Kristen A. Miller, Chelsea A. Wagner, Samantha Montgomery, Jennifer Rietzler, Madison Saich, Amanda Allred, Cara Hein, Julie Howell, Israel Cook, Bella Pori, Rachel Williamson, Kelly Morgan
{"title":"导航新的景观:在美国影响遗传咨询师的实践范围的不断发展的堕胎立法的审查","authors":"Kristen A. Miller, Chelsea A. Wagner, Samantha Montgomery, Jennifer Rietzler, Madison Saich, Amanda Allred, Cara Hein, Julie Howell, Israel Cook, Bella Pori, Rachel Williamson, Kelly Morgan","doi":"10.1002/jgc4.70082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The 2022 <i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization</i> ruling, which returned abortion regulation to individual states, has created a fragmented and rapidly changing legal landscape in the United States. These legislative changes have profound implications for healthcare professionals, including genetic counselors (GCs), whose roles encompass providing comprehensive, client-centered reproductive counseling and facilitating access to abortion care. This study conducted a legislative scan of post-Dobbs abortion laws from 2023 to 2024 to assess how specific provisions intersect with the established genetic counseling practice competencies. Using a framework rooted in the genetic counseling scope of practice, state-level abortion laws were categorized into four domains: gestational age limits, fetal condition-specific laws, public funding or insurance coverage, and abortion care coordination. Legislative provisions were classified as restrictive, protective, or intermediate. A Restrictiveness Score (RS) and Protectiveness Score (PS) were calculated to quantify the impact of these laws on GCs' ability to deliver care. Of the 192 legislative provisions identified, 111 (58%) were classified as restrictive; overall, gestational age laws (<i>n</i> = 65, 34%) and insurance coverage/public funding provisions (<i>n</i> = 65, 34%) were the most prevalent. States with high RS values often overlapped with geographic areas of limited access to genetic counseling services. Furthermore, 18 states included “reason bans” targeting fetal conditions, including sex, anomalies, and genetic conditions, directly challenging GCs' ability to provide comprehensive counseling. This study underscores the need for ongoing monitoring of abortion legislation and proactive policy advocacy to protect reproductive health services and genetic counseling practice. By providing a detailed framework for legislative scans, this work offers a replicable model to track evolving legal landscapes and their implications for healthcare delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":54829,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Genetic Counseling","volume":"34 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgc4.70082","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Navigating the new landscape: A review of evolving abortion legislation impacting genetic counselors' scope of practice in the United States\",\"authors\":\"Kristen A. Miller, Chelsea A. Wagner, Samantha Montgomery, Jennifer Rietzler, Madison Saich, Amanda Allred, Cara Hein, Julie Howell, Israel Cook, Bella Pori, Rachel Williamson, Kelly Morgan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jgc4.70082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The 2022 <i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization</i> ruling, which returned abortion regulation to individual states, has created a fragmented and rapidly changing legal landscape in the United States. These legislative changes have profound implications for healthcare professionals, including genetic counselors (GCs), whose roles encompass providing comprehensive, client-centered reproductive counseling and facilitating access to abortion care. This study conducted a legislative scan of post-Dobbs abortion laws from 2023 to 2024 to assess how specific provisions intersect with the established genetic counseling practice competencies. Using a framework rooted in the genetic counseling scope of practice, state-level abortion laws were categorized into four domains: gestational age limits, fetal condition-specific laws, public funding or insurance coverage, and abortion care coordination. Legislative provisions were classified as restrictive, protective, or intermediate. A Restrictiveness Score (RS) and Protectiveness Score (PS) were calculated to quantify the impact of these laws on GCs' ability to deliver care. Of the 192 legislative provisions identified, 111 (58%) were classified as restrictive; overall, gestational age laws (<i>n</i> = 65, 34%) and insurance coverage/public funding provisions (<i>n</i> = 65, 34%) were the most prevalent. States with high RS values