research paper on abortion

• Open access
• Published: 28 June 2021

Impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes: a systematic review protocol

• Foluso Ishola   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8644-0570 1 ,
• U. Vivian Ukah 1 &
• Arijit Nandi 1  

Systematic Reviews volume  10 , Article number:  192 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

20k Accesses

2 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

A country’s abortion law is a key component in determining the enabling environment for safe abortion. While restrictive abortion laws still prevail in most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), many countries have reformed their abortion laws, with the majority of them moving away from an absolute ban. However, the implications of these reforms on women’s access to and use of health services, as well as their health outcomes, is uncertain. First, there are methodological challenges to the evaluation of abortion laws, since these changes are not exogenous. Second, extant evaluations may be limited in terms of their generalizability, given variation in reforms across the abortion legality spectrum and differences in levels of implementation and enforcement cross-nationally. This systematic review aims to address this gap. Our aim is to systematically collect, evaluate, and synthesize empirical research evidence concerning the impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes in LMICs.

We will conduct a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature on changes in abortion laws and women’s health services and outcomes in LMICs. We will search Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases, as well as grey literature and reference lists of included studies for further relevant literature. As our goal is to draw inference on the impact of abortion law reforms, we will include quasi-experimental studies examining the impact of change in abortion laws on at least one of our outcomes of interest. We will assess the methodological quality of studies using the quasi-experimental study designs series checklist. Due to anticipated heterogeneity in policy changes, outcomes, and study designs, we will synthesize results through a narrative description.

This review will systematically appraise and synthesize the research evidence on the impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes in LMICs. We will examine the effect of legislative reforms and investigate the conditions that might contribute to heterogeneous effects, including whether specific groups of women are differentially affected by abortion law reforms. We will discuss gaps and future directions for research. Findings from this review could provide evidence on emerging strategies to influence policy reforms, implement abortion services and scale up accessibility.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42019126927

Peer Review reports

An estimated 25·1 million unsafe abortions occur each year, with 97% of these in developing countries [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Despite its frequency, unsafe abortion remains a major global public health challenge [ 4 , 5 ]. According to the World health Organization (WHO), nearly 8% of maternal deaths were attributed to unsafe abortion, with the majority of these occurring in developing countries [ 5 , 6 ]. Approximately 7 million women are admitted to hospitals every year due to complications from unsafe abortion such as hemorrhage, infections, septic shock, uterine and intestinal perforation, and peritonitis [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. These often result in long-term effects such as infertility and chronic reproductive tract infections. The annual cost of treating major complications from unsafe abortion is estimated at US$ 232 million each year in developing countries [ 10 , 11 ]. The negative consequences on children’s health, well-being, and development have also been documented. Unsafe abortion increases risk of poor birth outcomes, neonatal and infant mortality [ 12 , 13 ]. Additionally, women who lack access to safe and legal abortion are often forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies, and may not seek prenatal care [ 14 ], which might increase risks of child morbidity and mortality.

Access to safe abortion services is often limited due to a wide range of barriers. Collectively, these barriers contribute to the staggering number of deaths and disabilities seen annually as a result of unsafe abortion, which are disproportionately felt in developing countries [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. A recent systematic review on the barriers to abortion access in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) implicated the following factors: restrictive abortion laws, lack of knowledge about abortion law or locations that provide abortion, high cost of services, judgmental provider attitudes, scarcity of facilities and medical equipment, poor training and shortage of staff, stigma on social and religious grounds, and lack of decision making power [ 17 ].

An important factor regulating access to abortion is abortion law [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Although abortion is a medical procedure, its legal status in many countries has been incorporated in penal codes which specify grounds in which abortion is permitted. These include prohibition in all circumstances, to save the woman’s life, to preserve the woman’s health, in cases of rape, incest, fetal impairment, for economic or social reasons, and on request with no requirement for justification [ 18 , 19 , 20 ].

Although abortion laws in different countries are usually compared based on the grounds under which legal abortions are allowed, these comparisons rarely take into account components of the legal framework that may have strongly restrictive implications, such as regulation of facilities that are authorized to provide abortions, mandatory waiting periods, reporting requirements in cases of rape, limited choice in terms of the method of abortion, and requirements for third-party authorizations [ 19 , 21 , 22 ]. For example, the Zambian Termination of Pregnancy Act permits abortion on socio-economic grounds. It is considered liberal, as it permits legal abortions for more indications than most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa; however, abortions must only be provided in registered hospitals, and three medical doctors—one of whom must be a specialist—must provide signatures to allow the procedure to take place [ 22 ]. Given the critical shortage of doctors in Zambia [ 23 ], this is in fact a major restriction that is only captured by a thorough analysis of the conditions under which abortion services are provided.

Additionally, abortion laws may exist outside the penal codes in some countries, where they are supplemented by health legislation and regulations such as public health statutes, reproductive health acts, court decisions, medical ethic codes, practice guidelines, and general health acts [ 18 , 19 , 24 ]. The diversity of regulatory documents may lead to conflicting directives about the grounds under which abortion is lawful [ 19 ]. For example, in Kenya and Uganda, standards and guidelines on the reduction of morbidity and mortality due to unsafe abortion supported by the constitution was contradictory to the penal code, leaving room for an ambiguous interpretation of the legal environment [ 25 ].

Regulations restricting the range of abortion methods from which women can choose, including medication abortion in particular, may also affect abortion access [ 26 , 27 ]. A literature review contextualizing medication abortion in seven African countries reported that incidence of medication abortion is low despite being a safe, effective, and low-cost abortion method, likely due to legal restrictions on access to the medications [ 27 ].

Over the past two decades, many LMICs have reformed their abortion laws [ 3 , 28 ]. Most have expanded the grounds on which abortion may be performed legally, while very few have restricted access. Countries like Uruguay, South Africa, and Portugal have amended their laws to allow abortion on request in the first trimester of pregnancy [ 29 , 30 ]. Conversely, in Nicaragua, a law to ban all abortion without any exception was introduced in 2006 [ 31 ].

Progressive reforms are expected to lead to improvements in women’s access to safe abortion and health outcomes, including reductions in the death and disabilities that accompany unsafe abortion, and reductions in stigma over the longer term [ 17 , 29 , 32 ]. However, abortion law reforms may yield different outcomes even in countries that experience similar reforms, as the legislative processes that are associated with changing abortion laws take place in highly distinct political, economic, religious, and social contexts [ 28 , 33 ]. This variation may contribute to abortion law reforms having different effects with respect to the health services and outcomes that they are hypothesized to influence [ 17 , 29 ].

Extant empirical literature has examined changes in abortion-related morbidity and mortality, contraceptive usage, fertility, and other health-related outcomes following reforms to abortion laws [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. For example, a study in Mexico reported that a policy that decriminalized and subsidized early-term elective abortion led to substantial reductions in maternal morbidity and that this was particularly strong among vulnerable populations such as young and socioeconomically disadvantaged women [ 38 ].

To the best of our knowledge, however, the growing literature on the impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. A study by Benson et al. evaluated evidence on the impact of abortion policy reforms on maternal death in three countries, Romania, South Africa, and Bangladesh, where reforms were immediately followed by strategies to implement abortion services, scale up accessibility, and establish complementary reproductive and maternal health services [ 39 ]. The three countries highlighted in this paper provided unique insights into implementation and practical application following law reforms, in spite of limited resources. However, the review focused only on a selection of countries that have enacted similar reforms and it is unclear if its conclusions are more widely generalizable.

Accordingly, the primary objective of this review is to summarize studies that have estimated the causal effect of a change in abortion law on women’s health services and outcomes. Additionally, we aim to examine heterogeneity in the impacts of abortion reforms, including variation across specific population sub-groups and contexts (e.g., due to variations in the intensity of enforcement and service delivery). Through this review, we aim to offer a higher-level view of the impact of abortion law reforms in LMICs, beyond what can be gained from any individual study, and to thereby highlight patterns in the evidence across studies, gaps in current research, and to identify promising programs and strategies that could be adapted and applied more broadly to increase access to safe abortion services.

The review protocol has been reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines [ 40 ] (Additional file 1 ). It was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database CRD42019126927.

Eligibility criteria

Types of studies.

This review will consider quasi-experimental studies which aim to estimate the causal effect of a change in a specific law or reform and an outcome, but in which participants (in this case jurisdictions, whether countries, states/provinces, or smaller units) are not randomly assigned to treatment conditions [ 41 ]. Eligible designs include the following:

Pretest-posttest designs where the outcome is compared before and after the reform, as well as nonequivalent groups designs, such as pretest-posttest design that includes a comparison group, also known as a controlled before and after (CBA) designs.

Interrupted time series (ITS) designs where the trend of an outcome after an abortion law reform is compared to a counterfactual (i.e., trends in the outcome in the post-intervention period had the jurisdiction not enacted the reform) based on the pre-intervention trends and/or a control group [ 42 , 43 ].

Differences-in-differences (DD) designs, which compare the before vs. after change in an outcome in jurisdictions that experienced an abortion law reform to the corresponding change in the places that did not experience such a change, under the assumption of parallel trends [ 44 , 45 ].

Synthetic controls (SC) approaches, which use a weighted combination of control units that did not experience the intervention, selected to match the treated unit in its pre-intervention outcome trend, to proxy the counterfactual scenario [ 46 , 47 ].

Regression discontinuity (RD) designs, which in the case of eligibility for abortion services being determined by the value of a continuous random variable, such as age or income, would compare the distributions of post-intervention outcomes for those just above and below the threshold [ 48 ].

There is heterogeneity in the terminology and definitions used to describe quasi-experimental designs, but we will do our best to categorize studies into the above groups based on their designs, identification strategies, and assumptions.

Our focus is on quasi-experimental research because we are interested in studies evaluating the effect of population-level interventions (i.e., abortion law reform) with a design that permits inference regarding the causal effect of abortion legislation, which is not possible from other types of observational designs such as cross-sectional studies, cohort studies or case-control studies that lack an identification strategy for addressing sources of unmeasured confounding (e.g., secular trends in outcomes). We are not excluding randomized studies such as randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized trials, or stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trials; however, we do not expect to identify any relevant randomized studies given that abortion policy is unlikely to be randomly assigned. Since our objective is to provide a summary of empirical studies reporting primary research, reviews/meta-analyses, qualitative studies, editorials, letters, book reviews, correspondence, and case reports/studies will also be excluded.

Our population of interest includes women of reproductive age (15–49 years) residing in LMICs, as the policy exposure of interest applies primarily to women who have a demand for sexual and reproductive health services including abortion.

Intervention

The intervention in this study refers to a change in abortion law or policy, either from a restrictive policy to a non-restrictive or less restrictive one, or vice versa. This can, for example, include a change from abortion prohibition in all circumstances to abortion permissible in other circumstances, such as to save the woman’s life, to preserve the woman’s health, in cases of rape, incest, fetal impairment, for economic or social reasons, or on request with no requirement for justification. It can also include the abolition of existing abortion policies or the introduction of new policies including those occurring outside the penal code, which also have legal standing, such as:

National constitutions;

Supreme court decisions, as well as higher court decisions;

Customary or religious law, such as interpretations of Muslim law;

Medical ethical codes; and

Regulatory standards and guidelines governing the provision of abortion.

We will also consider national and sub-national reforms, although we anticipate that most reforms will operate at the national level.

The comparison group represents the counterfactual scenario, specifically the level and/or trend of a particular post-intervention outcome in the treated jurisdiction that experienced an abortion law reform had it, counter to the fact, not experienced this specific intervention. Comparison groups will vary depending on the type of quasi-experimental design. These may include outcome trends after abortion reform in the same country, as in the case of an interrupted time series design without a control group, or corresponding trends in countries that did not experience a change in abortion law, as in the case of the difference-in-differences design.

Outcome measures

Primary outcomes.

Access to abortion services: There is no consensus on how to measure access but we will use the following indicators, based on the relevant literature [ 49 ]: [ 1 ] the availability of trained staff to provide care, [ 2 ] facilities are geographically accessible such as distance to providers, [ 3 ] essential equipment, supplies and medications, [ 4 ] services provided regardless of woman’s ability to pay, [ 5 ] all aspects of abortion care are explained to women, [ 6 ] whether staff offer respectful care, [ 7 ] if staff work to ensure privacy, [ 8 ] if high-quality, supportive counseling is provided, [ 9 ] if services are offered in a timely manner, and [ 10 ] if women have the opportunity to express concerns, ask questions, and receive answers.

Use of abortion services refers to induced pregnancy termination, including medication abortion and number of women treated for abortion-related complications.

Secondary outcomes

Current use of any method of contraception refers to women of reproductive age currently using any method contraceptive method.

Future use of contraception refers to women of reproductive age who are not currently using contraception but intend to do so in the future.

Demand for family planning refers to women of reproductive age who are currently using, or whose sexual partner is currently using, at least one contraceptive method.

Unmet need for family planning refers to women of reproductive age who want to stop or delay childbearing but are not using any method of contraception.

Fertility rate refers to the average number of children born to women of childbearing age.

Neonatal morbidity and mortality refer to disability or death of newborn babies within the first 28 days of life.

Maternal morbidity and mortality refer to disability or death due to complications from pregnancy or childbirth.

There will be no language, date, or year restrictions on studies included in this systematic review.

Studies have to be conducted in a low- and middle-income country. We will use the country classification specified in the World Bank Data Catalogue to identify LMICs (Additional file 2 ).

Search methods

We will perform searches for eligible peer-reviewed studies in the following electronic databases.

Ovid MEDLINE(R) (from 1946 to present)

Embase Classic+Embase on OvidSP (from 1947 to present)

CINAHL (1973 to present); and

Web of Science (1900 to present)

The reference list of included studies will be hand searched for additional potentially relevant citations. Additionally, a grey literature search for reports or working papers will be done with the help of Google and Social Science Research Network (SSRN).

Search strategy

A search strategy, based on the eligibility criteria and combining subject indexing terms (i.e., MeSH) and free-text search terms in the title and abstract fields, will be developed for each electronic database. The search strategy will combine terms related to the interventions of interest (i.e., abortion law/policy), etiology (i.e., impact/effect), and context (i.e., LMICs) and will be developed with the help of a subject matter librarian. We opted not to specify outcomes in the search strategy in order to maximize the sensitivity of our search. See Additional file 3 for a draft of our search strategy.

Data collection and analysis

Data management.

Search results from all databases will be imported into Endnote reference manager software (Version X9, Clarivate Analytics) where duplicate records will be identified and excluded using a systematic, rigorous, and reproducible method that utilizes a sequential combination of fields including author, year, title, journal, and pages. Rayyan systematic review software will be used to manage records throughout the review [ 50 ].

Selection process

Two review authors will screen titles and abstracts and apply the eligibility criteria to select studies for full-text review. Reference lists of any relevant articles identified will be screened to ensure no primary research studies are missed. Studies in a language different from English will be translated by collaborators who are fluent in the particular language. If no such expertise is identified, we will use Google Translate [ 51 ]. Full text versions of potentially relevant articles will be retrieved and assessed for inclusion based on study eligibility criteria. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or will involve a third reviewer as an arbitrator. The selection of studies, as well as reasons for exclusions of potentially eligible studies, will be described using a PRISMA flow chart.

Data extraction

Data extraction will be independently undertaken by two authors. At the conclusion of data extraction, these two authors will meet with the third author to resolve any discrepancies. A piloted standardized extraction form will be used to extract the following information: authors, date of publication, country of study, aim of study, policy reform year, type of policy reform, data source (surveys, medical records), years compared (before and after the reform), comparators (over time or between groups), participant characteristics (age, socioeconomic status), primary and secondary outcomes, evaluation design, methods used for statistical analysis (regression), estimates reported (means, rates, proportion), information to assess risk of bias (sensitivity analyses), sources of funding, and any potential conflicts of interest.

Risk of bias and quality assessment

Two independent reviewers with content and methodological expertise in methods for policy evaluation will assess the methodological quality of included studies using the quasi-experimental study designs series risk of bias checklist [ 52 ]. This checklist provides a list of criteria for grading the quality of quasi-experimental studies that relate directly to the intrinsic strength of the studies in inferring causality. These include [ 1 ] relevant comparison, [ 2 ] number of times outcome assessments were available, [ 3 ] intervention effect estimated by changes over time for the same or different groups, [ 4 ] control of confounding, [ 5 ] how groups of individuals or clusters were formed (time or location differences), and [ 6 ] assessment of outcome variables. Each of the following domains will be assigned a “yes,” “no,” or “possibly” bias classification. Any discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or a third reviewer with expertise in review methodology if required.

Confidence in cumulative evidence

The strength of the body of evidence will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system [ 53 ].

Data synthesis

We anticipate that risk of bias and heterogeneity in the studies included may preclude the use of meta-analyses to describe pooled effects. This may necessitate the presentation of our main findings through a narrative description. We will synthesize the findings from the included articles according to the following key headings:

Information on the differential aspects of the abortion policy reforms.

Information on the types of study design used to assess the impact of policy reforms.

Information on main effects of abortion law reforms on primary and secondary outcomes of interest.

Information on heterogeneity in the results that might be due to differences in study designs, individual-level characteristics, and contextual factors.

Potential meta-analysis

If outcomes are reported consistently across studies, we will construct forest plots and synthesize effect estimates using meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using the I 2 test where I 2 values over 50% indicate moderate to high heterogeneity [ 54 ]. If studies are sufficiently homogenous, we will use fixed effects. However, if there is evidence of heterogeneity, a random effects model will be adopted. Summary measures, including risk ratios or differences or prevalence ratios or differences will be calculated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Analysis of subgroups

If there are sufficient numbers of included studies, we will perform sub-group analyses according to type of policy reform, geographical location and type of participant characteristics such as age groups, socioeconomic status, urban/rural status, education, or marital status to examine the evidence for heterogeneous effects of abortion laws.

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analyses will be conducted if there are major differences in quality of the included articles to explore the influence of risk of bias on effect estimates.

Meta-biases

If available, studies will be compared to protocols and registers to identify potential reporting bias within studies. If appropriate and there are a sufficient number of studies included, funnel plots will be generated to determine potential publication bias.

This systematic review will synthesize current evidence on the impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health. It aims to identify which legislative reforms are effective, for which population sub-groups, and under which conditions.

Potential limitations may include the low quality of included studies as a result of suboptimal study design, invalid assumptions, lack of sensitivity analysis, imprecision of estimates, variability in results, missing data, and poor outcome measurements. Our review may also include a limited number of articles because we opted to focus on evidence from quasi-experimental study design due to the causal nature of the research question under review. Nonetheless, we will synthesize the literature, provide a critical evaluation of the quality of the evidence and discuss the potential effects of any limitations to our overall conclusions. Protocol amendments will be recorded and dated using the registration for this review on PROSPERO. We will also describe any amendments in our final manuscript.

Synthesizing available evidence on the impact of abortion law reforms represents an important step towards building our knowledge base regarding how abortion law reforms affect women’s health services and health outcomes; we will provide evidence on emerging strategies to influence policy reforms, implement abortion services, and scale up accessibility. This review will be of interest to service providers, policy makers and researchers seeking to improve women’s access to safe abortion around the world.

Abbreviations

Cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature

Excerpta medica database

Low- and middle-income countries

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols

International prospective register of systematic reviews

Ganatra B, Gerdts C, Rossier C, Johnson BR, Tuncalp O, Assifi A, et al. Global, regional, and subregional classification of abortions by safety, 2010-14: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lancet. 2017;390(10110):2372–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31794-4 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Guttmacher Institute. Induced Abortion Worldwide; Global Incidence and Trends 2018. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide . Accessed 15 Dec 2019.

Singh S, Remez L, Sedgh G, Kwok L, Onda T. Abortion worldwide 2017: uneven progress and unequal access. NewYork: Guttmacher Institute; 2018.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fusco CLB. Unsafe abortion: a serious public health issue in a poverty stricken population. Reprod Clim. 2013;2(8):2–9.

Google Scholar  

Rehnstrom Loi U, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Faxelid E, Klingberg-Allvin M. Health care providers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards induced abortions in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia: a systematic literature review of qualitative and quantitative data. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1502-2 .

Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tuncalp O, Moller AB, Daniels J, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(6):E323–E33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Benson J, Nicholson LA, Gaffikin L, Kinoti SN. Complications of unsafe abortion in sub-Saharan Africa: a review. Health Policy Plan. 1996;11(2):117–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/11.2.117 .

Abiodun OM, Balogun OR, Adeleke NA, Farinloye EO. Complications of unsafe abortion in South West Nigeria: a review of 96 cases. Afr J Med Med Sci. 2013;42(1):111–5.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Singh S, Maddow-Zimet I. Facility-based treatment for medical complications resulting from unsafe pregnancy termination in the developing world, 2012: a review of evidence from 26 countries. BJOG. 2016;123(9):1489–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13552 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vlassoff M, Walker D, Shearer J, Newlands D, Singh S. Estimates of health care system costs of unsafe abortion in Africa and Latin America. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2009;35(3):114–21. https://doi.org/10.1363/3511409 .

Singh S, Darroch JE. Adding it up: costs and benefits of contraceptive services. Estimates for 2012. New York: Guttmacher Institute and United Nations Population Fund; 2012.

Auger N, Bilodeau-Bertrand M, Sauve R. Abortion and infant mortality on the first day of life. Neonatology. 2016;109(2):147–53. https://doi.org/10.1159/000442279 .

Krieger N, Gruskin S, Singh N, Kiang MV, Chen JT, Waterman PD, et al. Reproductive justice & preventable deaths: state funding, family planning, abortion, and infant mortality, US 1980-2010. SSM Popul Health. 2016;2:277–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.03.007 .

Banaem LM, Majlessi F. A comparative study of low 5-minute Apgar scores (< 8) in newborns of wanted versus unwanted pregnancies in southern Tehran, Iran (2006-2007). J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008;21(12):898–901. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767050802372390 .

Bhandari A. Barriers in access to safe abortion services: perspectives of potential clients from a hilly district of Nepal. Trop Med Int Health. 2007;12:87.

Seid A, Yeneneh H, Sende B, Belete S, Eshete H, Fantahun M, et al. Barriers to access safe abortion services in East Shoa and Arsi Zones of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. J Health Dev. 2015;29(1):13–21.

Arroyave FAB, Moreno PA. A systematic bibliographical review: barriers and facilitators for access to legal abortion in low and middle income countries. Open J Prev Med. 2018;8(5):147–68. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpm.2018.85015 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Boland R, Katzive L. Developments in laws on induced abortion: 1998-2007. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2008;34(3):110–20. https://doi.org/10.1363/3411008 .

Lavelanet AF, Schlitt S, Johnson BR Jr, Ganatra B. Global Abortion Policies Database: a descriptive analysis of the legal categories of lawful abortion. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2018;18(1):44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-018-0183-1 .

United Nations Population Division. Abortion policies: A global review. Major dimensions of abortion policies. 2002 [Available from: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/abortion/abortion-policies-2002.asp .

Johnson BR, Lavelanet AF, Schlitt S. Global abortion policies database: a new approach to strengthening knowledge on laws, policies, and human rights standards. Bmc Int Health Hum Rights. 2018;18(1):35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-018-0174-2 .

