A new study from the University of California at Berkeley, of all places, reveals that physicians specializing in obstetrics and gynecology are not fleeing states that have restricted induced abortions in the wake of the 2022 Dobbs decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

To better understand the implications of the study, Blaze News spoke with Dr. Christine Francis, a board-certified OB/GYN with decades of experience, a current obstetrics hospitalist who specializes in high-risk pregnancies and deliveries, and the CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

'Opposite to the expected finding if OBGYNs were leaving states where abortion is threatened.'

The study, published by JAMA on April 21, which obviously presumes abortion to be a critical component of "quality" OB/GYN care, surveyed more than 60,000 OB/GYNs to determine whether the Dobbs decision might impact where they decided to practice medicine. To the surprise of authors Becky Staiger and Valentin Bolotnyy, abortion policies in the individual states "did not significantly" affect the number of OB/GYNs working there.

The authors attempted to minimize the results, stating only that "there were no significant differences in trends in OBGYNs’ practice locations across states with different abortion-related policy environments after the Dobbs decision."

But that assertion ignores a key finding from the study: States with the most permissive abortion laws post-Dobbs saw the smallest increase in the number of OB/GYNs. While all states apparently had an increase, according to the study, permissive states saw just a 7.7% increase, while states with abortion bans saw an increase of 8.3% and those that have "threatened" abortion saw a startling 10.5% increase.

These results left Staiger and Bolotnyy scratching their heads. Staiger has a Ph.D. in health policy and management and has attempted to identify "racial health disparities" in public health insurance programs in New York. Bolotnyy's Ph.D. is in economics, and he is tied to the Deliberative Democracy Lab at the Center on Democracy at Stanford University.

"The only statistically significant difference suggested that the share of physicians who are OBGYNs decreased less in threatened states than in protected ones, opposite to the expected finding if OBGYNs were leaving states where abortion is threatened," the authors ultimately determined (emphasis added).

The conclusion of the study was so out of step with liberal orthodoxy that Dr. Francis made a point of expressing her appreciation to Staiger, Bolotnyy, and JAMA for publishing it even though "it theoretically goes against the ... prevailing political narrative."

"We need to give credit where credit is due," Francis said.

'Induced abortion can't be part of comprehensive reproductive health care if reproductive health care specialists ... are not doing it.'

Unlike the authors and the journal, though, Dr. Francis is not at all surprised by the findings of the study. She told Blaze News that they merely reaffirmed what she and her group, AAPLOG, have known all along: that restrictions on abortion would not have any meaningful impact on the vast majority of practicing OB/GYNs.

The main reason they were so confident that Dobbs would have little effect on OB/GYNs is that so few OB/GYNs perform induced abortions. According to statistics Francis cited, anywhere from 76% to 93% of all practicing OB/GYNs do not offer abortions.

"Induced abortion can't be part of comprehensive reproductive health care if reproductive health care specialists, the vast majority of them, are not doing it," Francis explained.

Francis noted that such statistics cast doubt on talking points and narratives promulgated by what she called "the abortion industry." Such narratives have attempted to dupe people into thinking that any abortion restrictions will lead to compromised medical care for women.

False though it may be, the presumption that quality health care for women depends on the ready availability of elective abortion appears to be far-reaching. A quick internet search turned up articles and research that all insisted the Dobbs decision posed a real threat to women and doctors:

• "In states with strict abortion policies, simply seeing an OB/GYN for regular care can be difficult," claimed a headline from NBC News.
• "States With Abortion Bans See Continued Decrease in U.S. MD Senior Residency Applicants," warned a study from the Association of American Medical Colleges.
• "Over time, the inability of abortion-restrictive states to recruit new and existing clinicians will exacerbate widening health workforce disparities, with negative consequences for health care access, quality, and outcomes," wailed a Health Affairs Scholar study.

Even a January 2024 article from JAMA suggested that abortion bans had created an "occupational health crisis for OB-GYNs," who reported experiencing anxiety and "moral distress," fears about possibly violating the law, and even symptoms of depression.

Not only does the new study challenge some of those reports, since the number of OB/GYNs seems to be growing across the board despite Dobbs, but, according to Francis, the increase in numbers of OB/GYNs in pro-life states likewise suggests better medical care for the women living there.

"Women that live in states that decided to protect life, it seems, have actually better access to the care of an OB/GYN," she explained.

Francis described that trend as "encouraging" and "heartening" and expressed hope that it will continue.

Francis cautioned that while the study indicates that states that ban or restrict abortion have enjoyed a higher increase in OB/GYN counts since Dobbs, the study did not attempt to determine the reasons that some physicians moved to a new state.

In fact, Francis said she personally knows multiple physicians who left Indiana and its near-total abortion ban specifically because they wanted to continue performing elective abortions. Still, she claimed that pro-lifers should be encouraged that abortion restrictions have not prompted OB/GYNs to leave states in droves, as had been expected.

"At the very least," she said, "these pro-life laws are not discouraging OB/GYNs from either coming to that state to practice or remaining in that state if they were already in that state."

Moreover, Francis continued, by staying put regardless of abortion restrictions, OB/GYNs are signaling the irrelevance of abortion to the overall care they provide. To demonstrate her point, Francis imagined how she might react to restrictions on an obstetrics procedure she considers essential.

"If I was trying to practice in a state that said you can't do a C-section for any reason," Francis explained, "then I would probably leave that state because I wouldn't be able to provide good care to my patients."

Though promising, the new study is by no means a game-changer and will likely have no impact on any abortion laws at the local, state, or national level. However, it does at least call into question prevailing pro-abortion assumptions as well as demonstrate a willingness from apparently doctrinaire leftists to follow the truth wherever it leads.

As Francis neatly summarized, "This study just goes into that group of studies that help support the notion that we see in real-life, everyday practice that induced abortion is not a part of good health care.

"It's not a part of essential reproductive health care."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!