ReviewContraception and reproductive medicine2025
Parallel paths: abortion access restrictions in the USA and Iran.
Review in Contraception and reproductive medicine, 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.
- Midwives' perspectives on preventing unsafe abortion: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
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
Reproductive rights, including access to abortion, contraception, and comprehensive healthcare, are critical for gender equality and public health. However, these rights remain contentious and heavily influenced by cultural, religious, and political ideologies, creating barriers to equitable care and justice globally. This narrative review examines and compares both abortion laws and policies in the United States and Iran, two ideologically distinct nations with striking parallels in their restrictive approaches. This narrative review identifies key similarities, including the politicization of abortion, the influence of cultural and religious doctrines, and the disproportionate burden of restrictive policies on marginalized populations, leading to unsafe abortions. It also explores major differences, such as the decentralized, state-specific legal variability in the United States versus Iran's centralized theocratic governance, where demographic goals drive restrictions. These findings highlight how geopolitical and ideological contexts shape reproductive governance and health outcomes. Despite ideological contrasts, the United States and Iran exhibit analogous restrictive trends, revealing global challenges in advancing reproductive justice. Addressing these barriers requires a dual approach: targeted legal and policy reforms within national contexts, particularly in the U.S. and Iran, and alignment with international advocacy efforts promoting reproductive autonomy and human rights. The findings provide critical insights for policymakers and healthcare providers aiming to reform reproductive health frameworks and ensure equitable, rights-based care.
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.