Haaland MES, Haukanes H, Zulu JM, Moland KM, Michelo C, Munakampe MN, et al. Shaping the abortion policy - competing discourses on the Zambian termination of pregnancy act. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-018-0908-8 .

Schatz JJ. Zambia’s health-worker crisis. Lancet. 2008;371(9613):638–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60287-1 .

Erdman JN, Johnson BR. Access to knowledge and the Global Abortion Policies Database. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;142(1):120–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12509 .

Cleeve A, Oguttu M, Ganatra B, Atuhairwe S, Larsson EC, Makenzius M, et al. Time to act-comprehensive abortion care in east Africa. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(9):E601–E2. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30136-X .

Berer M, Hoggart L. Medical abortion pills have the potential to change everything about abortion. Contraception. 2018;97(2):79–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.12.006 .

Moseson H, Shaw J, Chandrasekaran S, Kimani E, Maina J, Malisau P, et al. Contextualizing medication abortion in seven African nations: A literature review. Health Care Women Int. 2019;40(7-9):950–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2019.1608207 .

Blystad A, Moland KM. Comparative cases of abortion laws and access to safe abortion services in sub-Saharan Africa. Trop Med Int Health. 2017;22:351.

Berer M. Abortion law and policy around the world: in search of decriminalization. Health Hum Rights. 2017;19(1):13–27.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Johnson BR, Mishra V, Lavelanet AF, Khosla R, Ganatra B. A global database of abortion laws, policies, health standards and guidelines. B World Health Organ. 2017;95(7):542–4. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.197442 .

Replogle J. Nicaragua tightens up abortion laws. Lancet. 2007;369(9555):15–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60011-7 .

Keogh LA, Newton D, Bayly C, McNamee K, Hardiman A, Webster A, et al. Intended and unintended consequences of abortion law reform: perspectives of abortion experts in Victoria, Australia. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2017;43(1):18–24. https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2016-101541 .

Levels M, Sluiter R, Need A. A review of abortion laws in Western-European countries. A cross-national comparison of legal developments between 1960 and 2010. Health Policy. 2014;118(1):95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.06.008 .

Serbanescu F, Morris L, Stupp P, Stanescu A. The impact of recent policy changes on fertility, abortion, and contraceptive use in Romania. Stud Fam Plann. 1995;26(2):76–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137933 .

Henderson JT, Puri M, Blum M, Harper CC, Rana A, Gurung G, et al. Effects of Abortion Legalization in Nepal, 2001-2010. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(5):e64775. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064775 .

Goncalves-Pinho M, Santos JV, Costa A, Costa-Pereira A, Freitas A. The impact of a liberalisation law on legally induced abortion hospitalisations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;203:142–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.05.037 .

Latt SM, Milner A, Kavanagh A. Abortion laws reform may reduce maternal mortality: an ecological study in 162 countries. BMC Women’s Health. 2019;19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-018-0705-y .

Clarke D, Muhlrad H. Abortion laws and women’s health. IZA discussion papers 11890. Bonn: IZA Institute of Labor Economics; 2018.

Benson J, Andersen K, Samandari G. Reductions in abortion-related mortality following policy reform: evidence from Romania, South Africa and Bangladesh. Reprod Health. 2011;8(39). https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4755-8-39 .

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Bmj-Brit Med J. 2015;349.

William R. Shadish, Thomas D. Cook, Donald T. Campbell. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, New York; 2002.

Bernal JL, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(1):348–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw098 .

Bernal JL, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. The use of controls in interrupted time series studies of public health interventions. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47(6):2082–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy135 .

Meyer BD. Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. J Bus Econ Stat. 1995;13(2):151–61.

Strumpf EC, Harper S, Kaufman JS. Fixed effects and difference in differences. In: Methods in Social Epidemiology ed. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass; 2017.

Abadie A, Diamond A, Hainmueller J. Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: estimating the effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program. J Am Stat Assoc. 2010;105(490):493–505. https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Abadie A, Diamond A, Hainmueller J. Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. Am J Polit Sci. 2015;59(2):495–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12116 .

Moscoe E, Bor J, Barnighausen T. Regression discontinuity designs are underutilized in medicine, epidemiology, and public health: a review of current and best practice. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2015;68(2):132–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.021 .

Dennis A, Blanchard K, Bessenaar T. Identifying indicators for quality abortion care: a systematic literature review. J Fam Plan Reprod H. 2017;43(1):7–15. https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2015-101427 .

Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 .

Jackson JL, Kuriyama A, Anton A, Choi A, Fournier JP, Geier AK, et al. The accuracy of Google Translate for abstracting data from non-English-language trials for systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2019.

Reeves BC, Wells GA, Waddington H. Quasi-experimental study designs series-paper 5: a checklist for classifying studies evaluating the effects on health interventions-a taxonomy without labels. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.016 .

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD .

Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Genevieve Gore, Liaison Librarian at McGill University, for her assistance with refining the research question, keywords, and Mesh terms for the preliminary search strategy.

The authors acknowledge funding from the Fonds de recherche du Quebec – Santé (FRQS) PhD doctoral awards and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Operating Grant, “Examining the impact of social policies on health equity” (ROH-115209).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Purvis Hall 1020 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1A2, Canada

Foluso Ishola, U. Vivian Ukah & Arijit Nandi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

FI and AN conceived and designed the protocol. FI drafted the manuscript. FI, UVU, and AN revised the manuscript and approved its final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Foluso Ishola .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:.

PRISMA-P 2015 Checklist. This checklist has been adapted for use with systematic review protocol submissions to BioMed Central journals from Table 3 in Moher D et al: Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews 2015 4:1

Additional File 2:.

LMICs according to World Bank Data Catalogue. Country classification specified in the World Bank Data Catalogue to identify low- and middle-income countries

Additional File 3: Table 1

. Search strategy in Embase. Detailed search terms and filters applied to generate our search in Embase

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ishola, F., Ukah, U.V. & Nandi, A. Impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev 10 , 192 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01739-w

Download citation

Received : 02 January 2020

Accepted : 08 June 2021

Published : 28 June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01739-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Abortion law/policies; Impact
• Unsafe abortion
• Contraception

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 02 January 2024

Psychological traits and public attitudes towards abortion: the role of empathy, locus of control, and need for cognition

• Jiuqing Cheng 1 ,
• Ping Xu 2 &
• Chloe Thostenson 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  23 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1813 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Social policy

In the summer of 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the historic Roe v. Wade ruling, prompting various states to put forth ballot measures regarding state-level abortion rights. While earlier studies have established associations between demographics, such as religious beliefs and political ideologies, and attitudes toward abortion, the current research delves into the role of psychological traits such as empathy, locus of control, and need for cognition. A sample of 294 U.S. adults was obtained via Amazon Mechanical Turk, and participants were asked to provide their attitudes on seven abortion scenarios. They also responded to scales measuring empathy toward the pregnant woman and the unborn, locus of control, and need for cognition. Principal Component Analysis divided abortion attitudes into two categories: traumatic abortions (e.g., pregnancies due to rape) and elective abortions (e.g., the woman does not want the child anymore). After controlling for religious belief and political ideology, the study found psychological factors accounted for substantial variation in abortion attitudes. Notably, empathy toward the pregnant woman correlated positively with abortion support across both categories, while empathy toward the unborn revealed an inverse relationship. An internal locus of control was positively linked to support for both types of abortions. Conversely, external locus of control and need for cognition only positively correlated with attitudes toward elective abortion, showing no association with traumatic abortion attitudes. Collectively, these findings underscore the significant and unique role psychological factors play in shaping public attitudes toward abortion. Implications for research and practice were discussed.

Similar content being viewed by others

Death anxiety as mediator of relationship between renunciation of desire and mental health as predicted by Nonself Theory

Yi-Fen Kuo, Yun-Ming Chang, … Yung-Jong Shiah

The Psychological Science Accelerator’s COVID-19 rapid-response dataset

Erin M. Buchanan, Savannah C. Lewis, … Maximilian A. Primbs

Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats

Bert N. Bakker, Gijs Schumacher, … Kevin Arceneaux

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the long-time landmark ruling of Roe v. Wade in 2022 summer. Debates and legal challenges regarding legal abortion in the U.S. have been heated (Felix et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, residents in several states have or will cast their vote on a ballot measure to determine abortion rights at the state level. A Gallup poll released in 2023 summer found that about one third of voters indicated that they would only vote for a candidate who shared their views on abortion (Saad, 2023 ). Therefore, it is imperative to understand people’s attitudes toward abortion. Past research on such attitudes have mainly focused on the role of political ideology and religious belief (e.g., Hess and Rueb, 2005 ); however, to our knowledge, relatively few studies have been done to examine the psychological underpinnings. Here we propose that examining the correlations between psychological factors and attitudes toward abortion has the potential to make contributions from the perspectives of both research and practice.

First, compared to attitudes in everyday life such as attitudes toward a product or brand, attitudes toward abortion are unique because it often elicits strong emotional response and conflict experience (Foster et al., 2012 ; Scott, 1989 ). Moreover, such an attitude goes beyond individual preference as it is deeply intertwined with one’s moral and religious beliefs, cultural background, and societal norms. Debate on abortion is not merely about a personal choice; it is about the definitions of life, rights, and autonomy (Osborne et al., 2022 ; Scott, 1989 ). For abortion, the contrasting views may lead to polarized opinions. In contrast, disagreements about a product or brand preference are typically less emotionally charged and do not carry the same societal weight. Therefore, given the unique nature of attitudes toward abortion as described above, it remains unclear whether psychological factors that correlate with attitudes in other areas still apply and, if so, in what capacity they do so. Additionally, as introduced below, several studies in this area employed a qualitative approach (interview). While the qualitative approach offered valuable insights into individuals’ perspectives on abortion, we aim to expand upon these findings by employing a quantitative approach. Especially, the quantitative approach allows us to explore the unique relationship between psychology and abortion attitudes after statistically controlling for other powerful factors like religious belief and political ideology. Together, a major goal of the present study is to provide initial empirical evidence for the correlations between attitudes toward abortion and certain psychological factors. We will further detail how our study might fill research gaps when introducing specific psychological factors as described below.

Second, examining the correlations between psychological factors and attitudes toward abortion may also offer practical insights. Consider the role of thinking style, for instance. The decision to pursue an abortion is imperative and often a prominently salient one, impacting not just the pregnant woman but also her family and extensive social network. Such a decision is complex and challenging due to intense feelings (e.g., conflict) and the balance between a woman’s bodily autonomy and fetal rights. From this viewpoint, there might be a correlation between attitudes toward abortion and one’s thinking style, especially their willingness to address complex and difficult issues. Past research has highlighted the connection between rational decision-making and the availability of relevant information (Shafir and LeBoeuf, 2002 ). Hence, to facilitate informed decisions, comprehensive knowledge about abortion is both essential and beneficial. The present study will examine the relationship between thinking style and abortion attitudes. Should a correlation be identified, our study would suggest individuals engage more deeply in critical thinking about the issues of abortion to enhance abortion-related education and informed decision-making.

Together, the present study aims to shed more light on the unique role of psychology in abortion attitudes, particularly in the presence of political ideology and religious belief. Specifically, we choose to examine the factors of empathy, locus of control, and thinking style (need for cognition) based on three considerations. Firstly, from a face validity perspective, the psychological constructs are predicted to exhibit a relationship with abortion attitudes. For example, the internal locus of control aligns well with the pro-choice mantra, ‘my body, my choice. Secondly, as detailed below, although these constructs have been explored in previous studies, they have only received limited attention and their relations with abortion attitudes remain inconclusive. Hence, our study aims to fill the gaps from past research by further clarifying their roles in attitudes toward abortion. Thirdly, research has indicated significant intersections between elements like cognitive style, empathy, and locus of control with various decisions, especially in health contexts (Marton et al., 2021 ; Pfattheicher et al., 2020 ; Xu and Cheng, 2021 ). These elements are tied to motivation, information analysis, and make trade-offs (Fischhoff and Broomell, 2020 ). Building on this, our study seeks to explore the applicability of these factors to the deeply sensitive and polarizing decision of abortion. On the other hand, it is worth noting that the psychological factors examined in our study are not exhaustive or driven by theoretical considerations. However, as mentioned in recent publications (Osborne et al., 2022 ; Valdez et al., 2022 ), past research on abortion attitudes with a psychological perspective is still limited. Therefore, our hope is that the present study could provide initial yet meaningful empirical evidence to exhibit the sophisticated role of psychology in attitudes toward abortion. We detail our rationales for each factor below.

Empathy refers to a variety of cognitive and affective responses, including sharing and understanding, toward others’ experiences (Pfattheicher et al., 2020 ). Previous studies have demonstrated a positive association between empathy and prosocial behaviors, such as caring for others (Moudatsou et al., 2020 ; Klimecki et al., 2016 ), as well as a reduction in conflict and stigma (Batson et al., 1997 ; Klimecki, 2019 ). Recently, Pfattheicher et al. ( 2020 ) also demonstrated that inducing empathy for the vulnerable people could promote taking preventative measures during the Covid-19 pandemic. While researchers advocated for incorporating empathy into abortion-related mental health intervention (Brown et al., 2022 ), the role of empathy in attitudes toward abortion remains understudied. Hunt ( 2019 ) investigated the impact of empathy toward pregnant women by presenting testimonial videos in which a pregnant woman described the challenges she faced due to legal abortion restrictions in Arkansas. However, this manipulation did not significantly reduce participants’ support for the abortion restrictions. Research has found that people’s views on abortion tends to be stable over time (Jelen and Wilcox, 2003 ; Pew Research Center, 2022 ). Hence, a short video used in Hunt ( 2019 ) might not be able to change people’s long-held views on abortion. Instead, we here hypothesize that the pre-existing but not temporality induced empathy play a role in abortion attitudes.

Furthermore, in addition to the empathy toward pregnant woman, it is also reasonable to assume that (some) people may feel empathy toward the unborn. For instance, interviews with Protestant religious leaders exhibited empathy toward both pregnant women and unborn (Dozier et al., 2020 ). Embree ( 1998 ) asked participants to indicate their opinions when responding to different scenarios of abortion. As a result, the study found that 64% and 17% of participants showed a moderate and strong level of empathy for the unborn, respectively. Despite the informative findings, the relationship between attitudes toward abortion and empathy toward the unborn remains unclear, particularly when taking empathy toward pregnant woman and other factors (e.g., political ideology) into account.

Together, we raise three hypotheses regarding the role of empathy as shown below.

H1a: Empathy toward pregnant woman and unborn can coexist.

H1b: People’s empathy toward pregnant woman are positively related to the support toward abortion.

H1c: People’s empathy toward unborn are negatively related to the support toward abortion.

As empathy has been highlighted in the intervention process when dealing with abortion-related mental health issues (Brown et al., 2022 ; Whitaker et al., 2015 ), we hope our findings could generate implications for future research and practice.

Locus of control

Locus of control (LOC) refers to people’s beliefs regarding whether their life outcomes are controlled and determined by their own (internal LOC) or external resources (fate, chance and/or powerful people, external LOC) (Levenson, 1981 ). Before delving into details, it is important to note that the internal and external LOC refer to different dimensions and are not mutually exclusive (Levenson, 1981 ; Reknes et al., 2019 ). For example, a person’s success may be determined by both hardworking and support from others. Regarding abortion attitudes, Sundstrom et al. ( 2018 ) analyzed interview contents and found that some women’s thoughts on pregnancy and abortion aligned with an internal locus of control (e.g., “As women, we need to take control as much as possible of our reproductive health”), while others aligned with an external locus of control (e.g., “leave it in God’s hands…we’ll just play it by ear and if I get pregnant, I get pregnant”).

The findings from Sundstrom et al. ( 2018 ) were informative and consistent with common sense. For example, at face value level, the slogan of “my body my choice” well aligns with the concept of internal LOC. However, the role of internal LOC in abortion attitudes may be more complicated. That is, religious belief may complicate the association between internal LOC and abortion attitudes. Past studies, including a meta-analysis and a study with over 20,000 participants, found a positive relationship between internal LOC and religious belief (Coursey et al., 2013 ; Falkowski, 2000 ; Iles-Caven et al., 2020 ). As noted in these articles, there are similarities between internal LOC and religious belief. For instance, religious beliefs often provide individuals with a sense of meaning, purpose, and guidance in life. Meanwhile, people higher in internal LOC are more likely to report higher levels of existential well-being and purpose in life, which can be associated with religious belief and engagement (Kim-Prieto et al., 2005 ; Krause and Hayward, 2013 ). Thus, the relationship between internal LOC and religious belief may complicate how internal LOC is involved in the abortion attitudes. Sundstrom et al. ( 2018 ) used interviews to explore the role of LOC in thoughts about abortion. However, this method might not sufficiently differentiate the influence of religious beliefs. In this study, we adopt a quantitative approach, using a classical scale to measure LOC. We aim to empirically assess the relationship between internal LOC and attitudes toward abortion, especially when accounting for religious belief. Furthermore, considering that the relationship between internal LOC and abortion attitudes might be intertwined with religious beliefs, we refrain from positing a specific hypothesis at this point.

External LOC, on the other hand, does not appear to have a significant relationship with religious belief. Additionally, a few studies found that people higher in external LOC tended to attribute outcomes to external reasons (Falkowski, 2000 ; Reknes et al., 2019 ). Building on this concept, individuals with a higher external locus of control (LOC) may be more inclined to attribute pregnancy to external factors and place less emphasis on personal responsibility. Accordingly, we predict the hypothesis below.

H2: External LOC will be positively related to the support toward abortion.

Need for cognition

Based on face validity, thinking style might pertain to one’s perception of abortion. For instance, individuals who prioritize comprehensive and empirical data might arrive at a different conclusion than those who lean on personal stories and emotional narratives. A few studies have tapped into the relationship between thinking style and attitudes toward abortion. Valdez et al. ( 2022 ) conducted qualitative interviews on abortion and employed natural language processing techniques to analyze the interviews. The study identified analytical thinking, which involved considering abortion from multiple perspectives, had a negative relationship with the number of cognitive distortions (such as polarized and rigid thinking about abortion). However, such a finding conflicted with another study by Hill ( 2004 ) where the concept of cognitive complexity (thinking beyond surface-level observations) did not correlate with attitudes toward abortion. The inconsistency might be due to methodological issues. For example, the correlations described above in Valdez et al. ( 2022 ) were derived from a small sample consisting of 16 participants. A low reliability of the cognitive complexity scale used in Hill ( 2004 ) might (partly) address the non-significant relationship. Thus, the present study will utilize the Need for Cognition scale, a widely recognized and validated instrument that measures thinking style, to examine its correlation with attitudes toward abortion in a larger sample.

Need for cognition (NFC) pertains to the inclination to derive satisfaction from and actively participate in effortful thinking (Cacioppo et al., 1984 ). Consistent with its concept, past research demonstrated that NFC was positively correlated with information seeking (Verplanken et al., 1992 ), academic achievement (Richardson et al., 2012 ), and logical reasoning performance (Ding et al., 2020 ). As for attitudes toward abortion, we hypothesize the following.

H3: There will be a positive correlation between NFC and attitudes toward abortion.

Our prediction is based on two reasons. First, NFC drives individuals to actively seek and update information and knowledge. It was discovered that acquiring a deeper understanding of abortion correlated with increased support for it (Hunt, 2019 ; Mollen et al., 2018 ). Second and relatedly, NFC was found to be negatively associated with various stereotype memories and positively related to non-prejudicial social judgments (Crawford and Skowronski, 1998 ; Curşeu and de Jong, 2017 ).

In sum, the present study aims to provide empirical evidence for the association between attitudes toward abortion and psychology by examining and clarifying the role of empathy, locus of control, and need for cognition. Past research has repeatedly found the involvement of political ideology and religious belief in abortion attitudes (e.g., Hess and Rueb, 2005 ; Holman et al., 2020 ; Jelen, 2017 ; Osborne et al., 2022 ; Prusaczyk and Hodson, 2018 ). Given their powerful and robust effect, it is crucial to gather additional empirical evidence to elucidate the distinct contribution of psychology to attitudes toward abortion, while considering the influence of political ideology and religious beliefs. Additionally, when describing attitudes toward abortion, the dichotomization of “pro-choice” and “pro-life” have been widely used for decades. However, some studies have criticized that the dichotomization oversimplified attitudes toward abortion (Hunt, 2019 ; Osborne et al., 2022 ; Rye and Underhill, 2020 ). That is, people’s views on abortion vary across different scenarios and reasons. For instance, people showed less support toward abortion with elective reasons than with traumatic reasons (Hoffmann and Johnson, 2005 ). With confirmatory analysis, Osborne et al. ( 2022 ) derived two types of abortion: traumatic (e.g., pregnancy due to rape) vs. elective (e.g., the woman does not want the child anymore). Building on prior research, the current study aims exploring potential variations in attitudes across different abortion reasons. Furthermore, we also intend to examine whether the psychological factors described above have varying associations with different types of abortion.

Participants

The study was approved by IRB before data collection. Participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk) on October 20th, 2022. To be eligible for the study, participants must be an adult, a U.S. citizen, and have an approval rating greater than 98% in mTurk. A total of 300 participants were enrolled into the study. Each participant received $3 for compensation. Six participants did not complete at least 80% of the items and were removed from the study. Thus, the effective sample size was 294. Demographics are presented in the Results section.

Materials and procedures

Participants took an online survey developed by Qualtrics. Our study did not set a specific time restriction. Across 294 participants, the average survey completion time was 682.8 s (SD = 286.6 s). The median completion time was 595.0 s (IQR = 344.8 s). The following questionnaires were completed.

Attitudes toward abortion

Hoffmann and Johnson ( 2005 ) and Osborne et al. ( 2022 ) analyzed attitudes toward abortion with six different scenarios (scenarios a-f below) that were measured by the U.S. General Social Survey. We further added an additional item regarding underage pregnancy for two reasons. First, compared to other Western industrialized nations, the U.S. has historically had a higher rate of underage pregnancies. Additionally, underage pregnant individuals tended to have a higher likelihood of seeking abortions compared to their older counterparts (Lantos et al., 2022 ; Kearney and Levine, 2012 ; Sedgh et al., 2015 ). Second, underage pregnancy is linked to various adverse outcomes, such as increased risk during childbirth, heightened stress and depression, disruptions in education, and financial challenges (Eliner et al., 2022 ; Hodgkinson et al., 2014 ; Kearney and Levine, 2012 ). Given the significance and prevalence of underage pregnancy, we chose to include it as a scenario to understand the public’s perception. Additionally, we understood that people might feel conflict or uncertain toward one or more scenarios. Hence, instead of using binary response (yes/no format) adopted in the U.S. General Social Survey, we employed a 1 to 7 Likert scale for each scenario, with a higher score indicating stronger support for a pregnant woman to obtain legal abortion.

The seven scenarios in the present study included: (a) there is a strong chance of serious defect in the baby; (b) the woman’s own health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy; (c) the woman became pregnant as a result of rape; (d) the woman is married and does not want any more children; (e) the family has a very low income and cannot afford any more children; (f) the woman is not married and does not want to marry the man; and (g) the woman is underage.

