Opinion - No, OBGYNs are not systematically fleeing states that banned abortion
The Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision ended decades of national judicial precedent protecting legal abortion.
As of today, 12 states enforce bans on nearly all abortions, and seven states are enforcing bans on abortions after six, 12 or 18 weeks' gestation. Also, numerous lawsuits have been filed attempting to restrict abortion access in states where it is still legal.
Although obstetricians and gynecologists have always had to operate under the risk of malpractice lawsuits, state-level abortion bans added a new layer of legal risk to delivering established standards of care.
In this climate, surveys have revealed evidence of obstetrician-gynecologist in states that have banned abortion feeling constrained or afraid. Reports and studies have documented a decline in OBGYN residency applications to programs located in those states. And numerous media outlets have run stories suggesting that OBGYNs are leaving states with abortion bans to practice where abortion is still legal.
Since obstetrician-gynecologist provide many different kinds of care — including contraceptive, delivery and postpartum care — these stories have raised serious concerns about the availability of all forms of reproductive health care throughout much of the country.
But in research just published in JAMA Network Open, we and our co-authors find no evidence of such an exodus of obstetrician-gynecologist physicians from states with abortion bans.
Using administrative records managed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on all physicians who bill insurance, we looked at the movement of obstetrician-gynecologists between states with different abortion policy environments from just before the Dobbs decision to two years after. Out of all obstetrician-gynecologist who were practicing at the start of 2022 in states with abortion bans, 94.2 percent were still practicing in September 2024. This percentage is statistically indistinguishable from the 94.8 percent of obstetrician-gynecologists who have remained in states where abortion is threatened and the 95.8 percent who have remained in states where it is protected.
OBGYNs also continued to move into states with abortion bans at similar rates to other states. From the start of 2018 to the end of 2024, the total number grew by 8.3 percent in states with abortion bans, by 10.5 percent in states where it is threatened and by 7.7 percent in states where it is protected. Trends in the number of practicing obstetrician-gynecologists were also comparable to those in the number of physicians in other specialties in states where abortion is banned.
We also considered trends in the practice locations of recent residency graduates and subspecialists in maternal-fetal medicine, as well as trends in the share of OBGYNs who are female and who are licensed to practice in more than one state. All were similar between states, regardless of abortion's legality.
Our findings are not unique. In December 2024, an independent group of researchers using a different data set came to the exact same conclusions. And in March, researchers showed that the number of obstetrician-gynecologists in states with bans has increased since Dobbs, though perhaps at a slower rate than in a group of states with mixed status.
So why has a narrative that obstetricians are leaving and avoiding states with abortion bans become so prominent? A closer look at the media coverage reveals that different reporters have interviewed the same small handful of 15 or so physicians who left states with bans. Those interviews, coupled with survey evidence on the strain physicians are facing, have led to conclusions that doctors are fleeing states with bans. But it just isn't true.
Evidence on trends in residency applications also needs additional context. While states with bans have seen larger declines in obstetrician-gynecologist residency applications than states without bans, nearly all such positions continue to be filled at pre-Dobbs levels. Broader doctor shortage issues that predate the Dobbs decision, including those leading to closures of hospital labor and delivery departments, have been conflated with the effects of the Supreme Court ruling as well.
We pursued this research because it is crucial to understand all of the facts to make progress on the availability and quality of reproductive health care. Focusing on a physician exodus that is not actually happening distracts us from addressing the real, plentiful problems with the delivery of medical care. Our findings imply that while removing abortion bans would likely improve the quality of care that obstetricians can provide by giving them the ability to follow established standards of care, it is unlikely to shift the economic and structural forces driving maternal ward closures and doctor shortages.
When it comes to the availability of care, those are the forces that deserve policy attention.
Our study is by no means the final word. Physicians feeling constrained by abortion bans may be 'sheltering in place' for now, with decisions of where to live and work shaped by other factors. The coming years could well see different trends.
But at this point, ensuring high-quality reproductive health care in states affected by abortion bans will require supporting the obstetricians who, at heightened personal risk, continue to provide essential care to the best of their ability.