often overlapped with geographic areas of limited access to genetic counseling services. Furthermore, 18 states included “reason bans” targeting fetal conditions, including sex, anomalies, and genetic conditions, directly challenging GCs' ability to provide comprehensive counseling. This study underscores the need for ongoing monitoring of abortion legislation and proactive policy advocacy to protect reproductive health services and genetic counseling practice. By providing a detailed framework for legislative scans, this work offers a replicable model to track evolving legal landscapes and their implications for healthcare delivery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Genetic Counseling\",\"volume\":\"34 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgc4.70082\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Genetic Counseling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgc4.70082\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Genetic Counseling","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgc4.70082","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
2022年多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织(Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization)一案的裁决将堕胎监管权交还给各州,在美国造成了一个支离破碎、迅速变化的法律格局。这些立法变化对包括遗传咨询师在内的医疗保健专业人员产生了深远的影响,遗传咨询师的作用包括提供全面的、以客户为中心的生殖咨询和促进获得堕胎护理。本研究对2023年至2024年的后多布斯堕胎法进行了立法扫描,以评估具体条款如何与既定的遗传咨询实践能力相交叉。使用植根于遗传咨询实践范围的框架,将州一级的堕胎法分为四个领域:胎龄限制、胎儿状况特定法律、公共资金或保险覆盖以及堕胎护理协调。立法规定分为限制性、保护性和中间性。计算限制性评分(RS)和保护性评分(PS)来量化这些法律对GCs提供护理能力的影响。在确定的192项立法条款中,111项(58%)被归类为限制性条款;总的来说,胎龄法(n = 65, 34%)和保险覆盖/公共资金规定(n = 65, 34%)是最普遍的。RS值高的州往往与获得遗传咨询服务有限的地理区域重叠。此外,18个州包括针对胎儿状况的“理由禁令”,包括性别、异常和遗传状况,直接挑战了GCs提供全面咨询的能力。这项研究强调需要不断监测堕胎立法和积极主动的政策宣传,以保护生殖健康服务和遗传咨询实践。通过提供立法扫描的详细框架,这项工作提供了一个可复制的模型来跟踪不断发展的法律环境及其对医疗保健服务的影响。
Navigating the new landscape: A review of evolving abortion legislation impacting genetic counselors' scope of practice in the United States
The 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling, which returned abortion regulation to individual states, has created a fragmented and rapidly changing legal landscape in the United States. These legislative changes have profound implications for healthcare professionals, including genetic counselors (GCs), whose roles encompass providing comprehensive, client-centered reproductive counseling and facilitating access to abortion care. This study conducted a legislative scan of post-Dobbs abortion laws from 2023 to 2024 to assess how specific provisions intersect with the established genetic counseling practice competencies. Using a framework rooted in the genetic counseling scope of practice, state-level abortion laws were categorized into four domains: gestational age limits, fetal condition-specific laws, public funding or insurance coverage, and abortion care coordination. Legislative provisions were classified as restrictive, protective, or intermediate. A Restrictiveness Score (RS) and Protectiveness Score (PS) were calculated to quantify the impact of these laws on GCs' ability to deliver care. Of the 192 legislative provisions identified, 111 (58%) were classified as restrictive; overall, gestational age laws (n = 65, 34%) and insurance coverage/public funding provisions (n = 65, 34%) were the most prevalent. States with high RS values often overlapped with geographic areas of limited access to genetic counseling services. Furthermore, 18 states included “reason bans” targeting fetal conditions, including sex, anomalies, and genetic conditions, directly challenging GCs' ability to provide comprehensive counseling. This study underscores the need for ongoing monitoring of abortion legislation and proactive policy advocacy to protect reproductive health services and genetic counseling practice. By providing a detailed framework for legislative scans, this work offers a replicable model to track evolving legal landscapes and their implications for healthcare delivery.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Genetic Counseling (JOGC), published for the National Society of Genetic Counselors, is a timely, international forum addressing all aspects of the discipline and practice of genetic counseling. The journal focuses on the critical questions and problems that arise at the interface between rapidly advancing technological developments and the concerns of individuals and communities at genetic risk. The publication provides genetic counselors, other clinicians and health educators, laboratory geneticists, bioethicists, legal scholars, social scientists, and other researchers with a premier resource on genetic counseling topics in national, international, and cross-national contexts.