Search

Copyright: © 2015 Rocca et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are

Context: In the United States, fetal development markers, including "viability" and the point when a fetus can "feel pain", have permeated the social imaginary of abortion, affecting public support and the legality and availability of care, but the extent to which they describe and orient the experience of abortion at later gestations is unclear., Methods: Using interviews with 30 cisgender women in the U.S. who obtained an abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy, we investigate whether and how notions of fetal viability and/or pain operated in their lived experiences of pregnancy and abortion., Findings: By respondents' accounts, fetal development-based laws restricting abortion based in purported points of fetal development operated as gestational limits, privileged the viability and pain status of the fetus over that of the prospective neonate, and failed to account for the viability and pain of the pregnant person., Conclusions: The discursive practice of centering fetal development in regulating abortion access makes denial of abortion care because of the status of the fetus conceptually available-even at the point of fertilization-and naturalizes the erasure of the subjectivity of women and others who can become pregnant., (Copyright © 2024 by Duke University Press.)

Research documents how abortion can be emotionally difficult and stigmatising, but generally has not considered whether and how involvement in abortion may be a source of positive emotions, including pleasure, belonging and even joy. The absence of explorations that start from the possibility of abortion pleasure and joy represents an epistemic foreclosure. Moreover, it highlights how social science literature has tended to emphasise the negative aspects of abortion care in ways that produce or amplify normative negative associations. In this paper, we investigate the positive emotions, pleasure and joy of abortion involvement by drawing on interviews conducted in 2019 with 28 abortion accompaniers in Argentina, Chile, and Ecuador about their experiences accompanying abortions after 17 weeks' gestation. Abortion accompaniment is a response to unsafe and/or inaccessible abortion whereby volunteer activists guide abortion seekers through a medication abortion. Interviewees described how the practice of accompaniment generated positive emotions by building a feminist community, shared intimacy among women, and witnessing aborting people claim their strength. Importantly, these positive emotional experiences of involvement with abortion were not distinct from the broader marginalisation of abortion but were, instead, rooted in its marginalisation.

Abortion is central to the American political landscape and a common pregnancy outcome, yet research on abortion has been siloed and marginalized in the social sciences. In an empirical analysis, the authors found only 22 articles published in this century in the top economics, political science, and sociology journals. This special issue aims to bring abortion research into a more generalist space, challenging what the authors term "the abortion research paradox," wherein abortion research is largely absent from prominent disciplinary social science journals but flourishes in interdisciplinary and specialized journals. After discussing the misconceptions that likely contribute to abortion research siloization and the implications of this siloization for abortion research as well as social science knowledge more generally, the authors introduce the articles in this special issue. Then, in a call for continued and expanded research on abortion, the introduction to this special issue closes by offering three guiding practices for abortion scholars-both those new to the topic and those deeply familiar with it-in the hopes of building an ever-richer body of literature on abortion politics, policy, and law. The need for such a robust literature is especially acute following the US Supreme Court's June 2022 overturning of the constitutional right to abortion., (Copyright © 2023 by Duke University Press.)

