Utah's 72-Hour Waiting Period for Abortion: Experiences Among a Clinic-Based Sample of Women

Resilience Amid Chaos: Abortion Provision Across the United States During COVID-19

Background: Pregnant people face many challenges to obtaining abortion services, including cost, stigma, administrative requirements, and legislative barriers. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic added additional barriers for clients and abortion service providers to overcome. Methods: The current study uses the Family Planning Visits During COVID-19 longitudinal dataset to explore abortion service provision from April 2020 through November 2020 from a sample of clinics (N = 63) providing abortion services across the United States. Results: Clinics in the sample were 49.2% academic/hospital-based, based in urban counties (96.8%), with a majority (82.5%) utilizing in-house providers for abortion care. Results show that the majority of clinics (59%) experienced staffing changes in response to COVID-19, including staff and clinicians who took extended leave, quit, were furloughed, or hired. Although the volume of overall abortion service provision decreased March through July 2020, the volume returned to pre-COVID numbers by August and surpassed pre-COVID volume in September and October 2020. Conclusion: Findings from this study demonstrate the adaptability and resilience shown by providers to ensure the continued availability of abortion services. Strategies adopted during COVID-19, such as telehealth and mail-delivery of abortion medication, may prove useful in a post-Roe legislative landscape.

Sampling strategies among studies of barriers to abortion in the United States: A scoping review of abortion access research

OBJECTIVES

Understanding barriers to abortion care is particularly important post-Dobbs. However, many abortion access studies recruit from abortion-providing facilities, which overlook individuals who do not present for clinic-based care. To our knowledge, no studies have reviewed research recruitment strategies in the literature or considered how they might affect our knowledge of abortion barriers. We aimed to identify populations included and sampling methods used in studies of abortion barriers in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

We used a scoping review protocol to search five databases for articles examining US-based individuals' experiences accessing abortion. We included English-language articles published between January 2011 and February 2022. For included studies, we identified the sampling strategy and population recruited.

RESULTS

Our search produced 2763 articles, of which 71 met inclusion criteria. Half of the included papers recruited participants at abortion-providing facilities (n = 35), while the remainder recruited from online sources (n = 14), other health clinics (n = 10), professional organizations (n = 8), abortion funds (n = 2), community organizations (n = 2), key informants (n = 2), and an abortion storytelling project (n = 1). Most articles (n = 61) reported information from people discussing their own abortions; the rest asked nonabortion seekers (e.g., physicians, genetic counselors, attorneys) about barriers to care.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies of abortion barriers enroll participants from a range of venues, but the majority recruit people who obtained abortions, and half recruit from abortion clinics.

IMPLICATIONS

As abortion access becomes constrained and criminalized in the post-Roe context, our findings indicate how investigators might recruit study participants from a variety of settings to fully understand the abortion seeking experience.

Development of a Composite Risk Index of Reproductive Autonomy Using State Laws: Association With Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

We developed a composite index to quantify state legislation related to reproductive autonomy and examined its association with maternal and neonatal outcomes. We hypothesized that greater reproductive autonomy would be associated with lower rates of severe maternal morbidity (SMM), pregnancy-related mortality (PRM), preterm birth (PTB), and low birthweight.

DESIGN

A Delphi panel was used to inform development of the index. Restrictive policies were assigned values of -1 and enabling policies +1. Publicly available data were used to conduct a cross-sectional study among all live births in the 50 U.S. states to people aged 15 to 44 between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018, to examine the association between the risk index and PRM, SMM, PTB, and low birthweight. We used linear regression with state scores and quartiles, adjusted for state-level proportions of White, Black, and Hispanic live births; percent living in rural areas; percent of population foreign born; Health Resources and Services Administration spending on maternal and child health; and the Opportunity Index, a composite measure of indicators of the economy, education, and community.

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2018, there were 11,530,785 births, 2,846 pregnancy-related deaths, and 154,384 cases of SMM. The Delphi panel resulted in a summed state measure of 106 laws in 8 categories that could affect reproductive autonomy. In adjusted analyses, states in the most enabling (most reproductive autonomy) quartile had a 44.7 per 10,000 higher rate of SMM compared with the most restrictive quartile. However, the most enabling quartile was associated with a 9.87 per 100,000 lower rate of PRM and 0.67 per 100 lower rate of PTB compared with the most restrictive quartile (least reproductive autonomy).

CONCLUSIONS

A composite policy index of reproductive autonomy was found to be associated with higher rates of SMM but lower rates of PRM and PTB. Further research is needed to understand how reproductive autonomy in the cumulative index may influence these and other maternal and birth outcomes.

Unwanted abortion disclosure and social support in the abortion decision and mental health symptoms: A cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent of unwanted abortion disclosure and levels of social support in the abortion decision and their association with depression, anxiety, and stress.

STUDY DESIGN

From January to June 2019, we surveyed people presenting for abortion at four clinics in California, New Mexico, and Illinois regarding their experiences accessing abortion. We used multivariable regression to examine associations between unwanted abortion disclosure and social support in the abortion decision, and symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress.

RESULTS

Among 1092 people approached, 784 (72% response rate) eligible individuals initiated the survey, and 746 responded to the unwanted abortion disclosure item and were included in analyses. Over one-quarter (27%) told someone they would have preferred not to tell about their decision, mostly due to obstacles getting to the appointment-time to appointment (46%), travel distance (33%), and costs (32%). Three-quarters (74%, n=546) had at least one person in their life who supported the abortion decision "very much"; 20% had someone who supported the decision "not at all." In adjusted analyses, unwanted abortion disclosure was associated with more symptoms of depression (B = 0.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.28, 0.95), anxiety (B = 1.79; 95% CI: 0.76, 2.82) and stress (B = 1.80, 95% CI: 0.64, 1.72). People also had more symptoms of depression and stress when one or more person (B = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.27, 1.02 and B = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.15, 1.35, respectively) or the man involved in the pregnancy (B = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.16, 1.18 and B = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.13, 1.78, respectively) supported their decision "not at all" (vs "very much" support).

