyday foods like rice, tea, bottled water, and seafood. Early research suggests microplastics may contribute to health issues like oxidative stress, organ dysfunction, and metabolic or immune disruptions, though more studies are needed. Experts recommend reducing exposure by choosing loose-leaf tea, rinsing rice, avoiding plastic bottles, and opting for minimally processed or non-plastic-packaged foods. Almost everything we eat these days is transported or stored in plastic, and we've all zapped leftovers in the microwave in plastic containers. But you may not have realized that microplastics actually can be found inside the foods we eat. It's actually not a new topic. "Research into the effects of microplastic consumption has been ongoing for several decades," says Stephani Johnson, D.C.N., R.D.N., adjunct professor, Department of Clinical and Preventive Nutrition Sciences at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. "However, there is still much to learn regarding the average levels of human exposure, how long microplastics remain in the body, and their associated health consequences. What is currently known is that microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment, making complete avoidance virtually impossible." Studies have found microplastics throughout the human body, including in the brain, heart, colon, placenta, and more. "We are what we eat, and we are eating and being exposed to plastics in our food," Nicholas Mallos, vice president of conservation, ocean plastics, at the Ocean Conservancy, and co-author of a recent study on microplastics in commonly-consumed proteins. "While we need more research to know what exposure levels of plastics are causing human health problems, we should be concerned." What Are The Health Consequences Of Consuming Microplastics? Emerging evidence suggests that potential harm may depend on several factors, including the amount consumed, as well as the type, size, and shape of the microplastic particles. "At the cellular level, studies have shown that microplastics can contribute to oxidative stress, DNA damage, organ dysfunction, and disruptions in metabolic, reproductive, and immune functions, as well as neurodevelopmental toxicity," Johnson says. Unfortunately, there is still much we don't know about microplastics in food. "Our study demonstrates the need for further research to better understand microplastics in the most commonly consumed foods, including precisely where these microplastics are coming from and the potential human health risks," Mallos says. Ahead, the foods that research has found to contain a measurable amount of microplastics: Tea Many commercial tea bags are made with polypropylene, a type of plastic used to seal the bags and maintain their shape. "When steeped in hot water, these bags can release microplastics into the tea. To avoid potential ingestion of microplastics, using loose leaf tea with a stainless steel or other non-plastic tea infuser is a safer and more sustainable alternative," Johnson says. Rice "Studies have shown that rice can contain relatively high levels of microplastics, likely due to contamination of soil and irrigation water," Johnson says. Rinsing rice thoroughly before cooking has been found to reduce its microplastic content by approximately 20–40%. Ultra-Processed Foods There's evidence that food processing is a likely source of microplastic contamination. Research has found that highly-processed protein products, such as chicken nuggets, tofu, and plant-based burgers, contain significantly more microplastics per gram than minimally processed products, such as wild Alaska pollock and raw chicken breast, Mallos says. Bottled Water When exposed to heat—such as being left in a hot car—or subjected to physical stress, like squeezing, plastic water bottles can release microplastics into the water. "Among various types, single-use plastic bottles tend to release the highest amounts of microplastics, followed by reusable plastic bottles," Johnson says. "In contrast, stainless steel and glass bottles do not degrade or leach microplastics, making them a safer and more sustainable choice for drinking water." Salt Believe it or not, even salt—a naturally occurring mineral—isn't safe from microplastics. Research has found that salt can contain large amounts of microplastics, reflecting the broader problem of environmental pollution. Himalayan pink salt contains the greatest amounts, followed by black salt and sea salt, Johnson says. Fruits & Vegetables "Due to widespread environmental contamination, fruits and vegetables can contain measurable amounts of microplastics," Johnson says. Some types of produce are more susceptible than others, like root vegetables (such as carrots, potatoes, and beets), because they absorb microplastics from contaminated soil and rainwater through their root systems. But all types of plants can absorb microplastics through their roots. Honey Even honey may be contaminated by microplastics, which is also a concern due to widespread environmental contamination, Johnson says. Plant-Based Foods In the study co-authored by Mallos, microplastic particles were found in tofu, plant-based nuggets, plant-based fish sticks, and plant-based ground beef. Fresh Seafood Microplastics in the ocean accumulate in fish and shellfish, ultimately impacting humans, who consume seafood containing these particles, Johnson says. Bottom-feeding species, such as clams, mussels, oysters, catfish, halibut, flounder, and cod, tend to have higher concentrations of microplastics compared to other marine organisms. Processed Seafood Processed seafood fares no better. Research shows breaded shrimp, pollock fish sticks, and shrimp also contain microplastics, Mallos says. You Might Also Like Insanely Easy Weeknight Dinners To Try This Week 29 Insanely Delicious Vodka Cocktails Solve the daily Crossword
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Time Your Meals, Tune Your Metabolism
New research from UC San Diego has revealed fascinating insights into how timing our meals might significantly affect our metabolic health by aligning with our body's natural microbial rhythms. Just as our bodies follow circadian rhythms, our gut microbes have their own daily patterns, with certain beneficial activities increasing during our active periods to help with digestion and metabolism. The study found that unrestricted access to high-fat foods disrupted these natural patterns, leading to unusual daytime eating and metabolic dysfunction — similar to what human shift workers experience when their eating cycles don't match their biological clocks. Using cutting-edge metatranscriptomics technology, researchers identified a specific enzyme called bile salt hydrolase that plays a crucial role in metabolic improvements. When engineered into beneficial bacteria, this led to increased lean muscle mass, reduced body fat, and better blood glucose regulation. These findings could potentially lead to new targeted therapies for common metabolic disorders, offering hope for those struggling with obesity and diabetes. This breakthrough not only demonstrates the significant influence of circadian rhythms on microbial function, but it also provides a new method for testing how specific microbial activities affect our metabolism through engineered gut bacteria. This content was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
