The fall of Roe v. Wade brought a dark reality into the lives of many Americans, but most of all to those who suffer from chronic health conditions. Already experiencing health inequity, these individuals now face additional pressure from abortion restrictions.
In a post-Dobbs world, their struggles are inextricably linked with "the complex and unjust intersections of ableism, racism, and sexism," explains research on the implications of abortion restrictions for people with chronic health conditions.
For people with chronic health conditions, these are dangerous barriers that threaten self-determination and survival. Policies that restrict reproductive healthcare too often ignore the real-life complexities associated with chronic conditions. For example, conditions like lupus, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis can make pregnancy a high-risk and life-threatening scenario.
Yet, such restrictive abortion laws make no allowances for these medical realities, placing patients and providers in legally and ethically precarious positions. These risks are even higher for women of color, who disproportionately bear chronic health burdens and systemic inequities in healthcare.
“For people who live with chronic health conditions, the fight for reproductive autonomy is a daily battle,” the research adds.
The fight for reproductive autonomy is also a psychological and mental war with too many people facing judgment from healthcare providers who don't receive training related to disability and chronic illness or ableism within medical systems.
Additionally, clinics and hospitals can be physically inaccessible, adding logistical hurdles to what should be basic care.
These systemic barriers become exponentially worse when combined with the backdrop of restrictive policies that further limit access to abortion care. Those with chronic health conditions are often left to make impossible choices between their health or the risk of an unplanned pregnancy.
Moreover, in states where abortion is banned or restricted, these individuals are forced to travel long distances for care, risking their health in the process.
So, how can we mitigate these risks?
The research shows that we must investigate how these restrictions disproportionately affect the most vulnerable populations and address these situations with equity-oriented solutions.
However, studying all these issues is not good enough, and we should actively fight for policies and practices that protect our reproductive rights and address systemic inequities.
Healthcare providers can, for example, use HIPAA compliant emails to help overcome these barriers. These secure systems allow patients to communicate with their providers while maintaining their privacy, making it a potential lifeline for those living with chronic health conditions.
HIPAA compliant email also bridges the gap for patients in restrictive states who must seek out-of-state care. Providers can coordinate care, share medical records, and guide next steps via email so that patients with ongoing health conditions don't have to navigate these challenges on their own.
These emailing systems can also enhance systemic reform so everyone gets the care they need. It gives those with a chronic health condition bodily autonomy and dignity, amplifying the voices of the most vulnerable.
It is time for healthcare systems, policymakers, and researchers to advocate for policy equity, use patient-centered technologies like HIPAA compliant email, and stand against the inequities propagated by restrictive abortion policies.
Reproductive health care needs to be available, respectful, and safe. As we fight for this vision, no one should be left behind, for their choice is worth fighting for.
Go deeper:
Yes, HIPAA safeguards any information about reproductive healthcare, including abortion, as part of a person’s protected health information (PHI).
Generally no, healthcare providers cannot share information about an individual’s abortion or other medical treatments without their explicit permission, unless required by law.
HIPAA protections apply nationwide, but sharing PHI with out-of-state providers requires patient consent unless permitted by law.