Fetal Anomaly Exceptions in Abortion Laws: Inconsistent and Poorly Defined Language Increases Legal Uncertainty and Restricts Access to Care
Loading...
Authors
Engineer, Myna
Bustamante, Jessica
Issue Date
2025-05-01
Type
thesis_open
Language
Keywords
Abortion , Legal , Fetal Anomaly , Prenatal , Restrictions , Bioethics and Medical Ethics
Health Law and Policy
Women's Health
Alternative Title
Human Genetics Theses
Abstract
Introduction Following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), abortion access in the U.S. is determined at the state level. Many states include vague or narrow exceptions for fetal anomalies. This study examines how all 50 states define fetal condition exemptions in abortion laws and how that language affects clinical practice and access to care. Purpose We hypothesized that inconsistent definitions of fetal anomalies contribute to legal ambiguity, ethical uncertainty, and barriers to abortion access. This study investigates how states define fetal health and viability conditions and the authority granted to healthcare professionals in such cases. Methods Abortion statutes effective as of February 10, 2025, were reviewed for references to fetal condition exceptions. Statutory language was compiled into a database, coded for definitions, exclusions, and decision-making authority, and analyzed thematically by two independent reviewers. Results Seventeen states included fetal condition exceptions, but terminology varied widely—terms like “lethal fetal anomaly,” “fatal abnormality,” and “incompatible with life” were used inconsistently, often without definitions. Definitions of viability differed or were absent entirely. Five states explicitly excluded conditions like Down syndrome or spina bifida from exceptions, despite potential lethality. Decision-making authority ranged from requiring physician certification to offering no guidance, leading to confusion and legal risk. Conclusions The lack of standardized, medically informed language across state laws creates uncertainty and delays in care. Ambiguous definitions and inconsistent exclusions compromise both patient access and provider safety, highlighting the urgent need for clearer legislative standards.
Description
Citation
Publisher
License
true