English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

On 24 June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation held that: ‘The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.’ Since the ruling, thirteen states have enacted ‘trigger laws’ that restrict access to abortion except in specified circumstances, such as to save the life of the pregnant patient in a medical emergency. These laws not only inappropriately insert the State into the physician-patient relationship, but create an uncertain practice landscape for physicians by placing them at risk of criminal penalties. We illustrate the complexity of medical decision making for pregnant patients using examples from the case report literature, and discuss how leaving the definition of ‘medical emergency’ up to courts to decide will create a patchwork of restrictive and permissive standards that criminalises physicians and creates a ‘political standard of care’ that replaces evidence based medical care.

The criminalisation of women’s healthcare in the post-Dobbs era: an analysis of the anti-abortion trigger law statutes