Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41417457›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026

Mandated Disposal and the Management of Foetal Death: A State-by-State Analysis of Foetal Disposition Laws in the United States Post-Dobbs.

H Carpenter

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

H CarpenterInstitute for Bioethics and Health Humanities, School of Public and Population Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Boulevard, Galveston, TX, 77555, United States of America. hvcarpen@utmb.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-5495-7821

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Across the United States, every state establishes their own requirements for the disposition of foetal remains, including laws that address the disposal and reporting of foetal remains after a foetal death has occurred. Most states discard foetal remains as biohazard material, processed by healthcare facilities through medical incineration or sterilization. However, there are variations among state laws, with some states imposing specific requirements for the disposal of foetal remains and treating foetuses as persons. To examine these differences, I reviewed U.S. state statutes on foetal disposition, focusing on states with restrictive requirements for miscarried or aborted remains under twenty weeks gestation. In this paper, I analyse the thirteen states identified as having restrictive foetal disposition requirements. I describe the implications of restrictive foetal disposition laws and argue that these requirements allow states to govern foetal death in ways that infringe upon abortion and miscarriage patients' autonomy. Following the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization [2022] Supreme Court of the United States. No. 19-1392, I argue that foetal disposition laws could be weaponized to further strategize the political value assigned to foetuses and buttress abortion and miscarriage reporting, thus criminally implicating patients who have lost or terminated pregnancies. With reproductive autonomy rapidly declining in the United States, validating variable responses to foetal death and recognizing the relational nature of pregnancy loss and termination could better uphold patient autonomy and privacy.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedFetal DeathFetusMedical Waste DisposalState GovernmentAbortion, SpontaneousFemaleHumansPersonal AutonomyPregnancyUnited StatesMedical Waste DisposalBioethicsFoetal disposition lawsReproductive autonomyReproductive ethicsReproductive laws

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.