A QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF THE IMPACT OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS ON PEOPLE WITH HIGH-RISK PREGNANCIES IN GEORGIA: EAR ON GA

IF 2.8 2区医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Contraception Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110620

AG Maples, P Goedken, V Larrivey, V Walke, N Verma

{"title":"A QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF THE IMPACT OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS ON PEOPLE WITH HIGH-RISK PREGNANCIES IN GEORGIA: EAR ON GA","authors":"AG Maples, P Goedken, V Larrivey, V Walke, N Verma","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We aimed to assess what barriers people with high-risk pregnancies face while attempting to access abortion care in Georgia, and understand how House Bill (HB) 481, which bans most abortions in the state after fetal cardiac activity, has affected these care-seeking journeys.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured Zoom interviews with people with high-risk pregnancies seeking abortion care at hospital and independent clinic sites in Atlanta, GA. The interviews focused on participant’s journeys attempting to access abortion care within or outside the state after HB481 went into effect. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed the interviews, and are presenting a subset of themes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We interviewed 18 people from January 2023 through January 2024. Participants with high-risk pregnancies often described a lack of understanding of how HB481 would impact their ability to access abortion care in Georgia, and discussed ways in which they felt their specific abortion was necessary and should qualify for care under the law. As participants attempted to access abortion care post-HB481, many described feeling betrayed and abandoned by the government, healthcare system, their individual support networks, and even God and/or the universe. Participants shared how HB481 exacerbated their suffering as they attempted to navigate the “best” of multiple “bad” options available to them.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our results indicate that, even when abortion bans include exceptions for “medical emergency” and “medically futile pregnancy,” people with high-risk pregnancies face additional barriers to accessing care that exacerbate suffering and lead to feelings of betrayal and abandonment.</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/S0010782424003159","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 assess what barriers people with high-risk pregnancies face while attempting to access abortion care in Georgia, and understand how House Bill (HB) 481, which bans most abortions in the state after fetal cardiac activity, has affected these care-seeking journeys.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured Zoom interviews with people with high-risk pregnancies seeking abortion care at hospital and independent clinic sites in Atlanta, GA. The interviews focused on participant’s journeys attempting to access abortion care within or outside the state after HB481 went into effect. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed the interviews, and are presenting a subset of themes.

Results

We interviewed 18 people from January 2023 through January 2024. Participants with high-risk pregnancies often described a lack of understanding of how HB481 would impact their ability to access abortion care in Georgia, and discussed ways in which they felt their specific abortion was necessary and should qualify for care under the law. As participants attempted to access abortion care post-HB481, many described feeling betrayed and abandoned by the government, healthcare system, their individual support networks, and even God and/or the universe. Participants shared how HB481 exacerbated their suffering as they attempted to navigate the “best” of multiple “bad” options available to them.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that, even when abortion bans include exceptions for “medical emergency” and “medically futile pregnancy,” people with high-risk pregnancies face additional barriers to accessing care that exacerbate suffering and lead to feelings of betrayal and abandonment.

查看原文本刊更多论文

关于堕胎限制对乔治亚州高危妊娠者影响的定性探索：乔治亚州的耳朵

目标我们旨在评估佐治亚州的高危妊娠患者在试图获得人工流产护理时面临哪些障碍，并了解众议院法案 (HB) 481（该法案禁止在胎儿心脏活动后在佐治亚州进行大多数人工流产）如何影响这些寻求护理的旅程。访谈的重点是 HB481 法案生效后，参与者试图在州内或州外获得堕胎护理的历程。我们对访谈进行了誊写、编码和分析，并提出了部分主题。结果我们从 2023 年 1 月到 2024 年 1 月对 18 人进行了访谈。高危妊娠的参与者通常表示不了解 HB481 将如何影响他们在佐治亚州获得堕胎护理的能力，并讨论了他们认为其特定堕胎是必要的且应符合法律规定的护理条件的方式。当参与者试图在 HB481 法案颁布后获得堕胎护理时，许多人描述了被政府、医疗保健系统、个人支持网络，甚至上帝和/或宇宙背叛和抛弃的感觉。结论我们的研究结果表明，即使堕胎禁令包括 "医疗紧急情况 "和 "医学上无用的妊娠 "的例外情况，高危妊娠者在获得护理时仍面临额外的障碍，这些障碍加剧了她们的痛苦，并导致她们产生被背叛和抛弃的感觉。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Contraception 医学-妇产科学

CiteScore

4.70

自引率

17.20%

发文量

211

审稿时长

69 days

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.