Objective: Describe the prevalence of considering, wanting, and not obtaining a wanted abortion among a nationally representative sample of 15-44 year olds in the United States who had ever been pregnant., Study Design: We analyzed data from ever-pregnant respondents (unweighted n = 1789) from a larger online survey about contraceptive access using the nationally representative AmeriSpeak panel. Among those not obtaining wanted abortions, weighted frequencies for sociodemographic characteristics and reasons for not getting the abortion are presented., Results: Nearly 6% of the full sample reported having wanted an abortion they did not obtain. In open-ended responses, respondents most frequently reported individual reasons (43.8%) for not getting an abortion (e.g., changing their mind; personal opposition) and financial, logistical, or informational barriers (24.7%) likely related to policy. A quarter (24.1%) of the sample reported a past abortion. Among those who reported no past abortions, about one-fifth had considered abortion in the past, and 6.8% had wanted or needed one. Among those reporting no prior abortions who had considered abortion, only a third (34.3%) also report ever wanting or needing one., Conclusions: This study begins to quantify the experience, even before the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, of being unable to obtain a wanted abortion. Additionally, findings suggest that people in a national sample will answer questions about whether and why they did not obtain a wanted abortion., Implications: This study provides the first known national estimates of lifetime history of not getting a wanted abortion. Survey questions can be used for future research. Prospective and ongoing measurement of the inability to get a wanted abortion could be one part of documenting the effects of Dobbs on abortion access., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Pregnant people have traveled across state and national borders for the purpose of abortion since at least the 1960s. Scholarship has robustly documented the financial and logistical costs associated with travel, but less work has examined the emotional costs of abortion travel. We investigate whether abortion travel has emotional costs and, if so, how they come about., Study Design: We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 women who had to travel across state borders in the United States for abortion care because of their gestation. We analyzed findings thematically., Results: Interviewees described having to travel to obtain abortion care as emotionally burdensome, causing distress, stress, anxiety, and shame. Because they had to travel, they were compelled to disclose their abortion to others and obtain care in an unfamiliar place and away from usual networks of support, which engendered emotional costs. Additionally, travel induced feelings of shame and exclusion because it stemmed from a law-based denial of in-state abortion care, which some experienced as marking them as deviant or abnormal., Conclusions: People who have to travel for abortion care experience emotional costs alongside financial and logistical costs. The circumstances of that travel-specifically, being forced to travel because of legal restriction and service unavailability-are foundational to the ensuing emotional burdens. Findings add to the emerging literature on how laws and other structures produce the stigmatization of abortion at interpersonal and individual levels., Implications: With abortion bans following the overturning of the right to abortion and existing gestational limits in the US, more people will have to travel for abortion care. Attention to the emotional costs of abortion travel can help providers understand what their patients may be experiencing when they present for care., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Objectives: Research on abortion referral practices has focused on referral to first-trimester abortion care. Research has not examined whether and how these recommendations apply to referrals for abortion later in pregnancy., Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews with thirty third-trimester abortion patients of their experiences of referral from prenatal and/or pre-third-trimester abortion care. We used thematic coding to identify referral-related actions participants desired or wished providers would avoid., Results: Participants reported needs in referral for information that third-trimester abortion was a possibility and about third-trimester providers and funding resources. Several also reported a need for emotional support from the prenatal or abortion care provider who denied them abortion care., Conclusions: Many factors important for first-trimester abortion referral are important in third-trimester abortion referral, but the specifics of third-trimester care (namely the paucity of clinics, need for travel, and possibility of strong emotional attachment to the pregnancy) require additional practice actions., Practice Implications: Providers can support their patients in need of third-trimester abortion care by proactively providing: information that third-trimester abortion is available; information on third-trimester providers and funding support (e.g., an abortion referral hotline); and clear, non-judgmental emotional support., Competing Interests: Competing interests The authors report no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Populations with higher rates of being uninsured in the United States have inconsistent access to health care and struggle to find care that fits their needs. For many without access to regular health care, prenatal care can be an entry point for obtaining care related-and unrelated-to pregnancy. We aimed to understand people's lived experience of whether and how pregnancy status enables access to health care unrelated to pregnancy., Methods: This is a secondary analysis of 18 in-depth interviews collected between June 2015 and May 2017 as part of the Multistate Abortion Prenatal Study. Participants were new obstetrics patients at prenatal clinics in southern Louisiana and Baltimore, Maryland. Interviews were qualitatively analyzed using iterative thematic techniques to identify themes related to experiences navigating health care services on entry to prenatal care., Main Findings: Most participants were insured through Medicaid, and all participants had low incomes. Pregnancy status enabled access to health insurance for many participants. Prenatal care facilitated access to non-pregnancy-related health care that participants had otherwise been unable to obtain before their current pregnancies. However, entry into prenatal care did not mean all participants' health needs were adequately addressed and some reported ongoing unmet medical needs., Conclusions: Our findings point to pregnancy as a gateway to health care (and insurance) and, further, illustrate how prenatal care can serve as a gateway to other medical care. Participants' experiences demonstrate how access to health care for women with low incomes can be dependent on pregnancy status, even for non-pregnancy-related health needs., (Copyright © 2022 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, George Washington University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision will lead to more criminalization of activities during pregnancy, more abortion denials, and more abortions after the first trimester.

Context: In the United States, third-trimester abortions are substantially more expensive, difficult to obtain, and stigmatized than first-trimester abortions. However, the circumstances that lead to someone needing a third-trimester abortion may have overlaps with the pathways to abortion at other gestations., Methods: I interviewed 28 cisgender women who obtained an abortion after the 24th week of pregnancy using a modified timeline interview method. I coded the interviews thematically, focusing on characterizing the experience of deciding to obtain a third-trimester abortion., Results: I find two pathways to needing a third-trimester abortion: new information, wherein the respondent learned new information about the pregnancy-such as of an observed serious fetal health issue or that she was pregnant-that made the pregnancy not (or no longer) one she wanted to continue; and barriers to abortion, wherein the respondent was in the third trimester by the time she was able to surmount the obstacles to abortion she faced, including cost, finding a provider, and stigmatization. These two pathways were not wholly distinct and sometimes overlapped., Conclusions: The inherent limits of medical knowledge and the infeasibility of ensuring early pregnancy recognition in all cases illustrate the impossibility of eliminating the need for third-trimester abortion. The similarities between respondents' experiences and that of people seeking abortion at other gestations, particularly regarding the impact of barriers to abortion, point to the value of a social conceptualization of need for abortion that eschews a trimester or gestation-based framework and instead conceptualizes abortion as an option throughout pregnancy., (© 2022 The Author. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of University of Ottawa.)