Following the wording used to measure empathy in Pfattheicher et al. ( 2020 ), we developed six items to measure the empathy toward the pregnant woman and unborn or fetus, respectively. The scale of empathy toward pregnant woman included: (a) I am very concerned about the pregnant woman who may lose access to legal abortion; (b) I feel compassion for the pregnant women who may lose access to legal abortion; and (c) I am quite moved by the pregnant women who may lose access to legal abortion. The scale of empathy toward unborn included: (a) I am very concerned about the fetus or unborn child; (b) I feel compassion for the fetus or unborn child; and (c) I am quite moved by the fetus or unborn child. Participants rated each item on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. Thus, a higher score demonstrated stronger empathy toward the target. The Cronbach’s α for the scale of toward pregnant woman was 0.90 in the present study. The Cronbach’s α for the scale of toward unborn was 0.92.

The need for cognition scale (NFC, Cacioppo et al., 1984 ) intends to measure the tendency to engage into deep thinking. It has 18 items, such as “I only think as hard as I have to” and “I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours”. Participants rated each item on a five-point Likert scale, with a higher score indicating a greater tendency to enjoy deep thinking. In the present study, the reliability of this scale was 0.93.

The present study adopted Levenson multidimensional locus of control scale (Levenson, 1981 ). Across 24 items, this scale measures three dimensions of locus of control: internality (sample item: Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability); powerful others (sample item: I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people); and chance (sample item: To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings). In the present study, participants rated each item on a 1 to 6 Likert scale, with a higher score indicating a stronger belief that fate was controlled by self, powerful others, or chance. The Cronbach’s α for the subscales of internality, powerful others, and chance was 0.84, 0.91, and 0.93, respectively. As shown below, there was a high agreement between powerful others and chance subscales ( r  = 0.87, p  < 0.001). Hence, we combined these two subscales to form an external locus of control composite.

Demographics

After completing the scales described above, participants were asked to report their demographic information including race, age, gender, education, annual household income, current relationship status, abortion experience, religious belief, and political ideology. Gender was coded with 1 = male, 2 = female, and 3 = other. Race was coded with 1 = White or Caucasian, 2 = Hispanic or Latinx, 3 = Black or African American, 4 = Asian or Asian American, and 5 = Other. Education was coded with six levels: 1 = Less than high school graduate, 2 = High school graduate or equivalent, 3 = Some college or associate degree, 4 = Bachelor’s degree, 5 = Master’s degree, 6 = Doctoral degree. Annual household income was categorized into 13 levels and ranged between under $9,999 and above $120,000 with increments of $9,999. Current relationship status was coded into six levels: 1 = single and not dating, 2 = single but in a relationship, 3 = married, 4 = divorced, 5 = widowed, 6 = other. For abortion experience participants were asked “For any reason, have you had an abortion?”. For this question, the answer was coded with 1 = yes and 2 = no.

Religious belief was measured with three items. The first item asked “How often do you attend religious services?” Participants selected one option out of the following: 1 = never, 2 = a few times per year, 3 = once a month, 4 = 2–3 times a month, 5 = once a week or more. The second item asked “How important is religion to you personally?” Participants rated this question on a five-point Likert point, with 5 being most important. The third question asked “How would you describe your religious denomination”. The options included 1 = Christian, 2 = Islam, 3 = Judaism, 4 = Buddhism, 5 = Hinduism, 6 = other or atheism. In the present study, the first two items were highly correlated ( r  = 0.77, p  < 0.001). Following Hunt ( 2019 ), we combined the two items to form a general religiosity composite, with a higher score indicating a stronger religious belief.

Political ideology was measured with two items: (a) Generally, how would you describe your views on most social political issues (e.g., education, religious freedom, death penalty, gender issues, etc.)? and (b) Generally, how would you describe your views on most economic political issues (e.g., minimum wage, taxes, welfare programs, etc.)? Participants rated each item with a five-point Likert scale, with 1 = strongly conservative 2 = conservative 3 = moderate 4 = liberal 5 = strongly liberal. We found a strong correlation between the two political ideology items, r  = 0.76, p  < 0.001. Hence, we combined the two items to form a general political ideology composite.

SPSS 24.0 was employed to perform all the analyses. Across 294 participants, age ranged from 21 to 79, with a mean of 40.4 and a standard deviation of 12.4. Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics for the variables of gender, race, education, annual household income, current relationship status, religious denomination, and abortion experience.

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of attitudes toward abortion in different scenarios, religious belief, political ideology, and the scores of the psychological scales. Similar to the results obtained from the large-scale surveys in the U.S. and New Zealand (Osborne et al., 2022 ), the support toward abortion was strong (neutral = 4) across all scenarios.

To examine the structure of attitudes toward abortion in different scenarios, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with a Varimax orthogonal rotation was performed on all seven scenarios. With eigenvalue ≥ 1 as the threshold, two components were generated, accounting for 81.34% of the variability. Table 3 presents the PCA results. As shown, we obtained two distinct components. The first one included the scenarios of baby defection, pregnant woman’s health being endangered, pregnancy caused by rape, and underage pregnancy. The second component included the scenarios of not wanting the child, low income, and not wanting to marry. Such a differentiation between the two components was consistent with the notion in Osborne et al. ( 2022 ). Following this paper and the face validity of the scenarios, we labeled the two components traumatic abortion and elective abortion, respectively. Accordingly, we also computed a composite score for each component by averaging the corresponding items. In line with previous research (Hoffmann and Johnson, 2005 ), the support was significantly stronger toward the traumatic abortion (mean = 5.84, SD = 1.24) than the elective abortion (mean = 4.94, SD = 1.74), t (293) = 11.51, p  < 0.001, Cohen’s d  = 0.67.

Table 4 presents the zero-order correlations between attitudes toward traumatic and elective abortions, demographics, and scores of the psychological factors. Consistent with the findings from past research (e.g., Hess and Rueb, 2005 ; Holman et al., 2020 ), a stronger religious belief was negatively related to the support toward both types of abortions. A stronger liberal ideology was positively related to the support toward both types of abortions. Additionally, empathy toward the pregnant woman was positively associated with the support toward both types of abortions whereas empathy toward unborn or fetus had an opposite effect. Based on the zero-order correlation, we did not find a significant relationship between internal locus of control and attitudes toward either type of abortion. The external locus of control (either powerful others or chance), on the other hand, was positively related to the support toward elective but not traumatic abortion. As there was a high agreement between the two external locus of control subscales ( r  = 0.87, p  < 0.001), we formed a general external locus of control composite by averaging the two items in the following regressions. Finally, need for cognition was positively related to attitudes toward elective abortion but not traumatic abortion.

While the zero-order correlations were informative, we were mindful that the Type I error might be greatly inflated due to a vast amount of repeated testing. Moreover, one goal of the study was to examine the role of psychological factors in the presence of religious belief and political ideology. Thus, we performed a hierarchical linear regression on each type of abortion, with age, gender, income, and education in the first block, religious belief and political ideology in the second block, and psychological factors in the third block. We separated the regression between the two types of abortion because the role of predictors might vary. This approach was also employed in Osborne et al. ( 2022 ). Table 5 exhibits the regression results.

As shown in Table 5 , the demographic variables of age, gender, education, and income did not account for a significant portion of the variability in attitudes toward either type of abortion. The present study added to the literature that there might not necessarily be a difference in attitudes toward abortion between males and females (Bilewicz et al., 2017 ; Jelen and Wilcox, 1997 ). By contrast, in the second block, religious belief and political ideology collectively explained a sizable portion of the variability in attitudes toward both types of abortion. In block 3, in the presence of demographic variables including religious belief and political ideology, psychological factors could still account for a significant portion of the variability.

Looking at the individual psychological predictors (for more detailed interpretations please refer to the discussion part), consistent with our hypothesis, empathy toward the pregnant woman was positively associated with the support toward both types of abortion. By contrast, empathy toward the unborn or fetus was negatively associated the support toward abortion. For the factor of locus of control, the internal locus of control was not related to any type of abortion attitudes when zero-order correlation was used (Table 4 ); yet it was positively related to abortion attitudes after all other predictors were taken into account, indicating a suppressing effect. Upon further examination, we identified two suppressors: religious belief and empathy toward the unborn. After removing these two variables, internal locus of control was no longer significant. The observed pattern reflected our previous prediction, indicating that the role of internal locus of control could be complicated by religious beliefs. External locus of control, on the other hand, was positively correlated with the support toward elective abortion. Similarly, need for cognition (NFC) also had a positive relationship with the support toward elective abortion. Neither external locus of control nor NFC had a significant correlation with attituded toward traumatic abortion. Hence, our hypotheses regarding external locus of control and NFC were partially supported. We detailed out interpretation and discussion of the results below.

The present study aimed to provide empirical evidence for the correlations between psychological factors and attitudes toward abortion. As introduced earlier, while it is common to find the involvement of psychology in everyday life attitudes and preferences, attitudes toward abortion are unique and drastically different. Given its unique nature, it lacks empirical evidence regarding whether psychological factors that interplay with attitudes in other areas still apply and, if so, in what capacity they do so. Past research has primarily focused on the role of religious belief and political ideology. Our study demonstrated a substantial involvement ( R 2 change = 0.27 and 0.24 for traumatic and elective abortion, respectively) of the psychological factors, after controlling for religious belief and political ideology. More importantly, these effects were comparable to the variability accounted for by religious belief and political ideology combined, particularly in the elective abortion category. The results highlighted the influential role of psychological factors in shaping attitudes toward abortion.

Additionally, past research has shown the interconnection between psychology and the public’s attitudes toward major societal events. For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, while the perception of mask-wearing and/or social distancing was highly politicized, studies found that attitudes toward these preventative measures to be related to thinking style, self-control, numeracy, and working memory capacity (Steffen and Cheng, 2023 ; Xie et al., 2020 ; Xu and Cheng, 2021 ). In line with this, our study further underscored the significant influence of psychology on another pressing societal topic: abortion. In the sections below, we detail our findings and relevant implications. We are fully aware that our study was preliminary and hope it could serve as a starting point for future research and practice. We also acknowledge the limitations of our study and address them at the end.

Some past studies on empathy and abortion only considered the empathy toward the pregnant woman (e.g., Brown et al., 2022 ; Homaifar et al., 2017 ; Hunt, 2019 ; Whitaker et al., 2015 ). The present study identified two types of empathy when dealing abortion: empathy toward the pregnant woman and empathy toward the unborn. In the presence of each other, we found that greater empathy toward the pregnant woman was associated with more support toward abortion, whereas greater empathy toward the unborn or fetus was associated with less support toward abortion. Such a pattern suggested that empathy might be a source of conflict feeling. That is, when considering abortion, concerns and care toward pregnant woman and unborn could coexist, potentially leading to conflict and dilemma when people thought about abortion. While the present study examined the public’s attitudes toward abortion with a diverse sample, pregnant women might have a similar pattern of empathy and hence feel conflict and dilemma when thinking about abortion. To cope with such a conflict, it might be beneficial for a counselor to acknowledge conflicting emotions that arise from empathizing with both the unborn and the pregnant individual. Moreover, the counselor could guide the client through the process of reconciling these emotions to alleviate feelings of isolation or confusion the client may experience. Future research in the realms of mental health and counseling should consider integrating these dual empathy perspectives and empirically assess the efficacy of such therapeutic interventions.

Additionally, Hunt ( 2019 ) did not find a significant influence of empathy on abortion attitudes change when participants were exposed to testimonial videos featuring pregnant women discussing the legal obstacles they faced. The disparity between Hunt’s ( 2019 ) findings and our own could potentially be attributed to the inherent stability and longstanding nature of abortion attitudes. Research has found that people’s views on abortion tends to be stable over time (Jelen and Wilcox, 2003 ; Pew Research Center, 2022 ). As a result, it is possible that pre-existing empathy, rather than empathy induced temporarily, was the factor correlated with individuals’ perception and consideration of abortion. Our findings were consistent with this possibility. Together, our findings supported H1a to H1c. Moreover, our study shed more light on empathy by showing its association with distinct views on abortion. The results suggest that future research could investigate how different types of empathy are formed and how they influence the shaping and persuasion of abortion attitudes.

Through qualitative interviews, Sundstrom et al. ( 2018 ) unveiled individual differences in the locus of control when discussing opinions on abortion. However, these interviews might not have fully captured the interplay between internal and external locus of control and other factors involved attitudes toward abortion. To fill the gap, our study employed a quantitative approach to delve deeper into how locus of control correlated with abortion attitudes. Consistent with Levenson ( 1981 ) and Reknes et al. ( 2019 ), we found that the constructs internal locus of control and external locus of control were differentiated but not unidimensional. For internal locus of control, interestingly, we found a suppressing effect. As discussed earlier, the role of internal locus of control in abortion attitudes might be complicated. That is, on the one hand, by face validity, the internal locus of control well aligned with the concept of “my body, my choice” (Sundstrom et al., 2018 ). On the other hand, in line with past research (Coursey et al., 2013 ; Falkowski, 2000 ; Iles-Caven et al., 2020 ), our study found that internal locus of control was positively related to religious belief. Furthermore, as shown in Table 4 , internal locus of control was also positively related to the empathy toward the unborn, and such a relationship was significantly mediated by religious belief (mediation effect = 0.21, SE = 0.5, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.31]). Therefore, when using zero-order correlation, the effect of internal locus of control might be neutralized by the two opposite parts (“my body, my choice” vs. religious belief) discussed above. By contrast, in regression, the “my body, my choice” part stood out because the religiosity part was partialled out by the variables of religious belief and empathy toward the unborn.

In addition to internal locus of control, we also discovered that external locus of control was involved in abortion attitudes. Specifically, we found a positive relationship between external locus of control and support toward elective abortion (H2 was partially supported). Past research has found that locus of control is related to attribution (Falkowski, 2000 ; Reknes et al., 2019 ). Thus, our finding was in line with the notion that those with a greater level of external locus of control might be more likely to attribute unwanted pregnancy to external reasons (not personal responsibility), and hence showed more support toward abortion.

Our findings regarding locus of control suggest that individuals might simultaneously believe in personal autonomy (“my body, my choice”) while also feeling that certain life events, like unwanted pregnancies, are influenced by external factors beyond their control. This is particularly true when thinking about elective abortion. Education and counseling practices might be designed to reflect this duality. For example, materials and discussions could simultaneously emphasize the importance of personal choices and responsibilities, while also exploring societal, cultural, or circumstantial factors that might influence abortion decision. Incorporating both perspectives would allow to create a supportive environment where individuals feel seen and acknowledged in their complexities.

As introduced earlier, past research on the relationship between thinking style and abortion attitudes was inconclusive. To clarify the relationship, the present study adopted the validated need for cognition scale. Need for cognition has demonstrated its involvement in consequential events, such as political elections and the adoption of preventive measures during the Covid-19 pandemic (Sohlberg, 2019 ; Xu and Cheng, 2021 ). In the present study, we discovered that need for cognition was positively related to the support toward elective abortion. Such a finding was consistent with the notion that need for cognition was negatively related to stereotypes (Crawford and Skowronski, 1998 ; Curşeu and de Jong, 2017 ). Additionally, as need for cognition drives individuals to seek and update knowledge, our result was also in line with the finding that gaining knowledge about abortion led to more positive view on abortion (Hunt, 2019 ; Mollen et al., 2018 ). Our study implied that future research could empirically evaluate if indeed abortion knowledge mediates the relationship between need for cognition and abortion attitudes.

It is worth noting that the present study also clarified the role of need for cognition in attitudes toward abortion by examining a potential artifact. Specifically, the observed positive relationship between need for cognition and support for abortion might be an artifact, given that liberal ideology is positively correlated with both abortion attitudes and need for cognition (Young et al., 2019 ). However, as shown in our regression, the relationship between need for cognition and elective abortion remained significant in the presence of other variables, including political ideology. Thus, the finding suggested that at least part of the relationship between need for cognition and attitude toward abortion was unique and not driven by political ideology.

Our findings related to need for cognition had an implication on abortion-related education. As discussed earlier, having adequate knowledge about abortion could facilitate the support for making informed decisions. As need for cognition was found to be related to openness and motivation to seek and update information (Russo et al., 2022 ), our finding suggested that cultivating willingness to engage into critical thinking might be beneficial for education on abortion and reproductive rights. While we are fully aware that correlation does not equate to causation, our study still offers a starting point for future research and practice on abortion-related education.

Traumatic abortion vs. elective abortion

While some researchers argued that the dichotomization of “pro-choice” and “pro-life” was oversimplified, to date, only two studies have empirically examined attitude variation between different abortion scenarios (Hoffmann and Johnson, 2005 ; Osborne et al., 2022 ). Both studies demonstrated that public views on abortion can be grouped into two categories: traumatic and elective. Our research not only replicated these findings but also introduced two significant advancements. First, we incorporated a scenario addressing underage pregnancy, given its high prevalence and significance. Secondly, instead of a binary response, we employed a 7-point Likert scale, allowing us to more accurately capture potential conflicting attitudes among participants.

Furthermore, our findings revealed that the roles of external locus of control and need for cognition varied in relation to attitudes toward the two types of abortion. Interestingly, we observed that neither of these variables significantly related to attitudes toward traumatic abortion, as indicated by both zero-order correlation and regression analyses. Conceptually, the scenarios of traumatic abortion (e.g., pregnancy caused by rape; mother life endangered) tend to be more extreme and emergent than the scenarios of elective abortion. Hence, there might be less room for psychological factors, such as thinking or attribution, to function in traumatic abortion than in elective abortion. Our interpretation was also consistent with the statistical pattern between the two abortions. That is, compared to elective abortion, the standard deviation of traumatic abortion was smaller. Additionally, there were more participants rated seven on the Likert scale in the scenarios of traumatic abortion (29.6%) than in the scenarios of elective abortion (18%). Despite the difference between the two types of abortion, it is essential to acknowledge that elective abortion does not imply a stress-free experience. Both traumatic and elective abortions involve significant levels of stress and emotional challenges. While traumatic abortion scenarios can be considered more extreme, it is crucial to recognize that individuals undergoing elective abortion may also experience considerable emotional distress.

Taken together, with concrete evidence, our study demonstrated that the public’s attitude toward abortion depended on abortion reasons. Our study also implied that future research should focus on attitudes toward specific abortion scenarios rather than a holistic concept of abortion. Furthermore, the differentiation between the traumatic and elective abortions suggested the limitation and potential ineffectiveness of one-size-fits-all legislative solutions. Given the varying and often conflicting attitudes that people harbor, it would be reasonable for legislative frameworks to be flexible, adaptive, and cognizant of the different circumstances surrounding abortion. This will not only be more reflective of public opinions but also more supportive of individuals who undergo different types of abortion experiences, each of which carries its own set of emotional and psychological challenges.

Expanding findings with a quantitative approach

Some past studies employed a qualitive approach when dealing with attitudes toward abortion (e.g., Dozier et al., 2020 ; Sundstrom et al., 2018 ; Valdez et al., 2022 ; Woodruff et al., 2018 ). These investigations have provided insights and served as inspirations for our own research. However, the relationship between abortion attitudes and pertinent factors may remain somewhat opaque. This is particularly true when considering the intricate interconnectedness among these factors. The present study demonstrated that findings from qualitative studies could be extended and enriched with a quantitative approach. For instance, we utilized quantitative scales to measure empathy toward the unborn —a variable that was previously identified through interviews in the study by Dozier et al. ( 2020 ). Moreover, we further exhibited the role of empathy toward the unborn when statistically controlled other variables, including empathy toward the pregnant. Similarly, the role of internal locus of control was revealed in interviews in Sundstrom et al. ( 2018 ). With validated scales, we exhibited the correlation with internal locus of control in both types of abortion. Furthermore, by detecting and interpreting a suppressing effect, we showed the interplay between internal locus of control, religious belief, and attitude toward abortion. Thus, our study implied that using quantitative scales and analyses was a viable approach to examine attitude toward abortion and could deepen the understanding of relevant factors.

Limitations and future directions

Despite the contributions, limitations should be acknowledged as well. First and foremost, we believe our study was still in the explorative stage. The specific psychological factors tested in the present study were not exhaustive and not theoretically driven. We hope the present study could provide initial empirical evidence to show the sophisticated role of psychology in attitudes toward abortion. Future studies could use a more theoretical driven approach to examine the specific psychological involvement in abortion attitudes. For example, given the correlation between need for cognition and attitudes toward abortion, future research could further elucidate the role of thinking style in attitudes toward abortion by incorporating the Dual-Process Theory (Evans, 2008 ). The Dual-Process Theory posits that humans have two distinct systems of information processing: System 1, which is intuitive, automatic, and fast; and System 2, which is deliberate, analytical, and slower. By examining the interplay between these two systems, researchers might gain insights into how intuitive emotional responses versus more deliberate cognitive analyses influence individuals’ attitudes toward abortion. For instance, are individuals who predominantly rely on System 1 more swayed by emotive narratives or imagery related to abortion?

Second, when analyzing and discussing the results, we proposed several possible underlying mechanisms that might elucidate the relationships observed. To illustrate, we employed the concept of attribution to shed light on the role of an external locus of control, positing that individuals with a strong external locus might attribute abortion decisions to external factors or circumstances rather than personal choices. Furthermore, we suggested that the observed positive relationship between the need for cognition and abortion attitudes might be mediated through abortion knowledge. This implies that individuals with a higher need for cognition could potentially seek out more information on abortion, leading to more informed attitudes. However, while these interpretations offer potential insights, we recognize their speculative nature. It’s crucial to emphasize that our proposed mechanisms require rigorous empirical testing for validation. For example, it would be of interest to test whether indeed, gaining various types of abortion knowledge improves views of abortion.

Third, as described above, we strived to show how our findings could be potentially used in abortion-related counseling. However, we acknowledge that our study is explorative but not counseling focused. Therefore, while we believe our findings offer meaningful implications, we caution against over-extrapolating their direct applicability to counseling contexts. Future research could delve into empirically investigating how psychological factors, such as varying empathy types and loci of control, could be utilized to alleviate negative feelings associated with abortion decisions. Additionally, understanding how various psychological factors interact with cultural and social norms could further help tailor counseling approaches.

Fourth, the present study did not include an attention check item. We believe the quality of our survey could have been improved had we included one or more attention check items. However, the reliabilities of our scales were relatively high (ranged from 0.84 to 0.93). Additionally, we also replicated some major findings from previous research (e.g., the associations between attitudes toward abortion and religious belief and political ideology). Thus, we believe that overall, inattention did not affect the quality of our data. Future online surveys could consider using attention check items for quality control.

In conclusion, the present study demonstrates the unique contribution of empathy, locus of control, and need for cognition to how people perceived abortion in different scenarios. The findings suggests that attitudes toward complex moral issues like abortion are shaped by individual psychological traits and cognitive needs, in addition to societal, religious, and cultural norms. Future research could use our study as a starting point to expand on these findings, exploring other psychological traits and cognitive processes that may similarly affect perceptions of abortion and other controversial subjects.

Data availability

Data included in this project may be found in the online repository, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/E5AB5R .

