受骗、务实、策略：德克萨斯州参议院第 8 号法案之后寻求堕胎者联系危机怀孕中心的方法

IF 2.8 2区医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Contraception Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110590

A Chatillon, W Arey, K Lerma, G Alemán, J Draper, A Beasley, K White

{"title":"受骗、务实、策略：德克萨斯州参议院第 8 号法案之后寻求堕胎者联系危机怀孕中心的方法","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目标我们旨在探讨德克萨斯州的孕妇在第 8 号参议院法案（SB8）实施后在危机妊娠中心（CPCs）的经历，该法案禁止在胚胎心脏活动后进行堕胎。方法在 2021 年 10 月至 2022 年 8 月期间，我们对年龄≥15 岁的寻求堕胎的英语德克萨斯州人进行了深度访谈，了解他们的就医经历。我们通过在线广告和向七个州的堕胎机构发放传单的方式招募参与者。我们采访了不同妊娠结果的德克萨斯人，包括州外堕胎、自行堕胎和继续妊娠，他们最初都是在德克萨斯州寻求堕胎。我们使用归纳法和演绎法进行编码，以确定参与者对 CPC 的理解和经历中的主题。在这 36 人中，约有一半是受骗者：他们在不了解 CPCs 的使命是防止堕胎的情况下，寻求支持以获得堕胎护理。剩下的大多数参与者都是出于实用的目的联系 CPC：他们不知道 CPC 的使命，只是被这些组织免费提供的孕期检查/超声波检查所吸引。然而，少数人知道 CPCs 的使命，并战略性地利用 CPCs 的怀孕确认/约会来决定流产的下一步。务实互动的参与者更多地报告了与 CPC 的正面经历，而受骗或策略性互动的参与者则经常描述负面经历。无论动机如何，参与者都指出在其社区内提供免费且方便的服务（包括妊娠测试和超声波检查）的重要性。结论在限制堕胎的环境中，获得生殖和妊娠相关医疗保健服务的途径有限，德克萨斯州的孕妇寻求 CPC 的免费服务，而不是医疗专业人员，其中包括出于实用性或策略性原因。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

DECEIVED, PRAGMATIC, STRATEGIC: ABORTION-SEEKERS’ APPROACHES TO CONTACTING CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS FOLLOWING TEXAS SENATE BILL 8

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.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

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.