[ad_1]
The proliferation of telemedicine has helped to at least partially mitigate the impact of the 2022 Supreme Court decision that struck down Roe v. Wade and stripped away the constitutional right to abortion.
But some economists and medical experts say the impact could be more far-reaching if an upcoming high court debate on mail-order abortion pills leads to even greater restrictions in the coming years. It states that there is.
The Supreme Court will hear a case that could change access to Danko Laboratories’ mifepristone, a commonly used drug that can be ordered in some places without going to a clinic in person. This issue will be top of mind for many Americans in the coming days.
The pill allows you to end your pregnancy at an early stage.
“The mifepristone case could be bigger than Dobbs,” said Caitlin Myers, an economist at Middlebury College, referring to the landmark 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. I don’t know if the general public really understands that.”
“There is a future world where access to abortion could be further reduced because of this case,” she added in a recent interview.
Oral arguments are scheduled for Tuesday, and a decision could be reached by this summer.
Further complicating matters, there is a parallel debate over in vitro fertilization (IVF) in the United States, and if policy changes on that front are considered in Washington, Americans in other parts of the world will be affected. This means that there is a possibility that it will be affected, and that it may have other economic effects as well. Or at the state level.
Mifepristone is part of a decades-long trend toward telemedicine, spurred in recent years by the COVID-19 pandemic, but then followed by Dobbs’ decision to・Accelerated in the health field.
The Supreme Court’s decision has banned abortion in more than a dozen states. Thousands of residents in these states responded by traveling to receive these services, making more direct use of telehealth.
Medication abortions will account for 63% of all abortions in the U.S. health care system in 2023, up from 53% in 2020, according to new data released last week by the Guttmacher Institute. Clearly, the steepest increases were in states that border areas where abortion is currently prohibited.
“Telemedicine increased and then exploded,” said Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy officer for the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. “That’s true for reproductive medicine as much as anything else.” added.
The relationship between access to abortion and the economy
Abortion access and the economy have long been linked. A recent study from the University of California, San Francisco, found that people with access to abortion are “more economically stable” and, as a result, able to lead more ambitious and productive lives.
Republicans, on the other hand, are skeptical of viewing abortion in economic terms, preferring instead to keep the focus on moral issues.
Still, Myers and his colleagues say economic issues are closely intertwined.
In 2021, Myers spearheaded a Supreme Court brief with more than 150 academic colleagues on the economic impact of abortion. She also testified before Congress earlier this year about how Dobbs has proven to be “a story of inequality, not a shocking macro-level story,” and that the impact of abortion bans is the most He said this was felt most strongly among poor people of color.
Tens of thousands of poor residents in the 14 states where abortion is banned do not have the means to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion. A recent study by the Institute of Labor Economics pegs this figure at around 30,000 births, which would not have happened in recent years if abortion were available everywhere.
Meanwhile, the total number of abortions in the United States has increased since the Dobbs decision, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute. It might have risen even more had the ruling not been handed down, but it was far from the decline many expected. Telemedicine may help explain that development.
“What I was really thinking about was about access being reduced in states with bans, and not about the fact that access would actually improve in many parts of the country as a result of the ruling. ” Meyers said, adding: surprise. “
The convergence of these trends increases the risk for future mifepristone decisions. The lawsuit, filed by a conservative group called the Hippocratic Medical Alliance, challenges current policies that allow broad access.
At issue in particular are moves by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016 and 2021 to allow people to prescribe drugs online without visiting a doctor. The group claims the move to change the policy was “arbitrary and capricious.”
The court may also consider current rules that allow the drug to be used until about 10 weeks into pregnancy. The court declined to take up another case on the question of whether mifepristone should be banned completely.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, said at a recent Congressional hearing on the issue that mail-order drug restrictions could cause “even more economic damage than Dobbs.”
Why changes in IVF affect ‘completely different’ groups
Concerns about in vitro fertilization also surfaced during the White House hearing.
“Even IVF is subject to gun control at the hands of right-wing extremists,” he added.
In vitro fertilization has been a hot-button issue since the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in February that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law, sparking an immediate backlash. , there is a growing movement in the state to protect in vitro fertilization providers from legal liability.
Republicans have often challenged the White House’s characterization and expressed support for in vitro fertilization, which is already a key campaign issue.
Some Republican leaders, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have also discussed IVF as a “state issue,” which could open the door to different levels of access depending on where you live.
Economically speaking, the impact of potential limitations on IVF is only just beginning to be studied.
One study on access in Israel focused on a 1994 move to make IVF free. The report found that increased access “contributes to improved labor market outcomes and narrows the gender gap in career attainment.”
It’s unclear whether any adverse effects would be felt if IVF access were rolled back, but Myers said people with higher income levels were more likely to find the restrictions problematic.
Changes in IVF are “particularly likely to affect women who are more educated, invest more in their careers, and delay motherhood,” she says.
It remains to be seen how the IVF issue will play out politically, but advocates like Tipton are pushing for national legislation to be passed that could govern access to IVF. It’s in full swing.
“Support for IVF is bipartisan and we really want to help policymakers make that support clearer,” he says, adding that many on his side of the debate It will be active in 2024 with added beliefs that will apply to many reproductive health issues.
“Patients’ ability to access the care they need should not depend on their zip code.”
Ben Werschkul is Yahoo Finance’s Washington correspondent.
Click here for business and money-related political news
Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance
[ad_2]
Source link