Objective: In the United States, restrictive abortion policies are concentrated in a subset of states. Little research has examined how people who consider abortion make sense of abortion obtainability and the extent of regulation of abortion care in their state., Study Design: We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 pregnant women in Maryland, a state with high abortion service availability and few policies restricting abortion, and 28 pregnant women in Louisiana, a state with low service availability and numerous restrictions, who had considered but not obtained an abortion for their pregnancy. We analyzed findings using inductive qualitative analytic techniques., Results: All participants were financially struggling. Most participants in Maryland considered abortion easy to get, while a plurality of participants in Louisiana considered abortion difficult to get. Yet, despite their measurable differences in access, participants in both states considered abortion generally obtainable. Participants in Louisiana who thought abortion difficult to get, but nonetheless obtainable, cited strategies that they already employed for other challenges in their lives as options for overcoming abortion barriers., Conclusions: Pregnant women who consider abortion and are subject to restrictions do not necessarily perceive restrictions as barriers. Their accounts illustrate how those impacted by restrictions adapt to constraints on their reproductive autonomy just as they manage many other challenges that restrict their freedom to live self-determined lives., Implications: Financially struggling pregnant people who considered abortion in Louisiana did not perceive restrictions as barriers to abortion, illustrating the broader adoption of strategies to deal with constraints among women living on low incomes., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In the United States, travel is a fact of the abortion care provision landscape. This is largely due to the uneven geographical distribution of providers and state-level gestational duration bans that constrain what abortion care is available locally. When abortion travel is compelled by legal restriction, it is forced travel. Research has comprehensively documented that forced abortion travel is burdensome; people who must travel for abortion experience financial, logistical, and emotional burdens. Generally overlooked, however, is variation in the experience of travel-related burdens and whether and how such burdens can be reduced. Given current political hostility to abortion, the number of people who must travel and the distances they must travel for abortion are likely to grow, making the question of how travel-related burdens can be reduced in the absence of policy change of increasing relevance. Using thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 30 cisgender women in the United States who were forced to travel to obtain third-trimester abortion care, I identify three ways that the burdens of forced abortion travel can be mitigated without policy change: prompt referrals; financial and practical support for travel; and emotional support. In some instances, respondents experienced the received emotional support as so valuable as to offset the other burdens of travel, pointing to the possibility that some people might prefer to travel for abortion care whether or not they are forced to do so. Respondents also reported unexpected positive aspects of traveling, including experiences of kindness and human connection, underscoring that not all aspects of abortion travel are negative. Findings thicken our understanding of forced abortion travel and identify structural and interpersonal practices that can reduce the associated burdens, complementing legal and policy-oriented critiques of legal regulation that makes abortion travel necessary., (Copyright © 2021 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Abortion has been alternately legalized and criminalized, tacitly approved of, and stigmatized, in various settings over time. The contours of its treatment are dependent on social and political contexts, including concern over women's sexuality, but it is not clear that existing conceptual frameworks enable expansive examination of the relationship between abortion and sexuality. We conduct a critical interpretive synthesis review of the literature that jointly engages with sexuality and abortion, focusing on the U.S., to highlight the frameworks that authors use to understand the relationship between the two. We find two conceptual frameworks of abortion and sexuality in operation: one that treats the two as discrete, causal variables that operate at the individual level; and another that focuses on how beliefs about what constitutes (in)appropriate sexuality explain ideological positions on abortion. We identify limitations of both frameworks and propose a new conceptual framework - one that highlights sexual embodiment - to inspire future research in this area and generate opportunities for knowledge extension. Such an approach, we contend, can elucidate broader social forces that shape both abortion and sexuality and bring research on abortion into conversation with recent scholarship on the important role of sexuality in other sexual and reproductive domains.

Study Objective: To understand the diverse reasons why some young women choose contraceptive methods that are less effective at preventing pregnancy, including condoms, withdrawal, and emergency contraception pills, even when more effective contraceptive methods are made available to them., Design: In-depth interviews with young women at family planning clinics in July-November 2016. Interview data were thematically coded and analyzed using an iterative approach., Setting: Two youth-serving family planning clinics serving predominantly Latinx and African American communities in the San Francisco Bay Area, California., Participants: Twenty-two young women ages 15-25 years who recently accessed emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy., Interventions: None., Main Outcome Measures: Young women's experiences using different methods of contraception, with specific attention to methods that are less effective at preventing pregnancy., Results: Young women reported having previously used a range of higher- and lower-efficacy contraceptive methods. In interviews, they described affirmative values that drive their decision to use lower-efficacy methods, including: a preference for flexibility and spontaneity over continual contraceptive use, an emphasis on protecting one's body, and satisfaction with the method's effectiveness at preventing pregnancy. Some young women described using a combination of lower-efficacy methods to reduce their pregnancy risk., Conclusion: Young women make contraceptive decisions on the basis of preferences and values that include, but are not limited to, effectiveness at preventing pregnancy. These reasons are salient in their lives and need to be recognized as valid by sexual health care providers to ensure that young women receive ongoing high-quality care., (Copyright © 2020 North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In Argentina, Chile and Ecuador, abortion at later durations of pregnancy is legally restricted. Feminist collectives in these contexts support people through self-managed medical abortion outside the healthcare system. The model of in-person abortion accompaniment represents an opportunity to examine a self-care practice that challenges and reimagines abortion provision. We formed a collaborative partnership built on a commitment to shared power and decision-making between researchers and partners. We conducted 28 key informant interviews with accompaniers in Argentina, Chile and Ecuador in 2019 about their model of in-person abortion accompaniment at later durations of pregnancy. We iteratively coded transcripts using a thematic analysis approach. Accompaniers premised their work in a feminist activist framework that understands accompaniment as addressing inequalities and expanding rights, especially for the historically marginalised. Through a detailed description of the process of in-person accompaniment, we show that the model, including the logistical considerations and security mechanisms put in place to ensure favourable abortion outcomes, emphasises peer-to-peer provision of supportive physical and emotional care of the accompanied person. In this way, it represents supported self-care through which individuals are centred as the protagonists of their own abortion, while being accompanied by feminist peers. This model of supported self-care challenges the idea that "self-care" necessarily means "solo care", or care that happens alone. The model's focus on peer-to-peer transfer of knowledge, providing emotional support, and centring the accompanied person not only expands access to abortion, but represents person-centred practices that could be scaled and replicated across contexts.