CONCLUSION

Being forced to disclose the abortion decision due to logistical and cost constraints may be harmful to people's mental health.

IMPLICATIONS

Logistical burdens such as travel, time to access care, and costs needed to access abortion may force people seeking abortion to involve others who are unsupportive in the abortion decision having negative implications for their mental health.

Abortion terminology preferences: a cross-sectional survey of people accessing abortion care

BACKGROUND

Abortion stigma likely affects the terminology abortion patients, providers and the public use or avoid using to refer to abortion care. Knowing the terminology people seeking abortion prefer could help inform the language used in clinical interactions and improve patients' experiences with abortion care. However, research in the U.S. has not examined patients' preferences in this area or whether terminology preferences vary by participant characteristics, in the way that experiences of stigma vary across different contexts and communities. This study aims to describe preferred terminology among people presenting for abortion care and to explore the pregnancy-related characteristics associated with these preferences.

METHODS

We surveyed abortion patients about their experiences accessing abortion care, including preferred terms for the procedure. Respondents could mark more than one term, suggest their own term, or indicate no preference. We recruited people ages 15-45 seeking abortion from four U.S. abortion facilities located in three states (California, Illinois, and New Mexico) from January to June 2019. We used descriptive statistics and multivariable multinomial logistic regression to explore associations between respondents' pregnancy-related characteristics and their preferred terminology.

RESULTS

Among the 1092 people approached, 784 (77%) initiated the survey and 697 responded to the terminology preference question. Most participants (57%, n = 400) preferred only one term. Among those participants, "abortion" (43%) was most preferred, followed by "ending a pregnancy" (29%), and "pregnancy termination" (24%). In adjusted multivariable models, participants who worried "very much" that other people might find out about the abortion (29%) were significantly more likely than those who were "not at all" worried (13%) to prefer "ending a pregnancy" over having no preference for a term (adjusted relative risk ratio: 2.68, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.46-4.92).

CONCLUSIONS

People seeking abortion have varied preferences for how they want to refer to their abortions, in particular if they anticipate abortion stigma. Findings can be useful for clinicians and researchers so that they can be responsive to people's preferences during clinical interactions and in the design and conduct of abortion research.

Assessing psychosocial costs: Ohio patients' experiences seeking abortion care

OBJECTIVES

Existing research has not thoroughly characterized the psychosocial costs associated with seeking abortion care in restrictive states. Our study seeks to fill this gap by analyzing the accounts of Ohio abortion patients from 2018 to 2019.

STUDY DESIGN

Using inductive and deductive approaches, we analyzed semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews with 41 Ohio residents who obtained abortion care from one of three clinics in Ohio or Pennsylvania.

RESULTS

Ohioans seeking abortion care often experienced fear of judgment, interpersonal strain, and stress as a result of efforts to overcome pre-Dobbs financial, geographic, and timing challenges. Those who needed financial assistance or traveled more than an hour generally reported greater exposure to psychosocial costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants in this study incurred a complex set of psychosocial costs. Psychosocial costs often resulted from, or were exacerbated by, the financial, geographic, and time-sensitive burdens that patients experienced seeking care.

IMPLICATIONS

The psychosocial costs incurred by patients seeking abortion care may be exacerbated in restrictive contexts, especially those who do not have access to insurance coverage for care. Psychosocial costs associated with care seeking are likely to increase as states implement more severe restrictions post-Dobbs. To fully understand abortion costs, researchers must examine costs comprehensively, including both financial and psychosocial costs.

Association of Availability of State Medicaid Coverage for Abortion With Abortion Access in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between state Medicaid coverage for abortion and abortion access measures among U.S. patients.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Guttmacher Institute's 2014 Abortion Patient Survey. Respondents were included if they reported being enrolled in Medicaid, regardless of whether Medicaid covered the abortion. The exposure was self-report of residence in a state where Medicaid can be used to pay for abortion. Access outcomes included more than 14 days' wait time between decision for abortion and abortion appointment, presentation at more than 10 weeks of gestation when in the first trimester, and travel time more than 60 minutes to the clinic. Multivariable regression was performed to test the association between state Medicaid abortion coverage and dichotomous access outcomes, controlling for patient demographics.

RESULTS

Of 2,579 respondents enrolled in Medicaid who reported state of residence, 1,694 resided in states with Medicaid coverage for abortion and 884 resided in states without Medicaid coverage for abortion. Patients residing in states with Medicaid coverage for abortion had lower odds and rates of waiting more than 14 days between deciding to have an abortion and the appointment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.70; 95% CI 0.57-0.85, 66.8% vs 74.1%, P <.001), having abortions at more than 10 weeks of gestation when in the first trimester (aOR 0.62; 95% CI 0.49-0.80, 13.6% vs 20.1%, P <.001), and traveling more than 60 minutes to the abortion clinic (aOR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51-0.78, 18.7% vs 27.6%, P <.001) when compared with patients residing in states without Medicaid coverage for abortion.

CONCLUSION

Availability of state Medicaid coverage for abortion is associated with increased abortion access. Our findings support repealing the Hyde Amendment to promote equitable access to reproductive health care, particularly in the post-Roe era.

The impact of mandatory waiting periods on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence

This review follows an established methodology for integrating human rights to address knowledge gaps related to the health and non-health outcomes of mandatory waiting periods (MWPs) for access to abortion. MWP is a requirement imposed by law, policy, or practice, to wait a specified amount of time between requesting and receiving abortion care. Recognizing that MWPs “demean[] women as competent decision-makers”, the World Health Organization recommends against MWPs. International human rights bodies have similarly encouraged states to repeal and not to introduce MWPs, which they recognize as operating as barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive healthcare. This review of 34 studies published between 2010 and 2021, together with international human rights law, establishes the health and non-health harms of MWPs for people seeking abortion, including delayed abortion, opportunity costs, and disproportionate impact. Impacts on abortion providers include increased workloads and system costs.

