A Second Chance at Choice?: Challenging Abortion 'Reversal' as Law and Medical Practice
29 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law (2022)
2022
- 306Usage
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Paper Description
In 2012, a pro-life family physician named George Delgado started claiming that he had developed a technique to “reverse abortion.” The technique, which involves administering high doses of progesterone to patients who have taken the first drug in a two-step medication abortion regimen, has never been proven safe or effective. Nevertheless, between 2015 and 2021, over two dozen states proposed, passed, or enforced bills that require abortion providers to tell patients about this untested pseudo-medical technique that “reverses” medication abortion. Impact litigation against these laws have been enormously successful, and multiple courts have enjoined reversal mandates on First Amendment grounds. However, litigation only targets reversal as law, while the medical practice of progesterone “therapy” persists, putting patients at risk. This Article considers “abortion reversal” as both law and medical practice and proposes alternative ways to challenge reversal, including medical practice and human subjects research regulation and informed consent legislation.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know