Background: The Turnaway Study was the first to follow women denied abortions because of state law or facility policy over five years. The study has found negative effects on women's socioeconomic status, physical health, and on their children's wellbeing. However, women did not suffer lasting mental health consequences, prompting questions about the effects of denial on women's emotions., Methods: In this mixed methods study, we used quantitative and qualitative interview data from the Turnaway Study to offer insight into these findings. We surveyed 161 women who were denied abortions at 30 facilities across the United States between 2008 and 2010 one week after the abortion denial and semiannually over five years. Mixed-effects regression analyses examined emotions about having been denied the abortion over time. To contextualize the quantitative findings, we draw on in-depth qualitative interviews with 15 participants, conducted in 2014-2015, for their accounts of their emotions and feelings over time., Results: Survey participants reported both negative and positive emotions about the abortion denial one week after. Emotions became significantly less negative and more positive over their pregnancy and after childbirth. In multivariable models, lower social support, more difficulty deciding to seek abortion, and placing the baby for adoption were associated with reporting more negative emotions. Interviews revealed how, for some, belief in antiabortion narratives contributed to initial positive emotions. Subsequent positive life events and bonding with the child also led to positive retrospective evaluations of the denial., Conclusions: Findings of emergent positive emotions about having been denied an abortion suggest that individuals are able to cope emotionally with an abortion denial, although evidence that policies leading to abortion denial cause significant health and socioeconomic harms remains., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The few studies examining pregnancy testing in emergency departments (EDs) address pregnancy-related physical risks. Here, we examine experiences of people who discover pregnancies in EDs., Methods: Between 2015 and 2017, as part of a larger study, we conducted interviews with 29 women in Southern Louisiana ( n  = 13) and Baltimore, MD ( n  = 16), who reported discussing their pregnancy during an ED visit. We analyzed these interviews for content and themes., Results: Respondents reported diagnosis of pregnancy as a routine and straightforward component of care received in EDs. They reported receiving diagnostic studies and therapeutic interventions to rule out and treat complications of pregnancy and care for what brought them to the ED to begin with, such as treatments for nausea and vomiting; education about physical symptoms and nutrition-related needs during pregnancy; and referrals to prenatal care. However, we find evidence of unmet needs related to patient-centered communication, such as providing emotional care to women discovering pregnancies in EDs and lack of support for transitions to abortion care., Conclusions: While diagnosis of pregnancy in the ED may be routine for ED clinicians, it is not necessarily routine or straightforward for people receiving the diagnosis. ED clinicians should not assume that all people who discover their pregnancies in the ED want to continue their pregnancy. People who discover pregnancies in EDs may benefit from patient-centered communication and support for the range of transitions to care people might need in addition to the routinely provided diagnostic and therapeutic interventions., Implications: ED clinicians may need additional training and support to ensure that they can meet the range of needs of people who discover their pregnancies in the ED., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Context: The primary mission of pregnancy resource centers is to dissuade women from choosing abortion. Reproductive health and rights advocates have asserted that these centers interfere in abortion decision making. However, the reasons pregnant women go to such centers and what they experience while there have not been examined., Methods: Between June 2015 and June 2017, in-depth, semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 21 pregnant women who had presented at prenatal care clinics in southern Louisiana and Baltimore, Maryland, and who had visited a pregnancy resource center. Topics covered in the interviews included reasons for visiting a center and the experience of the visit. Transcripts were analyzed first thematically and then using grounded theory., Results: Most of the women were low income and had not been considering abortion when they visited a pregnancy resource center. Respondents reported that they had gone to these centers for pregnancy-related services, material goods and social support. They chose these centers because the resources were free, and they were largely satisfied with their experiences. Nonetheless, their receipt of services and goods was limited and often contingent on participation in the centers' activities., Conclusions: Pregnancy resource centers play a role in meeting the acute material and social needs of low-income pregnant women. However, the constraints on the resources the centers offer mean that this support cannot be part of a reliable system of care. Advocates and policymakers should take a nuanced approach to regulating these centers and consider the reasons women visit them, especially low-income women., (Copyright © 2020 by the Guttmacher Institute.)

Background: Despite weak theoretical grounding and ample research indicating women feel high levels of decision rightness and relief post-abortion, claims that abortion is inherently stressful and causes emergent negative emotions and regret undergirds state-level laws regulating abortion in the United States. Nonetheless, scholarship does identify factors that put a woman at risk for short-term negative postabortion emotions-including decision difficulty and perceiving abortion stigma in one's community-pointing to a possible mechanism behind later emergent or persistent post-abortion negative emotions., Methods: Using five years of longitudinal data, collected one week post-abortion and semi-annually for five years from women who sought abortions at 30 US facilities between 2008 and 2010, we examined women's emotions and feeling that abortion was the right decision over five years (n=667). We used mixed effects regression models to examine changes in emotions and abortion decision rightness over time by decision difficulty and perceived community abortion stigma., Results: We found no evidence of emerging negative emotions or abortion decision regret; both positive and negative emotions declined over the first two years and plateaued thereafter, and decision rightness remained high and steady (predicted percent: 97.5% at baseline, 99.0% at five years). At five years postabortion, relief remained the most commonly felt emotion among all women (predicted mean on 0-4 scale: 1.0; 0.6 for sadness and guilt; 0.4 for regret, anger and happiness). Despite converging levels of emotions by decision difficulty and stigma level over time, these two factors remained most important for predicting negative emotions and decision non-rightness years later., Conclusions: These results add to the scientific evidence that emotions about an abortion are associated with personal and social context, and are not a product of the abortion procedure itself. Findings challenge the rationale for policies regulating access to abortion that are premised on emotional harm claims., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare differences in patient-provider communication among patients who, prior to contraceptive counseling, used or did not use a decision support tool ("My Birth Control") which has educational and interactive modules and produces a provider printout with the patient's preferences., Methods: As part of a cluster-randomized trial of the tool in four San Francisco safety net clinics, we collected and thematically analyzed 70 audio recordings of counseling visits (31 pre- and 39 post-tool implementation) from 15 providers randomized to the intervention., Results: Without the tool, most providers began by asking participants what method they were considering and focused counseling on that method or on directing patients towards long-acting reversible contraception; with the tool, most focused on reviewing and discussing multiple methods of interest to the participant as indicated on the printout. Discussion of patients' preferences for specific method features was not observed in pre-implementation recordings but was part of several post-implementation recordings. Several participants explicitly noted they had gained knowledge from the tool., Conclusion: Observed counseling differences suggest the tool may have a positive impact on patient-centeredness of contraceptive counseling, consistent with findings from the main study., Practice Implications: My Birth Control shows potential for improving patient-centeredness in counseling without extensive provider training., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

