Kelcie Moseley-Morris

By Kelcie Moseley-Morris

“What we found with this study was when patients have that autonomy and have that empowerment, they end up doing better.” 

— Dr. Samuel Melville, resident physician at Oregon Health & Science University

 A sign outside a hospital’s maternal-fetal medicine department sets aside parking for patients. A new study suggests that giving “labor guides” to pregnant women helps combat misinformation that an increasing number of patients are getting from social media or artificial intelligence. (Photo by Kelcie Moseley-Morris/Stateline)

Providing “labor guides” to pregnant women helps combat misinformation that an increasing number of patients are getting from social media or artificial intelligence, according to a recent study.

Dr. Samuel Melville, a resident-physician in obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University and the lead author of the study, said he frequently hears patients quoting social media or AI when resisting medical interventions, such as inducing labor with medication.

The study, published in the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine’s journal Pregnancy, found that in a group of about 200 patients, those who received the labor guide reported more satisfaction and a sense of control than those who did not receive it. Initial evidence also showed a potential to improve medical outcomes. Melville’s hospital recently made labor guides available to all patients admitted to its labor and delivery unit.

“What we found with this study was when patients have that autonomy and have that empowerment, they end up doing better,” Melville said. “They’re more satisfied in their labor process.”

Melville noted that trust in the medical community is down since the COVID-19 pandemic, something other researchers have also observed around vaccine hesitancy.

He said many patients falsely believe any kind of intervention will make it more likely they will have to have a cesarean section, major surgery that comes with more risks. But he and his colleagues try to reduce the need for C-sections, he said.

“There’s been a lot of people on social media with limited experience in obstetrics who are counseling folks to not get evidence-based things in their labor to avoid being induced, even when it’s for medically indicated reasons,” said Melville, noting conditions like hypertension and gestational diabetes can precipitate the need for certain interventions. “And those things can oftentimes make patients very hesitant to accept treatment or evidence-based practices.”

Melville believes the guides have the potential to be revolutionary, for his practice and nationwide if other hospitals adopt similar practices. In the group that got the labor guides, women had a higher rate of vaginal delivery, which corresponded with lower blood loss and better neonatal outcomes.

“Less babies in that group needed resuscitation, which was really exciting,” Melville said, noting the study did not measure the statistical significance of this trend but they will continue to study it as more patients use the labor guides.

He also acknowledged that pregnant patients have valid reasons to be concerned about not being able to consent for medical procedures, some that are based in history. The credited inventor of modern gynecology is J. Marion Sims, who performed gynecological surgeries on enslaved Black women without their permission or pain medication in the 1840s. Much more recently, ProPublica reported, patients have been forced by judges, particularly in Florida, to have C-sections against their will.

Black women especially report racial discrimination and not feeling heard by medical professionals around their labor and birth decisions and have higher rates of complications and deaths nationally.

“As long as human history has been around, we’ve always really oftentimes struggled with consent around the obstetric practice,” Melville said. “I often tell patients when they come in for labor, ‘Our team makes the recommendations, but you make the decisions for your body, and I will never go against the decisions that you make for your body.’ Sometimes my recommendations will be stronger than others.”

THE POD

Next on our Stories From The States podcast: Plans to rollback roadless rule threatens a New England forest

The federal Roadless Area Conservation Rule has been in place since 2001, but is under threat. In August, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced her agency’s plans to rescind the rule “in its entirety.”

The roadless rule currently prohibits road construction, logging and mining on about 30% of the nearly 200 million acres of land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The rule mostly applies to forested areas of the West, but a unique area in the White Mountains along the border of Maine and New Hampshire could have its landscape changed.

In Episode 50, Maine Morning Star reporter Kaitlyn Budion discusses the concerns of New England conservationists who think the rollback of the roadless rule would hurt one of the few unbroken stretches of wilderness in New England.

THE BEAT

Texas woman uses state law to sue anti-abortion group that allegedly ordered abortion pills online 

A patient prepares to take Mifepristone, the first pill in a medical abortion, at Alamo Women's Clinic in Carbondale, Illinois, on April 9, 2024. (Reuters/Evelyn Hockstein)

A patient prepares to take Mifepristone, the first pill in a medical abortion, at Alamo Women's Clinic in Carbondale, Illinois, on April 9, 2024. (Reuters/Evelyn Hockstein)

A Texas woman is using a state law banning the transport of abortion pills to sue members of the anti-abortion organization Students for Life of America.

In the suit filed Tuesday in a Harris County district court, plaintiff Maria Puerto, a 26-year-old mother of two using a pseudonym to protect her family, alleges that four anti-abortion activists had ordered abortion medication on their phones in March 2026 outside of the Space Center Houston. The lawsuit cites, among other things, a now-expired social media post by one of the defendants captioned “Guess what we are doing? Ordering abortion pills undercover? Yep. Stay tuned.”

Known as the Woman and Child Protection Act, House Bill 7, which went into effect in December, prohibits providing an “abortion-inducing drug” to or from anyone in the state of Texas. The law is enforced by allowing almost any person, regardless of whether they have been impacted by the incident, to bring a civil suit against a provider of abortion medication. Plaintiffs may seek an injunction and a minimum of $100,000. If the person bringing the suit has no connection to the incident, the plaintiff receives $10,000, with the remainder of the award going to a charity selected by the plaintiff.

The lawsuit does not specify how the defendants violated HB 7. While the law does not explicitly bar the ordering of abortion medication, it does prohibit the transport of the drug within the state.

“What the statute says is that transporting abortion drugs from one location to another within the state is a violation of HB 7 … By the plain language of the statute, this would seem to be a violation,” Puerto’s attorney Molly Duane told The Texas Tribune. “This is the problem with writing such a confusing and vague law.”

THE PULSE
  • ID: Idaho moms and grandmothers are taking the fight for abortion rights to their neighbors’ doors | The 19th

  • MO: A new owner took over a central Missouri hospital. 9 days later, it cut labor and delivery | Missouri Independent

  • OK: Oklahoma Republicans weigh Texas-style anti-abortion tax credit | The Journal Record

  • US: Walmart heir Olivia Walton investing $100M to halve U.S. maternal mortality rate | Fortune

ABORTION ACCESS IN THE U.S.

Track state-level developments on reproductive rights anytime at News From The States. Send tips and thoughts to ✉️ [email protected], , and follow her on Bluesky @kelciemmorris.bsky.social.

And if you enjoyed today's edition, forward this email to a friend.