Threatening fertileground: the potential for dobbs to exacerbate discrepancies in access to care.

On June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court ruling on Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization held that the United States Constitution does not confer a right to abortion [1]. In overturning the precedent of Roe v. Wade, the decision has put into effect preexisting “trigger” laws that banned abortion in several states [2]. In the wake of the decision, various state legislatures are also considering imposing restrictions or banning abortion outright [3]. The nature of the new and existing restrictions has raised questions about whether Assisted Reproductive Technologies (“ART”) and In Vitro Fertilization (“IVF”) as currently practiced will be affected by a rapidly evolving legal environment. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (“ASRM”) has acknowledged there are “legitimate and significant concerns” about the ruling’s impact on ART noting that while the court’s opinion does not mention IVF, the dissent explicitly raises concerns [4]. To date, no study has characterized ART utilization in states that are at risk.