We examine characteristics and experiences of women who considered, but did not have, an abortion for this pregnancy. Participants were recruited at prenatal care clinics in Louisiana and Maryland for a mixed-methods study (N = 589). On self-administered surveys and structured interviews, participants were asked if they had considered abortion for this pregnancy and, if so, reasons they did not obtain one. A subset (n = 83), including participants who considered abortion for this pregnancy, completed in-depth phone interviews. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined characteristics associated with having considered abortion and experiencing a policy-related barrier to having an abortion; analyses focused on economic insecurity and of mental health/substance use as main predictors of interest. Louisiana interviews (n = 43) were analyzed using modified grounded theory to understand concrete experiences of policy-related factors. In regression analyses, women who reported greater economic insecurity (aOR 1.21 [95% CI 1.17, 1.26]) and more mental health diagnoses/substance use (aOR 1.29 [1.16, 1.45] had higher odds of having considered abortion. Those who reported greater economic insecurity (aOR 1.50 [1.09, 2.08]) and more mental health diagnoses/substance use (aOR 1.45 [95% CI 1.03, 2.05] had higher odds of reporting policy-related barriers. Interviewees who considered abortion and were subject to multiple restrictions on abortion identified material and instrumental impacts of policies that, collectively, contributed to them not having an abortion. Many described simultaneously navigating economic insecurity, mental health disorders, substance use, and interpersonal opposition to abortion from family and the man involved in the pregnancy. Current restrictive abortion policies appear to have more of an impact on women who report greater economic insecurity and more mental health diagnoses/substance use. These policies work in concert with each other, with people's individual complex situations-including economic insecurity, mental health, and substance use-and with anti-abortion attitudes of other people to make abortion care impossible for some pregnant women to access., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objectives: Barriers to the provision of patient-centered contraceptive counseling include time limitations, frequent misconceptions and misinformation about methods among patients, and the availability of numerous contraceptive options, which increases the complexity of contraceptive decision making. Decision support tools are interventions designed to facilitate quality decision making in preference-sensitive decisions. We evaluated the impact of a contraceptive decision support tool, My Birth Control, on providers' experience with contraceptive counseling., Study Design: We interviewed 15 providers who participated in the intervention arm of a cluster randomized controlled trial of My Birth Control to obtain their impressions of their patients' interactions with the tool. We analyzed the interviews using thematic analysis, compared appointment lengths of patients in each arm (n=749) and assessed provider burnout in each arm (n=28)., Results: Providers reported that incorporating My Birth Control into their practice helped them allocate time more efficiently, enabling them to hone in on patients' areas of interest. They also reported that patients who interacted with the tool appeared more informed about contraception options and features, and took a more active role in method selection. All providers described using the tool as acceptable and feasible, and indicated they would like to incorporate it into their practice. There was no difference in provider burnout scores comparing before and after the trial of My Birth Control., Conclusion: Providers had a positive impression of the impact of My Birth Control on contraceptive counseling, including the quality of counseling, and perceived the tool to be a feasible intervention to use in the clinical setting., Implications: Family planning clinics should consider incorporating My Birth Control into their clinical services as a means of improving contraceptive care and provider experience of counseling., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: States have enacted an increasing number of policies restricting access to abortion. As a result, some women are unable to obtain an abortion and instead continue their pregnancies. These women may have particular needs that would bring them to the attention of public health programs., Methods: Pregnant women entering prenatal care completed a self-administered survey and structured interview at four prenatal facilities in Louisiana and Maryland (N = 586). Participants reported their pregnancy intentions, whether they had considered abortion, and their reasons for not having an abortion (e.g., personal reasons, policy barriers to care). Participants completed up to 13 items indicating their service needs; an index was created by summing across nine common items. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and multivariable regression models that controlled for sociodemographic characteristics., Results: On average, women reported 2.99 service needs. The most common needs were WIC (93%), food stamps (85%), dental care (59%), and housing assistance (53%). In multivariable analyses, women who considered abortion but did not face a policy barrier reported greater service needs compared to women who did not consider abortion (3.45 vs. 2.82; b = 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.04). Women reporting a policy barrier to abortion reported the highest service needs (3.95) of all groups, although differences were not statistically significant possibly owing to sample size., Conclusions: Pregnant women who consider abortion before entering prenatal care have considerable health and social service needs. Public health programs that serve women and children should consider the specific needs of women who seek abortions., (Copyright © 2019 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In July 2015, the antiabortion Center for Medical Progress released a covertly filmed video of a Planned Parenthood official discussing the dispensation of postabortion remains for research, a practice the general public was not familiar with. Research shows that people use preexisting frameworks (such as support for or opposition to abortion rights) to make sense of new information. We examine the presence and use of abortion-related movement heuristics, language, and framing in the lay public's engagement with this video and their response to it., Methods: Using modified grounded theory, we analyzed user comments on five online news articles about the video, drawn from sources representing different segments of the spectrum of support for abortion rights, to serve as a proxy for the public conversation., Results: Commenters used language and framing consistent with the abortion rights and antiabortion social movements to debate basic information about this practice (i.e., the language of "fetal tissue" vs "baby parts" and whether the abortion provider profited from the exchange). Discussion of the abortion provider's casual demeanor, however, did not always use movement language and association consistently, with some commenters demonstrating inconsistency between their support for abortion and response to the video., Conclusions: Online commenters largely used language consistent with the contemporary abortion movements' ideological frames in their engagement about the video. The presence of this language suggests that people may draw on existing frameworks about abortion when they engage with abortion-related information, which could have implications for efforts to address abortion misinformation., (Copyright © 2019 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Research aimed at understanding women's experiences accessing emergency contraception (EC) services and the extent to which providers support women's autonomous contraceptive decision making is limited. This study explores young women's experiences with contraceptive counseling when accessing EC at family planning specialty clinics that serve young adult and adolescent patients., Methods: We conducted 22 in-depth telephone interviews with women ages 15-25 years who had recently accessed EC at two San Francisco Bay Area youth-serving clinics about their thoughts and experiences using and accessing contraception. We analyzed transcripts thematically, using inductive qualitative analytic methods to identify patterns across the interviews., Results: Most respondents described their recent clinic visit to access EC positively. Specifically, they expressed appreciation about receiving comprehensive information about other methods of contraception without pressure, judgment, or the expectation that they adopt a particular method. They also pointed to the influence of prior health care experiences in which they felt pressured or judged, leading them to avoid accessing future reproductive health services., Conclusions: We found that young women seeking EC appreciated learning about other contraceptive methods, but do not want to feel pressured to adopt a method in addition to EC. Findings highlight the importance of respecting young women's contraceptive decisions for building and maintaining provider trust and suggest that contraceptive counseling approaches that prioritize specific methods may reduce some young women's trust in providers and use of reproductive health services., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective(s): Shared decision making (SDM) has emerged as a useful tool to promote patient-centered communication and is highly applicable to contraceptive decision making. Little is known about how SDM is operationalized in contraceptive counseling. This study aimed to explore and describe how SDM is used in the contraceptive counseling context., Methods: We analyzed a selection of transcripts from a larger study of 342 audiorecorded visits in which contraceptive counseling occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area. A previous study team had identified 106 transcripts that demonstrated principles of SDM. We randomly selected 40 transcripts from this group for deeper analysis. We coded transcripts using directed content analysis to understand the process of SDM in the context of contraceptive counseling. We focused on how the previously identified phases of SDM (information sharing, deliberation and decision making) occurred in these visits and identified emerging themes., Results: Rather than consisting of distinct phases, our analysis found that, in contraceptive counseling, the information sharing and deliberation stages of SDM were largely integrated in an iterative back and forth process between patient and provider. The final decision-making phase was directed by the patient, who retained the final choice., Conclusion: Our analysis found that the use of SDM in the contraceptive counseling context reflected the intimacy and complexity of contraceptive decision making. These findings can be used as a foundation for future work to develop training designed to integrate SDM in a manner appropriate to the context of contraception, including prioritizing patient autonomy and acknowledging preexisting preferences of patients., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Over the past two decades, US states have enacted legislation regulating ultrasound scanning in abortion care, including mandating that abortion patients view their ultrasound image. Legal scholars have argued that, by constructing ultrasound viewing as a necessary part of patients' abortion decision making, these laws aim to control and constrain how women make personal decisions about their bodies and parenthood. To date, however, the discussion of the impact of ultrasound viewing laws on women's decisional autonomy has occurred in the abstract. Here, we examine the effect of Wisconsin's mandatory ultrasound viewing law on the viewing behavior of women seeking care at a high-volume abortion-providing facility. Drawing both on chart data from patients before and after the law went into effect and on in-depth interviews with women subject to the mandatory viewing law, we found that the presence of the law impacted patients' viewing decision making. Moreover, we documented a differential effect of the law by race, with larger impacts on the viewing behavior of black women compared with white women. Our findings call for renewed attention to the coercive power of laws regulating abortion on a macrolevel, investigating not only how they affect individuals' behavior and experience but also which individuals are impacted., (Copyright © 2018 by Duke University Press.)