Parental Involvement Policies for Minors Seeking Abortion in the Southeast and Quality of Care

Introduction

Thirty-seven states require minors seeking abortion to involve a parent, either through notification or consent. Little research has examined how implementation of these laws affect service delivery and quality of care for those who involve a parent.

Methods

Between May 2018 and September 2019, in-depth interviews were conducted with 34 staff members involved in scheduling, counseling, and administration at abortion facilities in three Southeastern states. Interviews explored procedures for documenting parental involvement, minors' and parents' reactions to requirements, and challenges with implementation and compliance. Both inductive and deductive codes, informed by the Institute of Medicine's healthcare quality framework, were used in the thematic analysis.

Results

Parental involvement laws adversely affected four quality care domains: efficiency, patient-centeredness, timeliness, and equity. Administrative inefficiencies stemmed from the extensive documentation needed to prove an adult's relationship to a minor, increasing the time and effort needed to comply with state reporting requirements. If parents were not supportive of their minor's decision, participants felt they had a duty to intervene to ensure the minor's decision and needs remained centered. Staff further noted that delays to timely care accumulated as minors navigated parental involvement and other state mandates, pushing some beyond gestational age limits. Lower income families and those with complex familial arrangements had greater difficulty meeting state requirements.

Conclusions

Parental involvement mandates undermine health service delivery and quality for minors seeking abortion services in the Southeast.

Policy Implications

Removing parental involvement requirements would protect minors' reproductive autonomy and support the provision of equitable, patient-centered healthcare.

New Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Waiting Periods for Abortion

Beyond a handful of studies examining early-adopting states in the early 1990s, little is known about the causal effects of mandatory waiting periods for abortion. In this study we evaluate the effects of a Tennessee law enacted in 2015 that requires women to make an additional trip to abortion providers for state-directed counseling at least 48 hours before they can obtain an abortion. Our difference-in-differences and synthetic-control estimates indicate that the introduction of the mandatory waiting period caused a 53-69 percent increase in the share of abortions obtained during the second trimester. Our analysis examining overall abortion rates is less conclusive but suggests a reduction caused by the waiting period. To put these estimates into context, we provide back-of-the-envelope calculations on the additional monetary costs that Tennessee's MWP imposes on women seeking abortions.

Variation in Restrictive Abortion Policies and Adverse Birth Outcomes in the United States from 2005 to 2015

BACKGROUND

Since 2011, U.S. states have enacted more than 400 policies restricting abortion access. As structural determinants, abortion policies have the potential to influence maternal and child health access, outcomes, and equity through multiple mechanisms. Limited research has examined their implications for birth outcomes.

METHODS

We created a state-level abortion restrictiveness index composed of 18 restrictive abortion policies and evaluated the association between this index and individual-level probabilities of preterm birth (PTB) and low birthweight (LBW) within the United States and by Census Region, using data from the 2005-2015 National Center for Health Statistics Period Linked Live Birth-Infant Death Files. We used logistic multivariable regression modeling, adjusting for individual- and state-level factors and state and year fixed effects.

RESULTS

Among 2,500,000 live births, 269,253 (12.0%) were PTBs and 182,960 (8.1%) were LBW. On average from 2005 to 2015, states had approximately seven restrictive abortion policies enacted, with more policies enacted in the Midwest and South. Nationally, relationships between state restrictiveness indices and adverse birth outcomes were insignificant. Regional analyses revealed that a 1-SD increase in a state's restrictiveness index was associated with a 2% increase in PTB in the Midwest (marginal effect [ME], 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.45; p < .01), a 15% increase in LBW in the Northeast (ME, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.12-2.35; p < .05), and a 2% increase in LBW in the West (ME, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.01-0.25; p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Variation in restrictive abortion policy environments may have downstream implications for birth outcomes, and increases in abortion restrictions were associated with adverse birth outcomes in three out of four Census Regions.

Racial/ethnic and educational inequities in restrictive abortion policy variation and adverse birth outcomes in the United States

BACKGROUND

To examine racial/ethnic and educational inequities in the relationship between state-level restrictive abortion policies and adverse birth outcomes from 2005 to 2015 in the United States.

METHODS

Using a state-level abortion restrictiveness index comprised of 18 restrictive abortion policies, we conducted a retrospective longitudinal analysis examining whether race/ethnicity and education level moderated the relationship between the restrictiveness index and individual-level probabilities of preterm birth (PTB) and low birthweight (LBW). Data were obtained from the 2005-2015 National Center for Health Statistics Period Linked Live Birth-Infant Death Files and analyzed with linear probability models adjusted for individual- and state-level characteristics and state and year fixed-effects.

RESULTS

Among 2,250,000 live births, 269,253 (12.0%) were PTBs and 182,960 (8.1%) were LBW. On average, states had approximately seven restrictive abortion policies enacted from 2005 to 2015. Black individuals experienced increased probability of PTB with additional exposure to restrictive abortion policies compared to non-Black individuals. Similarly, those with less than a college degree experienced increased probability of LBW with additional exposure to restrictive abortion policies compared to college graduates. For all analyses, inequities worsened as state environments grew increasingly restrictive.

CONCLUSION

Findings demonstrate that Black individuals at all educational levels and those with fewer years of education disproportionately experienced adverse birth outcomes associated with restrictive abortion policies. Restrictive abortion policies may compound existing racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and intersecting racial/ethnic and socioeconomic perinatal and infant health inequities.

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.

What are We Forgetting? Sexuality, Sex, and Embodiment in Abortion Research

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.

Impact of State-Level Reproductive Health Legislation on Access to and Use of Reproductive Health Services and Reproductive Health Outcomes: A Systematic Scoping Review in the Affordable Care Act Era

INTRODUCTION

We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the associations between state-level reproductive health policies and reproductive health care outcomes and describe policy impacts on reproductive health outcomes among women aged 18 and older. We focused on research conducted after the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to understand the influence of state-level policies in the context of existing federal policy.

