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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. Public Law 111–148 (2010).
2.
D.L.Hoyert and A. M.Miniño, “Maternal Mortality in the United States: Changes in Coding, Publication, and Data Release, 2018,”National Vital Statistics Report69 (2020): 1-16, at 5.
3.
E. K.Main, C.Markow, and J.Gould, “Addressing Maternal Mortality and Morbidity in California Through Public-Private Partnerships,”Health Affairs37, no. 9 (2018): 1484-1493.
E. K.Mainet al., “Reduction of Severe Maternal Morbidity From Hemorrhage Using a State Perinatal Quality Collaborative,”American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology216, no. 3 (2017): 298e1-e11.
8.
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).
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, October11, 2019.
20.
Norris, supra note 19.
21.
Id.
22.
McGowan, supra note 19.
23.
Ohio Legislative Service Commission Am. Sub. H.B. 153 R.C. 5101.57.
H.D.Boonstra, Abortion in the Lives of Women Struggling Financially: Why Insurance Coverage Matters, Guttmacher Institute, July14, 2016.
28.
J.Jerman, R.K.Jones, and T.Onda, Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008, Guttmacher Institute, May2016.
29.
Salganicoff, supra note 12.
30.
S.C.M.Roberts, H.Gould, K.Kimport, T.A.Weitz, D.G.Foster, “Out-of-Pocket Costs and Insurance Coverage for Abortion in the United States,”Women’s Health Issues24, no. 2 (2014): e211-e218.
31.
Salganicoff, supra note 12.
32.
H. R. 2972, 114th Congress (2015-2016).
33.
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).
34.
D. G.Foster, M. A.Biggs, L.Ralph, C.Gerdts, S.Roberts, and M. M.Glymour, “Socioeconomic Outcomes of Women who Receive and Women who are Denied Wanted Abortions in the United States,”American Journal of Public Health108, no. 3 (2018): 407-413.