Importance: Evidence indicates that there are potential health, development, and maternal bonding consequences for children born from unwanted pregnancies., Objective: To examine the association of women receiving or being denied a wanted abortion with their children's health and well-being., Design, Setting, and Participants: A 5-year longitudinal observational study with a quasi-experimental design conducted between January 18, 2008, and January 25, 2016, examined women who received abortions just under the gestational age limit of 30 abortion facilities across the United States and women who were denied abortion just beyond the gestational age limit in these facilities. Analyses compared the children of 146 women who were denied an abortion (index children) with children born to 182 women who received an abortion and had a subsequent child within 5 years (subsequent children). Interview-to-interview retention averaged 94.5% (6895 of 7293) across the 11 semi-annual interviews., Exposures: Being born after denial of abortion vs after a new pregnancy subsequent to an abortion., Main Outcomes and Measures: Perinatal outcomes and child health, child development, maternal bonding, socioeconomics, and household structure., Results: This study included 328 women who had children during the study period (mean [SD] age at study recruitment, 23.7 [4.9] years). There were no differences by study group in consent to participate in the study, completion of first interview, or continuation in the study. Among the 328 children in the study (146 index children and 182 subsequent children), there were 163 girls and 165 boys. Perinatal and child health outcomes were not different between subsequent and index children, and there was no clear pattern of delayed child development. However, mixed-effects models adjusting for clustered recruitment and multiple observations per child revealed that poor maternal bonding was more common for index children compared with subsequent children (9% vs 3%; adjusted odds ratio, 5.14; 95% CI, 1.48-17.85). Index children lived in households with lower incomes relative to the federal poverty level than did subsequent children (101% vs 132% of federal poverty level; adjusted regression coefficient, -0.31; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.10), and were more likely to live in households without enough money to pay for basic living expenses (72% vs 55%; adjusted odds ratio, 5.16; 95% CI, 2.34-11.40)., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that access to abortion enables women to choose to have children at a time when they have more financial and emotional resources to devote to their children.

