ArticleJAMA health forum2026
Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers Laws and Pregnancies Conceived Through Fertility Treatment.
Article in JAMA health forum, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Twenty-seven states have enacted targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws that may disproportionately affect higher-risk pregnancies such as those conceived through fertility treatment. Objective: To assess the association of TRAP laws with the relative rates of adverse outcomes of pregnancies conceived through fertility treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of singleton births conceived through fertility treatment used National Vital Statistics System data on births between 2012 and 2021. Data were analyzed from August 15, 2024, to September 8, 2025. Exposure: Included participants were categorized as either living under the legal jurisdiction of states with or without TRAP laws enacted during the study period. As laws were not passed in every state uniformly, the first year of enforcement was excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic characteristics of individuals who conceived with fertility treatments living in states with and without TRAP laws were compared using χ2 and analysis of variance tests. A maternal composite of adverse outcomes was constructed. Secondary outcomes included a neonatal composite of adverse outcomes and rate of preterm birth. Controlling for potential confounders, generalized estimating equation models with binomial distribution, identity link, and robust sandwich SE estimators were used to assess adjusted absolute percentage point differences comparing states with and without TRAP laws across the enactment of TRAP laws. Results: This study included 416 019 singleton births (mean [SD] maternal age, 34.5 [5.3] years; mean [SD] gestational age, 38.3 [2.4] weeks; 213 294 males [51.3%]) conceived with fertility treatment. Of these births, 174 671 (42.0%) occurred in states with TRAP laws and 241 348 (58.0%) in states without these laws. Generalized estimating equation models demonstrated a greater increase in the composite of adverse maternal outcomes (absolute adjusted difference-in-differences, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.003-0.50) in states with TRAP laws relative to states without. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest an increase in maternal morbidity among patients using fertility care in states that passed TRAP laws relative to states that did not.
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.