3 years after abortion rights were overturned, contraception access is at risk

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization eliminated a nearly 50-year constitutional right to abortion and returned the authority to regulate abortion to the states.
The Dobbs ruling, which overturned Roe v. Wade, has vastly reshaped the national abortion landscape. Three years on, many states have severely restricted access to abortion care. But the decision has also had a less well-recognized outcome: It is increasingly jeopardizing access to contraception.
We are a physician scientist and a sociologist and health services researcher studying women's health care and policy, including access to contraception. We see a worrisome situation emerging.
Even while the growing limits on abortion in the U.S. heighten the need for effective contraception, family planning providers are less available in many states, and health insurance coverage of some of the most effective types of contraception is at risk.
Abortion restrictions have proliferated around the country since the Dobbs decision. As of June 2025, 12 states have near-total abortion bans and 10 states ban abortion before 23 or 24 weeks of gestation, which is when a fetus is generally deemed viable. Of the remaining states, 19 restrict abortion after viability and nine states and Washington have no gestational limits.
It's no surprise that women living in states that ban or severely restrict abortion may be especially motivated to avoid unintended pregnancy. Even planned pregnancies have grown riskier, with health care providers fearing legal repercussions for treating pregnancy-related medical emergencies such as miscarriages. Such concerns may in part explain emerging research that suggests the use of long-acting contraception such as intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and permanent contraception – namely, sterilization – are on the rise.
A national survey conducted in 2024 asked women ages 18 to 49 if they have changed their contraception practices 'as a result of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.' It found that close to 1 in 5 women began using contraception for the first time, switched to a more effective contraceptive method, received a sterilization procedure or purchased emergency contraception to keep on hand.
A study in Ohio hospitals found a nearly 16% increase in women choosing long-acting contraception methods or sterilization in the six months after the Dobbs decision, and a 33% jump in men receiving vasectomies. Another study, which looked at both female and male sterilization in academic medical centers across the country, also reported an uptick in sterilization procedures for young adults ages 18 to 30 after the Dobbs decision, through 2023.
Ironically, banning or severely restricting abortion statewide may also diminish capacity to provide contraception.
To date, there is no compelling evidence that OB-GYN doctors are leaving states with strict abortion laws in significant numbers. One study found that states with severe abortion restrictions saw a 4.2% decrease in such practitioners compared with states without abortion restrictions.
However, the Association of American Medical Colleges reports declining applications to residency training programs located in states that have abortion bans – not just for OB-GYN training programs, but for residency training of all specialties. This drop suggests that doctors may be overall less likely to train in states that restrict medical practice. And given that physicians often stay on to practice in the states where they do their training, it may point to a long-term decline in physicians in those states.
But the most significant drop in contraceptive services likely comes from the closure of abortion clinics in states with the most restrictive abortion policies. That's because such clinics generally provide a wide range of reproductive services, including contraception. The 12 states with near-total abortion bans had 57 abortion clinics in 2020, all of which were closed as of March 2024. One study reported a 4.1% decline in oral contraceptives dispensed in those states.
The Dobbs decision has also encouraged ongoing efforts to incorrectly redefine some of the most effective contraceptives as medications that cause abortion. These efforts target emergency contraceptive pills, known as Plan B over-the-counter and Ella by prescription, as well as certain IUDs. Emergency contraceptive pills are up to 98% effective at preventing pregnancy after unprotected sex, and IUDs are 99% effective.
Neither method terminates a pregnancy, which by definition begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Instead, emergency contraceptive pills prevent an egg from being released from the ovaries, while IUDs, depending on the type, prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg or prevent an egg from implanting in the uterus.
Conflating contraception and abortion spreads misinformation and causes confusion. People who believe that certain types of contraception cause abortions may be dissuaded from using those methods and rely on less effective methods. What's more, it may affect health insurance coverage.
Medicaid, which provides health insurance for low-income children and adults, has been required to cover family planning services at no cost to patients since 1972. Since 2012, the Affordable Care Act has required private health insurers to cover certain women's health preventive services at no cost to patients, including the full-range of contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
According to our research, the insurance coverage required by the Affordable Care Act has increased use of IUDs, which can be prohibitively expensive when paid out of pocket. But if IUDs and emergency contraceptive pills were reclassified as interventions that induce abortion, they likely would not be covered by Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act, since neither type of health insurance requires coverage for abortion care. Thus, access to some of the most effective contraceptive methods could be jeopardized at a time when the right to terminate an unintended or nonviable pregnancy has been rolled back in much of the country.
Indeed, Project 2025, the conservative policy agenda that the Trump administration appears to be following, specifically calls for removing Ella from the Affordable Care Act contraception coverage mandate because it is a 'potential abortifacient.' And politicians in multiple states have expressed support for the idea of restricting these contraceptive methods, as well as contraception more broadly.
On the third anniversary of the Dobbs decision, it is clear that its ripple effects include threats to contraception. Considering that contraception use is almost universal among women in their reproductive years, in our view these threats should be taken seriously.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Cynthia H. Chuang, Penn State and Carol S. Weisman, Penn State
Read more:
Abortion bans are changing what it means to be young in America
'A revolutionary ruling – and not just for abortion': A Supreme Court scholar explains the impact of Dobbs
Anti-mifepristone court decisions rely on medical misinformation about abortion and questionable legal reasoning
Cynthia H. Chuang receives funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Carol S. Weisman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Fox News