In the United States, responsibility for preventing pregnancy in heterosexual relationships disproportionately falls on women. While the biotechnological landscape of available methods may explain the assignment of the physical burden for contraception to women, this does not mean the concomitant time, attention, and stress that preventing pregnancy requires must also be primarily assumed by women. Building on work identifying health care providers as contributors to the construction of normative ideas about reproduction, this study analyzed 52 contraceptive counseling visits with women who reported they did not want future children for the construction of responsibility for the mental and emotional aspects of contraception. Offering a case of how gender inequality is (re)produced through clinical encounters, findings demonstrate that clinicians discursively constructed these responsibilities as women's and point to structural aspects of the visit itself that reify this unequal burden as normal. Results are consistent with research identifying the broader feminization of family health work in heterosexual relationships. To the extent that the distribution of the mental and emotional responsibilities of preventing pregnancy is both a product of and contributor to gender inequality, this analysis yields insight into the production-and possible deconstruction-of (reproductive) health care as a gendered social structure.

Objectives: Investigations into Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) have documented the provision of deceptive information about abortion, but it is unclear how many pregnant women actually visit CPCs and what impact visits have on their pregnancy decision-making., Study Design: We conducted a mixed-methods study. We surveyed patients at one of two local abortion clinics and three prenatal clinics in Southern Louisiana about whether they had visited a CPC for this pregnancy and conducted in-depth interviews with prenatal patients who reported a CPC visit about their experience., Results: We surveyed 114 abortion patients and 269 prenatal patients, and interviewed 12 prenatal patients about their CPC visit. Just 6% of abortion patients (n=7) and 5% of prenatal patients (n=14) visited a CPC for this pregnancy. Prenatal patients went to CPCs primarily for free pregnancy tests and reported receiving information about abortion from CPC staff that was inaccurate. They also generally recognized the CPC was antiabortion, ideologically Christian, and not a medical establishment. Only three had been considering abortion at the time of their visit and reported that the visit impacted their plan for the pregnancy. However, all three also faced additional barriers to abortion, including inability to find an abortion provider, difficulty securing funding, gestational limits, ambivalence about choosing abortion, and opposition to abortion from family members., Conclusions: We do not find evidence that pregnant women regularly seek CPC services or that CPCs persuade women who are certain abortion is the right decision for them to continue their pregnancies., Implications: Given little evidence that CPCs impact pregnant women's decision-making on a broad scale, future research should examine other aspects of CPCs, such as their role in the antiabortion movement and/or the impact of CPC visits on maternal health and birth outcomes among women who continue their pregnancies., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We know little about women's interest in and experiences with a printout of their preabortion ultrasound image., Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study at a large-volume abortion-providing facility where patients are offered the opportunity to receive their ultrasound printout, using 2 years of abstracted medical chart data on demographics and printout acceptance and interviews with patients about whether they took a printout and, if they did, why and what they did with it. We analyzed chart data using multivariable logistic regression to examine predictors of printout acceptance and interviews using elaborative coding and modified grounded theory., Results: We abstracted data from 5342 charts and interviewed 23 women. Thirty-eight percent of all patients and 61% of interviewees accepted the printout. Predictors of accepting the printout included being younger, being nonwhite, having a partner who is a boyfriend or friend, and not having a support person at the visit. Interviewees reported that they accepted the printout simply because it was offered, out of curiosity and as part of confirming their abortion decision. They described various uses for the printout, including sharing with others, consulting before their abortion appointment, retaining as a keepsake and nothing at all., Conclusions: Some abortion patients are interested in receiving a printout of their ultrasound image and find it useful. Women accept a printout for a range of reasons and use it in various ways; there is no singular experience or use of the printout., Implications: We find no evidence that taking a printout of the preabortion ultrasound image causes emotional distress, nor did we find that it was expressly important for any patient's experience. Providers should consider providing interested patients with a printout, if they have the capability to do so, when they request one., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In developed countries, women bear the primary, and sometimes exclusive, responsibility for preventing pregnancy in heterosexual sexual relations. This unequal burden is not an intrinsic fact; it is the consequence of broad social narratives and interpersonal negotiations. The contraceptive counseling visit is increasingly recognized as a site of the discursive production of normative ideas about reproduction, suggesting that clinicians themselves may contribute to the assignment of responsibility for contraceptive labor to women (i.e. the feminization of contraception). Scholars have not yet considered how providers talk to patients about methods that are male body-based (i.e. condoms, withdrawal, and vasectomy) and, as such, may disrupt the feminization of responsibility for contraception. Using transcripts of 101 contraceptive counseling visits recorded between 2009 and 2012 in the San Francisco Bay Area, I investigate how clinicians discuss male body-based methods with female patients. Drawing on a constructivist approach, I find that clinicians generally devalued male body-based methods in their counseling. They did so by, first, failing to discuss them as options for long-term contraception. Second, when they did discuss them, clinicians tended to emphasize aspects of the methods that were presumed "negative" (e.g. the lower efficacy of withdrawal and condoms) but not features that patients might view positively (e.g. the high efficacy of vasectomy or the lack of side effects with condoms and withdrawal). In aggregate, these discursive practices marginalize male body-based methods as contraceptive choices. As a practical effect, this may encourage women to choose a method that does not best meet their preferences. At a structural level, by devaluing methods that could undercut the unequal division of fertility work, these discursive patterns contribute to the feminization of responsibility for contraception and the retrenchment of the unequal gendered division of fertility work., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Most women of reproductive age have access to highly effective contraception, and all available methods are associated with side effects. Whether a woman will experience side effects is uncertain, however, which can pose challenges for clinicians who discuss the methods with patients. In this study, we analyze 102 contraceptive counseling visits to understand how clinicians discursively construct knowledge in the context of uncertainty. We find that while some present the uncertainty of side effects in a straightforward, patient-accessible way, others negotiate their predictions by (1) differentially constructing uncertainty, suggesting that positive side effects are likely and negative side effects are unlikely, and (2) contesting uncertainty, presenting the risk of serious side effects as controllable. In the end, these strategies deemphasize consideration of negative side effects in women's contraceptive decision making. Our results demonstrate the importance of elucidating the translation, instantiation, and construction of medical uncertainty both in theory and in practice.