Batson CD, Polycarpou MP, Harmon-Jones E, Imhoff HI, Mitchener EC, Highberger L et al. (1997) Empathy and attitudes: can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? J Person Soc Psychol 72(1):105–118

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bilewicz M, Mikołajczak G, Babińska M (2017) Speaking about the preborn. How specific terms used in the abortion debate reflect attitudes and (de)mentalization. Person Individ Differ 111:256–262

Article   Google Scholar  

Brown L, Swiezy S, McKinzie A, Komanapalli S, Bernard C (2022) Evaluation of family planning and abortion education in preclinical curriculum at a large midwestern medical school. Heliyon 8(7):e09894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09894

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Kao CF (1984) The efficient assessment of need for cognition. J Person Assess 48(3):306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13

Comrey AL, Lee HB (1992) A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc

Coursey LE, Kenworthy JB, Jones JR (2013) A meta-analysis of the relationship between intrinsic religiosity and locus of control. Arch Psychol Relig 35:347–368. https://doi.org/10.1163/15736121-12341268

Crawford MT, Skowronski JJ (1998) When motivated thought leads to heightened bias: high need for cognition can enhance the impact of stereotypes on memory. Person Soc Psycholo Bull 24(10):1075–1088. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982410005

Curşeu PL, de Jong JP (2017) Bridging social circles: need for cognition, prejudicial judgments, and personal social network characteristics. Front Psychol 8:1251. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01251

Ding D, Chen Y, Lai J, Chen X, Han M, Zhang X (2020) Belief bias effect in older adults: roles of working memory and need for cognition. Front Psychol 10:2940. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02940

Dozier JL, Hennink M, Mosley E, Narasimhan S, Pringle J, Clarke L, Blevins J, James-Portis L, Keithan R, Hall KS, Rice WS (2020) Abortion attitudes, religious and moral beliefs, and pastoral care among Protestant religious leaders in Georgia. PloS one 15(7):e0235971. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235971

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Eliner Y, Gulersen M, Kasar A, Lenchner E, Grünebaum A, Chervenak FA, Bornstein E (2022) Maternal and neonatal complications in teen pregnancies: a comprehensive study of 661,062 patients. J Adolesc Health 70(6):922–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.12.014

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Embree RA (1998) Attitudes toward elective abortion: preliminary evidence of validity for the personal beliefs scale. Psychol Rep 82(3 Pt 2):1267–1281. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1998.82.3c.1267

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Evans JSTBT (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment and social cognition. Ann Rev Psychol 59:255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629

Falkowski CK (2000) Locus of control, religious values, work values and social policy choices. Diss Abstracts Int. Sec B: Sci Eng 61:1694

Google Scholar  

Felix., M., Sobel, L., & Salganicoff, A. (2023). Legal challenges to state abortion bans since the dobbs decision. Kaiser Family Foundation . Retrieved from https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/legal-challenges-to-state-abortion-bans-since-the-dobbs-decision/

Fischhoff B, Broomell SB (2020) Judgment and decision making. Ann Rev Psychol 71:331–355

Foster DG, Gould H, Taylor J, Weitz TA (2012) Attitudes and decision making among women seeking abortions at one U.S. clinic. Perspect Sexual Reprod Health 44(2):117–124. https://doi.org/10.1363/4411712

Hess JA, Rueb JD (2005) Attitudes toward abortion, religion, and party affiliation among college students. Curr Psychol 24(1):24–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-005-1002-0

Hill A (2004) The relationship between attitudes about abortion and cognitive complexity. UW-J Undergrad Res VII:1–6

ADS   Google Scholar  

Hodgkinson S, Beers L, Southammakosane C, Lewin A (2014) Addressing the mental health needs of pregnant and parenting adolescents. Pediatrics 133(1):114–122. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0927

Hoffmann JP, Johnson SM (2005) Attitudes toward abortion among religious traditions in the United States: change or continuity. Soc Relig 66(2):161–182. https://doi.org/10.2307/4153084

Holman M, Podrazik E, Silber Mohamed H (2020) Choosing choice: how gender and religiosity shape abortion attitudes among Latinos. J Race Ethnicity Politics 5(2):384–411. https://doi.org/10.1017/%20rep.2019.51

Homaifar N, Freedman L, French V (2017) “She’s on her own”: a thematic analysis of clinicians’ comments on abortion referral. Contraception 95(5):470–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.01.007

Hunt ME (2019) Shifting Abortion Attitudes using an Empathy-based Media Intervention: a randomized controlled study. graduate theses and dissertations Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/3256

Jelen TG (2017) Public attitudes toward abortion and LGBTQ issues: a dynamic analysis of region and partisanship. SAGE Open 7(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017697362

Jelen TG, Wilcox C (1997) Attitudes toward abortion in Poland and the United States. Soc Sci Q 78(4):907–921

Jelen TG, Wilcox C (2003) Causes and consequences of public attitudes toward abortion: a review and research agenda. Political Res Q 56(4):489–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/3219809

Kearney MS, Levine PB (2012) Why is the teen birth rate in the United States so high and why does it matter. J Econ Perspect 26(2):141–166. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.2.141

Kim-Prieto C, Diener E, Tamir M, Scollon C, Diener M (2005) Integrating the diverse definitions of happiness: a time-sequential framework of subjective well-being. J Happiness Studies 6(3):261–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-005-7226-8

Klimecki O, Mayer S, Jusyte A et al. (2016) Empathy promotes altruistic behavior in economic interactions. Sci Rep 6:31961. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31961

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Klimecki OM (2019) The role of empathy and compassion in conflict resolution. Emotion Rev 11(4):310–325

Krause N, Hayward RD (2013) Prayer beliefs and change in life satisfaction over time. J Relig Health 52:674–694

Lantos, H., Pliskin, E., Wildsmith, E., & Manlove, J. (2022). State-level abortion restrictions will negatively impact teens and children. Child Trend s. Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/blog/state-level-abortion-restrictions-will-negatively-impact-teens-and-children

Levenson H (1981) Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In: Lefcourt HM (Ed.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Academic Press, New York, NY, p 15–63. 10.1016/b978-0-12-443201-7.50006-3

Iles-Caven Y, Gregory S, Ellis G, Golding J, Nowicki S (2020) The relationship between locus of control and religious behavior and beliefs in a large population of parents: an observational study. Front Psychol 11:1462. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01462

Marton G, Pizzoli SFM, Vergani L, Mazzocco K, Monzani D, Bailo L, Pancani L, Pravettoni G (2021) Patients’ health locus of control and preferences about the role that they want to play in the medical decision-making process. Psychol Health Med 26(2):260–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2020.1748211

Mollen D, Hargons C, Klann EM, Mosley DV (2018) Abortion knowledge and attitudes among psychologists and graduate students. Counseling Psychol 46(6):738–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000018795296

Moudatsou M, Stavropoulou A, Philalithis A, Koukouli S (2020) The role of empathy in health and social care professionals. Healthcare 8(1):26. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8010026

Osborne D, Huang Y, Overall NC, Sutton RM, Petterson A, Douglas KM, Davies PG, Sibley CG (2022) Abortion attitudes: an overview of demographic and ideological differences. Political Psychol 43:29–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12803

Pew Research Center. (2022, May 17). Public Opinion on Abortion. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

Pfattheicher S, Nockur L, Böhm R, Sassenrath C, Petersen MB (2020) The emotional path to action: empathy promotes physical distancing and wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol Sci 31(11):1363–1373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620964422

Prusaczyk E, Hodson G (2018) Left-right differences in abortion policy support in America: clarifying the role of sex and sexism in a nationally representative 2016 sample. Person Individual Differ 127:22–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.030

Reknes I, Visockaite G, Liefooghe A, Lovakov A, Einarsen SV (2019) Locus of control moderates the relationship between exposure to bullying behaviors and psychological strain. Front Psychol 10:446169. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01323

Richardson M, Abraham C, Bond R (2012) Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 138(2):353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838

Russo D, Masegosa AR, Stol KJ (2022) From anecdote to evidence: the relationship between personality and need for cognition of developers. Empir Software Eng 27:71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10106-1

Rye BJ, Underhill A (2020) Pro-choice and pro-life are not enough: an investigation of abortion attitudes as a function of abortion prototypes. Sexuality Culture 24:1829–1851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09723-7

Saad, L. (2023, June 21). Abortion remains a potent issue for pro-choice voters. Gallup . Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/507527/abortion-remains-potent-issue-pro-choice-voters.aspx

Sedgh G, Finer LB, Bankole A, Eilers MA, Singh S (2015) Adolescent pregnancy, birth, and abortion rates across countries: levels and recent trends. J Adolesc Health 56(2):223–30

Scott J (1989) Conflicting beliefs about abortion: legal approval and moral doubts. Soc Psychol Q 52(4):319–326. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786995

Shafir E, LeBoeuf RA (2002) Rationality. Ann Rev Psychol 53(1):491–517. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135213

Sohlberg J (2019) Elections are (not) exciting: need for cognition and electoral behaviour. Scand Political Stud 42(2):138–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12138

Steffen J, Cheng J (2023) The influence of gain-loss framing and its interaction with political ideology on social distancing and mask wearing compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Curr Psychol 42(10):8028–8038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02148-x

Sundstrom B, Szabo C, Dempsey A (2018) “My Body. My Choice”: a qualitative study of the influence of trust and locus of control on postpartum contraceptive choice. J Health Commun 23(2):162–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2017.1421728

Valdez D, Jozkowski KN, Haus K et al. (2022) Assessing rigid modes of thinking in self-declared abortion ideology: natural language processing insights from an online pilot qualitative study on abortion attitudes. Pilot Feasib Stud 8:127. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-022-01078-0

Verplanken B, Hazenberg PT, Palenéwen GR (1992) Need for cognition and external information search effort. J Res Person 26(2):128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(92)90049-A

Whitaker AK, Quinn MT, Martins SL, Tomlinson AN, Woodhams EJ, Gilliam M (2015) Motivational interviewing to improve postabortion contraceptive uptake by young women: development and feasibility of a counseling intervention. Contraception 92(4):323–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.06.015

Woodruff K, Biggs MA, Gould H, Foster DG (2018) Attitudes toward abortion after receiving vs. being denied an abortion in the USA. Sexuality Res Soc Policy 15(4):452–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0325-1

Xie W, Campbell S, Zhang W (2020) Working memory capacity predicts individual differences in social distancing compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. PNAS 117(30):17667–17674

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Xu P, Cheng J (2021) Individual differences in social distancing and mask-wearing in the pandemic of COVID-19: the role of need for cognition, self-control and risk attitude. Person Individual Differ 175:110706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110706

Young DG, Bagozzi BE, Goldring A, Poulsen S, Drouin E (2019) Psychology, political ideology, and humor appreciation: why is satire so liberal. Psychol Popular Media Culture 8(2):134–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000157

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, 50614, USA

Jiuqing Cheng & Chloe Thostenson

Wenzhou University, Wenzhou, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JC: conceptualization, data curation and analysis, writing, review& editing; PX: conceptualization, writing, review; CT: conceptualization, data curation and analysis, review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiuqing Cheng .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board (IRB 23-0018) at the University of Northern Iowa with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cheng, J., Xu, P. & Thostenson, C. Psychological traits and public attitudes towards abortion: the role of empathy, locus of control, and need for cognition. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 23 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02487-z

Download citation

Received : 18 July 2023

Accepted : 30 November 2023

Published : 02 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02487-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States (2018)

Chapter: 1 introduction, 1 introduction.

When the Institute of Medicine (IOM) 1 issued its 1975 report on the public health impact of legalized abortion, the scientific evidence on the safety and health effects of legal abortion services was limited ( IOM, 1975 ). It had been only 2 years since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision had legalized abortion throughout the United States and nationwide data collection was just under way ( Cates et al., 2000 ; Kahn et al., 1971 ). Today, the available scientific evidence on abortion’s health effects is quite robust.

In 2016, six private foundations came together to ask the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a comprehensive review of the state of the science on the safety and quality of legal abortion services in the United States. The sponsors—The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Grove Foundation, The JPB Foundation, The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, Tara Health Foundation, and William and Flora Hewlett Foundation—asked that the review focus on the eight research questions listed in Box 1-1 .

The Committee on Reproductive Health Services: Assessing the Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the U.S. was appointed in December 2016 to conduct the study and prepare this report. The committee included 13 individuals 2 with research or clinical experience in anesthesiology,

___________________

1 In March 2016, the IOM, the division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine focused on health and medicine, was renamed the Health and Medicine Division.

2 A 14th committee member participated for just the first 4 months of the study.

obstetrics and gynecology, nursing and midwifery, primary care, epidemiology of reproductive health, mental health, health care disparities, health care delivery and management, health law, health professional education and training, public health, quality assurance and assessment,

statistics and research methods, and women’s health policy. Brief biographies of committee members are provided in Appendix A .

This chapter describes the context for the study and the scope of the inquiry. It also presents the committee’s conceptual framework for conducting its review.

ABORTION CARE TODAY

Since the IOM first reviewed the health implications of national legalized abortion in 1975, there has been a plethora of related scientific research, including well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and epidemiological studies examining abortion care. This research has focused on examining the relative safety of abortion methods and the appropriateness of methods for different clinical circumstances ( Ashok et al., 2004 ; Autry et al., 2002 ; Bartlett et al., 2004 ; Borgatta, 2011 ; Borkowski et al., 2015 ; Bryant et al., 2011 ; Cates et al., 1982 ; Chen and Creinin, 2015 ; Cleland et al., 2013 ; Frick et al., 2010 ; Gary and Harrison, 2006 ; Grimes et al., 2004 ; Grossman et al., 2008 , 2011 ; Ireland et al., 2015 ; Kelly et al., 2010 ; Kulier et al., 2011 ; Lohr et al., 2008 ; Low et al., 2012 ; Mauelshagen et al., 2009 ; Ngoc et al., 2011 ; Ohannessian et al., 2016 ; Peterson et al., 1983 ; Raymond et al., 2013 ; Roblin, 2014 ; Sonalkar et al., 2017 ; Upadhyay et al., 2015 ; White et al., 2015 ; Wildschut et al., 2011 ; Woodcock, 2016 ; Zane et al., 2015 ). With this growing body of research, earlier abortion methods have been refined, discontinued, and new approaches have been developed ( Chen and Creinin, 2015 ; Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ; Lichtenberg and Paul, 2013 ). For example, the use of dilation and sharp curettage is now considered obsolete in most cases because safer alternatives, such as aspiration methods, have been developed ( Edelman et al, 1974 ; Lean et al, 1976 ; RCOG, 2015 ). The use of abortion medications in the United States began in 2000 with the approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the drug mifepristone. In 2016, the FDA, citing extensive clinical research, updated the indications for mifepristone for medication abortion 3 up to 10 weeks’ (70 days’) gestation ( FDA, 2016 ; Woodcock, 2016 ).

Box 1-2 describes the abortion methods currently recommended by U.S. and international medical, nursing, and other health organizations that set professional standards for reproductive health care, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the Society of Family Planning, the American College of Nurse-Midwifes, the National Abortion Federation (NAF), the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) (in the United Kingdom), and the World

3 The terms “medication abortion” and “medical abortion” are used interchangeably in the literature.

Health Organization ( ACNM, 2011 , 2016 ; ACOG, 2013 , 2014 ; Costescu et al., 2016 ; Lichtenberg and Paul, 2013 ; NAF, 2017 ; RCOG, 2011 ; WHO, 2014 ).

A Continuum of Care

The committee views abortion care as a continuum of services, as illustrated in Figure 1-1 . For purposes of this study, it begins when a woman, who has decided to terminate a pregnancy, contacts or visits a provider seeking an abortion. The first, preabortion phase of care includes an initial clinical assessment of the woman’s overall health (e.g., physical examination, pregnancy determination, weeks of gestation, and laboratory and other testing as needed); communication of information on the risks and benefits of alternative abortion procedures and pain management options; discussion of the patient’s preferences based on desired anesthesia and weeks of gestation; discussion of postabortion contraceptive options if desired; counseling

and referral to services (if needed); and final decision making and informed consent. The next phases in the continuum are the abortion procedure itself and postabortion care, including appropriate follow-up care and provision of contraceptives (for women who opt for them).

A Note on Terminology

Important clinical terms that describe pregnancy and abortion lack consistent definition. The committee tried to be as precise as possible to avoid misinterpreting or miscommunicating the research evidence, clinical practice guidelines, and other relevant sources of information with potentially significant clinical implications. Note that this report follows Grimes and Stuart’s (2010) recommendation that weeks’ gestation be quantified using cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3...) rather than ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, 3rd...). It is important to note, however, that these two numbering conventions are sometimes used interchangeably in the research literature despite having different meanings. For example, a woman who is 6 weeks pregnant has completed 6 weeks of pregnancy: she is in her 7th (not 6th) week of pregnancy.

This report also avoids using the term “trimester” where possible because completed weeks’ or days’ gestation is a more precise designation, and the clinical appropriateness of abortion methods does not align with specific trimesters.

Although the literature typically classifies the method of abortion as either “medical” or “surgical” abortion, the committee decided to specify methods more precisely by using the terminology defined in Box 1-2 . The term “surgical abortion” is often used by others as a catchall category that includes a variety of procedures, ranging from an aspiration to a dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure involving sharp surgical and other instrumentation as well as deeper levels of sedation. This report avoids describing abortion procedures as “surgical” so as to characterize a method more accurately as either an aspiration or D&E. As noted in Box 1-2 , the term “induction abortion” is used to distinguish later abortions that use a

medication regimen from medication abortions performed before 10 weeks’ gestation.

See Appendix B for a glossary of the technical terms used in this report.

Regulation of Abortion Services

Abortion is among the most regulated medical procedures in the nation ( Jones et al., 2010 ; Nash et al., 2017 ). While a comprehensive legal analysis of abortion regulation is beyond the scope of this report, the committee agreed that it should consider how abortion’s unique regulatory environment relates to the safety and quality of abortion care.

In addition to the federal, state, and local rules and policies governing all medical services, numerous abortion-specific federal 4 and state laws and regulations affect the delivery of abortion services. Table 1-1 lists the abortion-specific regulations by state. The regulations range from prescribing information to be provided to women when they are counseled and setting mandatory waiting periods between counseling and the abortion procedure to those that define the clinical qualifications of abortion providers, the types of procedures they are permitted to perform, and detailed facility standards for abortion services. In addition, many states place limitations on the circumstances under which private health insurance and Medicaid can be used to pay for abortions, limiting coverage to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest or posing a medical threat to the pregnant woman’s life. Other policies prevent facilities that receive state funds from providing abortion services 5 or place restrictions on the availability of services based on the gestation of the fetus that are narrower than those established under federal law ( Guttmacher Institute, 2017h ).

Trends and Demographics

National- and state-level abortion statistics come from two primary sources: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Abortion

4 Hyde Amendment (P.L. 94-439, 1976); Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-457, 1978); Peace Corps Provision and Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-481, 1978); Pregnancy Discrimination Act (P.L. 95-555, 1977); Department of the Treasury and Postal Service Appropriations Act (P.L. 98-151, 1983); FY1987 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 99-591, 1986); Dornan Amendment (P.L. 100-462, 1988); Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (P.L. 108-105, 2003); Weldon Amendment (P.L. 108-199, 2004); Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148 as amended by P.L. 111-152, 2010).

5 Personal communication, O. Cappello, Guttmacher Institute, August 4, 2017: AZ § 15-1630, GA § 20-2-773; KS § 65-6733 and § 76-3308; KY § 311.800; LA RS § 40:1299 and RS § 4 0.1061; MO § 188.210 and § 188.215; MS § 41-41-91; ND § 14-02.3-04; OH § 5101.57; OK 63 § 1-741.1; PA 18 § 3215; TX § 285.202.

TABLE 1-1 Overview of State Abortion-Specific Regulations That May Impact Safety and Quality, as of September 1, 2017

a Excludes laws or regulations permanently or temporarily enjoined pending a court decision.

b States have abortion-specific requirements generally following the established principles of informed consent.

c The content of informed consent materials is specified in state law or developed by the state department of health.

d In-person counseling is not required for women who live more than 100 miles from an abortion provider.

e Counseling requirement is waived if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or the patient is younger than 15.

f Maximum distance requirement does not apply to medication abortions.

g Some states also exempt women whose physical health is at severe risk and/or in cases of fetal impairment.

h Some states have exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, pregnancies that severely threaten women’s physical health or endanger their life, and/or in cases of fetal impairment.

SOURCES: Guttmacher Institute, 2017b , c , d , e , f , g , h , i , 2018b .

Surveillance System and the Guttmacher Institute’s Abortion Provider Census ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ; Jerman et al., 2016 ; Jones and Kavanaugh, 2011 ; Pazol et al., 2015 ). Both of these sources provide estimates of the number and rate of abortions, the use of different abortion methods, the characteristics of women who have abortions, and other related statistics. However, both sources have limitations.

The CDC system is a voluntary, state-reported system; 6 , 7 three states (California, Maryland, and New Hampshire) do not provide information ( CDC, 2017 ). The Guttmacher census, also voluntary, solicits information from all known abortion providers throughout the United States, including in the states that do not submit information to the CDC surveillance system. For 2014, the latest year reported by Guttmacher, 8 information was obtained directly from 58 percent of abortion providers, and data for nonrespondents were imputed ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ). The CDC’s latest report, for abortions in 2013, includes approximately 70 percent of the abortions reported by the Guttmacher Institute for that year ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ).

Both data collection systems report descriptive statistics on women who have abortions and the types of abortion provided, although they define demographic variables and procedure types differently. Nevertheless, in the aggregate, the trends in abortion utilization reported by the CDC and Guttmacher closely mirror each other—indicating decreasing rates of abortion, an increasing proportion of medication abortions, and the vast majority of abortions (90 percent) occurring by 13 weeks’ gestation (see Figures 1-2 and 1-3 ) ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ; Jones and Jerman, 2017a ). 9 Both data sources are used in this chapter’s brief review of trends in abortions and throughout the report.

Trends in the Number and Rate of Abortions

The number and rate of abortions have changed considerably during the decades following national legalization in 1973. In the immediate years after

6 In most states, hospitals, facilities, and physicians are required by law to report abortion data to a central health agency. These agencies submit the aggregate utilization data to the CDC ( Guttmacher Institute, 2018a ).

7 New York City and the District of Columbia also report data to the CDC.

8 Guttmacher researchers estimate that the census undercounts the number of abortions performed in the United States by about 5 percent (i.e., 51,725 abortions provided by 2,069 obstetrician/gynecologist [OB/GYN] physicians). The estimate is based on a survey of a random sample of OB/GYN physicians. The survey did not include other physician specialties and other types of clinicians.

9 A full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks.

national legalization, both the number and rate 10 of legal abortions steadily increased ( Bracken et al., 1982 ; Guttmacher Institute, 2017a ; Pazol et al., 2015 ; Strauss et al., 2007 ) (see Figure 1-2 ). The abortion rate peaked in the

10 Reported abortion rates are for females aged 15 to 44.

1980s, and the trend then reversed, a decline that has continued for more than three decades ( Guttmacher Institute, 2017a ; Jones and Kavanaugh, 2011 ; Pazol et al., 2015 ; Strauss et al., 2007 ). Between 1980 and 2014, the abortion rate among U.S. women fell by more than half, from 29.3 to 14.6 per 1,000 women ( Finer and Henshaw, 2003 ; Guttmacher Institute, 2017a ; Jones and Jerman, 2017a ) (see Figure 1-2 ). In 2014, the most recent year for which data are available, the aggregate number of abortions reached a low of 926,190 after peaking at nearly 1.6 million in 1990 ( Finer and Henshaw, 2003 ; Jones and Jerman, 2017a ). The reason for the decline is not fully understood but has been attributed to several factors, including the increasing use of contraceptives, especially long-acting methods (e.g., intrauterine devices and implants); historic declines in the rate of unintended pregnancy; and increasing numbers of state regulations resulting in limited access to abortion services ( Finer and Zolna, 2016 ; Jerman et al., 2017 ; Jones and Jerman, 2017a ; Kost, 2015 ; Strauss et al., 2007 ).

