A Chatillon, W Arey, K Lerma, G Alemán, J Draper, A Beasley, K White
{"title":"DECEIVED, PRAGMATIC, STRATEGIC: ABORTION-SEEKERS’ APPROACHES TO CONTACTING CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS FOLLOWING TEXAS SENATE BILL 8","authors":"A Chatillon, W Arey, K Lerma, G Alemán, J Draper, A Beasley, K White","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110590","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We aimed to explore pregnant Texans’ experiences with crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) following implementation of Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which prohibited abortions after embryonic cardiac activity.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Between October 2021 and August 2022, we conducted in-depth interviews with English-speaking Texans aged ≥15 years who were seeking abortion about their experiences navigating to care. We recruited participants through online ads and by providing flyers to abortion facilities in seven states. We interviewed Texans with varied pregnancy outcomes, including out-of-state abortions, self-managed abortions, and continued pregnancies, all of whom initially sought abortion in Texas. We used inductive and deductive coding to identify themes in participants’ understandings of and experiences with CPCs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 120 participants, 36 contacted CPCs. Roughly half the 36 were <em>deceived</em>: they reached out for support accessing abortion care, unaware of CPCs’ mission to prevent abortion. Most remaining participants contacted CPCs <em>pragmatically</em>: unaware of CPCs’ missions, they were simply drawn to the organizations’ free and accessible pregnancy tests/ultrasounds. A minority, however, knew of CPCs’ missions and used CPCs’ pregnancy confirmation/dating <em>strategically</em> to determine next steps toward an abortion. Participants with pragmatic interactions more often reported positive experiences with CPCs, while those who were deceived or strategic frequently described negative experiences. Regardless of motivation, participants noted the importance of having free and accessible services, including pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, in their communities.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In a restrictive abortion setting with limited access to reproductive and pregnancy-related healthcare services, pregnant Texans sought free services from CPCs instead of medical professionals, including for pragmatic or strategic reasons.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782424002853","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
We aimed to explore pregnant Texans’ experiences with crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) following implementation of Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which prohibited abortions after embryonic cardiac activity.
Methods
Between October 2021 and August 2022, we conducted in-depth interviews with English-speaking Texans aged ≥15 years who were seeking abortion about their experiences navigating to care. We recruited participants through online ads and by providing flyers to abortion facilities in seven states. We interviewed Texans with varied pregnancy outcomes, including out-of-state abortions, self-managed abortions, and continued pregnancies, all of whom initially sought abortion in Texas. We used inductive and deductive coding to identify themes in participants’ understandings of and experiences with CPCs.
Results
Of 120 participants, 36 contacted CPCs. Roughly half the 36 were deceived: they reached out for support accessing abortion care, unaware of CPCs’ mission to prevent abortion. Most remaining participants contacted CPCs pragmatically: unaware of CPCs’ missions, they were simply drawn to the organizations’ free and accessible pregnancy tests/ultrasounds. A minority, however, knew of CPCs’ missions and used CPCs’ pregnancy confirmation/dating strategically to determine next steps toward an abortion. Participants with pragmatic interactions more often reported positive experiences with CPCs, while those who were deceived or strategic frequently described negative experiences. Regardless of motivation, participants noted the importance of having free and accessible services, including pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, in their communities.
Conclusions
In a restrictive abortion setting with limited access to reproductive and pregnancy-related healthcare services, pregnant Texans sought free services from CPCs instead of medical professionals, including for pragmatic or strategic reasons.
期刊介绍:
Contraception has an open access mirror journal Contraception: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review.
The journal Contraception wishes to advance reproductive health through the rapid publication of the best and most interesting new scholarship regarding contraception and related fields such as abortion. The journal welcomes manuscripts from investigators working in the laboratory, clinical and social sciences, as well as public health and health professions education.