METHODS

Standard search terms were used to search PubMed for studies published between March 10, 2010, and August 31, 2019. Studies were included that reflected original U.S.-based research testing associations between state-level policies (i.e., laws related to family planning, maternity care, and abortion) and reproductive health outcomes related to those services (e.g., prenatal care use) among adults. Reference lists of systematic reviews were searched to improve the identification of relevant studies. Studies were excluded if they were reviews, qualitative or mixed-methods studies, or descriptive studies, or if a state was not the unit of analysis. After dual review, agreement on inclusion of studies was 100%.

RESULTS

Search results returned 1,529 articles; 56 (3.59%) met the inclusion criteria for a full review based on title and abstract review. After dual independent review, eight were selected for inclusion. Two included all 50 states and Washington, DC; one included Oregon and Washington; and the remaining studies included single states (Texas, Arizona, Ohio, and Utah). One-half of the studies (n = 4) focused solely on restrictive abortion legislation. Restricting access to family planning and abortion services (e.g., mandatory waiting periods) were associated with negative outcomes (e.g., additional interventions for medication abortion). Expanding maternity care through Medicaid reform and autonomous midwifery laws were associated with positive outcomes (e.g., prenatal care use).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review identified eight studies that were largely focused on only one key aspect of reproductive health policy. Findings suggest that state-level legislation could have considerable impact on the reproductive health care that women have access to and receive, as well as the related outcomes. Research in this area remains limited. Rigorous evaluations of the relationship between the breadth of reproductive health policies and related health outcomes are needed, as is an exploration of barriers to the conduct of this type of research.

State abortion policies and Medicaid coverage of abortion are associated with pregnancy outcomes among individuals seeking abortion recruited using Google Ads: A national cohort study

OBJECTIVE

A major challenge to understanding barriers to abortion is that those individuals most affected may never reach an abortion provider, making the full impact of restrictive policies difficult to measure. The Google Ads Abortion Access Study used a novel method to recruit individuals much earlier in the abortion-seeking process. We aimed to understand how state-level abortion policies and Medicaid coverage of abortion influence individuals' ability to obtain wanted abortions.

METHODS

We employed a stratified sampling design to recruit a national cohort from all 50 states searching Google for abortion care. Participants completed online baseline and 4-week follow-up surveys. The primary independent variables were: 1) state policy environment and 2) state coverage of abortion for people with Medicaid. We developed multivariable multinomial mixed effects models to estimate the associations between each state-level independent variable and pregnancy outcome.

RESULTS

Of the 874 participants with follow-up data, 48% had had an abortion, 32% were still seeking an abortion, and 20% were planning to continue their pregnancies at 4 weeks follow-up. Individuals in restricted access states had significantly higher odds of planning to continue the pregnancy at follow-up than participants in protected access states (aOR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.08, 2.70). Individuals in states that do not provide coverage of abortion for people with Medicaid had significantly higher odds of still seeking an abortion at follow-up (aOR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.24, 2.60). Individuals living in states without Medicaid coverage were significantly more likely to report that having to gather money to pay for travel expenses or for the abortion was a barrier to care.

CONCLUSIONS

Restrictive state-level abortion policies are associated with not having an abortion at all and lack of coverage for abortion is associated with prolonged abortion seeking. Medicaid coverage of abortion appears critical to ensuring that all people who want abortions can obtain them.

Abortion method preference among people presenting for abortion care

OBJECTIVE

To explore abortion method preference, interpersonal and cultural factors associated with preference, and whether, among people with a preference for medication abortion, those presenting past 10 weeks gestation had experienced more obstacles to care.

METHODS

In 2019, we invited people aged 15 to 45 years presenting to 4 U.S. abortion clinics to complete a self-administered, anonymous iPad survey prior to seeing the health care provider. Questions focused on their pregnancy, including self-reported gestational age and experiences accessing abortion care, including abortion method preference. We used multivariate logistic regression to assess associations between worry about perceived pregnancy-related stigma or abortion-related health myths and abortion method preference.

RESULTS

The majority (784 [77%]) of those approached (1092) initiated the survey and 712 responded to the preference question. Most (597 [84%]) preferred a method: 246 (41%) preferred medication abortion and 351 (59%) an in-clinic procedure. About one-third (110 [32%]) of those preferring medication abortions exceeded 10 weeks gestation and 83% (n = 91) had experienced delay-causing obstacles to care. In multivariate analyses, we found a greater odd of preference for medication abortion over in-clinic procedure among those very worried about people's reaction to the pregnancy (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.95, 95% CI 1.16-3.28), judgment from God or religion (aOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.17-3.19) and abortion affecting mental health (aOR 2.51, 95% CI 1.45-4.34) or ability to get pregnant later (aOR 1.80, 95% CI: 1.09-2.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Many people seeking abortion have a method preference; delayed presentation to care may impede ability to obtain desired method. Pregnancy-related stigma and misinformation are associated with preference for medication abortion.

IMPLICATIONS STATEMENT

Pregnancy-related stigma and misinformation, such as health and safety myths promulgated by state-mandated abortion counseling, may motivate preference for medication abortion. Abortion access obstacles may impede individuals' ability to obtain their preferred method. Removing barriers to clinic access may enhance people's ability to obtain their preferred abortion method.

Developing and validating the Psychosocial Burden among people Seeking Abortion Scale (PB-SAS)

While there is a large body of research demonstrating that having an abortion is not associated with adverse mental health outcomes, less research has examined which factors may contribute to elevated levels of mental health symptoms at the time of abortion seeking. This study aims to develop and validate a new tool to measure dimensions of psychosocial burden experienced by people seeking abortion in the United States. To develop scale items, we reviewed the literature including existing measures of stress and anxiety and conducted interviews with experts in abortion care and with patients seeking abortion. Thirty-five items were administered to 784 people seeking abortion at four facilities located in three U.S. states. We used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to reduce items and identify key domains of psychosocial burden. We assessed the predictive validity of the overall scale and each sub-scale, by assessing their associations with validated measures of perceived stress, anxiety, and depression using multivariable linear regression models. Factor analyses revealed a 12-item factor solution measuring psychosocial burden seeking abortion, with four subdomains: structural challenges, pregnancy decision-making, lack of autonomy, and others' reactions to the pregnancy. The alpha reliability coefficients were acceptable for the overall scale (α = 0.83) and each subscale (ranging from α = 0.82-0.85). In adjusted analyses, the overall scale was significantly associated with stress, anxiety and depression; each subscale was also significantly associated with each mental health outcome. This new scale offers a practical tool for providers and researchers to empirically document the factors associated with people's psychological well-being at the time of seeking an abortion. Findings suggest that the same restrictions that claim to protect people from mental health harm may be increasing people's psychosocial burden and contributing to adverse psychological outcomes at the time of seeking abortion.