Weeks’ Gestation

Length of gestation—measured as the amount of time since the first day of the last menstrual period—is the primary factor in deciding what abortion procedure is most appropriate ( ACOG, 2014 ). Since national legalization, most abortions in the United States have been performed in early pregnancy (≤13 weeks) ( Cates et al., 2000 ; CDC, 1983 ; Elam-Evans et al., 2003 ; Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ; Jones and Jerman, 2017a ; Koonin and Smith, 1993 ; Lawson et al., 1989 ; Pazol et al., 2015 ; Strauss et al., 2007 ). CDC surveillance reports indicate that since at least 1992 (when detailed data on early abortions were first collected), the vast majority of abortions in the United States were early-gestation procedures ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ; Strauss et al., 2007 ); this was the case for approximately 92 percent of all abortions in 2013 ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ). With such technological advances as highly sensitive pregnancy tests and medication abortion, procedures are being performed at increasingly earlier gestational stages. According to the CDC, the percentage of early abortions performed ≤6 weeks’ gestation increased by 16 percent from 2004 to 2013 ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ); in 2013, 38 percent of early abortions occurred ≤6 weeks ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ). The proportion of early-gestation abortions occurring ≤6 weeks is expected to increase even further as the use of medication abortions becomes more widespread ( Jones and Boonstra, 2016 ; Pazol et al., 2012 ).

Figure 1-3 shows the proportion of abortions in nonhospital settings by weeks’ gestation in 2014 ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ).

Abortion Methods

Aspiration is the abortion method most commonly used in the United States, accounting for almost 68 percent of all abortions performed in 2013 ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ). 11 Its use, however, is likely to decline as the use of medication abortion increases. The percentage of abortions performed by the medication method rose an estimated 110 percent between 2004 and 2013, from 10.6 to 22.3 percent ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ). In 2014, approximately 45 percent of abortions performed up to 9 weeks’ gestation were medication abortions, up from 36 percent in 2011 ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ).

Fewer than 9 percent of abortions are performed after 13 weeks’ gestation; most of these are D&E procedures ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ). Induction abortion is the most infrequently used of all abortion methods, accounting for approximately 2 percent of all abortions at 14 weeks’ gestation or later in 2013 ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ).

Characteristics of Women Who Have Abortions

The most detailed sociodemographic statistics on women who have had an abortion in the United States are provided by the Guttmacher Institute’s Abortion Patient Survey. Respondents to the 2014/2015 survey included more than 8,000 women who had had an abortion in 1 of 87 outpatient (nonhospital) facilities across the United States in 2014 ( Jerman et al., 2016 ; Jones and Jerman, 2017b ). 12 Table 1-2 provides selected findings from this survey. Although women who had an abortion in a hospital setting are excluded from these statistics, the data represent an estimated 95 percent of all abortions provided (see Figure 1-3 ).

The Guttmacher survey found that most women who had had an abortion were under age 30 (72 percent) and were unmarried (86 percent) ( Jones and Jerman, 2017b ). Women seeking an abortion were far more likely to be poor or low-income: the household income of 49 percent was below the federal poverty level (FPL), and that of 26 percent was 100 to 199 percent of the FPL ( Jerman et al., 2016 ). In comparison, the

11 CDC surveillance reports use the catchall category of “curettage” to refer to nonmedical abortion methods. The committee assumed that the CDC’s curettage estimates before 13 weeks’ gestation refer to aspiration procedures and that its curettage estimates after 13 weeks’ gestation referred to D&E procedures.

12 Participating facilities were randomly selected and excluded hospitals. All other types of facilities were included if they had provided at least 30 abortions in 2011 ( Jerman et al., 2016 ). Jerman and colleagues report that logistical challenges precluded including hospital patients in the survey. The researchers believe that the exclusion of hospitals did not bias the survey sample, noting that hospitals accounted for only 4 percent of all abortions in 2011.

TABLE 1-2 Characteristics of Women Who Had an Abortion in an Outpatient Setting in 2014, by Percent

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCES: (a) Jones and Jerman, 2017b (n = 8,098); (b) Jerman et al., 2016 (n = 8,380).

corresponding percentages among all women aged 15 to 49 are 16 and 18 percent. 13 Women who had had an abortion were also more likely to be women of color 14 (61.0 percent); overall, half of women who had had an abortion were either black (24.8 percent) or Hispanic (24.5 percent) ( Jones and Jerman, 2017b ). This distribution is similar to the racial and ethnic distribution of women with household income below 200 percent of the FPL, 49 percent of whom are either black (20 percent) or Hispanic (29 percent). 15 Poor women and women of color are also more likely than others to experience an unintended pregnancy ( Finer and Henshaw, 2006 ; Finer et al., 2006 ; Jones and Kavanaugh, 2011 ).

Many women who have an abortion have previously experienced pregnancy or childbirth. Among respondents to the Guttmacher survey, 59.3 percent had given birth at least once, and 44.8 percent had had a prior abortion ( Jerman et al., 2016 ; Jones and Jerman, 2017b ).

While precise estimates of health insurance coverage of abortion are not available, numerous regulations limit coverage. As noted in Table 1-1 , 33 states prohibit public payers from paying for abortions and other states have laws that either prohibit health insurance exchange plans (25 states) or private insurance plans (11 states) sold in the state from covering or paying for abortions, with few exceptions. 16 In the Guttmacher survey, only 14 percent of respondents had paid for the procedure using private insurance coverage, and despite the disproportionately high rate of poverty and low income among those who had had an abortion, only 22 percent reported that Medicaid was the method of payment for their abortion. In 2015, 39 percent of the 25 million women lived in households that earned less than 200 percent of the FPL in the United States were enrolled in Medicaid, and 36 percent had private insurance ( Ranji et al., 2017 ).

Number of Clinics Providing Abortion Care

As noted earlier, the vast majority of abortions are performed in nonhospital settings—either an abortion clinic (59 percent) or a clinic offering a variety of medical services (36 percent) ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ) (see Figure 1-4 ). Although hospitals account for almost 40 percent of facilities offering abortion care, they provide less than 5 percent of abortions overall.

13 Calculation by the committee based on estimates from Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS) .

14 Includes all nonwhite race and ethnicity categories in Table 1-2 . Data were collected via self-administered questionnaire ( Jones and Jerman, 2017b ).

15 Calculation by the committee based on estimates from Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS) .

16 Some states have exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, pregnancies that endanger the woman’s life or severely threaten her health, and in cases of fetal impairment.

The overall number of nonhospital facilities providing abortions—especially specialty abortion clinics—is declining. The greatest proportional decline is in states that have enacted abortion-specific regulations ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ). In 2014, there were 272 abortion clinics in the United States, 17 percent fewer than in 2011. The greatest decline (26 percent) was among large clinics with annual caseloads of 1,000–4,999 patients and clinics in the Midwest (22 percent) and the South (13 percent). In 2014, approximately 39 percent of U.S. women aged 15 to 44 resided in a U.S. county without an abortion provider (90 percent of counties overall) ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ). Twenty-five states have five or fewer abortion clinics; five states have one abortion clinic ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ). A recent analysis 17 by Guttmacher evaluated geographic disparities in access to abortion by calculating the distance between women of reproductive age (15 to 44) and the nearest abortion-providing facility in 2014 ( Bearak et al., 2017 ). Figure 1-5 highlights the median distance to the nearest facility by county.

17 The analysis was limited to facilities that provided at least 400 abortions per year and those affiliated with Planned Parenthood that performed at least 1 abortion during the period of analysis.

The majority of facilities offer early medication and aspiration abortions. In 2014, 87 percent of nonhospital facilities provided early medication abortions; 23 percent of all nonhospital facilities offered this type of abortion ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ). Fewer facilities offer later-gestation procedures, and availability decreases as gestation increases. In 2012, 95 percent of all abortion facilities offered abortions at 8 weeks’ gestation, 72 percent at 12 weeks’ gestation, 34 percent at 20 weeks’ gestation, and 16 percent at 24 weeks’ gestation ( Jerman and Jones, 2014 ).

STUDY APPROACH

Conceptual framework.

The committee’s approach to this study built on two foundational developments in the understanding and evaluation of the quality of health

care services: Donabedian’s (1980) structure-process-outcome framework and the IOM’s (2001) six dimensions of quality health care. Figure 1-6 illustrates the committee’s adaptation of these concepts for this study’s assessment of abortion care in the United States.

Structure-Process-Outcome Framework

In seminal work published almost 40 years ago, Donabedian (1980) proposed that the quality of health care be assessed by examining its structure, process, and outcomes ( Donabedian, 1980 ):

• Structure refers to organizational factors that may create the potential for good quality. In abortion care, such structural factors as the availability of trained staff and the characteristics of the clinical setting may ensure—or inhibit—the capacity for quality.
• Process refers to what is done to and for the patient. Its assessment assumes that the services patients receive should be evidence based and correlated with patients’ desired outcomes—for example, an early and complete abortion for women who wish to terminate an unintended pregnancy.
• Outcomes are the end results of care—the effects of the intervention on the health and well-being of the patient. Does the procedure achieve its objective? Does it lead to serious health risks in the short or long term?

Six Dimensions of Health Care Quality

The landmark IOM report Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century ( IOM, 2001 ) identifies six dimensions of health care quality—safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity. The articulation of these six dimensions has guided public and private efforts to improve U.S. health care delivery at the local, state, and national levels since that report was published ( AHRQ, 2016 ).

In addition, as with other health care services, women should expect that the abortion care they receive meets well-established standards for objectivity, transparency, and scientific rigor ( IOM, 2011a , b ).

Two of the IOM’s six dimensions—safety and effectiveness—are particularly salient to the present study. Assessing both involves making relative judgments. There are no universally agreed-upon thresholds for defining care as “safe” versus “unsafe” or “effective” versus “not effective,” and decisions about safety and effectiveness have a great deal to do with the context of the clinical scenario. Thus, the committee’s frame of reference for evaluating safety, effectiveness, and other quality domains is of necessity a

relative one—one that entails not only comparing the alternative abortion methods but also comparing these methods with other health care services and with risks associated with not achieving the desired outcome.

Safety—avoiding injury to patients—is often assessed by measuring the incidence and severity of complications and other adverse events associated with receiving a specific procedure. If infrequent, a complication may be characterized as “rare”—a term that lacks consistent definition. In this report, “rare” is used to describe outcomes that affect fewer than 1 percent of patients. Complications are considered “serious” if they result in a blood transfusion, surgery, or hospitalization.

Note also that the term “effectiveness” is used differently in this report depending on the context. As noted in Box 1-3 , effectiveness as an attribute of quality refers to providing services based on scientific knowledge to all who could benefit and refraining from providing services to those not likely to benefit (avoiding underuse and overuse, respectively). Elsewhere in this report, effectiveness denotes the clinical effectiveness of a procedure, that

is, the successful completion of an abortion without the need for a follow-up aspiration.

Finding and Assessing the Evidence

The committee deliberated during four in-person meetings and numerous teleconferences between January 2017 and December 2017. On March 24, 2017, the committee hosted a public workshop at the Keck Center of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Washington, DC. The workshop included presentations from three speakers on topics related to facility standards and the safety of outpatient procedures. Appendix C contains the workshop agenda.

Several committee workgroups were formed to find and assess the quality of the available evidence and to draft summary materials for the full committee’s review. The workgroups conducted in-depth reviews of the epidemiology of abortions, including rates of complications and mortality, the safety and effectiveness of alternative abortion methods, professional standards and methods for performing all aspects of abortion care (as described in Figure 1-1 ), the short- and long-term physical and mental health effects of having an abortion; and the safety and quality implications of abortion-specific regulations on abortion.

The committee focused on finding reliable, scientific information reflecting contemporary U.S. abortion practices. An extensive body of research on abortion has been conducted outside the United States. A substantial proportion of this literature concerns the delivery of abortion care in countries where socioeconomic conditions, culture, population health, health care resources, and/or the health care system are markedly different from their U.S. counterparts. Studies from other countries were excluded from this review if the committee judged those factors to be relevant to the health outcomes being assessed.

The committee considered evidence from randomized controlled trials comparing two or more approaches to abortion care; systematic reviews; meta-analyses; retrospective cohort studies, case control studies, and other types of observational studies; and patient and provider surveys (see Box 1-4 ).

An extensive literature documents the biases common in published research on the effectiveness of health care services ( Altman et al., 2001 ; Glasziou et al., 2008 ; Hopewell et al., 2008 ; Ioannidis et al., 2004 ; IOM, 2011a , b ; Plint et al., 2006 ; Sackett, 1979 ; von Elm et al., 2007 ). Thus, the committee prioritized the available research according to conventional principles of evidence-based medicine intended to reduce the risk of bias in a study’s conclusions, such as how subjects were allocated to different types of abortion care, the comparability of study populations, controls

for confounding factors, how outcome assessments were conducted, the completeness of outcome reporting, the representativeness of the study population compared with the general U.S. population, and the degree to which statistical analyses helped reduce bias ( IOM, 2011b ). Applying these principles is particularly important with respect to understanding abortion’s

long-term health effects, an area in which the relevant literature is vulnerable to bias (as discussed in Chapter 4 ).

The committee’s literature search strategy is described in Appendix D .

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Chapter 2 of this report describes the continuum of abortion care including current abortion methods (question 1 in the committee’s statement of task [ Box 1-1 ]); reviews the evidence on factors affecting their safety and quality, including expected side effects and possible complications (questions 2 and 3), necessary safeguards to manage medical emergencies (question 6), and provision of pain management (question 7); and presents the evidence on the types of facilities or facility factors necessary to provide safe and effective abortion care (question 4).

Chapter 3 summarizes the clinical skills that are integral to safe and high-quality abortion care according to the recommendations of leading national professional organizations and abortion training curricula (question 5).

Chapter 4 reviews research examining the long-term health effects of undergoing an abortion (question 2).

Finally, Chapter 5 presents the committee’s conclusions regarding the findings presented in the previous chapters, responding to each of the questions posed in the statement of task. Findings are statements of scientific evidence. The report’s conclusions are the committee’s inferences, interpretations, or generalizations drawn from the evidence.

ACNM (American College of Nurse-Midwives). 2011. Position statement: Reproductive health choices . http://www.midwife.org/ACNM/files/ACNMLibraryData/UPLOADFILENAME/000000000087/Reproductive_Choices.pdf (accessed August 1, 2017).

ACNM. 2016. Position statement: Access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care services . http://www.midwife.org/ACNM/files/ACNMLibraryData/UPLOADFILENAME/000000000087/Access-to-Comprehensive-Sexual-and-Reproductive-Health-Care-Services-FINAL-04-12-17.pdf (accessed August 1, 2017).

ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). 2013. Practice Bulletin No. 135: Second-trimester abortion. Obstetrics & Gynecology 121(6):1394–1406.

ACOG. 2014. Practice Bulletin No. 143: Medical management of first-trimester abortion (reaffirmed). Obstetrics & Gynecology 123(3):676–692.

AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). 2016. The six domains of health care quality. https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/talkingquality/create/sixdomains.html (accessed May 3, 2017).

Altman, D. G., K. F. Schulz, D. Moher, M. Egger, F. Davidoff, D. Elbourne, P. C. Gøtzsche, and T. Lang. 2001. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine 134(8):663–694.

Ashok, P. W., A. Templeton, P. T. Wagaarachchi, and G. M. Flett. 2004. Midtrimester medical termination of pregnancy: A review of 1002 consecutive cases. Contraception 69(1):51–58.

Autry, A. M., E. C. Hayes, G. F. Jacobson, and R. S. Kirby. 2002. A comparison of medical induction and dilation and evacuation for second-trimester abortion. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 187(2):393–397.

Bartlett, L. A., C. J. Berg, H. B. Shulman, S. B. Zane, C. A. Green, S. Whitehead, and H. K. Atrash. 2004. Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States. Obstetrics & Gynecology 103(4):729–737.

Bearak, J. M., K. L. Burke, and R. K. Jones. 2017. Disparities and change over time in distance women would need to travel to have an abortion in the USA: A spatial analysis. The Lancet Public Health 2(11):e493–e500.

Borgatta, L. 2011. Labor induction termination of pregnancy. Global library for women’s medicine . https://www.glowm.com/section_view/heading/Labor%20Induction%20Termination%20of%20Pregnancy/item/443 (accessed September 13, 2017).

Borkowski, L., J. Strasser, A. Allina, and S. Wood. 2015. Medication abortion. Overview of research & policy in the United States . http://publichealth.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/Medication_Abortion_white_paper.pdf (accessed January 25, 2017).

Bracken, M. B., D. H. Freeman, Jr., and K. Hellenbrand. 1982. Hospitalization for medical-legal and other abortions in the United States 1970–1977. American Journal of Public Health 72(1):30–37.

Bryant, A. G., D. A. Grimes, J. M. Garrett, and G. S. Stuart. 2011. Second-trimester abortion for fetal anomalies or fetal death: Labor induction compared with dilation and evacuation. Obstetrics & Gynecology 117(4):788–792.

Cates, Jr., W., K. F. Schulz, D. A. Grimes, A. J. Horowitz, F. A. Lyon, F. H. Kravitz, and M. J. Frisch. 1982. Dilatation and evacuation procedures and second-trimester abortions. The role of physician skill and hospital setting. Journal of the American medical Association 248(5):559–563.

Cates, Jr., W., D. A. Grimes, and K. F. Schulz. 2000. Abortion surveillance at CDC: Creating public health light out of political heat. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 19(1, Suppl. 1):12–17.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 1983. Surveillance summary abortion surveillance: Preliminary analysis, 1979–1980—United States. MMWR Weekly 32(5): 62–64. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001243.htm (accessed September 18, 2017).

CDC. 2017. CDC’s abortion surveillance system FAQs . https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm (accessed June 22, 2017).

Chen, M. J., and M. D. Creinin. 2015. Mifepristone with buccal misoprostol for medical abortion: A systematic review. Obstetrics & Gynecology 126(1):12–21.

Cleland, K., M. D. Creinin, D. Nucatola, M. Nshom, and J. Trussell. 2013. Significant adverse events and outcomes after medical abortion. Obstetrics & Gynecology 121(1):166–171.

Costescu, D., E. Guilbert, J. Bernardin, A. Black, S. Dunn, B. Fitzsimmons, W. V. Norman, H. Pymar, J. Soon, K. Trouton, M. S. Wagner, and E. Wiebe. 2016. Medical abortion. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 38(4):366–389.

Donabedian, A. 1980. The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment. In Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. Vol. 1. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.

Edelman, D. A., W. E. Brenner, and G. S. Berger. 1974. The effectiveness and complications of abortion by dilatation and vacuum aspiration versus dilatation and rigid metal curettage. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 119(4):473–480.

Elam-Evans, L. D., L. T. Strauss, J. Herndon, W. Y. Parker, S. V. Bowens, S. Zane, and C. J. Berg. 2003. Abortion surveillance—United States, 2000. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 52(SS-12):1–32. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm (accessed September 18, 2017).

FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 2016. MIFEPREX ® : Highligh ts of prescribing information. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/020687s020lbl.pdf (accessed September 11, 2017).

Finer, L. B., and S. K. Henshaw. 2003. Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 35(1):6–15.

Finer, L. B., and S. K. Henshaw. 2006. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 38(2):90–96.

Finer, L. B., and M. R. Zolna. 2016. Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011. New England Journal of Medicine 374(9):843–852.

Finer, L. B., L. F. Frohwirth, L. A. Dauphinee, S. Singh, and A. M. Moore. 2006. Timing of steps and reasons for delays in obtaining abortions in the United States. Contraception 74(4):334–344.

Frick, A. C., E. A. Drey, J. T. Diedrich, and J. E. Steinauer. 2010. Effect of prior cesarean delivery on risk of second-trimester surgical abortion complications. Obstetrics & Gynecology 115(4):760–764.

Gary, M. M., and D. J. Harrison. 2006. Analysis of severe adverse events related to the use of mifepristone as an abortifacient. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 40(2):191–197.

Glasziou, P., E. Meats, C. Heneghan, and S. Shepperd. 2008. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? British Medical Journal 336(7659):1472–1474.

Grimes, D. A., and G. Stuart. 2010. Abortion jabberwocky: The need for better terminology. Contraception 81(2):93–96.

Grimes, D. A., S. M. Smith, and A. D. Witham. 2004. Mifepristone and misoprostol versus dilation and evacuation for midtrimester abortion: A pilot randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 111(2):148–153.

Grossman, D., K. Blanchard, and P. Blumenthal. 2008. Complications after second trimester surgical and medical abortion. Reproductive Health Matters 16(31 Suppl.):173–182.

Grossman, D., K. Grindlay, T. Buchacker, K. Lane, and K. Blanchard. 2011. Effectiveness and acceptability of medical abortion provided through telemedicine. Obstetrics & Gynecology 118(2 Pt. 1):296–303.

Guttmacher Institute. 2017a. Fact sheet: Induced abortion in the United States. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states (accessed November 10, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017b. Bans on specific abortion methods used after the first trimester. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/bans-specific-abortion-methods-used-after-first-trimester (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017c. Counseling and waiting periods for abortion. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/counseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017d. Medication abortion. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/medication-abortion (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017e. An overview of abortion laws. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017f. Requirements for ultrasound. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/requirements-ultrasound (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017g. State funding of abortion under Medicaid. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-funding-abortion-under-medicaid (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017h. State policies on later abortions. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017i. Targeted regulation of abortion providers. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/targeted-regulation-abortion-providers (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2018a. Abortion reporting requirements. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-reporting-requirements (accessed January 22, 2018).

Guttmacher Institute. 2018b. Restricting insurance coverage of abortion. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/restricting-insurance-coverage-abortion (accessed January 24, 2018).

Hopewell, S., M. Clarke, D. Moher, E. Wager, P. Middleton, D. G. Altman, K. F. Schulz, and the CONSORT Group. 2008. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 5(1):e20.

Ioannidis, J. P., S. J. Evans, P. C. Gøtzsche, R. T. O’Neill, D. G. Altman, K. Schulz, D. Moher, and the CONSORT Group. 2004. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 141(10):781–788.

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1975. Legalized abortion and the public health . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

IOM. 2001. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

IOM. 2011a. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

IOM. 2011b. Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Ireland, L. D., M. Gatter, and A. Y. Chen. 2015. Medical compared with surgical abortion for effective pregnancy termination in the first trimester. Obstetrics & Gynecology 126(1):22–28.

Jatlaoui, T. C., A. Ewing, M. G. Mandel, K. B. Simmons, D. B. Suchdev, D. J. Jamieson, and K. Pazol. 2016. Abortion surveillance—United States, 2013. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 65(No. SS-12):1–44.

Jerman, J., and R. K. Jones. 2014. Secondary measures of access to abortion services in the United States, 2011 and 2012: Gestational age limits, cost, and harassment. Women’s Health Issues 24(4): e419–e424.

Jerman J., R. K. Jones, and T. Onda. 2016. Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients in 2014 and changes since 2008 . https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014.pdf (accessed October 17, 2016).

