Researchers from The University of California, San Francisco’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) and Temple University’s Policy Surveillance Program of the Center for Public Health Law Research (CPHLR) published a study yesterday in the American Journal of Public Health, comparing laws governing facilities that provide abortions with laws governing facilities that provide other office interventions (e.g., office-based surgeries and procedures). The study found that laws targeting abortion provision are more numerous, expansive, and burdensome than laws regulating facilities providing other medical interventions.
The study was based on empirical datasets analyzing Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) Laws and Office-Based Surgery (OBS) Laws, all now available on LawAtlas.org, the Policy Surveillance Program’s website dedicated to empirical legal datasets. The study of TRAP laws is comprised of three individual datasets: Abortion Facility Licensing (AFL) Requirements, Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Requirements, and Hospitalization Requirements (HR). Detailed descriptions of the TRAP datasets are below.
- Abortion Facility Licensing (AFL) Requirements: This dataset includes state laws requiring facilities in which abortions are performed to be regulated under a distinct abortion facility licensing provision and/or meet special requirements regulating abortion providers.
- Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Requirements: This dataset includes state laws requiring facilities in which abortions are performed to be licensed ASCs and meet regulations governing ASCs.
- Hospitalization Requirements (HR): This dataset includes state laws requiring facilities in which abortions are performed to be licensed hospitals.
These three datasets complement a dataset analyzing Office-Based Surgery (OBS) Laws. This fourth dataset was included to study facility requirements imposed on abortion providers in comparison to other medical facilities.
