Selecting an Abortion Clinic: The Role of Social Myths and Risk Perception in Seeking Abortion Care

Abstract

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.

Out-of-State Travel for Abortion among Texas Residents following an Executive Order Suspending In-State Services during the Coronavirus Pandemic

“…With few facilities providing abortion care in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, people were forced to travel even further because no other facilities were available. The fact that many people did not obtain care at the nearest facility might also reflect other factors that people consider when seeking abortion, such as referrals from trusted sources, differences in abortion restrictions between states, and variation between facilities in the types of abortion offered, gestational limits, and cost [ 21 , 22 ]. For example, people might have decided to travel further to obtain care in Colorado or New Mexico, states with fewer abortion restrictions and lower median costs for first-trimester abortion care [ 23 ], which many people have to pay out of pocket because insurance coverage for abortion is limited.…”

How Ohio's proposed abortion bans would impact travel distance to access abortion care

“…Third, we include facilities that do not provide instrumentation abortions in these analyses, which may underestimate how far people in need of this method, or receiving care at later gestations, must travel. Fourth, we cannot account for the fact that people might also choose to travel further than the first available facility for abortion care 46 . Finally, in a post‐ Roe scenario, abortion facilities in states where abortion will remain accessible will likely experience an influx of patients traveling from states where abortion is banned, leading to facility congestion 47 .…”

“…Fourth, we cannot account for the fact that people might also choose to travel further than the first available facility for abortion care. 46 Finally, in a post-Roe scenario, abortion facilities in states where abortion will remain accessible will likely experience an influx of patients traveling from states where abortion is banned, leading to facility congestion. 47 Thus, open abortion facilities may not be able to handle the increase in patient demand and wait times may be longer than usual.…”

State of Confusion: Ohio’s Restrictive Abortion Landscape and the Production of Uncertainty in Reproductive Health Care

“…Uncertainty about abortion care often originates from outside rather than within the medical context. For example, those seeking care in restrictive contexts may be uncertain about whether care is legally available and contend with social myths about abortion that influence decision-making (Heymann et al 2022; Kimport 2021). Therefore, it appears that a critical unexplored source of uncertainty is the political context of care.…”