21 minutes ago

• Fox News

Top Trump health official slams Democrats for 'misleading' claims about Medicaid reform

FIRST ON FOX: A top Trump White House official is looking to undercut Senate Democrats' talking points on Medicaid, arguing that the GOP's plan to reform the healthcare program would benefit rural hospitals, not harm them. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz told Fox News Digital that "special interests are pushing misleading talking points to try and stop the most ambitious healthcare reforms ever." Oz's sentiment comes as Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Senate Republicans sprint to finish their work on President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" ahead of a self-imposed July 4 deadline. Part of the bill from the Senate Finance Committee aims to make good on the GOP's promise to root out waste, fraud and abuse within the widely used healthcare program by including work requirements and booting illegal immigrants from benefit rolls, among other measures. Tweaks to the Medicaid provider tax rate have ruffled feathers on both sides of the aisle. Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., sent a letter to Trump and the top congressional Republicans last week warning that changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate would harm over 300 rural hospitals. And a cohort of Senate Republicans were furious with the change after the bill dropped last week. But Oz contended that "only 5%" of inpatient Medicaid spending happens in rural communities, and that the mammoth bill "instead targets abuses overwhelmingly utilized by large hospitals with well-connected lobbyists." "We are committed to preserving and improving access to care in rural communities with a transformative approach that bolsters advanced technology, invests in infrastructure, and supports workforce — rather than propping up a system that mostly benefits wealthier urban areas," Oz said. Schumer's letter included data from a study recently conducted by the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at his behest. He warned that if the bill is passed as is, millions of people would be kicked off of their healthcare coverage, and "rural hospitals will not get paid for the services they are required by law to provide to patients." Fox News Digital reached out to Schumer, Wyden and Merkley for comment. However, another report from the Trump-aligned Paragon Health Institute argued similarly to Oz that special interest groups and healthcare lobbyists were "flooding the airwaves with claims" that Republicans' changes to Medicaid would shutter rural hospitals. For example, they argued that a recent report from the Center for American Progress warned that over 200 rural hospitals would be at risk of closure, but that the findings were based on changes to the federal medical assistance percentage, or the amount of Medicaid costs paid for by the federal government. Changes to that percentage were mulled by congressional Republicans but were not included in the "big, beautiful bill." Still, the changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate, which were a stark departure from the House GOP's version of the bill, angered the Republicans who have warned not to make revisions to the healthcare program that could shut down rural hospitals and boot working Americans from their benefits. The Senate Finance Committee went further than the House's freeze of the provider tax rate, or the amount that state Medicaid programs pay to healthcare providers on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries, for non-Affordable Care Act expansion states, and included a provision that lowers the rate in expansion states annually until it hits 3.5%. However, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is working on a possible change to the bill that would create a provider relief fund that could sate her and other Republicans' concerns about the change to the provider tax rate.