Becky Staiger is an assistant professor in health policy and management in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. Valentin Bolotnyy is a Kleinheinz Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Could Clarence Thomas Delay Retirement Over Trump Picks? Experts Weigh In
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is unlikely to delay any hypothetical retirement to avoid being replaced by a President Donald Trump appointee, legal analysts have said. Speaking with Newsweek, analysts rejected the suggestion that a spat between Trump and conservative legal groups, as well as tension over some of the appointments Trump has made, would be enough to change Thomas' tenure in the courts. Why It Matters As Republicans have a slim majority in both the House and Senate, the courts have emerged as one of the main impediments to policies the Trump administration has pursued. Trump has repeatedly called for the impeachment of federal judges who have blocked his orders and has appointed people to courts to suit his politics. Thomas, a conservative judge, has served since 1991. If the 76-year-old retires, it will change the alignment and direction of the court, depending on who replaces him. He has made no public statements indicating whether he wishes to retire. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas at the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas at the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File What To Know On Thursday, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to attack the conservative legal group the Federalist Society, saying he was "disappointed" by "the bad advice" the society had given him on judicial nominations during his first term. The day before, Timothy Reif, a judge Trump appointed to the U.S. Court of International Trade, ruled in a unanimous panel to strike down the president's tariffs. Meanwhile, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump nominated in 2020, has recently drawn criticism for siding with liberals in the court. In May, Trump nominated Emily Bove to serve as a judge on a federal appeals court. Amid these events, legal analysts have speculated that judges such as Thomas will be reluctant to retire over concerns about who might replace them. The Wall Street Journal editorial board said that attacking conservative judges would make it less likely that they will retire, "lest they be replaced by partisan hacks." However, writing in his Substack, Original Jurisdiction, the legal commentator David Lat said he didn't believe these events would affect Thomas' plans. Newsweek spoke with legal analysts who shared their predictions on the matter. What People Are Saying Attorney Bradley P. Moss told Newsweek: "I see absolutely no reason to believe Clarence Thomas will step away from the bench until either he physically is unable to continue with his work, or he is assured that a handpicked successor will be confirmed without incident. No one should realistically believe that this current little rift between President Trump and Leonard Leo will have any impact on that in the long term." Matthew Mangino, a former district attorney in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, told Newsweek: "The cult of Donald Trump is stronger than any association, society or organization. If Trump wants Justice Alito and Thomas to move aside, they will oblige; if he wants them to stay, they'll stay, it is that simple. "If conservatives expect these two justices to take a heroic stand against the president to save the Federalist Society, they are sadly mistaken. How can anyone anywhere expect principled action in this brewing controversy." Richard Painter, a former ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, told Newsweek that Thomas' future depended on several factors: "First, Justice Thomas may or may not want to retire and might not choose the optimal time for a conservative replacement anyhow. "So even without Trump's spat with Fed Soc and conservatives, a lot of this depends on Justice Thomas and whether he is willing to retire and give up the enormous status that comes with holding a seat on the Court." He continued: "As for the spat with the conservative legal movement, they have already put up with a lot from Trump, but they will insist on conservative justices in return (some people say there are only three reasons conservative lawyers support Trump, all three on the Supreme Court). So it all boils down to who Trump nominates. "Justice Thomas, if he wants to retire, could announce his intention to retire in the near future, and then see who the White House plans to nominate. If the nominee is unsatisfactory, he would simply tell the GOP in the Senate that he is postponing retirement, and that would kill the nomination. I would expect a lot of behind-the-scenes negotiations between Justice Thomas and his allies, the Senate GOP and the White House over the next year or so. Same with Justice Alito." Legal commentator David Lat wrote in his Substack on Monday: "I'm sticking to my prediction from last year that we won't see a SCOTUS retirement during Trump's term." What Happens Next It remains to be seen whether Thomas or any other justices will resign from the Supreme Court during Trump's term.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Suspect charged with federal hate crime in Boulder attack
