ArticleAmerican journal of public health2018
State Law Approaches to Facility Regulation of Abortion and Other Office Interventions.
Article in American journal of public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- State-Level Abortion Policies and Infant Health Outcomes.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Countering the Antiscience of Abortion Regulation.American journal of public health · 2023Article
- Policy surveillance for a global analysis of national abortion laws.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2022Article
- Impact of COVID-19 on abortion method under ten weeks gestational age in Southern California.Contraception · 2022Article
- Time from first clinical contact to abortion in Texas and California.Contraception · 2022Article
- Dispersion of contraceptive access policies across the United States from 2006 to 2021.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Miscarriage Treatment-Related Morbidities and Adverse Events in Hospitals, Ambulatory Surgery Centers, and Office-Based Settings.Journal of patient safety · 2020Article
- Approaches, barriers, and facilitators to abortion-related work in U.S. health departments: perspectives of maternal and child heath and family planning professionals.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Article
- Public Health Implications of Housing Laws: Nuisance Evictions.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the prevalence and characteristics of facility laws governing abortion provision specifically (targeted regulation of abortion providers [TRAP] laws); office-based surgeries, procedures, sedation or anesthesia (office interventions) generally (OBS laws); and other procedures specifically.
methodsWe conducted cross-sectional legal assessments of state facility laws for office interventions in effect as of August 1, 2016. We coded characteristics for each law and compared characteristics across categories of laws.
resultsTRAP laws (n = 55; in 34 states) were more prevalent than OBS laws (n = 25; in 25 states) or laws targeting other procedures (n = 1; in 1 state). TRAP laws often regulated facilities that would not be regulated under OBS laws (e.g., all TRAP laws, but only 2 OBS laws, applied regardless of sedation or anesthesia used). TRAP laws imposed more numerous and more stringent requirements than OBS laws.
conclusionsMany states regulate abortion-providing facilities differently, and more stringently, than facilities providing other office interventions. The Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt casts doubt on the legitimacy of that differential treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.