Health Line

26 minutes ago

• Health Line

What Are Intramuscular Injections?

An intramuscular injection is a technique for delivering medication deep into the muscles. This allows the medication to absorb quickly into the bloodstream. You may have received an intramuscular injection at a doctor's office the last time you got a vaccine, like the flu shot. In some cases, a person may also self-administer an intramuscular injection. For example, certain drugs that treat multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis may require self-injection. What are intramuscular injections used for? Intramuscular injections are a common practice in modern medicine. They're used to deliver drugs and vaccines. Several drugs and almost all injectable vaccines are delivered this way. Intramuscular injections are used when other types of delivery methods are not recommended. These include: oral (swallowed into the stomach) intravenous (injected into the vein) subcutaneous (injected into the fatty tissue just under the layer of skin) Intramuscular injections may sometimes be used instead of intravenous injections because some drugs are irritating to veins or because a suitable vein cannot be located. However, not all intravenous medications can be administered intramuscularly. They may be used instead of oral delivery because some drugs are destroyed by the digestive system when you swallow them. Intramuscular injections are absorbed faster than subcutaneous injections. This is because muscle tissue has a greater blood supply than the tissue just under your skin. Muscle tissue can also hold a larger volume of medication than subcutaneous tissue. Intramuscular injection sites Intramuscular injections are often given in the following areas: Deltoid muscle of the arm The deltoid muscle is the site most typically used for vaccines. However, this site is not common for self-injection because its small muscle mass limits the volume of medication that can be injected — typically no more than 1 milliliter. It's also challenging to use this site for self-injection. A caregiver, friend, or family member can assist with injections into this muscle. To locate this site, feel for the bone (acromion process) located at the top of your upper arm. The correct area to give the injection is two finger widths below the acromion process. At the bottom of the two fingers will be an upside-down triangle. Give the injection in the center of the triangle. Vastus lateralis muscle of the thigh The thigh may be used when the other sites are not available or if you need to administer the medication on your own. Divide the upper thigh into three equal parts. Locate the middle of these three sections. The injection should go into the outer top portion of this section. Ventrogluteal muscle of the hip The ventrogluteal muscle is the safest site for adults and children older than 7 months. It's deep and not close to any major blood vessels or nerves. However, this site is difficult for self-injection and may require the help of a friend, family member, or caregiver. Place the heel of your hand on the hip of the person receiving the injection, with your fingers pointing toward their head. Position your fingers so your thumb points toward their groin, and you feel the pelvis under your pinky finger. Spread your index and middle fingers in a slight V shape, and inject the needle into the middle of that V. Dorsogluteal muscles of the buttocks For many years, healthcare professionals most commonly selected the dorsogluteal muscle of the buttocks. However, due to the potential for injury to the sciatic nerve, the ventrogluteal muscle is most often used instead. This site in the dorsogluteal muscle is difficult to use for self-injection and is not recommended. You should not use an injection site that has evidence of infection or injury. If you'll be giving the injection more than once, rotate the injection sites to avoid injury or discomfort to the muscles. How to administer an intramuscular injection Anyone who administers intramuscular injections should receive training and education on proper injection techniques. The needle size and injection site will depend on many factors. These include the age and size of the person receiving the medication, and the volume and type of medication. Your doctor or pharmacist will give you specific guidelines about which needle and syringe are appropriate to administer your medication. The needle should be long enough to reach the muscle without penetrating the nerves and blood vessels underneath. Generally, needles should be 1 inch to 1.5 inches for an adult and will be smaller for a child. They'll be 22-gauge to 25-gauge thick, noted as 22g on the packaging. Follow these steps for a safe intramuscular injection: 1. Wash your hands Wash your hands with soap and warm water to prevent potential infection. Be sure to thoroughly scrub between your fingers, on the backs of your hands, and under your fingernails. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends lathering for 20 seconds, which is the time it takes to sing the 'Happy Birthday' song twice. 2. Gather all the needed supplies Assemble the following supplies: needle and syringe with medication alcohol pads gauze puncture-resistant container to discard the used needles and syringe (typically a red, plastic sharps container) bandages 3. Locate the injection site To isolate the muscle and target where you'll place the injection, spread the skin at the injection site between two fingers. The person receiving the injection should get into a comfortable position that allows easy access to the location and keeps the muscles relaxed. 4. Clean the injection site Clean the site selected for injection with an alcohol swab and allow the skin to air dry. 5. Prepare the syringe with medication Remove the cap. If the vial or pen is multidose, note when the vial was first opened. The rubber stopper should be cleaned with an alcohol swab. Draw air into the syringe. Draw back the plunger to fill the syringe with air up to the dose that you'll be injecting. This is done because the vial is a vacuum, and you need to add an equal amount of air to regulate the pressure. This also makes it easier to draw the medication into the syringe. If you forget this step, you can still get the medication out of the vial. Insert air into the vial. Remove the cap from the needle and push the needle through the rubber stopper at the top of the vial. Inject all of the air into the vial. Be careful not to touch the needle to keep it clean. Withdraw the medication. Turn the vial and syringe upside down so the needle points upward, and pull back on the plunger to withdraw the correct amount of medication. Remove air bubbles. Tap the syringe to push any bubbles to the top and gently depress the plunger to push the air bubbles out. 6. Self-inject with a syringe Hold the needle like a dart and insert it into the muscle at a 90-degree angle. You should insert the needle in a quick but controlled manner. Do not push the plunger in. 7. Inject the medication Push the plunger slowly to inject the medication into the muscle. 8. Remove the needle Withdraw the needle quickly and discard it into a puncture-resistant sharps container. Do not put the cap back on the needle. A sharps container is a red container that you can purchase at any pharmacy. It collects medical waste, such as needles and syringes. You should not put these materials into the regular garbage, as needles can be hazardous to anyone who handles the trash. 9. Apply pressure to the injection site Use a piece of gauze to apply light pressure to the injection site. You can even massage the area to help the medication be absorbed into the muscle. It's routine to see slight bleeding. Use a bandage if necessary. Tips for an easier injection To minimize possible discomfort before your injection: Apply ice or an over-the-counter topical numbing cream to the injection site before cleaning it with the alcohol pad. Allow the alcohol to dry completely before the injection. Otherwise, it might cause stinging. Warm the vial of medication by rubbing it between your hands before drawing the medication into the syringe. Have someone you trust give you the injection. Some people find it difficult to inject themselves. What are the complications of intramuscular injections? It's typical to experience some discomfort after an intramuscular injection. However, certain symptoms may be signs of a more serious complication. Call your doctor or healthcare professional right away if you experience: You may have some anxiety about performing or receiving an injection, especially an intramuscular injection, due to the long needle. Read through the steps several times until you feel comfortable with the procedure, and take your time. You can ask your doctor or pharmacist to go through the procedure with you beforehand. They're more than willing to help you understand how to perform a safe, proper injection.