Jerman, J., L. Frohwirth, M. L. Kavanaugh, and N. Blades. 2017. Barriers to abortion care and their consequences for patients traveling for services: Qualitative findings from two states. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 49(2):95–102.

Jones, R. K., and H. D. Boonstra. 2016. The public health implications of the FDA update to the medication abortion label. New York: Guttmacher Institute. https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2016/06/public-health-implications-fda-update-medication-abortion-label (accessed October 27, 2017).

Jones, R. K., and J. Jerman. 2017a. Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2014. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 49(1):1–11.

Jones, R. K., and J. Jerman. 2017b. Characteristics and circumstances of U.S. women who obtain very early and second trimester abortions. PLoS One 12(1):e0169969.

Jones, R. K., and M. L. Kavanaugh. 2011. Changes in abortion rates between 2000 and 2008 and lifetime incidence of abortion. Obstetrics & Gynecology 117(6):1358–1366.

Jones, R. K., L. B. Finer, and S. Singh. 2010. Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients, 2008. New York: Guttmacher Institute.

Kahn, J. B., J. P. Bourne, J. D. Asher, and C. W. Tyler. 1971. Technical reports: Surveillance of abortions in hospitals in the United States, 1970. HSMHA Health Reports 86(5):423–430.

Kelly, T., J. Suddes, D. Howel, J. Hewison, and S. Robson. 2010. Comparing medical versus surgical termination of pregnancy at 13–20 weeks of gestation: A randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 117(12): 1512–1520.

Koonin, L. M., and J. C. Smith. 1993. Abortion surveillance—United States, 1990. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 42(SS-6):29–57. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031585.htm (accessed September 18, 2017).

Kost, K. 2015. Unintended pregnancy rates at the state level: Estimates for 2010 and trends since 2002. New York: Guttmacher Institute.

Kulier, R., N. Kapp, A. M. Gulmezoglu, G. J. Hofmeyr, L. Cheng, and A. Campana. 2011. Medical methods for first trimester abortion. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (11):CD002855.

Lawson, H. W., H. K. Atrash, A. F. Saftlas, L. M. Koonin, M. Ramick, and J. C. Smith. 1989. Abortion surveillance, United States, 1984–1985. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 38(SS-2):11–15. https://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001467.htm (accessed September 18, 2017).

Lean, T. H., D. Vengadasalam, S. Pachauri, and E. R. Miller. 1976. A comparison of D & C and vacuum aspiration for performing first trimester abortion. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 14(6):481–486.

Lichtenberg, E. S., and M. Paul. 2013. Surgical abortion prior to 7 weeks of gestation. Contraception 88(1):7–17.

Lohr, A. P., J. L. Hayes, and K. Gemzell Danielsson. 2008. Surgical versus medical methods for second trimester induced abortion. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1):CD006714.

Low, N., M. Mueller, H. A. Van Vliet, and N. Kapp. 2012. Perioperative antibiotics to prevent infection after first-trimester abortion. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (3):CD005217.

Mauelshagen, A., L. C. Sadler, H. Roberts, M. Harilall, and C. M. Farquhar. 2009. Audit of short term outcomes of surgical and medical second trimester termination of pregnancy. Reproductive Health 6(1):16.

NAF (National Abortion Federation). 2017. 2017 Clinical policy guidelines for abortion care . Washington, DC: NAF.

Nash, E., R. B. Gold, L. Mohammed, O. Cappello, and Z. Ansari-Thomas. 2017. Laws affecting reproductive health and rights: State policy trends at midyear, 2017 . Washington, DC: Guttmacher Institute. https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2017/07/laws-affecting-reproductive-health-and-rights-state-policy-trends-midyear-2017 (accessed September 21, 2017).

Ngoc, N. T., T. Shochet, S. Raghavan, J. Blum, N. T. Nga, N. T. Minh, V. Q. Phan, B. Winikoff. 2011. Mifepristone and misoprostol compared with misoprostol alone for second-trimester abortion: A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 118(3):601–608.

Ohannessian, A., K. Baumstarck, J. Maruani, E. Cohen-Solal, P. Auquier, and A. Agostini. 2016. Mifepristone and misoprostol for cervical ripening in surgical abortion between 12 and 14 weeks of gestation: A randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 201:151–155.

Pazol, K., A. A. Creanga, and S. B. Zane. 2012. Trends in use of medical abortion in the United States: Reanalysis of surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001–2008. Contraception 86(6):746–751.

Pazol, K., A. A. Creanga, and D. J. Jamieson. 2015. Abortion surveillance—United States, 2012. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 64(SS-10):1–40.

Peterson, W. F., F. N. Berry, M. R. Grace, and C. L. Gulbranson. 1983. Second-trimester abortion by dilatation and evacuation: An analysis of 11,747 cases. Obstetrics & Gynecology 62(2):185–190.

Plint, A. C., D. Moher, A. Morrison, K. Schulz, D. G. Altman, C. Hill, and I. Gaboury. 2006. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Medical Journal of Australia 185(5):263–267.

Ranji, U., A. Salganicoff, L. Sobel, C. Rosenzweig, and I. Gomez. 2017. Financing family planning services for low-income women: The role of public programs. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/financing-family-planning-services-for-low-income-women-the-role-of-public-programs (accessed September 9, 2017).

Raymond, E. G., C. Shannon, M. A. Weaver, and B. Winikoff. 2013. First-trimester medical abortion with mifepristone 200 mg and misoprostol: A systematic review. Contraception 87(1):26–37.

RCOG (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists). 2011. The care of women requesting induced abortion (Evidence-based clinical guideline number 7). London, UK: RCOG Press. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/abortion-guideline_web_1.pdf (accessed July 27, 2017).

RCOG. 2015. Best practice in comprehensive abortion care (Best practice paper no. 2). London, UK: RCOG Press. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/best-practice-papers/best-practice-paper-2.pdf (accessed September 11, 2017).

Roblin, P. 2014. Vacuum aspiration. In Abortion care, edited by S. Rowlands. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sackett, D. L. 1979. Bias in analytic research. Journal of Chronic Diseases 32(1–2):51–63.

Sonalkar, S., S. N. Ogden, L. K. Tran, and A. Y. Chen. 2017. Comparison of complications associated with induction by misoprostol versus dilation and evacuation for second-trimester abortion. International Journal of Gynaecology & Obstetrics 138(3):272–275.

Strauss, L. T., S. B. Gamble, W. Y. Parker, D. A. Cook, S. B. Zane, and S. Hamdan. 2007. Abortion surveillance—United States, 2004. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 56 (SS-12):1–33.

Upadhyay, U. D., S. Desai, V. Zlidar, T. A. Weitz, D. Grossman, P. Anderson, and D. Taylor. 2015. Incidence of emergency department visits and complications after abortion. Obstetrics & Gynecology 125(1):175–183.

von Elm, E., D. G. Altman, M. Egger, S. J. Pocock, P. C. Gøtzsche, and J. P. Vandenbrouke. 2007. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Medicine 4(10):e296.

White, K., E. Carroll, and D. Grossman. 2015. Complications from first-trimester aspiration abortion: A systematic review of the literature. Contraception 92(5):422–438.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2012. Safe abortion: Technical and policy guidance for health systems (Second edition). http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70914/1/9789241548434_eng.pdf (accessed September 12, 2017).

WHO. 2014. Clinical practice handbook for safe abortion. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/97415/1/9789241548717_eng.pdf?ua=1&ua=1 (accessed November 15, 2016).

Wildschut, H., M. I. Both, S. Medema, E. Thomee, M. F. Wildhagen, and N. Kapp. 2011. Medical methods for mid-trimester termination of pregnancy. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1):Cd005216.

Woodcock, J. 2016. Letter from the director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research to Donna Harrison, Gene Rudd, and Penny Young Nance. Re: Docket No. FDA-2002-P-0364. Silver Spring, MD: FDA.

Zane, S., A. A. Creanga, C. J. Berg, K. Pazol, D. B. Suchdev, D. J. Jamieson, and W. M. Callaghan. 2015. Abortion-related mortality in the United States: 1998–2010. Obstetrics & Gynecology 126(2):258–265.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure that has been provided to millions of American women. Since the Institute of Medicine first reviewed the health implications of national legalized abortion in 1975, there has been a plethora of related scientific research, including well-designed randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, and epidemiological studies examining abortion care. This research has focused on examining the relative safety of abortion methods and the appropriateness of methods for different clinical circumstances. With this growing body of research, earlier abortion methods have been refined, discontinued, and new approaches have been developed.

The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States offers a comprehensive review of the current state of the science related to the provision of safe, high-quality abortion services in the United States. This report considers 8 research questions and presents conclusions, including gaps in research.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

What can economic research tell us about the effect of abortion access on women’s lives?

Subscribe to the center for economic security and opportunity newsletter, caitlin knowles myers and caitlin knowles myers john g. mccullough professor of economics; co-director, middlebury initiative for data and digital methods - middlebury college @caitlin_k_myers morgan welch morgan welch senior research assistant & project coordinator - center on children and families, economic studies, brookings institution.

November 30, 2021

• 21 min read

On September 20, 2021, a group of 154 distinguished economists and researchers filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in advance of the Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization . For a full review of the evidence that shows how causal inference tools have been used to measure the effects of abortion access in the U.S., read the brief here .

Introduction

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization considers the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law that prohibits women from accessing abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. This case is widely expected to determine the fate of Roe v. Wade as Mississippi is directly challenging the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe , which protects abortion access before fetal viability (typically between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy). On December 1, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson . In asking the Court to overturn Roe , the state of Mississippi offers reassurances that “there is simply no causal link between the availability of abortion and the capacity of women to act in society” 1 and hence no reason to believe that abortion access has shaped “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation” 2 as the Court had previously held.

While the debate over abortion often centers on largely intractable subjective questions of ethics and morality, in this instance the Court is being asked to consider an objective question about the causal effects of abortion access on the lives of women and their families. The field of economics affords insights into these objective questions through the application of sophisticated methodological approaches that can be used to isolate and measure the causal effects of abortion access on reproductive, social, and economic outcomes for women and their families.

Separating Correlation from Causation: The “Credibility Revolution” in Economics

To measure the causal effect of abortion on women’s lives, one must differentiate its effects from those of other forces, such as economic opportunity, social mores, the availability of contraception. Powerful statistical methodologies in the causal inference toolbox have made it possible for economists to do just that, moving beyond the maxim “correlation isn’t necessarily causation” and applying the scientific method to figure out when it is.

This year’s decision by the Economic Sciences Prize Committee recognized the contributions 3 of economists David Card, Joshua Angrist, and Guido Imbens, awarding them the Nobel Prize for their pathbreaking work developing and applying the tools of causal inference in a movement dubbed “the credibility revolution” (Angrist and Pischke, 2010). The gold standard for establishing such credibility is a well-executed randomized controlled trial – an experiment conducted in the lab or field in which treatment is randomly assigned. When economists can feasibly and ethically implement such experiments, they do. However, in the social world, this opportunity is often not available. For instance, one cannot feasibly or ethically randomly assign abortion access to some individuals but not others. Faced with this obstacle, economists turn to “natural” or “quasi” experimental methods, ones in which they are able to credibly argue that treatment is as good as randomly assigned.

Related Content

Elaine Kamarck

October 5, 2021

Katherine Guyot, Isabel V. Sawhill

July 29, 2019

Pioneering applications of this approach include work by Angrist and Krueger (1991) leveraging variation in compulsory school attendance laws to measure the effects of schooling on earnings and work by Card and Krueger (1994) leveraging minimum wage variation across state borders to measure the effects of the minimum wages on employment outcomes. The use of these methods is now widespread, not just in economics, but in other social sciences as well. Fueled by advances in computing technology and the availability of data, quasi-experimental methodologies have become as ubiquitous as they are powerful, applied to answer questions ranging from the effects of economic shocks on civil conflict (Miguel, Sayanath, and Sergenti, 2004), to the effects of the Clean Water Act on water pollution levels (Keiser and Shapiro, 2019), and effects of access to food stamps in childhood on later life outcomes (Hoynes, Schanzenbach, Almond 2016; Bailey et al., 2020).

Research demonstrates that abortion access does, in fact, profoundly affect women’s lives by determining whether, when, and under what circumstances they become mothers.

Economists also have applied these tools to study the causal effects of abortion access. Research drawing on methods from the “credibility revolution” disentangles the effects of abortion policy from other societal and economic forces. This research demonstrates that abortion access does, in fact, profoundly affect women’s lives by determining whether, when, and under what circumstances they become mothers, outcomes which then reverberate through their lives, affecting marriage patterns, educational attainment, labor force participation, and earnings.

The Effects of Abortion Access on Women’s Reproductive, Economic, and Social Lives

Evidence of the effects of abortion legalization.

The history of abortion legalization in the United States affords both a canonical and salient example of a natural experiment. While Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in most of the country in 1973, five states—Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, and Washington—and the District of Columbia repealed their abortion bans several years in advance of Roe . Using a methodology known as “difference-in-difference estimation,” researchers compared changes in outcomes in these “repeal states” when they lifted abortion bans to changes in outcomes in the rest of the country. They also compared changes in outcomes in the rest of the country in 1973 when Roe legalized abortion to changes in outcomes in the repeal states where abortion already was legal. This difference-in-differences methodology allows the states where abortion access is not changing to serve as a counterfactual or “control” group that accounts for other forces that were impacting fertility and women’s lives in the Roe era.

Among the first to employ this approach was a team of economists (Levine, Staiger, Kane, and Zimmerman, 1999) who estimated that the legalization of abortion in repeal states led to a 4% to 11% decline in births in those states relative to the rest of the country. Levine and his co-authors found that these fertility effects were particularly large for teens and women of color, who experienced birth rate reductions that were nearly three times greater than the overall population as a result of abortion legalization. Multiple research teams have replicated the essential finding that abortion legalization substantially impacted American fertility while extending the analysis to consider other outcomes. 4 For example, Myers (2017) found that abortion legalization reduced the number of women who became teen mothers by 34% and the number who became teen brides by 20%, and again observed effects that were even larger for Black teens. Farin, Hoehn-Velasco, and Pesko (2021) found that abortion legalization reduced maternal mortality among Black women by 30-40%, with little impact on white women, offering the explanation that where abortion was illegal, Black women were less likely to be able to access safe abortions by traveling to other states or countries or by obtaining a clandestine abortion from a trusted health care provider.

The ripple effects of abortion access on the lives of women and their families

This research, which clearly demonstrates the causal relationship between abortion access and first-order demographic and health outcomes, laid the foundation for researchers ­to measure further ripple effects through the lives of women and their families. Multiple teams of authors have extended the difference-in-differences research designs to study educational and labor market outcomes, finding that abortion legalization increased women’s education, labor force participation, occupational prestige, and earnings and that all these effects were particularly large for Black women (Angrist and Evans, 1996; Kalist, 2004; Lindo, Pineda-Torres, Pritchard, and Tajali, 2020; Jones, 2021).

Additionally, research shows that abortion access has not only had profound effects on women’s economic and social lives but has also impacted the circumstances into which children are born. Researchers using difference-in-differences research designs have found that abortion legalization reduced the number of children who were unwanted (Bitler and Zavodny, 2002a, reduced cases of child neglect and abuse (Bitler and Zavodny, 2002b; 2004), reduced the number of children who lived in poverty (Gruber, Levine, and Staiger, 1999), and improved long-run outcomes of an entire generation of children by increasing the likelihood of attending college and reducing the likelihood of living in poverty and receiving public assistance (Ananat, Gruber, Levine, and Staiger, 2009).

Access to abortion continues to be important to women’s lives

The research cited above relies on variation in abortion access from the 1970s, and much has changed in terms of both reproductive technologies and women’s lives. Recent research shows, however, that even with the social, economic, and legal shifts that have occurred over the last few decades and even with expanded access to contraception, abortion access remains relevant to women’s reproductive lives. Today, nearly half of pregnancies are unintended (Finer and Zolna, 2016). About 6% of young women (ages 15-34) experience an unintended pregnancy each year (Finer, Lindberg, and Desai, 2018), and about 1.4% of women of childbearing age obtain an abortion each year (Jones, Witwer, and Jerman, 2019). At these rates, approximately one in four women will receive an abortion in their reproductive lifetimes. The fact is clear: women continue to rely on abortion access to determine their reproductive lives.

But what about their economic and social lives? While women have made great progress in terms of their educational attainment, career trajectories, and role in society, mothers face a variety of challenges and penalties that are not adequately addressed by public policy. Following the birth of a child, it’s well documented that working mothers face a “motherhood wage penalty,” which entails lower wages than women who did not have a child (Waldfogel, 1998; Anderson, Binder, and Krause, 2002; Kelven et al., 2019). Maternity leave may combat this penalty as it allows women to return to their jobs following the birth of a child – encouraging them to remain attached to the labor force (Rossin-Slater, 2017). However, as of this writing, the U.S. only offers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave through the FMLA, which extends coverage to less than 60% of all workers. 5 And even if a mother is able to return to work, childcare in the U.S. is costly and often inaccessible for many. Families with infants can be expected to pay around $11,000 a year for childcare and subsidies are only available for 1 in 6 children that are eligible under the federal program. 6 Without a federal paid leave policy and access to affordable childcare, the U.S. lacks the infrastructure to adequately support mothers, and especially working mothers – making the prospect of motherhood financially unworkable for some.

This is relevant when considering that the women who seek abortions tend to be low-income mothers experiencing disruptive life events. In the most recent survey of abortion patients conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, 97% are adults, 49% are living below the poverty line, 59% already have children, and 55% are experiencing a disruptive life event such as losing a job, breaking up with a partner, or falling behind on rent (Jones and Jerman, 2017a and 2017b). It is not a stretch to imagine that access to abortion could be pivotal to these women’s financial lives, and recent evidence from “The Turnaway Study” 7 provides empirical support for this supposition. In this study, an interdisciplinary team of researchers follows two groups of women who were typically seeking abortions in the second trimester: one group that arrived at abortion clinics and learned they were just over the gestational age threshold for abortions and were “turned away” and a second that was just under the threshold and were provided an abortion. Miller, Wherry, and Foster (2020) match individuals in both groups to their Experian credit reports and observe that in the months leading up to the moment they sought an abortion, financial outcomes for both groups were trending similarly. At the moment one group is turned away from a wanted abortion, however, they began to experience substantial financial distress, exhibiting a 78% increase in past-due debt and an 81% increase in public records related to bankruptcies, evictions, and court judgments.

If Roe were overturned, the number of women experiencing substantial obstacles to obtaining an abortion would dramatically increase.

If Roe were overturned, the number of women experiencing substantial obstacles to obtaining an abortion would dramatically increase. Twelve states have enacted “trigger bans” designed to outlaw abortion in the immediate aftermath of a Roe reversal, while an additional 10 are considered highly likely to quickly enact new bans. 8 These bans would shutter abortion facilities across a wide swath of the American south and midwest, dramatically increasing travel distances and the logistical costs of obtaining an abortion. Economics research predicts what is likely to happen next. Multiple teams of economists have exploited natural experiments arising from mandatory waiting periods (Joyce and Kaestner, 2001; Lindo and Pineda-Torres, 2021; Myers, 2021) and provider closures (Quast, Gonzalez, and Ziemba, 2017; Fischer, Royer, and White, 2018; Lindo, Myers, Schlosser, and Cunningham, 2020; Venator and Fletcher, 2021; Myers, 2021). All have found that increases in travel distances prevent large numbers of women seeking abortions from reaching a provider and that most of these women give birth as a result. For instance, Lindo and co-authors (2020) exploit a natural experiment arising from the sudden closure of half of Texas’s abortion clinics in 2013 and find that an increase in travel distance from 0 to 100 miles results in a 25.8% decrease in abortions. Myers, Jones, and Upadhyay (2019) use these results to envision a post- Roe United States, forecasting that if Roe is overturned and the expected states begin to ban abortions, approximately 1/3 of women living in affected regions would be unable to reach an abortion provider, amounting to roughly 100,000 women in the first year alone.

Restricting, or outright eliminating, abortion access by overturning Roe v. Wade  would diminish women’s personal and economic lives, as well as the lives of their families.

Whether one’s stance on abortion access is driven by deeply held views on women’s bodily autonomy or when life begins, the decades of research using rigorous methods is clear: there is a causal link between access to abortion and whether, when, and under what circumstances women become mothers, with ripple effects throughout their lives. Access affects their education, earnings, careers, and the subsequent life outcomes for their children. In the state’s argument, Mississippi rejects the causal link between access to abortion and societal outcomes established by economists and states that the availability of abortion isn’t relevant to women’s full participation in society. Economists provide clear evidence that overturning Roe would prevent large numbers of women experiencing unintended pregnancies—many of whom are low-income and financially vulnerable mothers—from obtaining desired abortions. Restricting, or outright eliminating, that access by overturning Roe v. Wade would diminish women’s personal and economic lives, as well as the lives of their families.

Caitlin Knowles Myers did not receive financial support from any firm or person for this article. She has received financial compensation from Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Center for Reproductive Rights for serving as an expert witness in litigation involving abortion regulations. She has not and will not receive financial compensation for her role in the amicus brief described here. Other than the aforementioned, she has not received financial support from any firm or person with a financial or political interest in this article. Caitlin Knowles Myers is not currently an officer, director, or board member of any organization with a financial or political interest in this article.

Abboud, Ali, 2019. “The Impact of Early Fertility Shocks on Women’s Fertility and Labor Market Outcomes.” Available from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3512913

Anderson, Deborah J., Binder, Melissa, and Kate Krause, 2002. “The motherhood wage penalty: Which mothers pay it and why?” The American Economic Review 92(2). Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/000282802320191606

Ananat, Elizabeth Oltmans, Gruber, Jonathan, Levine, Phillip and Douglas Staiger, 2009. “Abortion and Selection.” The Review of Economic Statistics 91(1). Retrieved from https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/91/1/124/57736/Abortion-and-Selection?redirectedFrom=fulltext .

Angrist, Joshua D., and Alan B. Krueger, 1999. “Does Compulsory School Attendance Affect Schooling and Earnings?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(4). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/2937954 .

Angrist, Joshua D., and William N. Evans, 1996. “Schooling and Labor Market Consequences of the 1970 State Abortion Reforms.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 5406. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w5406 .