Mandatory Waiting Periods Before Abortion and Sterilization: Theory and Practice

Some laws insist on a fixed, compulsory waiting period between the time of obtaining consent and when abortions or sterilizations are carried out. Waiting periods are designed to allow for reflection on the decision and to minimize regret. In fact, the cognitive processing needed for these important decisions takes place relatively rapidly. Clinicians are used to handling cases individually and tailoring care appropriately, including giving more time for decision-making. Psychological considerations in relation to the role of emotion in decision-making, eg, regret, raise the possibility that waiting periods could have a detrimental impact on the emotional wellbeing of those concerned which might interfere with decision-making. Having an extended period of time to consider how much regret one might feel as a consequence of the decision one is faced with may make a person revisit a stable decision. In abortion care, waiting periods often result in an extra appointment being needed, delays in securing a procedure and personal distress for the applicant. Some women end up being beyond the gestational limit for abortion. Those requesting sterilization in a situation of active conflict in their relationship will do well to postpone a decision on sterilization. Otherwise, applicants for sterilization should not be forced to wait. Forced waiting undermines people's agency and autonomous decision-making ability. Low-income groups are particularly disadvantaged. It may be discriminatory when applied to marginalized groups. Concern about the validity of consent is best addressed by protective clinical guidelines rather than through rigid legislation. Waiting periods breach reproductive rights. Policymakers and politicians in countries that have waiting periods in sexual and reproductive health regulation should review relevant laws and policies and bring them into line with scientific and ethical evidence and international human rights law.

No Te Tratan Bien Porque Eres Mexicana: Intersectional Systemic Violence and Precarity in Latina Adolescent Life in the U.S. South

Young Latina women (YLW) in Alabama are disproportionately affected by sexual health disparities. However, to access needed reproductive services, YLW must navigate a healthcare landscape that restricts access for youth. YLW also face racialized immigration enforcement in their communities which is designed to attrition the region's emergent Latina/o/x immigrant population. This paper describes the intersectional, structural forces that contribute to experienced systemic violence for YLW as they try to access sexual healthcare services. In 2017, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 YLW and 24 key stakeholders (parents, providers, Latino/a/x community leaders etc.) in West Alabama to examine attitudes and perceptions about sexual health and healthcare access (HCA) among YLW in the region. We used purposeful convenience sampling and snowballing to recruit a community-based sample. That is, we purposefully recruited YLW, adjusting through the recruitment period for a diverse sample, who represented the various voices that we were trying to capture in the study (i.e., younger and older adolescents, adolescents born in the U.S. and those born in other countries etc.). Through a focus on YLW's access to sexual/reproductive healthcare, we conclude that YLW experience systemic violence and resulting precarity because laws and health policies restrict access to evidence-based sexual health education and reproductive healthcare services. We discuss implications for future research and policy recommendations.

Women's Postabortion Contraceptive Preferences and Access to Family Planning Services in Mississippi

BACKGROUND

Women's preferences for postabortion contraceptive care vary, and some may experience difficulties realizing their preferences owing to health systems-level barriers. We assessed Mississippi women's interest in postabortion contraceptive counseling and method use and the extent to which their method preferences were met.

METHODS

In 2016, women ages 18 to 45 completed a self-administered survey at their abortion consultation visit in Mississippi and a follow-up phone survey 4-8 weeks later. Thirty-eight participants were selected for in-depth interviews. We computed the percentage of women who were interested in contraceptive counseling, initiating a method, and who obtained a method at the clinic. We also calculated the percentage who were using their preferred method after abortion and the main reasons they were not using this method. We analyzed transcripts using a theme-based approach.

RESULTS

Of 323 women enrolled, 222 (69%) completed the follow-up survey. Of those completing follow-up, more than one-half (58%) reported that their consultation or abortion visit was the best time for contraceptive counseling, and 69% wanted to initiate contraception at the clinic. Only 10% obtained a method on site, and in-depth interview respondents reported they could not afford or did not like the options available. At the follow-up survey, 23% of respondents were using their preferred method. Women cited cost or lack of insurance coverage and difficulties scheduling appointments with community clinicians as reasons for not using their preferred method.

CONCLUSIONS

Mississippi women have a large unmet demand for postabortion contraception. Policies that support on-site provision of contraception at abortion facilities would help women to realize their contraceptive preferences.

Mandatory pre-abortion counseling is a barrier to accessing safe abortion services

Empirical research showcases that pre-abortion counseling scarcely reverses the woman’s decision either to terminate a pregnancy or not. Growing evidence regarding the high levels of decisional certainty among women seeking abortions renders a careful rethink of the place of mandatory pre-abortion counseling packages. Mandatory counseling packages, when inscribed in the laws, at times contain false information that can deter women from going in for safe abortions. Mandatory waiting times indirectly label opting for an abortion as not being the right thing to do. In areas where abortion stigma from health care providers and communities remains highly prevalent, women are forced to incur extra expenses by travelling to other countries. I argue that pre-abortion counseling on opting-in grounds is ethically sound (enhances the woman’s reproductive autonomy), since most clients in need of abortions are certain on their decisions before the abortion care provider and do not regret these decisions after the process. Regrets are prone to be more prevalent in areas with high unsafe abortion practices, generally due to complications from excessive bleeding, pain, and post abortion infections. Allowing systematic mandatory pre-abortion counseling practice as the rule in a competent adult is unjustified ethically and empirically, is time consuming and presents the legality of abortions in most settings an oxymoron.

