AG Maples, P Goedken, V Larrivey, V Walke, N Verma
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
A QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF THE IMPACT OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS ON PEOPLE WITH HIGH-RISK PREGNANCIES IN GEORGIA: EAR ON GA
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.
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.