Angrist, Joshua D., and Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2010. “The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 24(2). Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.24.2.3

Bailey, Martha J., Hoynes, Hilary W., Rossin-Slater, Maya and Reed Walker, 2020. “Is the Social Safety Net a Long-Term Investment? Large-Scale Evidence from the Food Stamps Program” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 26942 , Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w26942

Bitler, Marianne, and Madeline Zavodny, 2002a. “Did Abortion Legalization Reduce the Number of Unwanted Children? Evidence from Adoptions.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34 (1): 25-33. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3030229?origin=JSTOR-pdf

Bitler, Marianne, and Madeline Zavodny, 2002b. “Child Abuse and Abortion Availability.” American Economic Review , 92 (2): 363-367. Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/000282802320191624

Bitler, Marianne, and Madeline Zavodny, 2004. “Child Maltreatment, Abortion Availability, and Economic Conditions.” Review of Economics of the Household 2: 119-141. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1023/B:REHO.0000031610.36468.0e

Farin, Sherajum Monira, Hoehn-Velasco, Lauren, and Michael Pesko, 2021. “The Impact of Legal Abortion on Maternal Health: Looking to the Past to Inform the Present.” Retrieved from SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3913899

Finer, Lawrence B., and Mia R. Zolna, 2016. “Declines in Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011” New England Journal of Medicine 374. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26962904/

Finer, Lawrence B., Lindberg, Laura, D., and Sheila Desai. “A prospective measure of unintended pregnancy in the United States.” Contraception 98(6). Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29879398/

Fischer, Stefanie, Royer, Heather, and Corey White, 2017. “The Impacts of Reduced Access to Abortion and Family Planning Services on Abortion, Births, and Contraceptive Purchases.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 23634 . Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w23634

Gruber, Jonathan, Levine, Phillip, and Douglas Staiger, 1999. “Abortion Legalization and Child Living Circumstances: Who Is the ‘Marginal Child’?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556007

Guldi, Melanie, 2008. “Fertility effects of abortion and birth control pill access for minors.” Demography 45 . Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0026

Hoynes, Hilary, Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore, and Douglas Almond, 2016. “Long-Run Impacts of Childhood Access to the Safety Net.” American Economic Review 106(4). Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20130375

Jones, Kelly, 2021. “At a Crossroads: The Impact of Abortion Access on Future Economic Outcomes.” American University Working Paper . Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17606/0Q51-0R11 .

Jones, Rachel K., Witwer, Elizabeth, Jerman, Jenna, September 18, 2018. “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2017.” Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/ default/files/report_pdf/abortion-inciden ce-service-availability-us-2017.

Jones Rachel K., and Janna Jerman, 2017a. ”Population group abortion rates and lifetime incidence of abortion: United States, 2008–2014.”  American Journal of Public Health 107 (12). Retrieved from https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304042

Jones, Rachel K. and Jenna Jerman, 2017b. “Characteristics and Circumstances of U.S. Women Who Obtain Very Early and Second-Trimester Abortions.” PLoS One . Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28121999/

Joyce, Ted, and Robert Kaestner, 2001. “The Impact of Mandatory Waiting Periods and Parental Consent Laws on the Timing of Abortion and State of Occurrence among Adolescents in Mississippi and South Carolina.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20(2) . Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3325799 .

Kalist, David E., 2004. “Abortion and Female Labor Force Participation: Evidence Prior to Roe v. Wade.” Journal of Labor Research 25 (3) .

Keiser, David, and Joseph Shapiro, 2019. “Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the Demand for Water Quality.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 134 (1).

Kleven, Henrik, Landais, Camille, Posch, Johanna, Steinhauer, Andreas, and Josef Zweimuleler, 2019. “Child Penalties Across Countries: Evidence and Explanations.” AEA Papers and Proceedings 109. Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20191078/

Levine, Phillip, Staiger, Douglas, Kane, Thomas, and David Zimmerman, 1999. “Roe v. Wade and American Fertility.” American Journal Of Public Health 89(2) . Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508542/

Lindo, Jason M., Myers, Caitlin Knowles, Schlosser, Andrea, and Scott Cunningham, 2020. “How Far Is Too Far? New Evidence on Abortion Clinic Closures, Access, and Abortions” Journal of Human Resources 55. Retrieved from http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/55/4/1137.refs

Lindo, Jason M., Pineda-Torres, Mayra, Pritchard, David, and Hedieh Tajali, 2020. “Legal Access to Reproductive Control Technology, Women’s Education, and Earnings Approaching Retirement.” AEA Papers and Proceedings 110. Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20201108

Lindo, Jason M., and Mayra Pineda-Torres, 2021. “New Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Waiting Periods for Abortion.” J ournal of Health Econ omics. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34607119/

Miguel, Edward, Satyanath, Shanker, and Ernest Sergenti, 2004. “Economic Shocks and Civil Conflict: An Instrumental Variables Approach.” Journal of Political Economy 112(4). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/421174

Miller, Sarah, Wherry, Laura R., and Diana Greene Foster, 2020. “The Economic Consequences of Being Denied an Abortion.” National Bureau of  Economic Research, Working Paper 26662 . Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w26662 .

Myers, Caitlin Knowles, 2017. “The Power of Abortion Policy: Reexamining the Effects of Young Women’s Access to Reproductive Control” Journal of Political Economy 125(6) .  Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1086/694293 .

Myers, Caitlin Knowles, Jones, Rachel, and Ushma Upadhyay, 2019. “Predicted changes in abortion access and incidence in a post-Roe world.” Contraception 100(5). Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31376381/

Myers, Caitlin Knowles, 2021. “Cooling off or Burdened? The Effects of Mandatory Waiting Periods on Abortions and Births.” IZA Institute of Labor Economics No. 14434. Retrieved from https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/14434/cooling-off-or-burdened-the-effects-of-mandatory-waiting-periods-on-abortions-and-births

Quast, Troy, Gonzalez, Fidel, and Robert Ziemba, 2017. “Abortion Facility Closings and Abortion Rates in Texas.” Inquiry: A Journal of Medical Care Organization, Provision and Financing 54 . Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0046958017700944

Rossin-Slater, Maya, 2017. “Maternity and Family Leave Policy.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 23069. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w23069

Venator, Joanna, and Jason Fletcher, 2020. “Undue Burden Beyond Texas: An Analysis of Abortion Clinic Closures, Births, and Abortions in Wisconsin.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 40(3). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22263

Waldfogel, Jane, 1998. “The family gap for young women in the United States and Britain: Can maternity leave make a difference?” Journal of Labor Economics 16(3).

• Thomas E. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Brief in Support of Petitioners, No. 19-1392.
• Thomas E. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Brief for Petitioners, No. 19-139, Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
• The Nobel Prize. 2021. “Press release: The Prize in Economic Sciences 202.” Retrieved from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2021/press-release/
• See Angrist and Evans (1996), Gruber et al. (1999), Ananat et al. (2009), Guldi (2008), Myers (2017), Abboud (2019), Jones (2021).
• Brown, Scott, Herr, Jane, Roy, Radha , and Jacob Alex Klerman, July 2020. “Employee and Worksite Perspectives of the FMLA Who Is Eligible?” U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/evaluation/pdf/WHD_FMLA2018PB1WhoIsEligible_StudyBrief_Aug2020.pdf
• Whitehurst, Grover J., April 19, 2018. “What is the market price of daycare and preschool?” Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-is-the-market-price-of-daycare-and-preschool/; Chien, Nina, 2021. “Factsheet: Estimates of Child Care Eligibility & Receipt for Fiscal Year 2018.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/20 21-08/cy-2018-child-care-subsidy-eligibility.pdf
• Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (NSIRH). “The Turnaway Study.” Retrieved from https://www.ansirh.org/research/ongoing/turnaway-study.
• Center for Reproductive Rights, 2021. “What If Roe Fell?” Retrieved from https://maps.reproductiverights.org/what-if-roe-fell

Economic Studies

Center for Economic Security and Opportunity

John J. DiIulio, Jr.

April 15, 2024

April 4, 2024

Benjamin H. Harris, Liam Marshall

April 2, 2024

The Ethical Dilemma of Abortion

Article sidebar.

Main Article Content

This paper discusses the extremely complex and important topic and dilemma of abortion.  Specifically, that the pro-life versus pro-choice dilemma is an imperative one that continues to cause ethical tensions in the United States.  For this reason, this issue and dilemma warrants close scrutiny.  It affects many major areas including ethics, religion, politics, law, and medicine.  Ethical theories and principles of the pro-life position and the pro-choice position will be contrasted.  This paper will further discuss the arguments in the context of Roe v. Wade and its impact on laws in the United States.  The general ethics of the pro-life argument and the pro-choice argument are founded on the issues of human rights and freedom.  Three main principles that the pro-life argument argues (the Human Rights Principle, the Mens Rea Principle, and the Harm Principle) will also be discussed.  This account will not include this author’s own prescriptive response (in the form of recommendations, best practices, or similar types of judgments) and therefore, this paper does not go beyond a purely comparative method.  Lastly, the Nuremberg Code, which was created at the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial, will be discussed.  Specifically, the Nuremberg Code will be correlated in relation to laws in the United States, as well as contemporary bioethical debates, which are misleading when comparing the use of fetal tissue for transplants from abortions to experiments done during the Holocaust and crimes of Nazi biomedical science.

Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

• Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution License  that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.  
• Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See  The Effect of Open Access ).
• Student authors waive FERPA rights for only the publication of the author submitted works. Specifically: Students of Indiana University East voluntarily agree to submit their own works to The Journal of Student Research at Indiana University East , with full understanding of FERPA rights and in recognition that for this one, specific instance they understand that  The Journal of Student Research at Indiana University East is Public and Open Access. Additionally, the Journal is viewable via the Internet and searchable via Indiana University, Google, and Google-Scholar search engines.

Christina M. Robinson, IUE Graduate

Christina graduated from Indiana University East with a 3.911 GPA in May, 2021 with a B.S. in Psychology and a minor of Neuroscience as well as a minor of Women's and Gender Studies.  She continues her work as a Research Assistant through IUE and is also a Supplemental Instruction Leader.  Christina hopes to continue her education in a graduate school program in the near future!

• Introduction
• Conclusions
• Article Information

Responses exclude missing and not applicable responses (see eTable 2 in Supplement 1 ).

Prevalence ratios (PRs) are estimated via bivariate log-binomial regression (see eTable 5 in Supplement 1 ).

Prevalence ratios (PR) are estimated via bivariate log-binomial regression (see eTable 5 in Supplement 1 ). HBC indicates hormonal birth control.

eTable 1. Demographic Comparison of Participants in the California Pharmacist Survey (2022) With External Data (2013-2017)

eTable 2. Pharmacist Attitudes About Birth Control and Medication Abortion Provision in the California Pharmacist Survey (n = 316), 2022

eTable 3. Attitudes About Birth Control and Medication Abortion Provision in the California Pharmacist Survey (N = 919) by Participant Type, 2022

eTable 4. Pharmacy Provision of Hormonal Contraception by Characteristics of Pharmacists and Community Pharmacies in the California Pharmacist Survey, 2022

eTable 5. Attitudes About Medication Abortion by Characteristics of Pharmacists and Community Pharmacies in the California Pharmacist Survey, 2022

eTable 6. Barriers to Hormonal Contraceptive Provision Among Pharmacists Who Reported Working in a Community Pharmacy That Does Not Provide Self-Administered Hormonal Contraception Without an Outside Provider’s Prescription (n = 149), 2022

eTable 7. Barriers to Hormonal Contraceptive Provision Among Pharmacists Who Reported Working in a Chain or Independent Community Pharmacy That Does Not Provide Self-Administered Hormonal Contraception Without an Outside Provider’s Prescription by Pharmacy Type (n = 142), 2022

Data Sharing Statement

See More About

Sign up for emails based on your interests, select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Get the latest research based on your areas of interest.

Others also liked.

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn

Cohen C , Hunter LA , Beltran RM, et al. Willingness of Pharmacists to Prescribe Medication Abortion in California. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(4):e246018. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.6018

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

Willingness of Pharmacists to Prescribe Medication Abortion in California

• 1 Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy, UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) School of Law
• 2 School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
• 3 Luskin School of Public Affairs, UCLA
• 4 Now with School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
• 5 Now with Malkia Klabu Program, University of California, San Francisco
• 6 Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law

Question   Are pharmacists in California willing to prescribe medication abortion?

Findings   In this cross-sectional survey study of 316 California community pharmacists, 193 of 280 (69%) were willing to prescribe medication abortion if permitted by law, but only 139 of 288 (48%) were confident in their knowledge and 115 of 285 (40%) were confident in their ability to do so. Despite greater willingness and confidence to prescribe hormonal birth control, only 144 of 308 pharmacists (47%) worked in pharmacies that provided these prescriptions; those who worked at pharmacies that did not provide these prescriptions reported knowledge or training, staffing or time, and payment for services as barriers.

Meaning   These findings suggest that most pharmacists in California would be willing to prescribe medication abortion if legally permitted to do so; however, training and attention to pharmacy-level barriers may be needed.

Importance   Nearly half of US states have restricted abortion access. Policy makers are exploring pathways to increase access to abortion and reproductive health care more broadly. Since 2016, California pharmacists could prescribe hormonal birth control, providing an opportunity to learn about the implementation of pharmacist-provided reproductive health care.

Objective   To explore the feasibility of broadening pharmacist scope of practice to include prescribing medication abortion.

Design, Setting, and Participants   A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from October 11 to December 20, 2022, among a convenience sample of California licensed community pharmacists to examine their attitudes toward, knowledge of, and confidence in prescribing hormonal birth control and reports of pharmacy-level practices.

Main Outcomes and Measures   Descriptive analyses and log-binomial regression models were used to compare medication abortion and contraceptive provision attitudes by pharmacist and pharmacy characteristics.

Results   Among the 316 pharmacists included in the analysis who worked at community pharmacies across California (mean [SD] age, 40.9 [12.0] years; 169 of 285 [59.3%] cisgender women; and 159 of 272 [58.5%] non-Hispanic Asian individuals), most (193 of 280 [68.9%]) indicated willingness to prescribe medication abortion to pharmacy clients if allowed by law. However, less than half were confident in their knowledge of medication abortion (139 of 288 [48.3%]) or their ability to prescribe it (115 of 285 [40.4%]). Pharmacists who indicated that providing access to hormonal birth control as a prescribing provider was important (263 of 289 [91.0%]) and were confident in their ability to prescribe it (207 of 290 [71.4%]) were 3.96 (95% CI, 1.80-8.73) times and 2.44 (95% CI, 1.56-3.82) times more likely to be willing to prescribe medication abortion and to express confidence in doing so, respectively. Although most pharmacists held favorable attitudes toward hormonal birth control, less than half (144 of 308 [46.8%]) worked in a pharmacy that provided prescriptions for hormonal birth control, and 149 who did not reported barriers such as lack of knowledge or training (65 [43.6%]), insufficient staff or time to add new services (58 [38.9%]), and lack of coverage for services (50 [33.6%]).

Conclusions and Relevance   The findings of this cross-sectional survey study of California pharmacists suggest that most pharmacists were willing to prescribe medication abortion. However, future efforts to expand pharmacists’ scope of practice should include training to increase knowledge and confidence in prescribing medication abortion. Pharmacy-level barriers to hormonal birth control prescription, such as insurance coverage for pharmacist effort, should also be addressed, as they may serve as barriers to medication abortion access.

Following the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, half of states have banned or severely restricted abortion care or are expected to do so. 1 As a result, clinicians in states where abortion remains legal are facing increased demand for services. 2 , 3 Policy makers are exploring how to increase access to abortion services and reproductive health care more broadly, while also contending with COVID-19–induced clinician burnout and workforce shortages. 4 , 5

Medication abortion accounts for more than half (54%) of all abortions in the US 6 and consists of a regimen of 2 medications—mifepristone and misoprostol—taken within days of each other. 7 Mifepristone has historically been subject to strict regulation under the US Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program, which regulates how and where the drug can be dispensed, and by whom. 8 These federal regulations on mifepristone recently changed to remove a prior Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies requirement that mifepristone be dispensed in person by a certified prescriber and to allow pharmacists at certified retail pharmacies to dispense mifepristone. 9 Provision of medication abortion in pharmacies thus represents an opportunity to increase access to abortion care and reduce the burden on the health care system. Although multiple lawsuits implicating the legal status of mifepristone and the conditions under which it can be dispensed have been filed across the country, an emergency order from the Supreme Court keeps regulations governing mifepristone unchanged while litigation is ongoing. 10

Both the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have expressed support for pharmacists dispensing medication abortion, 11 , 12 and pilot programs have shown that pharmacists can safely and effectively do so. 13 , 14 In these pilot programs, patients who received pharmacist-provided abortion medication and follow-up care reported having satisfactory abortion experiences. 13 , 14 Additionally, previous studies conducted in the US and Canada, 14 - 20 where dispensing of medication abortion by pharmacists has been legal since 2017, demonstrate pharmacists’ willingness to dispense medication abortion. Among US-based pharmacists, benefits to dispensing medication abortion include the ability to expand abortion access to patients, improve patients’ quality of care, streamline delivery of health care services, and make use of pharmacists’ expertise. 14 , 15 Pharmacists also identified potential barriers to medication abortion dispensing such as employer hesitancy, a lack of private space for patient consultations, safe follow-up for postabortion care, adequate staffing and training needs, established reimbursement mechanisms for medication abortion–related services, and having colleagues with religious, political, or personal objections to providing medication abortion. 14 , 16 , 20 Studies conducted in Canada found similar barriers to dispensing medication abortion among pharmacists, with the addition of having low demand among patients, drug shortages, and short expiration dates. 17 - 19 Indeed, more information is needed to inform public health efforts to expand the provision of medication abortion. Twenty-seven states, including California, currently allow pharmacists to prescribe hormonal contraceptives, affording a unique opportunity to learn about this pathway to reproductive health services. 21

This survey project, the California Pharmacist Study, gathered information about attitudes toward reproductive health services and medication abortion, the availability of pharmacist-prescribed self-administered hormonal contraceptives, and pharmacy-level contraceptive implementation obstacles from licensed community pharmacists. We hypothesized that pharmacists who held favorable attitudes and practices toward pharmacist-provided hormonal birth control would be more likely to hold favorable attitudes toward medication abortion. Information about implementation experiences with pharmacist prescription of hormonal birth control, which has been legal in California for nearly a decade, is presented and discussed relative to the potential to include medication abortion under an expanded scope of practice.

The cross-sectional California Pharmacist Study survey was conducted between October 11 and December 20, 2022, with a convenience sample of pharmacists and pharmacy students 18 years and older who reside in the State of California. A target sample size of 1000 was selected to enable comparisons of sexual and reproductive health service availability and training needs across regions of the state (ie, Los Angeles County, Greater Bay Area, other urban areas, and rural areas) with differing health service landscapes. A multistage recruitment plan included both online and in-person recruitment. In the first phase, participants were recruited through the California Society of Health-System Pharmacists and California Pharmacists Association membership email listservs and newsletters. Information about the study was distributed through flyers and presentations at the annual meetings of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy and the California Society of Health-System Pharmacists. During the second phase of recruitment, the survey link was shared on the social media channels of the California Society of Health-System Pharmacists and California Pharmacists Association and professional groups representing pharmacists in specific regions (eg, California’s rural Central Valley) and pharmacists of specific racial and ethnic identities (eg, Black or African American pharmacists).

Approval for this study was granted by the Office of the Human Research Protection Program Institutional Review Board at UCLA, with partner organizations holding reliance agreements. All participants indicated their consent to participate in Qualtrics after reviewing an information sheet and before initiating the survey; a waiver of written consent was obtained for study. This study followed the American Association for Public Opinion Research ( AAPOR ) reporting guidance for survey studies.

The survey was developed through an iterative process that included drafting by a core multidisciplinary team, feedback from the larger project team of pharmacist researchers and students, revision, and final review and edits to ensure question clarity and relevance to pharmacy practice and policy. Survey modules included demographic information (eg, self-reported age, sex assigned at birth, gender, race, Hispanic ethnicity); professional information (years of experience, training, whether currently practicing); knowledge, attitudes, and confidence in pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraception, emergency contraception, and medication abortion; and pharmacy information (availability of pharmacist-prescribed reproductive health resources, implementation barriers, client characteristics).

Questions about sex assigned at birth and gender were used to classify respondents as cisgender women, cisgender men, and gender-fluid or nonbinary individuals; those who provided concordant responses to sex assigned at birth and gender were considered cisgender. Race options (select all that apply) included American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, White, other (specify), or prefer not to state. Participants were also asked if they identify as Hispanic or Latino. Participants were first classified as Hispanic or non-Hispanic. Non-Hispanic respondents were then categorized by single race selected or as multiracial. The demographic characteristics of pharmacists, including but not limited to race and ethnicity, may be correlated with attitudes toward reproductive health care and the demographic composition of pharmacy catchment areas and thus are relevant to understanding access to care.

After providing informed consent, participants completed a self-administered online Qualtrics survey. After completing the survey, participants had the option to enter their email address to receive a $20 gift card and/or enter weekly ($250) or grand prize ($500) raffles. Given that surveys administered online with monetary incentives are a common target of bot attacks, 22 automated fraud detection features offered by Qualtrics were used to identify and later exclude duplicate responses and bots. Only participants verified as valid following data cleaning procedures were included in the sample and were eligible for gift cards and raffle prizes.

Analyses were restricted to participants who reported being licensed and were currently or most recently working in a community pharmacy. This group of pharmacists was able to report on the availability of reproductive health resources and services in settings that are widely accessible to the public and represent those who can serve as a vehicle for distribution to the public (vs those who work, for example, in hospitals, mail order, or home care or who are in training and have yet to select an employment setting). However, to understand the broader views of this community of professionals, we also examined attitudes around contraception and medication abortion provision among all surveyed pharmacists and pharmacy students.

Descriptive analyses, including proportions (excluding missing and not applicable responses) with binomial or multinomial 95% CIs, were estimated. Log-binomial regression models were used to generate unadjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) comparing (1) participants’ report of whether their pharmacy provides self-administered hormonal contraception without an outside clinician’s prescription and (2) participants’ attitudes around medication abortion provision, by participant and pharmacy characteristics. All analyses were conducted in R, version 4.2.1 (R Project for Statistical Computing).

Out of the full sample of 919 participants, 316 reported being licensed pharmacists and were currently or most recently working in a community pharmacy. Of these 316 participants, the mean (SD) age was 40.9 (12.0) years (eTable 1 in Supplement 1 ). Among the 285 participants with available information, 169 (59.3% [95% CI, 53.7%-65.4%]) were cisgender women, 114 (40.0% [95% CI, 34.4%-46.1%]) were cisgender men, and 2 (0.7% [95% CI, 0.0-6.8%]) were gender-fluid or nonbinary. Among the 272 participants with race and ethnicity information available, 159 (58.5% [95% CI, 52.6%-64.6%]) were non-Hispanic Asian, 84 (30.9% [95% CI, 25.0%-37.0%] were non-Hispanic White, and 29 (10.7% [95% CI, 4.8%-16.8%]) were of other race or ethnicity (including Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, multiracial, or other) ( Table ). Participants were demographically similar to California pharmacists (eTable 1 in Supplement 1 ). One hundred twenty-five of 296 participants (42.2% [95% CI, 36.5%-48.0%]) indicated that they could provide services in at least 1 language other than English ( Table ). Over half of participants (176 [55.7% (95% CI, 50.3%-61.6%)]) worked at chain pharmacies and 131 (41.5% [95% CI, 36.1%-47.4%]) worked at independent pharmacies in regions across California. Nearly half (144 of 296 [48.6% (95% CI, 42.9%-54.9%)]) worked at pharmacies where Medi-Cal was the primary insurance held by most clients.

As shown in Figure 1 , the community pharmacists surveyed in this project held favorable attitudes toward pharmacist-provided birth control, including hormonal birth control (263 of 289 [91.0% (95% CI, 87.1%-94.0%)] in favor) and emergency contraception (272 of 294 [92.5% (95% CI, 88.9%-95.3%)] in favor) (eTable 2 in Supplement 1 ). Slightly fewer participants reported confidence in their knowledge of hormonal birth control (249 of 296 [84.1% (95% CI, 79.5%-88.1%)]) and ability to prescribe birth control (207 of 290 [71.4% (95% CI, 65.8%-76.5%)]) than agreed that providing access to hormonal birth control as a prescribing provider was important (91.0%). Most participants (213 of 287 [74.2% (95% CI, 68.7%-79.2%)]) indicated their willingness to prescribe hormonal birth control to all pharmacy clients, regardless of age (in keeping with California law). Few participants indicated that prescribing birth control would violate their religious beliefs (32 of 276 [11.6% (95% CI, 8.1%-16.0%)]) or would mean that they are endorsing a lifestyle they do not support (26 of 284 [9.2% (95% CI, 6.1%-13.1%)]). Findings were similar in the broader sample of 919 pharmacists (eTable 3 in Supplement 1 ).