Decision rightness and relief predominate over the years following an abortion

A recent analysis from the Turnaway study focused on women who were just under the gestational limit of a clinic and received an abortion and those who had first trimester abortions to examine trends in decisional rightness and negative and positive emotions over 5 years after the abortion. Specifically, Rocca et al. (in press) analyzed these data and found that women were overwhemingly sure of their decision: 95% felt their decision was the right one at each assessment after their abortion, and the predicted probability of abortion being the right decision was 99% at 5 years afterwards. Relief was the most common emotion felt by women, and negative emotions or decision regret did not emerge over time. These results and others from studies conducted globally counter assertions by abortion opponents that women are not certain of their decisions, or that women regret or have mainly negative emotions about their abortions if not in the short run then after a long period of time. This commentary addresses not only these findings but also relevant U.S. abortion policies based on these unsubstantiated claims. Policies should not be based on the notions that women are unsure of their decision, come to regret, it or have negative emotions because there is no evidence to support these claims.

Experience obtaining legal abortion in Uruguay: knowledge, attitudes, and stigma among abortion clients

BACKGROUND

The abortion law in Uruguay changed in 2012 to allow first trimester abortion on request. Implementation of the law in Uruguay has been lauded, but barriers to care, including abortion stigma, remain. This study aimed to assess women's experiences seeking abortion services and related attitudes and knowledge following implementation of the law in Uruguay.

METHODS

We interviewed 207 eligible women seeking abortion services at a high-volume public hospital in Montevideo in 2014. We generated univariate frequencies to describe women's experiences in care. We conducted regression analysis to examine variations in experiences of stigma by women's age and number of abortions.

RESULTS

Most of the women felt that abortion was a right, were satisfied with the services they received, and agreed with the abortion law. However, 70% found the five-day waiting period unnecessary. Women experienced greater self-judgement than worries about being judged by others. Younger women in the sample (ages 18-21) reported being more worried about judgment than women 22 years or older (1.02 vs. 0.71 on the ILAS sub-scale). One quarter of participants reported feeling judged while obtaining services. Women with more than one abortion had nearly three times the odds of reporting feeling judged.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the need to address abortion stigma even after the law is changed. Some considerations from Uruguay that may be relevant to other jurisdictions reforming abortion laws include: the need for strategies to reduce judgmental behavior from staff and clinicians towards women seeking abortions, including training in counseling skills and empathic communication; addressing stigmatizing attitudes about abortion through community outreach or communications campaigns; mitigating the potential stigma that may be perpetuated through policies to prevent "repeat" abortions; ensuring that younger women and those with more than one abortion feel welcome and are not mistreated during care; and assessing the necessity of a waiting period. The rapid implementation of legal, voluntary abortion services in Uruguay can serve in many ways as an exemplar, and these findings may inform the process of abortion law reform in other countries.

Using Google Ads to recruit and retain a cohort considering abortion in the United States

Objective

The objective was to develop and test the feasibility of a methodology to recruit and retain individuals in the United States (US) who were considering abortion at the point of searching for an abortion clinic.

Study design

We conducted the Google Ads Abortion Access Study, a national cohort study using a novel recruitment method — recruiting people searching for abortion care on Google. Advertisements for the study were displayed in search results. Users who clicked on the advertisement were directed to a landing page explaining the study and then to a screening form. Participants were eligible if they reported being pregnant and considering abortion. They completed an online baseline survey and 4 weeks later were invited by email or text message to complete a follow-up survey.

Results

Over the course of 8 months, we recruited a racially/ethnically and geographically diverse cohort considering an abortion using Google Ads. After removing fraudulent cases, we recruited 1706 respondents, and among these, 1464 (86%) provided contact information for follow-up. Among those providing contact information, 1005 completed the follow-up survey, resulting in a 69% follow-up rate. Older age, white race, higher education, difficulty meeting basic needs, being not religious/spiritual and having no previous births were associated with higher follow-up. Total cost of the ads was $31.99 per completed baseline + follow-up survey.

Conclusion

Researchers can use online advertising to successfully recruit populations early in their abortion-seeking process to understand the barriers they face and how to improve abortion access. Disadvantages include high cost and a small potential for fraudulent data.

Implications

Google Ads is a feasible tool to recruit and follow a diverse sample of individuals who are considering abortion for studies investigating the barriers they face in obtaining a wanted abortion.

Abortion patients' preferences for care and experiences accessing services in Louisiana

Objective

The objective was to compare abortion patients' expectations and preferences for care with their experiences accessing services in Louisiana where there are numerous restrictive abortion laws.

Study design

Between June 2018 and January 2019, we conducted in-depth interviews with 35 English-speaking Louisiana residents who were ≥ 18 years of age and seeking care from the three in-state facilities to explore their perspectives and experiences locating, obtaining and paying for abortion services. We analyzed interview transcripts using a theme-based approach and categorized themes into dimensions of health care access: availability/accessibility, accommodation, acceptability and affordability.

Results

Participants were surprised to learn that there were so few facilities providing abortion, which required some of them to drive between 1 and 3 h to the nearest clinic. Many were unable to schedule their visits at a convenient time or obtain care as early in pregnancy as desired because the next available appointment was often a week or more away. Protestor activity and congested waiting rooms did not provide most patients their desired level of privacy, but participants expressed diverse views about other approaches to care that would maintain their confidentiality. To pay for an unplanned health care expense that was not covered by insurance, many participants deferred paying monthly bills and borrowed money, which contributed to financial hardships and additional delays in care.

Conclusions

Many Louisiana abortion patients' expectations and preferences for care are not being met across multiple dimensions of health care access assessed in this study, and the state's highly regulated policy environment may limit options for tailoring services to patients' needs.

Implications

Abortion patients in Louisiana value accessible, timely, private and affordable services, but a constrained network of providers and medically unnecessary requirements make it difficult for them to obtain patient-centered care. Federal- and state-level policy changes, as well as local initiatives, could ensure abortion patients have access to quality, evidence-based services.

