Disgust, stigma, and the politics of abortion

From political priority to service delivery: complexities to real-life priority of abortion services in Ethiopia

Improving access to abortion services has been coined a high priority by the Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Health. Nevertheless, many women are still struggling to access abortion services. The dedicated commitment to expanding abortion services by central authorities and the difficulties in further improving access to the services make for an interesting case to explore the real-life complexities of health priority setting. This article thus explores what it means to make abortion services a priority by drawing on in-depth interviews with healthcare bureaucrats and key stakeholders working closely with abortion service policy and implementation. Data were collected from February to April 2022. Health bureaucrats from 9 of the 12 regional states in Ethiopia and the Federal Ministry of Health were interviewed in addition to key stakeholders from professional organizations and NGOs. The study found that political will and priority to abortion services by central authorities were not necessarily enough to ensure access to the service across the health sector. At the regional and local level, there were considerable challenges with a lack of funding, equipment and human resources for implementing and expanding access to abortion services. The inadequacy of indicators and reporting systems hindered accountability and made it difficult to give priority to abortion services among the series of health programmes and priorities that local health authorities had to implement. The situation was further challenged by the contested nature of the abortion issue itself, both in the general population, but also amongst health bureaucrats and hospital leaders. This study casts a light on the complex and entangled processes of turning national-level priorities into on-the-ground practice and highlights the real-life challenges of setting and implementing health priorities.

Disseminating Evidence on Abortion Facilities to Health Departments: A Randomized Study of E-mail Strategies

Given the politicization of abortion, professionals working in U.S. health departments (HDs) may not be receptive to communications about abortion, despite often regulating abortion facilities. This paper reports results of a randomized, prospective, observational study to test the effects of e-mail language when disseminating evidence on abortion to HD professionals. Our sample was 302 HD employees who oversee healthcare facilities inspection/regulation in all 50 U.S. state HDs, clustered by HD and randomized into two study groups. In November-December 2019, we sent biweekly e-mails containing links to a website summarizing evidence on abortion facility regulation. E-mails/headers sent to one group emphasized public health values and did not include the word abortion; e-mails/headers to the other group used the word abortion. Primary outcome measures were e-mail open rates and click-through rates. Among 221 participants to whom e-mails were deliverable, the overall open rate was 36%. Open rate was 25% for PH values and 46% for abortion groups (p < .05). Effects were moderated by state abortion policy environment: in both supportive and restrictive environments, participants in the abortion messaging group were statistically more likely to open e-mails than those in the PH values group. There was no difference between groups in states with middle-ground abortion policy environments. Among participants opening at least one e-mail, 19% clicked through to the website, with no significant difference by group. This study demonstrates that repeated targeted e-mail campaigns can reach HD professionals with research summaries. Concerns that communications to HDs should avoid the word abortion are unsupported.

Reproductive governance and the affective economy

The governance of reproductive practices, processes, decision-making, experiences, desires, subjectivities, and bodies has received and continues to receive significant attention in feminist efforts to name and resist reproductive oppression. And over the last 30 years, articles published in Feminism & Psychology have made significant contributions to the visibilisation and critique of this form of oppression. In this Virtual Special Issue on Reproductive Governance and the Affective Economy, we apply repronormativity and affect to our reading of 20 articles published in Feminism & Psychology. Collectively, these articles provide a glimpse of the wide-ranging scope of reproductive regulation (including that which is re-produced by/within feminism itself), and the various work that repronormativity and affect do in this governance. The challenging of reproductive governance notwithstanding, we conclude by arguing that the centring and circulation of certain reproductive subjects and their experiences within feminist knowledge production is itself a part of and upholds repronormativity and forecloses the possibility of reproductive freedom for all.

Abortion beyond 13 weeks in Argentina: healthcare seeking experiences during self-managed abortion accompanied by the Socorristas en Red

BACKGROUND

In Argentina, a group of feminist activists, the Socorristas en Red, provide information and accompaniment to people seeking abortions, including beyond 13 weeks gestation. Recently-released WHO guidelines for abortion care acknowledge that abortion trajectories vary and people may seek services and support from a range of settings in the process of an abortion. It follows, therefore, that people who self manage abortions beyond 13 weeks with the support of accompaniment groups may interact with health professionals in the public and/or private sector. Understanding the reasons for and experiences with these interactions can help to inform best practice.

METHODS

In 2016, we conducted 23 exploratory interviews among women who self managed abortions beyond 13 weeks gestation accompanied by Socorristas, to understand healthcare-seeking decisions and experiences. We used narrative inquiry as an interview technique and coded interviews using first a holistic coding and, second, a content analysis technique to identify emergent themes in the text and subsequently identify themes relevant to study aims.

RESULTS

We found that many participants had disclosed their abortion intentions to health professionals prior to their abortions. Some were provided with emotional support and referrals to the Socorristas, while others were admonished and warned of serious health consequences. Most participants sought post-abortion care in public or private-sector health facilities; for fear of legal repercussions, many participants did not share that they had used abortion medications with post-abortion care providers. During care seeking, some participants reported poor treatment, in several cases because they were suspected of inducing abortion, while others reported supportive care from health professionals who had previously-established relationships with the Socorristas.

CONCLUSIONS

This study illuminates the important role that supportive health professionals can play to ensure that, regardless of the trajectory of an abortion, people feel comfortable accessing clinical services during their abortion process, even in restrictive settings. Feminist activists can help build bridges with the medical system to ensure that providers who interact with people seeking abortion-related services are empathic, understand their legal rights, and provide supportive care.

The Global Gag Rule: The death trap for comprehensive sexual and reproductive healthcare and way to overcome the US gag rule

The United States of America (USA) is one of the largest bilateral donors in the field of global health assistance. There are beneficiaries in 70 countries around the world. In 2015, the USA released US$638 million for the improvement of global health status by promoting family planning services. Unfortunately, in 2017, Trump administration reinstated Mexico City Policy/Global Gag Rule (GGR). This policy prevents non-US nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from receiving US health financial assistance if they have any relationship with abortion-related services. This restriction pushed millions of lives into great danger due to the lack of comprehensive family planning services, especially lack of abortion-related services. This article has attempted to let the readers know about the impacts of GGR around the world and how global leaders are trying to overcome the harmful effects of this rule. Finally, it proposes some solutions to the impacts of the extension of Mexico City Policy.