Search

"Pro‐life" and "pro‐choice" are closely associated with discussions about abortion; we refer to the extent that people identify with these terms as "abortion identity." Most polling measures present pro‐life and pro‐choice as mutually exclusive options, but there is a dearth of information about people who might simultaneously endorse both (or neither) labels. Method: We administered a survey to adults in the United States (n = 580) that included two different formats for participants to select their abortion identity: a categorical item with response options ranging from strongly pro‐choice to strongly pro‐life (and "both" and "neither") and two separate items (sliders) that asked people the extent to which they identify with each term. We asked participants endorsing both pro‐life and pro‐choice to some extent on the slider items to explain their responses in an open‐ended item. We used logistic regression to examine the relationship between participants' socio‐demographic characteristics and the likelihood of dual identification slider scores; we analyzed open‐ended data for content and themes. Results: On the sliders, more than 64% of participants identified as both pro‐life and pro‐choice to some extent. Variability existed between people's abortion identity on the close‐ended items and their response to the open‐ended questions. Among those with mixed abortion identities, participants described abortion as a serious and undesirable option but reflected positively on notions of personal choice and bodily autonomy. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate complexity in measuring people's endorsement of abortion identity labels. We recommend developing more nuanced and consistent measures to assess abortion attitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined public opinion regarding unique aspects of abortion legality to better understand potential contexts in which stigma may occur and the extent that people (a) believe actors involved in abortion (i.e., pregnant woman, healthcare provider, man involved in the pregnancy, someone providing information about where to get an abortion, parents of a minor) should be held responsible for illegal abortion, (b) believe abortion should be illegal across different circumstances, and (c) endorse different punishments for pregnant women and healthcare providers, including variation by responsibility. An online survey was administered to 2,489 English and Spanish-speaking U.S. adults, using quota-based sampling, with post-stratification weights applied to match U.S. benchmarks. People scored healthcare providers and women more responsible than other actors. Although the majority did not support abortion being illegal for most circumstances, a substantial proportion were unsure. Additionally, "no punishment" was most frequently selected for the woman and healthcare provider. However, those who endorsed any punishment, compared with no punishment, typically indicated the pregnant woman and healthcare provider were more responsible. Our findings suggest that current laws criminalizing abortion are misaligned with public opinion and that pregnant women and healthcare providers are likely most susceptible to abortion-related stigma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Abortion is common in the United States (US), although access is becoming more difficult for some. In addition to restrictive policies that ban most abortion, limit the number of providers and increase costs, barriers to access also include less supportive cultural climates and stigma related to abortion. Prior to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision of the United States Supreme Court, research suggested that people generally believed it was easy to access abortion, but this research did not examine the underlying factors that drive these perceptions. Methods: In 2019, using data from closed and open‐ended survey questions, we examined differences in people's assessment of abortion access within the state they reside and factors that influence those perceptions. We recruited English‐ and Spanish‐speaking US adults (N = 2599) from Qualtrics' national panel using quota‐based sampling to participate in a web‐based survey. We used multinomial logistic regression to examine predictors of access perceptions across demographic characteristics and thematic analysis to analyze open‐ended responses. Results: Fifty‐three percent of participants believed abortion was easy to access in their state. Spanish speakers and participants from legislatively "hostile" states were more likely to perceive access as difficult. Legality‐related knowledge and pro‐life identity were associated with perceiving abortion access as easy. Conclusions: Prior to Dobbs, participants' interpretation of the ease or difficulty of accessing abortion were subjective. Misconceptions about state abortion laws and the prevalence of providers were common, suggesting a need for more education about abortion laws, policies, and access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between people's attitudes about abortion acceptability and the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade—two distinct but related issues—has not been rigorously explored. The authors used a mixed-methods approach for analyzing in-depth interviews to better understand how participants' feelings toward abortion acceptability are related to perceptions of whether abortion should be legal. The authors then assessed (1) correlations between abortion acceptability and different measures of support for Roe v. Wade, and (2) how the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade may evoke different responses via an online survey fielded in 2018. The study's qualitative results highlight that there is a disjuncture between people's moral feelings toward abortion and their attitudes toward abortion legality. The study's quantitative results further demonstrate that correlations between abortion acceptability and support for Roe v. Wade are moderate, and the differences in responses to the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade are moderated by knowledge. The authors recommend that when researchers develop survey items, they avoid ambiguities of abortion as a general construct, especially when public opinion measures on abortion are employed for research and the design of social and health policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Although debate remains about the saliency and relevance of pro‐choice and pro‐life labels (as abortion belief indicators), they have been consistently used for decades to broadly designate abortion identity. However, clear labels are less apparent in other languages (e.g., Spanish). Social media, as an exploratory data science tool, can be leveraged to identify the presence and popularity of online abortion identity labels and how they are contextualized online. Purpose: This study aims to determine how popularly used Spanish‐language pro‐choice and pro‐life identity labels are contextualized online. Method: We used Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic models, an unsupervised natural language processing (NLP) application, to generate themes about Spanish language tweets categorized by Spanish abortion identity labels: (1) proelección (pro‐choice); (2) derecho a decidir (right to choose); (3) proaborto (pro‐abortion); (4) provida (pro‐life); (5) antiaborto (anti‐abortion); and (6) derecho a vivir (right to life). We manually reviewed themes for each identity label to assess scope. Results: All six identity labels included in our analysis contained some references to abortion. However, several labels were not exclusive to abortion. Proelección (pro‐choice), for example, contained several themes related to ongoing presidential elections. Discussion and Conclusion: No singular Spanish abortion identity label encapsulates abortion beliefs; however, there are several viable options. Just as the debate remains ongoing about pro‐choice and pro‐life as accurate indicators of abortion beliefs in English, we must also consider that identity is more complex than binary labels in Spanish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines knowledge of and attitudes toward Roe v. Wade among a sample of 779 US Latinx adults. Survey response patterns were examined in relation to generational status and choice of survey language as well as to several demographic variables previously shown to influence abortion attitudes (e.g., age, religiosity, political affiliation). Differences were found in knowledge of Roe v. Wade by generational status and survey language, with those with higher generational statuses and those taking the survey in English exhibiting greater knowledge. Finally, greater knowledge of Roe v. Wade and choosing to take the survey in English predicted more positive attitudes toward Roe v. Wade controlling for other demographic variables; no effect on attitudes of generational status was observed. These findings contribute to our understanding of abortion attitudes among US Latinxs as well as the relationship between political socialization, knowledge, and attitudes toward social issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated the content of survey items to assess whether and how racist and sexist stereotypes are woven into the fabric of research on attitudes about abortion in the United States. We collected and analyzed a comprehensive set of survey items (456 items from 80 studies) used in peer‐reviewed research published from 2008 to 2018 in representative and nonrepresentative studies of U.S. respondents. Our analysis was guided by historical narratives that have been influential in shaping representations of women and reproduction in the United States (e.g., the Moynihan Report). With this background, we developed three themes pertaining to how individuals' attitudes about abortion are measured: we found that items rely on (1) moral, (2) sexual, and (3) financial evaluations of women seeking abortion care. These themes highlighted implicit and explicit judgments of women, including representations of them as unwilling to partner with men and as fiscally and sexually irresponsible. We argue that survey items meant to objectively assess abortion attitudes draw on negative racial and gender stereotypes and that these stereotypes then travel widely under the veneer of scientific objectivity. Critical methods, such as the item bank analysis described in this study, are crucial to discern how inequality, prejudice, and discrimination can be reproduced in the fabric of research methods. In our discussion, we offer suggestions for researchers to reduce these and related forms of bias in survey‐based abortion research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]