Characteristics of Women Who Present for Abortion Beyond the Legal Limit in Flanders, Belgium

CONTEXT

Women who seek abortion care beyond the first trimester of gestation are often in a vulnerable socioeconomic position with limited social support, and in Belgium, the details of their circumstances are insufficiently understood. A better understanding of this group is essential to a critical evaluation of Belgian abortion policy, which restricts abortions on request after the first trimester.

METHODS

Anonymized patient records were collected between 2013 and 2016 from LUNA centers, which are non-hospital-based abortion clinics in Flanders. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify associations between women's characteristics and whether they presented within or beyond the legal limit, which was 13 weeks and 1 day at the time of the study.

RESULTS

A total of 28,741 women requested an abortion, and 972 individuals (3.4%) presented beyond the legal limit; 29% of these latter women were unable to receive abortion care as a result of the mandatory six-day waiting period. Characteristics positively associated with presenting beyond the limit, instead of beforehand, were being younger than 20, as opposed to 20-24 (odds ratio, 1.7); receiving a primary, lower secondary, upper secondary or special-needs education, rather than a higher education (1.8-3.1); being unemployed, rather than employed (1.3); and holding Belgian rather than a foreign nationality (0.8). Being accompanied by someone to the LUNA center (0.8), having irregularly (0.6) or regularly used contraceptives (0.7), and having ever had an abortion (0.8) were negatively associated with presenting beyond, rather than before, the limit.

CONCLUSIONS

A fuller consideration of patients' characteristics when evaluating Belgian abortion policy is needed to ensure that the needs and rights of socioeconomically vulnerable women are addressed.

Estimating the proportion of Medicaid-eligible pregnant women in Louisiana who do not get abortions when Medicaid does not cover abortion

Background

To estimate the proportion of pregnant women in Louisiana who do not obtain abortions because Medicaid does not cover abortion.

Methods

Two hundred sixty nine women presenting at first prenatal visits in Southern Louisiana, 2015–2017, completed self-administered iPad surveys and structured interviews. Women reporting having considered abortion were asked whether Medicaid not paying for abortion was a reason they had not had an abortion. Using study data and published estimates of births, abortions, and Medicaid-covered births in Louisiana, we projected the proportion of Medicaid births that would instead be abortions if Medicaid covered abortion in Louisiana.

Results

28% considered abortion. Among women with Medicaid, 7.2% [95% CI 4.1–12.3] reported Medicaid not paying as a reason they did not have an abortion. Existing estimates suggest 10% of Louisiana pregnancies end in abortion. If Medicaid covered abortion, this would increase to 14% [95% CI 12, 16]. 29% [95% CI 19, 41] of Medicaid eligible pregnant women who would have an abortion with Medicaid coverage, instead give birth.

Conclusions

For a substantial proportion of pregnant women in Louisiana, the lack of Medicaid funding remains an insurmountable barrier to obtaining an abortion. Forty years after the Hyde Amendment was passed, lack of Medicaid funding for abortion continues to have substantial impacts on women’s ability to obtain abortions.

Identifying National Availability of Abortion Care and Distance From Major US Cities: Systematic Online Search

Background

Abortion is a common medical procedure, yet its availability has become more limited across the United States over the past decade. Women who do not know where to go for abortion care may use the internet to find abortion facility information, and there appears to be more online searches for abortion in states with more restrictive abortion laws. While previous studies have examined the distances women must travel to reach an abortion provider, to our knowledge no studies have used a systematic online search to document the geographic locations and services of abortion facilities.

Objective

The objective of our study was to describe abortion facilities and services available in the United States from the perspective of a potential patient searching online and to identify US cities where people must travel the farthest to obtain abortion care.

Methods

In early 2017, we conducted a systematic online search for abortion facilities in every state and the largest cities in each state. We recorded facility locations, types of abortion services available, and facility gestational limits. We then summarized the frequencies by region and state. If the online information was incomplete or unclear, we called the facility using a mystery shopper method, which simulates the perspective of patients calling for services. We also calculated distance to the closest abortion facility from all US cities with populations of 50,000 or more.

Results

We identified 780 facilities through our online search, with the fewest in the Midwest and South. Over 30% (236/780, 30.3%) of all facilities advertised the provision of medication abortion services only; this proportion was close to 40% in the Northeast (89/233, 38.2%) and West (104/262, 39.7%). The lowest gestational limit at which services were provided was 12 weeks in Wyoming; the highest was 28 weeks in New Mexico. People in 27 US cities must travel over 100 miles (160 km) to reach an abortion facility; the state with the largest number of such cities is Texas (n=10).

Conclusions

Online searches can provide detailed information about the location of abortion facilities and the types of services they provide. However, these facilities are not evenly distributed geographically, and many large US cities do not have an abortion facility. Long distances can push women to seek abortion in later gestations when care is even more limited.

Update on abortion policy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the status of antiabortion restrictions enacted over the last 5 years in the United States and their impact on abortion services.

RECENT FINDINGS

In recent years, there has been an alarming rise in the number of antiabortion laws enacted across the United States. In total, various states in the union enacted 334 abortion restrictions from 2011 to July 2016, accounting for 30% of all abortion restrictions since the legalization of abortion in 1973. Data confirm, however, that more liberal abortion laws do not increase the number of abortions, but instead greatly decrease the number of abortion-related deaths. Several countries including Romania, South Africa and Nepal have seen dramatic decreases in maternal mortality after liberalization of abortion laws, without an increase in the total number of abortions. In the United States, abortions are incredibly safe with very low rates of complications and a mortality rate of 0.7 per 100 000 women. With increasing abortion restrictions, maternal mortality in the United States can be expected to rise over the coming years, as has been observed in Texas recently.

SUMMARY

Liberalization of abortion laws saves women's lives. The rising number of antiabortion restrictions will ultimately harm women and their families.

Evaluating the impact of a mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound viewing law: A mixed methods study

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.

Characteristics and Circumstances of U.S. Women Who Obtain Very Early and Second-Trimester Abortions

Objective

To determine which characteristics and circumstances were associated with very early and second-trimester abortion.

