Oral Abstracts

Abstract

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.