Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:39:13.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Filling a Federal Void

Promises and Perils of State Law in Addressing Women’s Health Disparities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Valarie K. Blake  and
Michelle L. McGowan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Federal law often avoids setting minimum standards for women’s health and reproductive rights issues, leaving legislative and regulatory gaps for the states to fill as they see fit. This has mixed results. It can lead to state innovation that improves state-level health outcomes, informs federal health reform, and provides data on best practices for other states. On the other hand, some states may use the absence of a federal floor to impose draconian policies that pose risks to women’s and maternal health. Health reforms at the federal level must trod carefully to enable state innovation, while imposing foundational safeguards for promoting women’s health nationwide.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 48 , Issue 3: A Bold Agenda for the Next Steps in Health Reform , Fall 2020 , pp. 485 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. Public Law 111–148 (2010).Google Scholar
Hoyert, D.L. and A. M. Miniño, “Maternal Mortality in the United States: Changes in Coding, Publication, and Data Release, 2018,” National Vital Statistics Report 69 (2020): 1–16, at 5.Google ScholarPubMed
Main, E. K., Markow, C., and Gould, J., “Addressing Maternal Mortality and Morbidity in California Through Public-Private Partnerships,” Addressing Maternal Mortality and Morbidity in California Through Public-Private Partnerships, 37, no. 9 (2018): 1484–1493.Google Scholar
California Department of Public Health Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Division, California Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review, available at <https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CFH/DMCAH/Pages/PAMR/About-Us.aspx#KeyDefinitions> (last visited June 24, 2020).+(last+visited+June+24,+2020).>Google Scholar
The California Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review: Report from 2002 to 2007 Maternal Death Reviews, available at <https://www.cmqcc.org/sites/default/files/CA-PAMRReport-1%20%283%29.pdf> (last visited June 24, 2020).+(last+visited+June+24,+2020).>Google Scholar
California Maternity Quality Care Collaborative, OB Hemorrhage Toolkit V 2.0, available at <https://www.cmqcc.org/resources-tool-kits/toolkits/ob-hemorrhage-toolkit (last visited June 24, 2020).Google Scholar
Main, E. K. et al., “Reduction of Severe Maternal Morbidity From Hemorrhage Using a State Perinatal Quality Collaborative,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 216, no. 3 (2017): 298 e1-e11.Google ScholarPubMed
California Department of Public Health Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Division, California Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review, Maternal Mortality Rate: California and the United States; 1999 to 2013, available at <https://www.cmqcc.org/research/ca-pamr-maternal-mortality-review> (last visited June 24, 2020).+(last+visited+June+24,+2020).>Google Scholar
Building U.S. Capacity to Review and Prevent Maternal Deaths, Report from Nine Maternal Mortality Review Committees, available at <https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/ReportfromNineMMRCs.pdf> (last visited June 24, 2020).+(last+visited+June+24,+2020).>Google Scholar
Preventing Maternal Deaths Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-344, 132 Stat. 5047 (to be codified at 42 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.).Google Scholar
Maternity Mortality Review Act, Pub. L. No. 118, PA General Assembly.Google Scholar
A. Salganicoff, L. Sobel, and A. Ramaswamy, The Hyde Amendment and Coverage for Abortion Services, Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, January 24, 2020.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
McGowan, M.L. and Sharp, R.R., “Justice in the Context of Family Balancing,” Justice in the Context of Family Balancing, 38, no. 2 (2013): 271–293.Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).Google Scholar
Guttmacher Institute, “State Abortion Policy Landscape: From Hostile to Supportive,” Guttmacher Institute, August 29, 2019.Google Scholar
Ballotpedia. State Government Trifectas, Ballotpedia, available at <https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas#State_government_trifectas.2C_pre-2016_elections> (last visited June 24, 2020).+(last+visited+June+24,+2020).>Google Scholar
Guttmacher Institute, “An Overview of Abortion Laws,” Guttmacher Institute, February 1, 2020; A. Norris, P. Chakraborty, K. Lang, R. Hood, S. Hayford, L. Keder, D. Bessett, C. Norwood, and M. McGowan, “Abortion Access in Ohio's Changing Legislative Context,” Contraception 100, no. 4 (2019): 312- 312; M. McGowan, H. Gyuras, A. Heuerman, A. Norris, and D. Bessett, Experiences of reproductive and genetic healthcare professionals with abortion regulations in Ohio, Next Steps in Health Reform 2019, Washington, DC, October 11, 2019.Google Scholar
Norris, supra note 19.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
McGowan, supra note 19.Google Scholar
Ohio Legislative Service Commission Am. Sub. H.B. 153 R.C. 5101.57.Google Scholar
Ohio 129th General Assembly H.B. 79 R.C. 3901.87.Google Scholar
Rewire, Ohio Bill Prohibiting Abortion Insurance Coverage (HB 182), available at <https://rewire.news/legislativetracker/law/ohio-bill-prohibiting-abortion-insurance-coverage-hb-182/> (last visited June 24, 2020).+(last+visited+June+24,+2020).>Google Scholar
Salganicoff, supra note 12. 27. H.D. Boonstra, Abortion in the Lives of Women Struggling Financially: Why Insurance Coverage Matters, Guttmacher Institute, July 14, 2016.Google Scholar
J. Jerman, R.K. Jones, and T. Onda, Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008, Guttmacher Institute, May 2016.Google Scholar
Salganicoff, supra note 12.Google Scholar
Roberts, S.C.M., Gould, H., Kimport, K., Weitz, T.A., Foster, D.G., “Out-of-Pocket Costs and Insurance Coverage for Abortion in the United States,” Women's Health Issues 24, no. 2 (2014): e211-e218.Google Scholar
Salganicoff, supra note 12.Google Scholar
H. R. 2972, 114th Congress (2015-2016).Google Scholar
Center for Reproductive Rights, Evaluating Priorities: Measuring Women's and Children's Health and Well-being Against Abortion Restrictions in the States Volume 2 (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2017).Google Scholar
Foster, D. G., Biggs, M. A., Ralph, L., Gerdts, C., Roberts, S., and Glymour, M. M., “Socioeconomic Outcomes of Women who Receive and Women who are Denied Wanted Abortions in the United States,” Socioeconomic Outcomes of Women who Receive and Women who are Denied Wanted Abortions in the United States, 108, no. 3 (2018): 407–413.Google Scholar