Recent shifts in the abortion provision landscape have generated increased concern about how people find abortion care as regulations make abortion less accessible and clinics close. Few studies examine the reasons that people select particular facilities in such constrained contexts. Drawing from interviews with 41 Ohio residents, we find that people’s clinic selections are influenced by the risks they associate with abortion care. Participants’ strategies for selecting an abortion clinic included: drawing on previous experience with clinics, consulting others online, discerning reputation through name recognition and clinic type, and considering location, especially perceptions about place (privacy, legality, safety). We argue that social myths inform the risks people anticipate when seeking health care facilities, shaping care seeking in ways that are both abortion-specific and more general. These findings can also inform research in other health care contexts where patients increasingly find their options constrained by rising costs, consolidation, and facility closure.
Objectives: Most polling items that assess abortion labels present pro-life and prochoice as mutually exclusive options. Yet, some studies suggest a proportion of people identify with both terms, leading to questions about whether there are comprehension challenges associated with this measure. As such, we assessed if and why people may identify as both pro-life and pro-choice. Methods: We administered a web-based survey to a national sample of US adults (n = 449) which included two slider items assessing the extent that people identify as pro-life and pro-choice on a zero (not at all pro-life/pro-choice) to six (completely pro-life/pro-choice) point scale. We then asked participants who identified as both pro-life and pro-choice to some extent (greater than 0 on both items) to explain their responses in an open-ended format; we used content and thematic analysis to better understand why people identified with both labels. Results: Approximately 65% of participants identified as both pro-life and prochoice to some extent. People provided a variety of reasons for dual-endorsement such as abortion being an undesirable option and morally wrong, but also a personal choice and important for bodily autonomy. Participants' responses to the closed-ended items were not deterministic of their responses on the open-ended item. Conclusions: People can simultaneously endorse both labels, and dual-endorsement is likely not a function of measurement error. Researchers should consider a wider array of response options when measuring people's selection of abortion labels. Understanding how individuals use and conceptualize "pro-life" and "pro-choice" may have implications for movement building and advocacy work.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.