Impact of post-Dobbs abortion restrictions on maternal-fetal medicine physicians in the Southeast: a qualitative...

The United States Supreme Court overturned federal abortion protections in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization. Many states in the Southeastern United States responded with restrictive policies that limit and criminalize abortion care.

This study aimed to characterize the effect of abortion restrictions on maternal-fetal medicine physicians in the Southeastern United States after the Dobbs decision.

Qualitative, semistructured interviews with 35 maternal-fetal medicine physicians in 10 Southeastern states between February 2023 and June 2023 were conducted. Our recruitment strategy relied on convenience and snowball sampling. Audio-recorded interviews were analyzed using Dedoose software and a descriptive qualitative approach that incorporated deductive and inductive approaches.

Emergent themes were identified, and a conceptual framework was developed on the basis of overarching themes. This study found that abortion laws and external constraints after the Dobbs decision resulted in ethical, professional, and legal challenges for maternal-fetal medicine physicians that led to changes in clinical practice and deviations from patient-centered care. These forced changes resulted in negative effects on maternal-fetal medicine physicians, such as increased fear, hypervigilance, and increased workload. In addition, these changes prompted concerns about health risks and negative emotional effects for patients. Supportive colleagues, hospital systems, and policies were associated with decreased stress, emotional distress, and disruption of healthcare delivery.

Abortion restrictions in the Southeastern United States limit the ability of maternal-fetal medicine physicians to provide or facilitate abortions in the setting of fetal anomalies and maternal health risks. Maternal-fetal medicine physicians perceived these restrictions to have negative professional and emotional repercussions for themselves and negative effects on patients. Supportive colleagues and clear guidance from hospital systems and departments on how to interpret the laws were protective. Our findings have implications for the maternal-fetal medicine workforce and patient care in the region.