ArticleBMC public health2025
Changes in maternal morbidity and infant outcomes following state-level abortion bans post-Dobbs: a comparative interrupted time series study.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Birth certificate measures of maternal morbidity and their limits in abortion policy research.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Genetic disorders and associated morbidity, mortality, and congenital anomalies in preterm infants born at less than 34 weeks of gestation.BMC pediatrics · 2025Observational
- Predictors and barriers to family planning access through pharmacies and drug shops among young women (15-24 Years) in Debre Tabor Town: A Convergent Parallel Mixed-Method study.Therapeutic advances in reproductive healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned the Roe v. Wade precedent, significantly altering abortion access across the United States (U.S.). This ruling enabled states to regulate, limit, or ban abortion, resulting in millions of women losing access to abortion services and potentially affecting birth outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of the Dobbs decision on birth outcomes in states with and without abortion bans.
methodsA retrospective cohort analysis applied comparative interrupted time series to assess the difference in changes in adverse birth outcomes pre-and post-Dobbs across abortion legislation status. Natality data from the CDC WONDER database was analyzed. States were classified based on the presence or absence of abortion bans as of June 24, 2022. Proportions of non-living births, births with congenital anomalies, and maternal morbidities among U.S. births between January 2021 and February 2024 were examined.
resultsNo statistically significant difference in non-living births was observed between states with and without abortion bans. In states with abortion bans, the rate of births with congenital anomalies increased slightly post-Dobbs but the increase was not statistically significant. States without bans saw a decrease of 2 per 10,000 births (p < 0.001) from the baseline. The difference in the change in congenital anomalies between states with and without bans was 4.3 per 10,000 births (p = 0.015). States with abortion bans did not experience significant changes in maternal morbidity rates post-Dobbs, while states without bans experienced an increase of 4.8 per 10,000 births (p < 0.001). The difference between the changes in maternal morbidity rates was 4.5 per 10,000 births (p = 0.014).
conclusionsThe Dobbs decision has led to divergent birth outcomes in states with and without abortion bans. States without bans experienced a decrease in congenital anomalies and an increase in maternal morbidity rates, while the proportion of these adverse birth outcomes were unchanging in states with bans. Although a direct evidence of abortion bans increasing adverse birth outcomes was not found, the difference in the changes in congenital anomalies across abortion policies suggests that there is a potential for the exacerbation of inequities and further investigation is warranted.
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.