105 - Accuracy and Misleadingness of Anatomical and Embryological Language in Anti-abortion Legislation

Poster Board Number: 105
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Steven Lewis, M.D. - Associate Professor, Clinical Medicine, NYIT College of Osteopathic Medicine; Nathan Thompson, Ph.D. - Associate Professor, Anatomy, NYIT College of Osteopathic Medicine

Abstract Body : INTRODUCTION: Within the last decade there has been a rise in restrictive abortion legislation at the state level. These pieces of legislation typically contain a section of ‘Legislative Findings’ that embodies the rationale for passing a given law. Often statements of anatomical and embryological ‘fact’ are found in these ‘Legislative Findings’ sections and are used to justify a given abortion restriction. Here we evaluated the level to which these statements are accurate and/or misleading, if at all.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: All legislation enacted between 2016 and 2023 was compiled using the ‘Abortion Ban’ category on the Guttmacher Institute’s State Legislation Tracker. Any statement of anatomical or embryological fact in a ‘Legislative Findings’ or similar section was compiled. For a statement to be included, it had to: 1) be a statement of anatomical or embryological fact, 2) be falsifiable, 3) refer to a specific timepoint(s), and 4) not require specialized knowledge outside of normal developmental expertise. Applying these criteria reduced the original 55 pieces of legislation from 23 states to 11 pieces from 11 states and 57 total statements.

A survey mechanism containing these statements was distributed to experts in anatomy and embryology, largely drawn from members of the American Association for Anatomy. Participants rated the accuracy and level of misleadingness of each statement on two five-point scales (1 = completely inaccurate or misleading; 5 = completely accurate or non-misleading). Each statement was tested for significant difference from an expectation of 5 (completely accurate or completely non-misleading).

RESULTS: Forty-one participants completed the survey. Overall, the mean accuracy and level of misleadingness were 3.0±1.2 (range: 1.4–4.3) and 2.5±1.2 (range: 1.3–3.8), respectively. Statements regarding early fetal development were most accurate and non-misleading (3.1±1.2 and 2.7±1.3, respectively), followed by statements of neurological development (accuracy: 3.1±1.2; misleadingness: 2.4±1.2), then by 6 miscellaneous statements (accuracy: 2.4±1.3; misleadingness: 1.9±1.1). All statements evaluated were significantly less than 5.0 for both accuracy and misleadingness.

CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that all of the anatomical and embryological information in abortion legislation contains, to various degrees, inaccurate or misleading information.

SIGNIFICANCE: The ‘Legislative Findings’ section is the factual basis for which states use to justify their restrictive abortion legislation. Recognizing misinformation introduced at this stage is an important step in ensuring that legislators, healthcare providers, and the public are able to understand complex anatomical and embryological information.