The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Change in abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas
Open accessAbstract
Objectives In 2013, Texas passed omnibus legislation restricting abortion services. Provisions restricting medical abortion, banning most procedures after 20 weeks and requiring physicians to have hospital admitting privileges were enforced in November 2013; by September 2014, abortion facilities must meet the requirements of ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). We aimed to rapidly assess the change in abortion services after the first three provisions went into effect. Study Design We requested information from all licensed Texas abortion facilities on abortions performed between November 2012 and April 2014, including the abortion method and gestational age (<12 weeks versus ≥12 weeks). Results In May 2013, there were 41 facilities providing abortion in Texas; this decreased to 22 in November 2013. Both clinics closed in the Rio Grande Valley, and all but one closed in West Texas. Comparing November 2012–April 2013 to November 2013–April 2014, there was a 13% decrease in the abortion rate (from 12.9 to 11.2 abortions/1000 women age 15–44). Medical abortion decreased by 70%, from 28.1% of all abortions in the earlier period to 9.7% after November 2013 (p<0.001). Second-trimester abortion increased from 13.5% to 13.9% of all abortions (p<0.001). Only 22% of abortions were performed in the state’s six ASCs. Conclusions The closure of clinics and restrictions on medical abortion in Texas appear to be associated with a decline in the in-state abortion rate and a marked decrease in the number of medical abortions. Implications Supply-side restrictions on abortion—especially restrictions on medical abortion—can have a profound impact on access to services. Access to abortion care will become even further restricted in Texas when the ASC requirement goes into effect in 2014.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Abortion Incidence and Service Availability In the United States, 2014
Jones, R. K., & Jerman, J. (2017) · Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health · doi:10.1363/psrh.12015 · Cited by 455
The Economic Consequences of Being Denied an Abortion
Miller, S., Wherry, L. R., & Foster, D. G. (2023) · American Economic Journal: Economic Policy · doi:10.1257/pol.20210159 · Cited by 66
Scripting Dissent: US Abortion Laws, State Power, and the Politics of Scripted Speech
Buchbinder, M. (2016) · American Anthropologist · doi:10.1111/aman.12680 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Grossman, D., Baum, S., Fuentes, L., White, K., Hopkins, K., Stevenson, A., & Potter, J. E.
- Venue
- Contraception
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-11
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 496-501
- ISSN
- 0010-7824 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1980002422
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Change in abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.contraception.2014.07.006
- The paper
- Grossman, D., Baum, S., Fuentes, L., White, K., Hopkins, K., Stevenson, A., & Potter, J. E. (2014). Change in abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas. Contraception. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2014.07.006
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.