Ob/gyns in states with abortion bans face risks, but new study shows that most stayed after Dobbs

CNN - Apr 22nd, 2025

In the aftermath of the US Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, which revoked the federal right to an abortion, ob/gyns across the United States face a challenging landscape. New research published in JAMA Network Open reveals that while the number of ob/gyns in states with abortion bans increased slightly post-ruling, decisions on staying or leaving were deeply personal and morally complex. Some doctors, like Dr. Nikki Zite in Tennessee, have chosen to remain in banned states due to institutional support, while others, such as Dr. Leilah Zahedi-Spun, have relocated to states like Colorado for greater professional freedom and safety. This dynamic has reshaped the medical landscape, with shifts in residency applications and the distribution of ob/gyns, particularly impacting maternal-fetal medicine providers.

The broader implications of these shifts are profound, affecting both healthcare providers and patients. Medical residents are increasingly avoiding states with abortion bans, and the quality of training in banned states may suffer due to a lack of exposure to certain procedures. This evolving scenario underscores the complexities and personal risk assessments involved in healthcare provision amid restrictive legal environments. The ongoing adjustments by medical professionals reflect a struggle to balance quality patient care with legal compliance, highlighting the critical role of institutional backing and individual risk tolerance in shaping the future of reproductive healthcare in America.

Us Supreme Court Jama Network Open Medical Residency Dobbs Decision Abortion Bans Ob/Gyn Dr. Nikki Zite Dr. Leilah Zahedi Spun Reproductive Healthcare

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.4

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article effectively addresses the complex and evolving issue of abortion bans in the United States, particularly in the context of the Dobbs decision. It provides a balanced view by incorporating perspectives from healthcare providers who face significant personal and professional challenges due to these bans. The use of credible sources and expert opinions enhances the article's authority, although greater transparency in data attribution and methodology would improve its reliability. The piece is timely and relevant, engaging readers with personal stories that humanize the broader legal and political implications. While the article successfully navigates the controversial nature of the topic, it could benefit from additional context and interactive elements to further engage readers and deepen their understanding. Overall, the article is a well-structured, informative piece that contributes meaningfully to the public discourse on reproductive rights and healthcare access.

Accuracy

The article presents several factual claims, such as the increase in the number of ob/gyns in states with abortion bans following the Dobbs decision and the decline in residency applicants in these states. These claims are supported by references to a study published in the JAMA Network Open and data from the Association of American Medical Colleges. However, the article does not provide direct access to these sources, which would enhance verifiability. The claim about cross-state travel for abortions is attributed to the Guttmacher Institute, a reputable source in reproductive health research, supporting the story's accuracy. Overall, the article's factual foundation appears solid, but direct citations or links to the studies would strengthen its precision and verifiability.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view by including perspectives from multiple stakeholders, such as ob/gyns who chose to stay in states with abortion bans and those who relocated. It highlights the personal and professional dilemmas faced by these doctors, offering a nuanced picture of the situation. However, the article could improve by including viewpoints from policymakers or legal experts to provide a broader context on the impact of abortion bans. By focusing primarily on healthcare providers, the piece may overlook other relevant perspectives, such as those of patients or advocacy groups.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear, accessible language to convey complex issues related to abortion bans and their impact on healthcare providers. It logically presents the challenges faced by ob/gyns and provides personal anecdotes to illustrate these points. The tone is neutral and informative, helping readers understand the nuanced decisions made by healthcare providers. However, the article could improve clarity by providing more background on the Dobbs decision and its legal implications for readers unfamiliar with the topic.

Source quality

The article references credible sources, including a study from the JAMA Network Open and data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Guttmacher Institute. These sources are well-regarded in the fields of medical research and reproductive health. The inclusion of expert opinions from Dr. Lori Freedman and Dr. Nikki Zite adds depth and authority to the narrative. However, the article would benefit from more explicit attribution of data points to these sources, improving transparency and reliability.

Transparency

The article provides a general overview of the issues and references specific studies and data sources, but it lacks detailed explanations of the methodologies used in these studies. Transparency could be improved by offering more context about how data was collected and analyzed, particularly regarding the increase in ob/gyns in states with abortion bans and the decline in residency applicants. Additionally, clarifying any potential conflicts of interest or biases in the cited studies would enhance the article's transparency.