Contraception Deserts: The Effects of Title X Rule Changes on Access to Reproductive Health Care Resources

IF 3.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Politics & Gender Pub Date : 2022-02-03 DOI:10.1017/S1743923X2100009X

C. Smith, Rebecca J. Kreitzer, K. Kane, T. Saunders

{"title":"Contraception Deserts: The Effects of Title X Rule Changes on Access to Reproductive Health Care Resources","authors":"C. Smith, Rebecca J. Kreitzer, K. Kane, T. Saunders","doi":"10.1017/S1743923X2100009X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Historically, access to contraception has been supported in a bipartisan way, best exemplified by consistent congressional funding of Title X—the only federal program specifically focused on providing affordable reproductive health care to American residents. However, in an era of partisan polarization, Title X has become a political and symbolic pawn, in part because of its connection to family planning organizations like Planned Parenthood. The conflicts around Title X highlight the effects of intertwining abortion politics and contraception policy, particularly as they relate to reproductive justice and gendered policy making. Family planning organizations like Planned Parenthood have responded to these battles by bowing out of the Title X network. To what extent have contraception deserts—places characterized by inequitable access to Title X—developed or expanded in response to policy changes related to contraception and reproductive health? What is the demographic makeup of these spaces of inequality? We leverage data from the Office of Population Affairs and the U.S. Census Bureau and use the integrated two-step floating catchment area method to illustrate the effects of a major change in the Title X network in 10 states. Our results reveal the widespread human ramifications of increasing constraints on family planning organizations as a result of quiet but insidious federal bureaucratic rule changes.","PeriodicalId":47464,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Gender","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Gender","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X2100009X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Historically, access to contraception has been supported in a bipartisan way, best exemplified by consistent congressional funding of Title X—the only federal program specifically focused on providing affordable reproductive health care to American residents. However, in an era of partisan polarization, Title X has become a political and symbolic pawn, in part because of its connection to family planning organizations like Planned Parenthood. The conflicts around Title X highlight the effects of intertwining abortion politics and contraception policy, particularly as they relate to reproductive justice and gendered policy making. Family planning organizations like Planned Parenthood have responded to these battles by bowing out of the Title X network. To what extent have contraception deserts—places characterized by inequitable access to Title X—developed or expanded in response to policy changes related to contraception and reproductive health? What is the demographic makeup of these spaces of inequality? We leverage data from the Office of Population Affairs and the U.S. Census Bureau and use the integrated two-step floating catchment area method to illustrate the effects of a major change in the Title X network in 10 states. Our results reveal the widespread human ramifications of increasing constraints on family planning organizations as a result of quiet but insidious federal bureaucratic rule changes.

查看原文本刊更多论文

避孕沙漠:标题X规则变化对获得生殖保健资源的影响

摘要从历史上看，获得避孕药具一直得到两党的支持，国会对第十条的持续资助就是最好的例证，这是唯一一个专门致力于为美国居民提供负担得起的生殖健康护理的联邦计划。然而，在一个党派两极分化的时代，《X》已经成为一个政治和象征性的棋子，部分原因是它与计划生育等计划生育组织有联系。围绕第十条的冲突凸显了堕胎政治和避孕政策交织在一起的影响，尤其是在涉及生殖正义和性别政策制定时。像计划生育组织这样的计划生育组织对这些斗争做出了回应，退出了第十条网络。避孕沙漠——以不公平获得第十章为特征的地方——在多大程度上是为了应对与避孕和生殖健康相关的政策变化而发展或扩大的？这些不平等空间的人口构成是什么？我们利用人口事务办公室和美国人口普查局的数据，使用综合的两步浮动集水区方法来说明10个州的标题X网络重大变化的影响。我们的研究结果揭示了由于安静但阴险的联邦官僚规则变化，计划生育组织受到越来越多的限制，这对人类产生了广泛的影响。

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

Politics & Gender Multiple-

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

5.90%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Gender is an agenda-setting journal that publishes the highest quality scholarship on gender and politics and on women and politics. It aims to represent the full range of questions, issues, and approaches on gender and women across the major subfields of political science, including comparative politics, international relations, political theory, and U.S. politics. The Editor welcomes studies that address fundamental questions in politics and political science from the perspective of gender difference, as well as those that interrogate and challenge standard analytical categories and conventional methodologies.Members of the Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association receive the journal as a benefit of membership.