The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) strongly recommends that access to high-quality reproductive health be ensured, protected and provided by federal, state and local governments. This includes, but is not limited to, abortion, emergency, short- and long-term reversible contraception, and education.

The decision by the Supreme Court to overturn the established legal precedent of Roe v. Wade opens the door for dangerous restrictions on essential public health services, women and pregnant people’s fundamental rights and patients’ autonomy to make their own health care decisions. 

Limited access to reproductive health services has a negative impact on the health of women and infants as well as long-term economic and social consequences. Prevention of unintended pregnancy has direct health benefits for women and infants.[1][2][3][4][5] Likewise, there is a social and economic benefit to access to effective contraception and family planning services.[6] Access to safe abortion is part of this essential suite of public health services. Unsafe abortion is a leading cause of maternal mortality globally[7] and regions with the most restrictive laws have higher rates of unsafe abortion.[8][9][10] Restrictions on safe and effective reproductive health services also disproportionately affect people from historically marginalized and excluded communities and lower economic means.[11]

ACPM condemns in the strongest terms efforts to restrict access to essential reproductive health services.

Read ACPM’s full policy statement on women’s reproductive health services.

[1] Kost K, Lindberg L. Pregnancy intentions, maternal behaviors, and infant health:
389 investigating relationships with new measures and propensity score analysis.
390 Demography. 2015;52(1):83-111. doi:10.1007/s13524-014-0359-9
[2] Lindberg L, Maddow-Zimet I, Kost K, Lincoln A. Pregnancy intentions and maternal and
392 child health: an analysis of longitudinal data in Oklahoma. Matern Child Health J.
393 2015;19(5):1087-1096. doi:10.1007/s10995-014-1609-6
[3] Sable MR, Spencer JC, Stockbauer JW, Schramm WF, Howell V, Herman AA.
404 Pregnancy wantedness and adverse pregnancy outcomes: differences by race and
405 Medicaid status. Fam Plann Perspect. 29(2):76-81.
[4] Goldthwaite LM, Duca L, Johnson RK, Ostendorf D, Sheeder J. Adverse Birth Outcomes
407 in Colorado: Assessing the Impact of a Statewide Initiative to Prevent Unintended
408 Pregnancy. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(9):e60-6. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302711
[5] Kost K, Landry DJ, Darroch J. The effects of pregnancy planning status on birth
416 outcomes and infant care. Fam Plann Perspect. 1998;30(5):223-230.
[6] Frost J, Finer LB, Tapales A. The Impact of Publicly Funded Family Planning Clinic
512 Services on Unintended Pregnancies and Government Cost Savings. J Health Care Poor
513 Underserved. 2008;19(3):778-796. doi:10.1353/hpu.0.0060
[7] Harris LH, Grossman D. Complications of Unsafe and Self-Managed Abortion. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(11):1029-1040. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1908412
[8] World Health Organization. Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health
599 Systems, Second Edition.; 2012.
[9] Ganatra B, Gerdts C, Rossier C, et al. Global, regional, and subregional classification of
602 abortions by safety, 2010-14: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lancet
603 (London, England). 2017;390(10110):2372-2381. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31794-4
[10] Shah I, Ahman E. Unsafe abortion: global and regional incidence, trends, consequences, and challenges. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009;31(12):1149-1158.
[11] Finer LB, Zolna MR. Declines in Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011.
333 N Engl J Med. 2016;374(9):843-852. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1506575
Back to news listing