Methods

Paper and pencil surveys were collected from a national sample of 8,380 non-hospital U.S. abortion patients in 2014 and 2015. We used self-reported LMP to calculate weeks gestation; when LMP was not provided we used self-reported weeks pregnant. We constructed two dependent variables: obtaining a very early abortion, defined as six weeks gestation or earlier, and obtaining second-trimester abortion, defined as occurring at 13 weeks gestation or later. We examined associations between the two measures of gestation and a range of characteristics and circumstances, including type of abortion waiting period in the patients’ state of residence.

Results

Among first-trimester abortion patients, characteristics that decreased the likelihood of obtaining a very early abortion include being under the age of 20, relying on financial assistance to pay for the procedure, recent exposure to two or more disruptive events and living in a state that requires in-person counseling 24–72 hours prior to the procedure. Having a college degree and early recognition of pregnancy increased the likelihood of obtaining a very early abortion. Characteristics that increased the likelihood of obtaining a second-trimester abortion include being Black, having less than a high school degree, relying on financial assistance to pay for the procedure, living 25 or more miles from the facility and late recognition of pregnancy.

Conclusions

While the availability of financial assistance may allow women to obtain abortions they would otherwise be unable to have, it may also result in delays in accessing care. If poor women had health insurance that covered abortion services, these delays could be alleviated. Since the study period, four additional states have started requiring that women obtain in-person counseling prior to obtaining an abortion, and the increase in these laws could slow down the trend in very early abortion.

State-Mandated (Mis)Information and Women's Endorsement of Common Abortion Myths

PURPOSE

The extent that state-mandated informed consent scripts affect women's knowledge about abortion is unknown. We examine women's endorsement of common abortion myths before and after receiving state-mandated information that included accurate and inaccurate statements about abortion.

METHODS

In Utah, women presenting for an abortion information visit completed baseline surveys (n = 494) and follow-up interviews 3 weeks later (n = 309). Women answered five items about abortion risks, indicating which of two statements was closer to the truth (as established by prior research) or responding "don't know." We developed a continuous myth endorsement scale (range, 0-1) and, using multivariable regression models, examined predictors of myth endorsement at baseline and change in myth endorsement from baseline to follow-up.

RESULTS

At baseline, many women reported not knowing about abortion risks (range, 36%-70% across myths). Women who were younger, non-White, and had previously given birth but not had a prior abortion reported higher myth endorsement at baseline. Overall, myth endorsement decreased after the information visit (0.37-0.31; p < .001). However, endorsement of the myth that was included in the state script-describing inaccurate risks of depression and anxiety-increased at follow-up (0.47-0.52; p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of knowledge about the effects of abortion is common. Knowledge of information that was accurately presented or not referenced in state-mandated scripts increased. In contrast, inaccurate information was associated with decreases in women's knowledge about abortion, violating accepted principles of informed consent. State policies that require or result in the provision of inaccurate information should be reconsidered.

Situating stigma in stratified reproduction: Abortion stigma and miscarriage stigma as barriers to reproductive healthcare

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether race and reported history of abortion are associated with abortion stigma and miscarriage stigma, both independently and comparatively.

STUDY DESIGN

Self-administered surveys with 306 new mothers in Boston and Cincinnati, United States.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Abortion stigma perception (ASP); miscarriage stigma perception (MSP); and comparative stigma perception (CSP: abortion stigma perception net of miscarriage stigma perception).

RESULTS

Regardless of whether or not they reported having an abortion, white women perceived abortion (ASP) to be more stigmatizing than Black and Latina women. Perceptions of miscarriage stigma (MSP), on the other hand, were dependent on reporting an abortion. Among those who reported an abortion, Black women perceived more stigma from miscarriage than white women, but these responses were flipped for women who did not report abortion. Reporting abortion also influenced our comparative measure (CSP). Among those who did report an abortion, white women perceived more stigma from abortion than miscarriage, while Black and Latina women perceived more stigma from miscarriage than abortion.

CONCLUSIONS

By measuring abortion stigma in comparison to miscarriage stigma, we can reach a more nuanced understanding of how perceptions of reproductive stigmas are stratified by race and reported reproductive history. Clinicians should be aware that reproductive stigmas do not similarly affect all groups. Stigma from specific reproductive outcomes is more or less salient dependent upon a woman's social position and lived experience.

Measuring decisional certainty among women seeking abortion

OBJECTIVE

Evaluating decisional certainty is an important component of medical care, including preabortion care. However, minimal research has examined how to measure certainty with reliability and validity among women seeking abortion. We examine whether the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), a measure widely used in other health specialties and considered the gold standard for measuring this construct, and the Taft-Baker Scale (TBS), a measure developed by abortion counselors, are valid and reliable for use with women seeking abortion and predict the decision to continue the pregnancy.

METHODS

Eligible women at four family planning facilities in Utah completed baseline demographic surveys and scales before their abortion information visit and follow-up interviews 3 weeks later. For each scale, we calculated mean scores and explored factors associated with high uncertainty. We evaluated internal reliability using Cronbach's alpha and assessed predictive validity by examining whether higher scale scores, indicative of decisional uncertainty or conflict, were associated with still being pregnant at follow-up.

RESULTS

Five hundred women completed baseline surveys; two-thirds (63%) completed follow-up, at which time 11% were still pregnant. Mean scores on the DCS (15.5/100) and TBS (12.4/100) indicated low uncertainty, with acceptable reliability (α=.93 and .72, respectively). Higher scores on each scale were significantly and positively associated with still being pregnant at follow-up in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

The DCS and TBS demonstrate acceptable reliability and validity among women seeking abortion care. Comparing scores on the DCS in this population to other studies of decision making suggests that the level of uncertainty in abortion decision making is comparable to or lower than other health decisions.

IMPLICATIONS

The high levels of decisional certainty found in this study challenge the narrative that abortion decision making is exceptional compared to other healthcare decisions and requires additional protection such as laws mandating waiting periods, counseling and ultrasound viewing.