Research consistently shows no clear penalty for pro-life states in attracting medical residents
(The College Fix) New research purporting to show that pro-abortion states are attracting more medical residency applicants also shows men and racial minorities are applying at higher rates to pro-life states.
The paper, published in JAMA Network Open, looks at “state-level disparities in residency applications” following the Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court case in 2022. In that case, a majority of justices ruled that legislatures could pass laws protecting preborn babies from abortions.
The study’s authors found female medical residency applicants were slightly more likely to go to pro-abortion states when comparing the 2018-2019 cycle to the 2022-2023 cycle.
This study looked at 4315 residency programs, representing 49.3 percent of female applicants and 56.1 percent male applicants.
The researchers also looked at a subgroup of 262 OB/GYN residency programs.
The researchers found “there was a significant change in the disparity in application rates for women” but “no significant change for men,” in OB/GYN programs.
In total, both pro-life and pro-abortion groups saw an increase in residency applications.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
The Fix spoke to co-author Anirban Basu about the study’s findings.
“Total applications increased because, overall, more people are applying for residency programs over time,” Professor Basu said. “But we saw a disproportionate increase in non-restricted states compared to restricted states after the ruling. Such disproportionate increase was not observed before the ruling, even though overall applications were also increasing then,” he said.
The Fix also asked the University of Washington health economist why racial minorities may have been more likely to apply in pro-life states instead of pro-abortion states.
“It may be because the [underrepresented minority] % in the general population is larger in restricted states,” Basu said. “What’s noticeable is that a disproportionate % of applications from URM applicants increased in non-restricted states compared to restricted states after the ruling.”
The study’s conclusion is that the Dobbs ruling affected the healthcare “pipeline.”
“These findings provide early evidence that Dobbs may be associated with state-level disparities in the overall health care training pipeline and workforce,” the authors wrote.
The Fix asked Basu if he and his team would support restrictions on abortion if they found research indicating that residency applications increased in pro-life states.
He said no.
“No, as you have to also look at the concomitant increases in the non-restricted states too to see where those overall increases in applications are going, and whether there is a disproportionate shift to certain states,” Basu said.
Tweet This: Research consistently shows no clear penalty for pro-life states in attracting medical residents.
Social scientist says ‘no evidence that there is a physician shortage in pro-life states’
However, an expert on statistical analysis and abortion studies provided clarifying context to the main claims of Basu and his team
Michael New is an associate political science professor at the Catholic University of America and a scholar with the Charlotte Lozier Institute with a research focus on pro-life legislation.
“Looking at the data, residency applications increased everywhere, but there does appear to be a slightly larger increase in states with permissive abortion policies,” New told The Fix via email.
“That said [,] medical residency programs are competitive and most residency programs had considerably more applications than openings,” Professor New said. “There is no evidence that there is a physician shortage in pro-life states.”
New however, thinks policy was not as significant of a factor of the results generated by the study.
He questioned to what extent abortion laws influenced residency decisions.
“I doubt that abortion policy plays a big role in the decision of where Medical students decide to take residency,” New said. “The important factors are likely compensation, proximity to family, and quality of life. A very small percentage of physicians perform abortions.”
New also shared with The Fix some findings he had on specifically OBGYN residency applications.
“If researchers were concerned about public health — they would consider how many residency spots were filled in states with pro-life laws as opposed to states with permissive abortion policies,” he said.
He pointed to recent data from the National Resident Matching Program which shows the same percentage of OB/GYN residency slots, 99.2 percent, were filled in both pro-life and pro-abortion states.
The Fix also covered the Resident Matching Program data earlier this week. That data show no clear difference between pro-life and pro-abortion states.
“In fact, Texas filled a higher percentage of its OBGYN residency spots than did New York,” New told The Fix.
The pro-life scholar concluded that the question of abortion cannot be reduced to residency applications, as there are broader moral questions at play.
“Even if there were more residency applications in states with permissive abortion policies — that would not justify the legality of abortion,” he said.
“All innocent human life is precious and deserves legal protection. Innocent human lives should not be sacrificed on utilitarian policy grounds.”
Editor's note: This article was published by The College Fix and is reprinted with permission.