Suspect charged with federal hate crime in Boulder attack | The Excerpt On Tuesday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: A 45-year-old suspect has been charged with a federal hate crime in the attack on a Colorado pro-Israel protest. Russia and Ukraine hold peace talks after Ukraine's recent drone strikes. USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent Maureen Groppe takes a look at the high court's move to take up a challenge to a grace period for mail-in ballots. A new study has found a link between chronic cannabis use and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. USA TODAY National Immigration and Border Reporter Lauren Villagran tells us about volunteers who search for migrant remains along the U.S.-Mexico border. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Taylor Wilson: Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson, and today is Tuesday, June 3rd, 2025. This is The Excerpt. Today we're learning more about the suspect in the Boulder attack. Plus the Supreme Court takes up a challenge to a grace period for mail-in ballots, and how volunteers search for bodies along the southern border. ♦ The man accused of setting 12 people on fire at a pro-Israel protest has been charged with a federal hate crime. He told investigators he wanted to kill all Zionist people and wished all of them were dead. According to an FBI affidavit released yesterday. 45-year-old Mohammed Sabry Soliman is accused of attacking a demonstration with a makeshift flamethrower and firebombs while shouting, "Free Palestine." Injuries to victims range from minor to serious. According to an affidavit, the suspect told investigators he planned the attack for a year and waited for his daughter to graduate before carrying it out. A judge has set bond at $10 million. Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff said the suspect overstayed a tourist visa issued in 2022. You can read more with the link in today's show notes. ♦ During peace talks yesterday, Russia told Ukraine that it would only agree to end the war if Ukraine concedes large amounts of territory and agrees to limits on the size of its army, according to a memorandum reported by Russian media. It's the latest refusal out of Moscow to compromise on its war goals. Negotiations in Turkey came after Ukraine destroyed dozens of enemy bombers over the weekend using drones smuggled deep into Russia. It was the most damaging Ukrainian attack on Russia in the three years since Moscow invaded. ♦ The Supreme Court will decide if a challenge to an Illinois grace period for mail-in ballots can proceed. I spoke with USA TODAY's Supreme Court correspondent Maureen Groppe to learn more. Hello, Maureen. Maureen Groppe: Hello. Taylor Wilson: All right, so what is this challenge, Maureen, and what will the Supreme Court now be deciding? Maureen Groppe: This case is about Illinois law that lets mail-in ballots be counted if they are postmarked on or before the day of the election and received within two weeks. The court isn't deciding whether that grace period is allowed, which Republicans say it's not. Instead, they're deciding whether a congressman as Republican congressman Michael Bost has what is called standing to even bring this challenge into court to have the lawsuit proceed. Taylor Wilson: Well, how did this play out in the lower courts, Maureen? Maureen Groppe: Well, the lower court said that the congressman can't bring the case because he hadn't shown he had been sufficiently harmed by the law. He said he's harmed because he has to spend campaign funds to contest any objectionable ballots that come in after election day. So he says that's an extra cost to his campaign that he wouldn't have if there was no grace period. But the Chicago-based Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals, they dismissed that argument. One of the judges said it was speculative at best that later ballots could cause him to lose an election, and the judge noted that this congressman won by 75% in the most recent election before this decision came out. But one of the three appeals court judges who ruled on this lawsuit said he would have let it proceed. Taylor Wilson: Well, you know Republicans have been pushing back and even trying to end this practice in a variety of other ways. How so, Maureen? Maureen Groppe: They've been challenging state laws individually, like in this suit, and in Mississippi. And recently President Trump issued an executive order that, among other things, would prevent such grace periods. His executive order does a lot of things about election law, but this is one of the things that it would do, but that order is also being challenged in court. Taylor Wilson: All right, and really what's the potential broader impact of a SCOTUS decision here? Maureen Groppe: Well, the broader impact for the specific legal question that the Supreme Court agreed to hear is how hard it should be for a candidate to be able to challenge election law. What do they have to show, what kind of harms do they have to show to let them challenge an election rule that they don't agree with? And in the appeal to the court trying to give them reasons for why they should take this case, the lawyers for the Congressmen said the court needed to hear this because there's this growing trend of courts limiting candidate's ability to challenge electoral rules. Taylor Wilson: All right, we are smarter on all things Supreme Court anytime you stop by. Thanks Maureen. Maureen Groppe: Thanks for having me. ♦ Taylor Wilson: A new study has found a link between chronic cannabis use, including in edible form, and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease that's comparable to the effects of smoking tobacco. The study is the latest to associate cannabis with negative health impacts and was conducted by researchers at the University of California San Francisco, who analyzed the cardiovascular health of 55 people who consumed cannabis at least three times a week for at least a year. They found vascular function was reduced by about half when compared with those who did not consume cannabis regularly. They also showed signs of increased risk for premature heart disease researchers found similar to tobacco smokers. Those included in the study were tested to ensure they do not smoke tobacco or vape and were not frequently exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke. You