ArticleMaternal and child health journal2025
MCH and Abortion: Towards a Stronger Relationship.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Revisionist History is Not Helpful. A Response to Allen, et al., MCH and Abortion: Toward a Stronger Relationship.Maternal and child health journal · 2026Article
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
The history of abortion rights in the US is long and contentious. Women have always had abortions, legal or not, and the legalization fight in recent history has been led by feminists. This paper tracks the course of that history through the Progressive Era of the first wave feminists, second wave feminism from the 1960s to the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, the reactive period of trying to minimize the harm of abortion restrictions, and the consequences of the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision overthrowing Roe v. Wade. For each time period we ask who was leading the fight, how they framed their advocacy, who were their opponents and what arguments they used, and the extent to which maternal and child health (MCH) professionals and institutions engaged in the struggle. We offer recommendations for MCH practice going forward to (1) embrace women's health and health care as inseparable from infant, child, and family health, and abortion as central to women's physical and mental health; (2) build partnerships and coalitions among entities identified with MCH and those advocating reproductive rights, particularly abortion; (3) become voices for abortion as an essential part of MCH and public health; and (4) framing abortion as an equity issue. Women's judgment about the timing of their own childbearing and women's ability to act on that judgment improves maternal and child survival and wellbeing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40437266What 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.