CNN

28 minutes ago

• CNN

CDC vaccine advisers to vote on thimerosal in flu shots at first meeting of new panel

Vaccines Federal agencies Respiratory viruses Children's healthFacebookTweetLink Follow A newly posted agenda for next week's meeting of the just-appointed group of outside vaccine advisers to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention includes a discussion and vote on thimerosal in flu vaccines, a preservative tied to debunked claims from decades ago of links to autism. The meeting, scheduled to start June 25 and run for two days, is the first for a newly installed group of eight Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices members. US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dismissed the previous group of 17 experts last week, claiming that they had conflicts of interest. A number of the new panelists, though, have raised concerns from the public health world for their positions on vaccines, including serving as expert witnesses in lawsuits against vaccine makers and suggesting without evidence that Covid-19 vaccines kill young people and should immediately be removed from the market. It's not clear what the discussion and vote at next week's meeting on thimerosal in flu vaccines will entail, and the presenter of the information at the meeting is listed on the agenda as 'TBD.' A spokesperson for HHS directed questions about the nature of the discussion and vote back to the posted agenda. Thimerosal is a mercury-based compound used to prevent bacteria and fungus from growing in vaccines, and the CDC says data from multiple studies 'show no evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines.' Nonetheless, the use of thimerosal in vaccines has declined significantly since the US Food and Drug Administration in 1999 asked vaccine manufacturers to detail plans to remove it; the FDA now says 'all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger in the U.S. are available in formulations that do not contain thimerosal.' The preservative is still used in some multidose vials of seasonal flu vaccines. Since thimerosal was largely removed from pediatric vaccines, autism rates have continued to rise, which the CDC notes 'is the opposite of what would be expected if thimerosal caused autism.' Thimerosal has long been a focus of Kennedy, who published a book in 2014 called 'Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak,' referring to it as 'mercury, a known neurotoxin.' The CDC points out, however, that there are two kinds of mercury – methylmercury and ethylmercury – and high levels of the first can be toxic to people. Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, the agency says, 'which is cleared from the human body more quickly than methylmercury, and is therefore less likely to cause any harm.' The fact that thimerosal is now on the agenda of Kennedy's newly appointed vaccine advisers suggests they may publicly claim, against evidence, that the preservative is dangerous, said Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine scientist at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and an outside vaccine adviser to the FDA. 'All that's going to do is make it so that those vaccines will become less available and more expensive,' Offit told CNN. 'It certainly won't make them safer.' Offit pointed out that reformulating those vaccines couldn't be done quickly by manufacturers, so it would 'most likely just lead to vaccine shortages and make the vaccines more expensive.' Also new to the agenda is a discussion and proposed recommendations for the measles, mump, rubella and varicella (or chickenpox) vaccine for children under 5. It's not clear what the nature of that discussion will be either, and its presenters are also listed as 'TBD.' The combination vaccine, known as MMRV, has been approved in the US as ProQuad since 2005, and the CDC notes that while the combination vaccine has one fewer injection than the individual shots, it's associated with a higher risk for fever and febrile seizures five to 12 days after the first dose among children between 1 and 2 years old. Administering the varicella vaccine separately from the MMR vaccine avoids this increased risk, which the CDC points out is 'very low for both options.' Although it's not clear whether that will be the focus of the presentation and recommendations, Offit noted that vaccine advisers have already had that discussion, so 'I'm not sure what's going to be added here.' The meeting had been scheduled to take place over three days, according to a June 9 posting in the Federal Register, and now has been shortened to two. It still includes votes on RSV immunization for pregnant women and children and in the Vaccines for Children program, as well as planned discussions on Covid-19, chikungunya and anthrax vaccines, but the topic list has been significantly slimmed down. No longer included are discussions on cytomegalovirus vaccine, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Lyme disease vaccine, meningococcal vaccine and pneumococcal vaccines. At an internal meeting Tuesday among CDC employees, a member of leadership told staffers that some agenda items for the upcoming ACIP meeting might not be included because they were still bringing new members up to speed, according to a CDC employee who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal. The employee called that reasoning 'a transparent lie; they wouldn't have had to bring all these new people up to speed if they hadn't fired the old ones.' The agenda also includes a number of 'TBD' listings for presenters, including on the safety of Covid-19 vaccines and RSV immunizations. At previous meetings, those presentations on Covid-19 have been made by Dr. Fiona Havers and Dr. Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos, who both resigned in the past few weeks, citing concerns about changes to the CDC's vaccine processes under Kennedy. 'My career in public health and vaccinology started with a deep-seated desire to help the most vulnerable members of our population,' Panagiotakopoulos wrote in an email to former ACIP members, obtained by CNN, 'and that is not something I am able to continue doing in this role.'