can read more of the study's findings with a link in today's show notes. ♦ At the southern border a group of volunteers has a grim task, to find the remains of migrants who had passed away in the desert. I spoke with USA TODAY National Immigration and Border Reporter Lauren Villagran for more. Thanks for joining me as always, Lauren. Lauren Villagran: Thanks, Taylor. Taylor Wilson: So I want to hear about these volunteers and their work here in a second, but just first, how many migrants, Lauren, die along the border, especially in this part of the El Paso sector? Lauren Villagran: So Taylor, for the past two years, we don't actually know what the death toll has been, border-wide, California to Texas. What we do know is in El Paso sector, which is a 264-mile area stretching from West Texas through New Mexico, last year, 176 remains of likely migrants were found in the desert area here. The year before it was 149. But Taylor, just five or six years ago, that number was in the single digits. Taylor Wilson: So how do folks often die along the border, Lauren? What are some of the causes and why is this part of the border so deadly? Lauren Villagran: People will have different opinions about this, but what is certain is that as the United States has hardened its borderline as border security has become more intense and the border fencing higher. For example, in much of the border now it's 30 feet high, migrants are more easily injured. Specifically in this area, though, Taylor, the desert outside of El Paso is hot. It's very hot in the summer, but it wasn't at Arizona levels, we don't see temperatures like north of 110 degrees. But the last two years we've had extreme summer temperatures, more triple-digit days than ever before. And during this period, the past two years, there was a massive wave of migration. So that meant that more people were trying to make the risky and often deadly illegal crossing. Taylor Wilson: Well, Lauren, for this piece, I know you spoke with some volunteers who are working out in the desert to find human remains. What did you hear from them and the work they're doing? Lauren Villagran: So it should be said that to start, it is the responsibility of federal, state, and local authorities to investigate and find bodies. But this desert, even though it is near the urban footprint, can at times be vast. This particular New Mexico based group called Battalion Search and Rescue, run by James Holman and Abbey Carpenter is fashioned after other groups like it in Arizona and California where volunteers have rallied to search for missing migrants and often turn up migrant remains. Here in southern New Mexico, this group goes out once a month, combs through the desert, looking for any remains that may have been left behind. Or in a best case scenario, migrants who might be lost or missing. Unfortunately, in recent months they've often turned up bones. Taylor Wilson: Such a trying work. What happens with the remains once they find them, Lauren? Lauren Villagran: These volunteers fill out paperwork noting the precise location of the remains that they have found. They tie brightly colored tape to desert brush and they phone it in to local law enforcement. The volunteers are not authorized to touch or collect the bones. So the ball really lies with the state, both the office of the medical investigator in New Mexico and local law enforcement like the Doña Ana County Sheriff to go out and collect the remains that are still there in the desert. Taylor Wilson: These folks, who are they, Lauren? What prompted them to get involved with this type of work? And I'm also curious what they say about the impact on them and what they've come away with after it. Lauren Villagran: Yeah, so for example, Abbey Carpenter is a retired college administrator. She used to teach English as a second language classes in Arizona. And when she went on her first search, she told me it was a really emotional moment in which she recalled hearing about the journeys of her students, migrants who did survive the dangerous journey through the desert, who now live and work in the United States and in seeing the piles of clothes that you sometimes find in the desert, Taylor, pants and shirts and abandoned things left behind, she told me she really saw the journeys of her former students. I know that some of those who got involved here had recently learned about the uptick in migrant deaths. And what's harrowing about it, Taylor, is that the number 176 is the number of bodies that were found. But as these volunteers tell me, every time they go to look, they often find a new site, which means that there could be more remains out in the desert that remain undiscovered. Taylor Wilson: Wow. Well, as for customs and border protection, you mentioned this Missing Migrant Program that they created back in 2017. It's been renamed the Missing Alien Program here under the latest Trump administration. What can you tell us about that program and its potential impact amid all this? Lauren Villagran: US Border Patrol agents are frequently the first to come upon remains or migrants obviously in distress. So this was a program that is run by US Border Patrol that tries to work to connect family members to their consulates and the possibility of remains. Of course, when you really dial it back, whenever there is an enforcement measure, you're going to see migrants take additional risks and that's also in part what's contributed to the rising death toll. Taylor Wilson: All right, folks can find the full version of this story with the link in today's show notes. Lauren Villagran covers the border and immigration for USA TODAY. Thanks, Lauren. Lauren Villagran: Thanks, Taylor. ♦ Taylor Wilson: Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. You can get the podcast wherever you get your audio, and if you're on a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. If you have any comments or questions, you can email us at podcasts@ I'm Taylor Wilson and I'll be back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein Defense Rests In NYC Rape Retrial; Closing Arguments Now, Then Case Goes To Jury
