ArticlePerspectives on sexual and reproductive health2025
Accuracy and Misleadingness of Anatomical and Embryological Statements in State-Level Abortion Ban Legislation in the United States.
Article in Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn the last 15 years, the United States has seen a surge in anti-abortion legislation enacted at the state level. Many of these pieces of legislation utilize anatomical and embryological details to justify the necessity of abortion bans. In this study, we evaluated the level to which these statements are accurate and/or misleading, if at all, as determined by experts in anatomy and embryology.
methodsExperts evaluated statements of anatomical and embryological fact included in Legislative Findings (or equivalent) sections of state-level abortion ban legislation passed between January 2016 and January 2023 on their level of accuracy and misleadingness. We investigated 56 pieces of legislation from 23 states, which resulted in 57 testable statements common to 13 pieces of legislation across 12 states. Forty-one experts in anatomy and embryology rated each statement from 1 (completely inaccurate/misleading) to 5 (completely accurate/non-misleading).
resultsMean accuracy for all 57 statements was 3.0 ± 1.2 (range: 1.4-4.3) and the overall level of misleadingness was 2.5 ± 1.2 (range: 1.3-3.8).
conclusionAll 57 statements were significantly different from a null expectation of completely accurate and completely non-misleading. Statements made about anatomy and embryology aim to justify abortion bans but contain, to varying extents, inaccurate and misleading information, thereby contributing to the detrimental effects of restrictive abortion legislation on the health and well-being of pregnancy-capable people.
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.