State Law Approaches to Facility Regulation of Abortion and Other Office Interventions

Abstract

<p class="first" id="d13234029e142"> <i>Objectives.</i> To compare the prevalence and characteristics of facility laws governing abortion provision specifically (targeted regulation of abortion providers [TRAP] laws); office-based surgeries, procedures, sedation or anesthesia (office interventions) generally (OBS laws); and other procedures specifically. </p><p id="d13234029e147"> <i>Methods.</i> We conducted cross-sectional legal assessments of state facility laws for office interventions in effect as of August 1, 2016. We coded characteristics for each law and compared characteristics across categories of laws. </p><p id="d13234029e152"> <i>Results.</i> TRAP laws (n = 55; in 34 states) were more prevalent than OBS laws (n = 25; in 25 states) or laws targeting other procedures (n = 1; in 1 state). TRAP laws often regulated facilities that would not be regulated under OBS laws (e.g., all TRAP laws, but only 2 OBS laws, applied regardless of sedation or anesthesia used). TRAP laws imposed more numerous and more stringent requirements than OBS laws. </p><p id="d13234029e157"> <i>Conclusions.</i> Many states regulate abortion-providing facilities differently, and more stringently, than facilities providing other office interventions. The Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in <i>Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt</i> casts doubt on the legitimacy of that differential treatment. </p>