Harvey Weinstein is one crucial step closer to learning what his fate will be at the hands of the jury in his New York rape retrial. After a morning session in front of Judge Curtis Farber haggling over material that may or may not go to the jury (it won't), Weinstein's Arthur Aidala-led defense rested its case – without calling its client to testify for himself. Moving deftly, the proceedings are now in closing arguments, with Aidala pleading Weinstein's merits before the jurors. More from Deadline Harvey Weinstein Won't Testify In His Own Defense In NYC Sex Crimes Retrial; Jury Deliberations May Start Tuesday Patricia Clarkson Recalls Harvey Weinstein Telling Her She'd "Never Work Again" Harvey Weinstein's Move For Mistrial Fails On Second Day Of Rape Retrial - Update Closing arguments from the defense and the Manhattan District Attorney's office are expect to go on for a few hours, but the plan is the jury will have the case by the end of the day. At that point, the seven-woman, five-man panel will go behind closed doors to come to their verdict. The 73-year-old once powerful producer will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars if the jury hearing his retrial in New York convicts him on any of the three charges against him. Back in 2020, in Weinstein's now dismissed first Empire State rape case, the jury then took about five days to come to a verdict of guilty on two of five counts: third-degree rape and a first-degree criminal sexual act. In March of that year, an openly shocked Weinstein was sentenced to 23-years in state prison by now pink slipped New York Supreme Court Judge James Burke. In this retrial, while the single count of third degree rape that Weinstein is facing carries a maximum sentence of four years, each count of first-degree criminal sexual act carries a maximum sentence of 25 years. As well as the numerous cases of assaulting well-known actresses and models over the decades, prosecutors in the most benign way say Weinstein used his power and influence as an Oscar-winning producer and mini-studio boss to lure young women into his orbit. Offering what were almost always false promises of work and careers in film and television, Weinstein then often violently raped them or forced them into other unwanted sexual encounters. Fronted by the flamboyant Aidala, Weinstein's defense has sought to prove that the relationships between Weinstein and his accusers were long-running, consensual and mutually exploitive –-a 'friends with benefits' arrangement, as Aidala said in opening arguments, where sex was traded for access to Weinstein's professional network. Jurors in the rape and sexual assault retrial heard from two accusers, Jessica Mann and Miriam Haley, who also testified in graphic detail against Weinstein five years ago in his first criminal trial in New York. A third accuser testifying in the retrial, Kaja Sokola, was not part of the 2020 case: Sokola's accusation, that Weinstein assaulted her in a Manhattan hotel room in 2006, was the basis of a new charge — first-degree criminal sexual act — added to a revised grand jury indictment of the Pulp Fiction producer. Prosecutors secured the indictment last September, after Weinstein's 2020 conviction and 23-year prison sentence were overturned in April of 2024. A New York Court of Appeals ruled that the judge overseeing Weinstein's first trial, James Burke, had deprived the defendant of a fair trial by allowing uncharged testimony from other women who told jurors that Weinstein had sexually abused them. 'The court compounded that error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light,' according to the 4-3 ruling. Weinstein did not testify at his first trial. The potential hazards of a wide-ranging cross examination were apparently a factor in his decision over the weekend to also not take the stand at the retrial. 'He wanted to testify, and we respect that instinct,' Weinstein's longtime spokesperson Juda Engelmayer told Deadline on Monday. 'At this stage, doing so would subject him to scrutiny far beyond the scope of the current charges — raising issues that could unfairly damage his credibility. Our position is one of caution, not evasion.' Weinstein remains in custody in New York because of his 2022 criminal conviction in Los Angeles. He s appealing that conviction and 16-year prison sentence for raping and assaulting a woman, identified only as Jane Doe, in 2013. Weinstein has denied ever committing rape or coercing anyone sexually. In a jailhouse interview last month with right-wing commentator Candace Owens, he said, 'I swear that before God and the people watching now and on my family. I'm wrongfully accused. But justice has to know the difference between what is immoral and what is illegal.' Since this retrial started in late April, the ailing Weinstein has shuttled between a downtown Manhattan courthouse and the jail wing of a nearby hospital, Bellevue. Citing his various ailments, as he has in previous trials at pivotal points, the once acclaimed producer has lobbied hard to stay out of New York's infamous Rikers Island jail, telling Judge Farber the conditions there are life-threatening. Farber decided in the first week of the retrial to allow Weinstein to stay at the historic hospital during the proceedings. On the subject of his medical needs ,Weinstein underwent emergency heart surgery in September and was diagnosed with cancer in October. Best of Deadline Everything We Know About 'Nobody Wants This' Season 2 So Far List Of Hollywood & Media Layoffs From Paramount To Warner Bros Discovery To CNN & More Everything We Know About 'Happy Gilmore 2' So Far