Objectives: Unintended pregnancy is common in the United States, yet scant research has evaluated women's preferences on pregnancy options counseling. This study explores pregnant women's preferences for pregnancy options counseling from health care providers., Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with pregnant women at a prenatal clinic and an abortion clinic. We asked women about recent discussions-or lack thereof-about pregnancy options (parenting, adoption, and abortion) with a clinician, and what they would want their provider to discuss about pregnancy options. We analyzed transcripts using modified grounded theory., Findings: We interviewed 10 women in prenatal care and 18 women seeking abortion. In both settings, most said clinicians should discuss pregnancy options with pregnant women and 1) respect patient autonomy, 2) avoid assumptions about a woman's desired pregnancy outcome, and 3) consider the patient-including her health and fertility intentions-beyond her pregnancy. Participants wanted their doctors to assess a pregnancy's individual circumstances to determine the appropriateness of options counseling. A few participants, including women who did and did not receive options counseling, reported they personally preferred not to receive such counseling. Explaining this preference, they cited preservation of privacy, having already made a decision for the pregnancy, or just not wanting to discuss abortion. Regarding best practices for providing options counseling, participants said it should be done in a routine manner, with discretion, and early in pregnancy., Conclusions: Pregnant women seeking both prenatal and abortion care broadly support options counseling., Implications: Discussion of pregnancy options, including abortion, provides patient-centered care and supports women's preferences., (Copyright © 2017 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Since mid-2013, Wisconsin abortion providers have been legally required to display and describe pre-abortion ultrasound images. We aimed to understand the impact of this law., Methods: We used a mixed-methods study design at an abortion facility in Wisconsin. We abstracted data from medical charts one year before the law to one year after and used multivariable models, mediation/moderation analysis, and interrupted time series to assess the impact of the law, viewing, and decision certainty on likelihood of continuing the pregnancy. We conducted in-depth interviews with women in the post-law period about their ultrasound experience and analyzed them using elaborative and modified grounded theory., Results: A total of 5342 charts were abstracted; 8.7% continued their pregnancies pre-law and 11.2% post-law (p = 0.002). A multivariable model confirmed the law was associated with higher odds of continuing pregnancy (aOR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.01-1.50). Decision certainty (aOR = 6.39, 95% CI: 4.72-8.64) and having to pay fully out of pocket (aOR = 4.98, 95% CI: 3.86-6.41) were most strongly associated with continuing pregnancy. Ultrasound viewing fully mediated the relationship between the law and continuing pregnancy. Interrupted time series analyses found no significant effect of the law but may have been underpowered to detect such a small effect. Nineteen of twenty-three women interviewed viewed their ultrasound image. Most reported no impact on their abortion decision; five reported a temporary emotional impact or increased certainty about choosing abortion. Two women reported that viewing helped them decide to continue the pregnancy; both also described preexisting decision uncertainty., Conclusions: This law caused an increase in viewing rates and a statistically significant but small increase in continuing pregnancy rates. However, the majority of women were certain of their abortion decision and the law did not change their decision. Other factors were more significant in women's decision-making, suggesting evaluations of restrictive laws should take account of the broader social environment.