Katrina Kimport, PhD, highlights how abortion bans are leading to substandard pregnancy care

In a recent interview with Contemporary OB/GYN, Katrina Kimport, PhD, professor in the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program at the University of California, San Francisco, discussed her study evaluating the impact of abortion bans and restrictions implemented in the wake of the US Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs) decision on pregnancy care.

Researchers interviewed clinicians who had treated patients affected by these laws, either in states with strict abortion bans or in states where abortion remains legal but received patients from more restrictive regions. The study revealed a stark disconnect between what clinicians were medically trained to do and what they were legally allowed to do under the new restrictions. This gap resulted in patients receiving substandard care, leading to preventable and sometimes severe health consequences.

Kimport outlined 3 key categories of patients who were particularly harmed by these restrictions, as follows:

1. Patients with preexisting medical conditions: These individuals had serious health issues, such as heart disease, that were managed at the time but were expected to worsen with continued pregnancy. Although doctors knew that these patients would likely reach a life-threatening point, the fact that they were not in immediate danger meant clinicians were legally barred from intervening, leading to worsening health outcomes.
2. Patients with pregnancy-related complications: This group included individuals experiencing conditions such as preeclampsia or preterm premature rupture of membranes, where the only effective treatment is to end the pregnancy. In both cases, waiting could result in life-threatening infections or dangerously high blood pressure, but clinicians were often forced to wait until the patient’s condition became emergent, by which point the risk of serious harm or death had greatly increased.
3. Patients facing inevitable fetal or infant death: In these situations, prenatal testing clearly indicated that the fetus would not survive birth or would die shortly afterward. Despite this prognosis, clinicians were unable to intervene because the fetus still had a detectable heartbeat, which legally prevented any action unless the pregnant person was also in immediate danger. These laws forced individuals to carry doomed pregnancies to term, exacerbating emotional and physical distress.

Overall, the study highlighted how restrictive post-Dobbs abortion laws have significantly compromised pregnancy care, limiting clinicians' ability to prevent suffering and protect patient health, even in nonelective, medically necessary situations.

This video is part 1 of a 2-part series. Check back tomorrow for part 2.

No relevant disclosures.

Reference

Kimport K, Kaller S. Not actively dying: an inductive categorization of obstetric cases negatively affected by post-Dobbs abortion bans. Contraception. Published online July 25, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111043