Emotions over five years after denial of abortion in the United States: Contextualizing the effects of abortion denial on women's health and lives

Do Not Risk Homicide: Abortion After 10 Weeks Gestation

When an abortion is performed, someone dies. Are we killing a human person? Widespread disagreement exists. However, it is not necessary to establish personhood in order to establish the wrongness of abortion: a substantial chance of personhood is enough. We defend The Do Not Risk Homicide Argument: abortions are wrong after 10 weeks gestation because they substantially and unjustifiably risk homicide, the unjust killing of a human person. Why 10 weeks? Because the cumulative evidence establishes a substantial chance (a more than one in five chance) that preborn human beings are persons after 10 weeks (if not before then). We submit evidence from our bad track record, widespread disagreement about personhood (after 10 weeks gestation), problems with theories of personhood, the similarity between preborn human beings and premature newborns, miscalculations of gestational age, and the common intuitive responses of women to their pregnancies and miscarriages. Our argument is cogent because it bypasses the stalemate over preborn personhood and rests on common ground rather than contentious metaphysics. It also strongly suggests that society must do more to protect preborn human beings. We briefly discuss its practical implications for fetal pain relief, social policy, and abortion law.

The Pregnancy Rescue Case: why abortion is immoral

In cases in which we must choose between either (i) preventing a woman from remaining unwillingly pregnant or (ii) preventing a fetus from being killed, we should prevent the fetus from being killed. But this suggests that in typical cases abortion is wrong: typical abortions involve preventing a woman from remaining unwillingly pregnant over preventing a fetus from being killed. And so abortion is typically wrong-and this holds whether or not fetuses are persons.

Medication Abortion and Abortion Pill Reversal: An Exploratory Analysis on the Influence of Others in Women's Decision-Making

Introduction As medication abortion accounts for a growing share of abortions in the United States, an increasing number of women are seeking abortion pill reversal (APR). These decisions are typically not made in isolation. However, little research exists on women's APR decision-making and the role played by people close to them. Methods We surveyed women who contacted a national hotline for information on APR and who completed a two-week treatment protocol with progesterone (n = 67). We analyzed women's open-ended answers using thematic analysis to identify memorable messages about medication abortion and APR. Participants' communication with other people in their lives was assessed using the Isolation subscale of the Individual Level Abortion Stigma (ILAS) scale, and decision-making difficulty was assessed using a Likert scale. Results Thirty-six respondents met the eligibility criteria and filled out the ILAS and decision-difficulty scales. Women tended to talk with family and friends about their medication abortion decisions, while they typically sought information online when deciding about APR. Women reported greater stigma in their disclosures about their abortions than in their disclosures about APR (p = 0.006). Conclusion Memorable messages influence women's decisions to pursue medication abortion and APR.

Childbearing, abortion and regret: a response to Kate Greasley

Is moral or other regret for abortion an indicator that abortion may not be morally or prudentially choice worthy? This paper examines the work of Kate Greasley in this area, who offers an explanation of any asymmetry in openness to regret between women who have abortions and women who give birth. The latter, not unlike Derek Parfit's 14-year-old who conceives deliberately, may feel duty-bound not to regret their decision (in their case, to continue their pregnancy) and to affirm the life of their child. In response to Greasley, testimonial evidence of one group cannot be dismissed simply because regret may be less available to another group of decision-makers. Moreover, if moral regret for childbearing is uncommon, this is not because mothers have a moral duty, as Greasley argues, not to regret even a morally mistaken choice to conceive. On the contrary, one must separate the evaluation of choices and of the results of these choices, whether positive or negative. Regret, while not infallible, can elucidate values at stake in choices, and testimonial evidence in the form of regret should be taken more seriously in regard to certain kinds of choice.

Qualitative analysis of anti-abortion discourse used in arguments for a 6-week abortion ban in South Carolina

Background

On June 24, 2022, The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving abortion legislation entirely up to states. However, anti-abortion activists and legislators have organized for decades to prevent abortion access through restrictive state-level legislation. In 2019, South Carolina legislators proposed a bill criminalizing abortion after 6 weeks gestation, before most people know they are pregnant. The current study examines the anti-abortion rhetoric used in legislative hearings for this extreme abortion restriction in South Carolina. By examining the arguments used by anti-abortion proponents, we aim to expose their misalignment with public opinion on abortion and demonstrate that their main arguments are not supported by and often are counter to medical and scientific evidence.

Methods

We qualitatively analyzed anti-abortion discourse used during legislative hearings of SC House Bill 3020, The South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat Protection from Abortion Act. Data came from publicly available videos of legislative hearings between March and November 2019, during which members of the public and legislators testified for and against the abortion ban. After the videos were transcribed, we thematically analyzed the testimonies using a priori and emergent coding.

Results

Testifiers (Anti-abortion proponents) defended the ban using scientific disinformation and by citing advances in science to redefine "life." A central argument was that a fetal "heartbeat" (i.e., cardiac activity) detected at 6 weeks gestation indicates life. Anti-abortion proponents used this to support their argument that the 6-week ban would "save lives." Other core strategies compared anti-abortion advocacy to civil rights legislation, vilified supporters and providers of abortion, and framed people who get abortions as victims. Personhood language was used across strategies and was particularly prominent in pseudo-scientific arguments.

Discussion

Abortion restrictions are detrimental to the health and wellbeing of people with the potential to become pregnant and to those who are pregnant. Efforts to defeat abortion bans must be grounded in a critical and deep understanding of anti-abortion strategies and tactics. Our results reveal that anti-abortion discourse is extremely inaccurate and harmful. These findings can be useful in developing effective approaches to countering anti-abortion rhetoric.

Abortion as obtainable: Insights into how pregnant people in the United States who considered abortion understand abortion availability. Contraception 2021;106:45-48. [PMID: 34587503 DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2021.09.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

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.