“法案说什么并不重要……:对格鲁吉亚堕胎政策立法决策的影响

E. Barton, S. Narasimhan, Dabney P. Evans
{"title":"“法案说什么并不重要……:对格鲁吉亚堕胎政策立法决策的影响","authors":"E. Barton, S. Narasimhan, Dabney P. Evans","doi":"10.20429/JGPHA.2021.080302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In March 2019 the Georgia legislature passed HB 481 described as a “heartbeat bill”, prohibiting abortion at around six weeks gestation. Given the prevalence of anti-abortion legislation and the public health implications of abortion restrictions, we sought to understand how Georgia legislators made decisions on this early abortion ban legislation. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with nine legislators from the Georgia House of Representatives who participated in the 2019 legislative session. In-depth interviews were conducted in-person and over the phone. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and inductive codes identified. Codes focused primarily on views of: abortion in general; specific abortion policy; and how information about HB 481 was obtained. A thematic analysis was performed to elucidate legislators’ perspectives. Results: Legislators had clear considerations that differed by party affiliation. Democrats described concerns with HB 481 grounded in reproductive autonomy and justice. They claimed concern with the lives of pregnant persons citing the physical and emotional harm bills like HB 481 cause. They questioned the medical evidence used to support HB 481 and argued that it violated the freedom to choose when to have children. Republican legislators evoked a similar harm reduction framework, but were concerned with protecting the lives of the unborn, arguing that a fetus should be considered a person once a “heartbeat” is detected and that abortion after this point is equal to killing a person. Republicans also described aligning with their constituents’ values. Despite the arguments and evidence presented during the legislative session, legislators voted according to their previously held beliefs on abortion. Conclusions: improve policy outcomes related to reproductive health and rights.","PeriodicalId":73981,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“It didn’t matter what the bill said...”: Influences on abortion policy legislative decision-making in Georgia\",\"authors\":\"E. Barton, S. Narasimhan, Dabney P. Evans\",\"doi\":\"10.20429/JGPHA.2021.080302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: In March 2019 the Georgia legislature passed HB 481 described as a “heartbeat bill”, prohibiting abortion at around six weeks gestation. Given the prevalence of anti-abortion legislation and the public health implications of abortion restrictions, we sought to understand how Georgia legislators made decisions on this early abortion ban legislation. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with nine legislators from the Georgia House of Representatives who participated in the 2019 legislative session. In-depth interviews were conducted in-person and over the phone. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and inductive codes identified. Codes focused primarily on views of: abortion in general; specific abortion policy; and how information about HB 481 was obtained. A thematic analysis was performed to elucidate legislators’ perspectives. Results: Legislators had clear considerations that differed by party affiliation. Democrats described concerns with HB 481 grounded in reproductive autonomy and justice. They claimed concern with the lives of pregnant persons citing the physical and emotional harm bills like HB 481 cause. They questioned the medical evidence used to support HB 481 and argued that it violated the freedom to choose when to have children. Republican legislators evoked a similar harm reduction framework, but were concerned with protecting the lives of the unborn, arguing that a fetus should be considered a person once a “heartbeat” is detected and that abortion after this point is equal to killing a person. Republicans also described aligning with their constituents’ values. Despite the arguments and evidence presented during the legislative session, legislators voted according to their previously held beliefs on abortion. Conclusions: improve policy outcomes related to reproductive health and rights.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73981,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20429/JGPHA.2021.080302\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20429/JGPHA.2021.080302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:2019年3月,佐治亚州立法机构通过了被称为“心跳法案”的HB 481,禁止在怀孕六周左右堕胎。鉴于反堕胎立法的普遍性和堕胎限制对公共健康的影响,我们试图了解佐治亚州立法者是如何就这项早期堕胎禁令立法做出决定的。方法:我们对参加2019年立法会议的佐治亚州众议院九名议员进行了深入采访。深入访谈是亲自和通过电话进行的。访谈录音被逐字转录,归纳代码被识别。守则主要侧重于以下观点:一般堕胎;具体的堕胎政策;以及如何获得关于HB 481的信息。进行了专题分析,以阐明立法者的观点。结果:立法者有明确的考虑,但因党派不同而有所不同。民主党人描述了对HB 481基于生育自主和正义的担忧。他们声称对孕妇的生命感到担忧,并引用了HB 481等身体和精神伤害法案。他们质疑用于支持HB 481的医学证据,并认为这侵犯了选择何时生孩子的自由。共和党立法者提出了类似的减少伤害框架,但他们关心保护未出生婴儿的生命,认为一旦检测到“心跳”,胎儿就应该被视为一个人,在此之后堕胎等于杀人。共和党人还描述了与选民的价值观保持一致。尽管在立法会议期间提出了论点和证据,但立法者还是根据他们之前对堕胎的信念进行了投票。结论:改善与生殖健康和权利有关的政策成果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“It didn’t matter what the bill said...”: Influences on abortion policy legislative decision-making in Georgia
Background: In March 2019 the Georgia legislature passed HB 481 described as a “heartbeat bill”, prohibiting abortion at around six weeks gestation. Given the prevalence of anti-abortion legislation and the public health implications of abortion restrictions, we sought to understand how Georgia legislators made decisions on this early abortion ban legislation. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with nine legislators from the Georgia House of Representatives who participated in the 2019 legislative session. In-depth interviews were conducted in-person and over the phone. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and inductive codes identified. Codes focused primarily on views of: abortion in general; specific abortion policy; and how information about HB 481 was obtained. A thematic analysis was performed to elucidate legislators’ perspectives. Results: Legislators had clear considerations that differed by party affiliation. Democrats described concerns with HB 481 grounded in reproductive autonomy and justice. They claimed concern with the lives of pregnant persons citing the physical and emotional harm bills like HB 481 cause. They questioned the medical evidence used to support HB 481 and argued that it violated the freedom to choose when to have children. Republican legislators evoked a similar harm reduction framework, but were concerned with protecting the lives of the unborn, arguing that a fetus should be considered a person once a “heartbeat” is detected and that abortion after this point is equal to killing a person. Republicans also described aligning with their constituents’ values. Despite the arguments and evidence presented during the legislative session, legislators voted according to their previously held beliefs on abortion. Conclusions: improve policy outcomes related to reproductive health and rights.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信