A new publication in Health Affairs Forefront by Kari White and co-authors examines recent legal arguments claiming that telehealth access to medication abortion increases reproductive coercion and harms survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV).
The analysis finds that the evidence does not support those claims.
Drawing on national epidemiologic research, the authors show that reproductive coercion more commonly involves preventing access to contraception or abortion—not forcing abortion. Research also demonstrates that policies restricting abortion access are associated with increases in intimate partner violence and intimate partner homicide among reproductive-aged women.
In the post-Dobbs policy environment, medication abortion accessed through telehealth has become an essential option for many people, particularly those living in states with abortion bans. For survivors of IPV, confidential access to care may reduce barriers and enhance safety in situations where in-person clinic visits are difficult or dangerous.
The article also reviews ongoing litigation challenging the FDA’s regulation of mifepristone and the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) that allows telehealth prescribing and mailing of the medication. The authors argue that policy responses to intimate partner violence should focus on holding perpetrators accountable and supporting survivors—not restricting access to evidence-based reproductive health care.
As policymakers consider potential changes to mifepristone regulation, decisions should be guided by rigorous evidence and centered on women’s health, autonomy, and safety.
Read the full publication in Health Affairs Forefront here:
https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/restricting-access-medication-abortion-not-help-survivors-intimate-partner-violence