Slightly less than half of pharmacists (144 of 308 [46.8% (95% CI, 41.2%-52.9%)]) reported that the community pharmacy in which they work provided prescriptions for self-administered hormonal contraception (eg, birth control pills, patch, ring, or injection) ( Table ). Fewer pharmacists employed by independent pharmacies reported that their pharmacy furnished these prescriptions than those employed by chain pharmacies (51 of 127 [40.2%] vs 93 of 174 [53.4%]; prevalence ratio [PR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58-0.97]) (eTable 4 in Supplement 1 ). Slightly more than three-quarters of participants (243 of 308 [78.9% (95% CI, 74.7%-83.5%)]) reported that the pharmacies where they worked offered levonorgestrel emergency contraception (eg, Plan B One-Step) without an outside clinician’s prescription (ie, over-the-counter or pharmacist prescribed).

Most pharmacists (193 of 280 [68.9% (95% CI, 63.1%-74.3%)]) indicated that they would be willing to prescribe medication abortion to pharmacy clients if it were allowed by law ( Figure 1 and eTable 2 in Supplement 1 ). However, slightly less than half (139 of 288 [48.3% (95% CI, 42.4%-54.2%)]) were confident in their knowledge of medication abortion and only 115 of 285 (40.4% [95% CI, 34.6%-46.3%]) were confident in their ability to prescribe medication abortion.

Associations between pharmacist and pharmacy characteristics and attitudes toward medication abortion are displayed in Figure 2 and Figure 3 (eTable 5 in Supplement 1 ). A slightly larger proportion of non-Hispanic White pharmacists indicated a willingness to prescribe abortion medication if it were allowed by law than their non-Hispanic Asian peers (PR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.08-1.50]) ( Figure 2 ). Larger proportions of pharmacists 45 years or older than those aged 20 to 34 years (PR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.01-2.12]) and those who worked at independent pharmacies than those who worked in chain pharmacies (PR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.04-1.82]) expressed confidence in their ability to prescribe abortion medications.

As hypothesized, pharmacist attitudes toward hormonal and emergency contraception were positively associated with attitudes toward medication abortion ( Figure 3 ). Pharmacists who agreed that providing access to hormonal contraception as a prescribing provider is important were 3.96 (95% CI, 1.80-8.73) times as likely to indicate willingness to prescribe abortion medication to pharmacy clients if allowed by law than those who disagreed. Those who were confident in their ability to prescribe birth control were 2.44 (95% CI, 1.56-3.82) times as likely to report confidence in their ability to prescribe abortion medication than those who were not. Although few pharmacists (n = 26) agreed that prescribing hormonal birth control would mean endorsing a lifestyle they do not support, those who did were more likely to report confidence in their ability to prescribe abortion medication (PR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.13-2.34]).

Among participants at pharmacies that did not provide self-administered hormonal contraception (n = 149), the most frequently endorsed barriers to doing so were lack of knowledge or training (65 [43.6% (95% CI, 35.6%-51.7%)]), insufficient staff or time to add new services (58 [38.9% (95% CI, 31.5%-47.3%)]), and lack of insurance coverage for service provision (50 [33.6% (95% CI, 26.2%-41.3%)]) (eTable 6 in Supplement 1 ). Liability concerns (33 [22.1% (95% CI, 16.1%-29.0%)]), difficulty obtaining medical history (28 [18.8% (95% CI, 13.4%-25.4%)]), and not enough demand for the service among clients (27 [18.1% (95% CI, 12.8%-24.6%)]) were reported by some participants. Relatively few participants reported difficulty verifying medical eligibility (12 [8.1% (95% CI, 4.7%-12.6%)]), personal beliefs (10 [6.7% (95% CI, 3.4%-10.5%)]), and other barriers (4 [2.7% (95% CI, 0.7%-5.0%)]). Pharmacists who worked in chain pharmacies more often endorsed not enough staff or time to add services as a barrier to pharmacist-prescribed hormonal birth control than their peers who worked in independent pharmacies (36 of 72 [50.0%] vs 20 of 70 [28.6%]; PR, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.13-2.71]) (eTable 7 in Supplement 1 ).

Most licensed California pharmacists working at community pharmacies who participated in this study (68.9%) indicated their willingness to prescribe medication abortion if it were allowed by law. However, fewer than half were confident in their knowledge of or ability to prescribe abortion medication. Pharmacists who believed that prescribing hormonal birth control was important were also likely to report that they were willing to provide medication abortion, as hypothesized. Similarly, pharmacists who felt confident in their knowledge of and ability to prescribe self-administered hormonal birth control were also more confident in their knowledge of and ability to prescribe medication abortion. Taken together, these findings suggest that pharmacies may be a feasible channel for the provision of medication abortion.

Despite high levels of pharmacist support for pharmacist-prescribed hormonal birth control observed in this study—consistent with past studies 23 —slightly less than half of licensed, community pharmacists (46.8%) reported that the pharmacy in which they work provided prescriptions for self-administered hormonal contraception (eg, birth control pills, patch, ring, or injection). In this study, we observed that more chain pharmacies offered pharmacist-provided hormonal contraception than independent pharmacies. Prior studies 24 - 27 have similarly found that chain pharmacies are more likely to provide emergency contraception without restrictions (over-the-counter and without security barriers). This suggests that chain pharmacies are more experienced in providing reproductive health care medications directly to clients. Furthermore, the corporate structure behind chain pharmacies may be responsible for reducing barriers, as policies can be set at the corporate level to facilitate access, and greater financial resources could enable stocking of over-the-counter medications. 28

In this study, we also observed that emergency contraception was far more available than pharmacist-prescribed hormonal birth control; however, nearly one-fifth of community pharmacists indicated that emergency contraception was not available where they worked without an outside clinician’s prescription, despite its availability as an over-the-counter product. This finding is consistent with those from a 2017 secret shopper study conducted in Los Angeles County 29 that found that over-the-counter emergency contraception was not available at approximately 23% of pharmacies. Recent studies suggest that the availability of over-the-counter emergency contraception may be even more limited elsewhere in the US. 24 , 28 , 30 - 32

California was one of the first states to expand pharmacist scope of practice to include furnishing contraception, which is now permitted in 27 states plus the District of Columbia. 21 Although California was an early pioneer in this area, implementation lagged behind policy change: 1 year after implementation, only 5.1% of California pharmacists reported furnishing hormonal contraception 33 ; 3 years in, 11% of Los Angeles County pharmacies reported implementation. 29 Levels of implementation have varied between states (eg, 19% in New Mexico 2 years after the change in law, and 31% in Hawaii and 46% in Oregon 3 years post expansion) 34 , 35 indicating that significant opportunities to expand access to contraception remain. Across states, consistent with our findings, pharmacists reported barriers to incorporating hormonal contraception into their practice, including training needs, payment for pharmacist services, time and staff constraints, and liability concerns. 23 , 36 , 37

In this study, we observed that slightly fewer Asian pharmacists than White pharmacists indicated a willingness to prescribe abortion medication. Given that the race and ethnicity of pharmacists may be correlated with the demographic composition of pharmacist catchment areas, future efforts to ensure access to reproductive health services should be attentive to area sociodemographic composition. Lessons learned in Oregon suggest that state efforts to support implementation can increase access to contraception beyond the passage of laws and across the state. 38 Before the law took effect, the state convened a task force to identify potential barriers and to guide implementation. Within 12 months of expanded pharmacist practice, 63% of zip codes in Oregon had a pharmacist who prescribed contraception.

A strength of this study is that the involvement of pharmacists in the study design and implementation increases confidence that the data gathered have the potential to inform pharmacy practice. Additionally, the survey was implemented using rigorous, best-practice procedures to ensure data integrity for internet research.

This study also has some limitations. We relied on pharmacist reports of pharmacy practice to ascertain the availability of pharmacist-prescribed hormonal birth control, which renders the study vulnerable to information bias. 39 Pharmacists who themselves provide a service may be more likely to report that the pharmacy offers the service than those who have not provided the service themselves (but may lack information about store practice). Another consideration is the possibility that pharmacists were clustered within pharmacies, which, if present, could affect tests of statistical significance. Detailed workplace information (ie, name and street address) was not collected. However, 243 of 313 participants (77.6%) who reported a zip code for their pharmacy did not share it with any other participant working in the same type of pharmacy (eg, chain, independent). Thus, our analyses suggest that most participants were the only respondent from their pharmacy.

The use of nonprobability methods to gather data, and the associated risk of selection bias, 39 is another study limitation. It is possible that our results may not be representative of the attitudes and perspectives of the larger population of licensed community pharmacists in California. However, the age, gender, and racial and ethnic distribution of the sample is similar to that of California pharmacists more broadly (eTable 1 in Supplement 1 ), and the geographic distribution of participants’ pharmacies mirrors the population distribution of California, 40 providing some evidence in support of the demographic representativeness of our sample.

The findings of this cross-sectional survey study suggest that most pharmacists in California would be willing to prescribe medication abortion in the future, were they legally permitted to do so. However, efforts to expand provider scope of practice to increase abortion access would likely need to address moderate levels of confidence in, knowledge of, and ability to prescribe medication abortion. Furthermore, legislative efforts to expand abortion access through an expanded scope of practice for pharmacists should be informed by experience with California law SB 493, which has allowed them to prescribe hormonal birth control since 2016. Although most pharmacists held favorable attitudes toward pharmacist-provided hormonal contraception, just under half of participants (46.8%) report that the community-based pharmacies in which they work offer this service.

Implementation barriers identified through this study, and prior research, including lack of pharmacist knowledge, insufficient staff to add new services, and lack of insurance coverage for service provision, can be addressed through the development of sexual and reproductive health service training plans and expanded insurance payment for pharmacist-provided services. Findings also suggest that pharmacies and pharmacists who are already prescribing birth control are likely to be early adopters of pharmacist-prescribed medication abortion and could be prioritized in any future rollout. Finally, studies that draw large probability samples of community pharmacists and include embedded validation studies (eg, secret shopper, interviews with pharmacy owners or chain managers) are recommended. Such surveys could be part of a system to monitor reproductive health service and product availability in the state.

Accepted for Publication: February 13, 2024.

Published: April 10, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.6018

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License . © 2024 Cohen C et al. JAMA Network Open .

Corresponding Author: Kerith J. Conron, ScD, Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 1060 Veteran Ave, Ste 134, Los Angeles, CA 90024 ( [email protected] ).

Author Contributions: Dr Hunter had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Dr Beltran and Ms Serpico contributed equally.

Concept and design: Hunter, Beltran, Packel, Ochoa, McCoy, Conron.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Cohen, Hunter, Beltran, Serpico, Ochoa, Conron.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Hunter, Beltran, Serpico, Packel, Ochoa, McCoy, Conron.

Statistical analysis: Hunter.

Obtained funding: Ochoa.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Cohen, Hunter, Beltran, Serpico, Packel, Ochoa, McCoy.

Supervision: Cohen, Packel, Ochoa, McCoy, Conron.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Ms Ochoa reported receiving grant funding from the Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was conducted by the California HIV/AIDS Policy Research Centers with faculty from University of California, Berkeley, and UCLA and supported by the California HIV/AIDS Research Program, grants H21PC3466 and H21PC3238 from the University of California Office of the President, and the UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy, with additional support by grant T32MH080634 from the National Institute of Mental Health (Dr Beltran).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The University of California Office of the President and the National Institute of Mental Health had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Employees of the the UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy participated in study design and implementation and manuscript development.

Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funders.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2 .

Additional Contributions: This study would not have been possible without the recruitment support of the California Society of Health-System Pharmacists and California Pharmacists Association. We are grateful for the thoughtful leadership of Ian W. Holloway, PhD (Luskin School of Public Affairs, University of California, Los Angeles) (salary support), California Pharmacist Study Co-Principal Investigator, and for the contributions of Orlando Harris, PhD (School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco), Loriann De Martini, PharmD (California Society of Health-System Pharmacists), Sally Rafie, PharmD (Birth Control Pharmacist, San Diego, California, University of California San Diego Health) (paid consultant), Pooja Chitle, MPH (School of Public Health, University of California Berkeley) (salary support), Donald Kishi, PharmD (School of Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco), Craig Pulsipher, MPP, MSW (formerly of APLA Health, Los Angeles, CA, currently at Equality California), Dorie Apollonio, PhD (School of Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco), Betty Dong, PharmD (School of Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco), Jerika Lam, PharmD (School of Pharmacy, Chapman University), Kim Koester, PhD (Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco), Tam Phan, PharmD (Alfred E. Mann School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Southern California), Robert Gamboa, MPP (Los Angeles LGBT Center), Richard Salazar, MPH (Los Angeles County Department of Public Health), and Amanda Mazur, MS (School of Public Health, University of California Berkeley) (salary support) to survey development and input on recruitment strategies. Amanda Mazur also assisted with survey implementation and monitoring. Unless otherwise indicated, these contributors did not receive additional compensation for this work.

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 16.4.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

User-Centered Development of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Early Abortion Method: Multi-Cycle Mixed Methods Study

Authors of this article:

Original Paper

• Kate J Wahl 1 , MSc   ; 
• Melissa Brooks 2 , MD   ; 
• Logan Trenaman 3 , PhD   ; 
• Kirsten Desjardins-Lorimer 4 , MD   ; 
• Carolyn M Bell 4 , MD   ; 
• Nazgul Chokmorova 4 , MD   ; 
• Romy Segall 2 , BSc, MD   ; 
• Janelle Syring 4 , MD   ; 
• Aleyah Williams 1 , MPH   ; 
• Linda C Li 5 , PhD   ; 
• Wendy V Norman 4, 6 * , MD, MHSc   ; 
• Sarah Munro 1, 3 * , PhD  

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

3 Department of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States

4 Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

5 Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

6 Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom

*these authors contributed equally

Corresponding Author:

Kate J Wahl, MSc

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

University of British Columbia

4500 Oak Street

Vancouver, BC, V6H 3N1

Phone: 1 4165231923

Email: [email protected]

Background: People seeking abortion in early pregnancy have the choice between medication and procedural options for care. The choice is preference-sensitive—there is no clinically superior option and the choice depends on what matters most to the individual patient. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are shared decision-making tools that support people in making informed, values-aligned health care choices.

Objective: We aimed to develop and evaluate the usability of a web-based PtDA for the Canadian context, where abortion care is publicly funded and available without legal restriction.

Methods: We used a systematic, user-centered design approach guided by principles of integrated knowledge translation. We first developed a prototype using available evidence for abortion seekers’ decisional needs and the risks, benefits, and consequences of each option. We then refined the prototype through think-aloud interviews with participants at risk of unintended pregnancy (“patient” participants). Interviews were audio-recorded and documented through field notes. Finally, we conducted a web-based survey of patients and health care professionals involved with abortion care, which included the System Usability Scale. We used content analysis to identify usability issues described in the field notes and open-ended survey questions, and descriptive statistics to summarize participant characteristics and close-ended survey responses.

Results: A total of 61 individuals participated in this study. Further, 11 patients participated in think-aloud interviews. Overall, the response to the PtDA was positive; however, the content analysis identified issues related to the design, language, and information about the process and experience of obtaining abortion care. In response, we adapted the PtDA into an interactive website and revised it to include consistent and plain language, additional information (eg, pain experience narratives), and links to additional resources on how to find an abortion health care professional. In total, 25 patients and 25 health care professionals completed the survey. The mean System Usability Scale score met the threshold for good usability among both patient and health care professional participants. Most participants felt that the PtDA was user-friendly (patients: n=25, 100%; health care professionals: n=22, 88%), was not missing information (patients: n=21, 84%; health care professionals: n=18, 72%), and that it was appropriate for patients to complete the PtDA before a consultation (patients: n=23, 92%; health care professionals: n=23, 92%). Open-ended responses focused on improving usability by reducing the length of the PtDA and making the website more mobile-friendly.

Conclusions: We systematically designed the PtDA to address an unmet need to support informed, values-aligned decision-making about the method of abortion. The design process responded to a need identified by potential users and addressed unique sensitivities related to reproductive health decision-making.

Introduction

In total, 1 in 3 pregnancy-capable people in Canada will have an abortion in their lifetimes, and most will seek care early in pregnancy [ 1 ]. Medication abortion (using the gold-standard mifepristone/misoprostol regimen) and procedural abortion are common, safe, and effective options for abortion care in the first trimester [ 2 , 3 ]. The choice between using medications and presenting to a facility for a procedure is a preference-sensitive decision; there is no clinically superior option and the choice depends on what matters most to the individual patient regarding the respective treatments and the features of those options [ 4 - 6 ].

The choice of method of abortion can involve a process of shared decision-making, in which the patient and health care professional share the best available evidence about options, and the patient is supported to consider those options and clarify an informed preference [ 7 ]. There are many types of interventions available to support shared decision-making, including interventions targeting health care professionals (eg, educational materials, meetings, outreach visits, audit and feedback, and reminders) and patients (eg, patient decision aids [PtDA], appointment preparation packages, empowerment sessions, printed materials, and shared decision-making education) [ 8 ]. Of these interventions, PtDAs are well-suited to address challenges to shared decision-making about the method of abortion, including limited patient knowledge, public misinformation about options, poor access to health care professionals with sufficient expertise, and apprehension about abortion counseling [ 9 ].

PtDAs are widely used interventions that support people in making informed, deliberate health care choices by explicitly describing the health problem and decision, providing information about each option, and clarifying patient values [ 10 ]. The results of the 2023 Cochrane systematic review of 209 randomized controlled trials indicate that, compared to usual care (eg, information pamphlets or webpages), the use of PtDAs results in increases in patient knowledge, expectations of benefits and harms, clarity about what matters most to them, and participation in making a decision [ 11 ]. Of the studies included in the systematic review, 1 tested the effect of a PtDA leaflet for method of abortion and found that patients eligible for both medication and procedural abortion who received the PtDA were more knowledgeable, and had lower risk perceptions and decisional conflict than those who were in the control group [ 12 ]. However, that PtDA was developed 20 years ago in the UK health system and was not publicly available. A recent environmental scan of PtDAs for a method of abortion found that other available options meet few of the criteria set by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) collaboration and do not include language and content optimized for end users [ 9 , 13 ].

Consequently, no PtDAs for method of abortion were available in Canada at the time of this study. This was a critical gap for both patients and health care professionals as, in 2017, mifepristone/misoprostol medication abortion came to the market, offering a new method of choice for people seeking abortion in the first trimester [ 14 ]. Unlike most jurisdictions, in Canada medication abortion is typically prescribed in primary care and dispensed in community pharmacies. Offering a PtDA in preparation for a brief primary care consultation allows the person seeking abortion more time to digest new information, consider their preferences, be ready to discuss their options, and make a quality decision.

In this context, we identified a need for a high-quality and publicly available PtDA to support people in making an informed choice about the method of abortion that reflects what is most important to them. Concurrently, our team was working in collaboration with knowledge users (health care professionals, patients, and health system decision makers) who were part of a larger project to investigate the implementation of mifepristone in Canada [ 15 , 16 ]. We, therefore, aimed to develop and evaluate the usability of a web-based PtDA for the Canadian context, where abortion care is publicly funded and available without legal restriction.

Study Design

We performed a mixed methods user-centered development and evaluation study informed by principles of integrated knowledge translation. Integrated knowledge translation is an approach to collaborative research in which researchers and knowledge users work together to identify a problem, conduct research as equal partners to address that problem, and coproduce research products that aim to impact health service delivery [ 17 ]. We selected this approach to increase the likelihood that our end PtDAs would be relevant, useable, and used for patients and health care professionals in Canada [ 17 ]. The need for a PtDA was identified through engagement with health care professionals. In 2017, they highlighted the need for patients to be supported in choosing between procedural care—which historically represented more than 90% of abortions in Canada [ 18 ]—and the newly available medication option [ 19 , 20 ]. This need was reaffirmed in 2022 by the Canadian federal health agency, Health Canada, which circulated a request for proposals to generate “evidence-based, culturally-relevant information aimed at supporting people in their reproductive decision-making and in accessing abortion services as needed” [ 21 ].

We operationalized integrated knowledge translation principles in a user-centered design process. User-centered design “grounds the characteristics of an innovation in information about the individuals who use that innovation, with a goal of maximizing ‘usability in context’” [ 22 ]. In PtDA development, user-centered design involves iteratively understanding users, developing and refining a prototype, and observing user interaction with the prototype [ 23 , 24 ]. Like integrated knowledge translation, this approach is predicated on the assumption that involving users throughout the process increases the relevance of the PtDA and the likelihood of successful implementation [ 24 ].

Our design process included the following steps ( Figure 1 ): identification of evidence about abortion patients’ decisional needs and the attributes of medication and procedural abortion that matter most from a patient perspective; development of a paper-based prototype; usability testing via think-aloud interviews with potential end users; refinement of the PtDA prototype into an interactive website; usability testing via a survey with potential end users and abortion health care professionals; and final revisions before launching the PtDA for real-world testing. Our systematic process was informed by user-centered methods for PtDA development [ 23 , 24 ], guidance from the IPDAS collaboration [ 25 - 27 ], and the Standards for Universal Reporting of Patient Decision Aid Evaluation checklist [ 10 ].

Our multidisciplinary team included experts in shared decision-making (SM and LT), a PhD student in patient-oriented knowledge translation (KJW), experts in integrated knowledge translation with health care professionals and policy makers (WVN and SM), clinical experts in abortion counseling and care (WVN and MB), a medical undergraduate student (RS), a research project coordinator (AW), and family medicine residents (KD-L, CMB, NC, and JS) who had an interest in abortion care. Additionally, a panel of experts external to the development process reviewed the PtDA for clinical accuracy following each revision of the prototype. These experts included coauthors of the national Society for Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) clinical practice guidelines for abortion care in Canada. They were invited to this project because of their knowledge of first-trimester abortion care as well as their ability to support the implementation of the PtDA in guidelines and routine clinical practice.

Ethical Considerations

The research was approved by the University of British Columbia Children’s and Women’s Research Ethics Board (H16-01006) and the Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board (1027637). In each round of testing, participants received a CAD $20 (US $14.75) Amazon gift card by email for their participation.

Preliminary Work: Identification of Evidence

We identified the decisional needs of people seeking early abortion care using a 2018 systematic review of reasons for choosing an abortion method [ 28 ], an additional search that identified 1 study conducted in Canada following the 2017 availability of mifepristone/misoprostol medication abortion [ 29 ], and the SOGC clinical practice guidelines [ 2 , 3 ]. The review identified several key factors that matter most for patient choice of early abortion method: perceived simplicity and “naturalness,” fear of complication or bleeding , fear of anesthesia or surgery , timing of the procedure , and chance of sedation . The additional Canadian study found that the time required to complete the abortion and side effects were important factors. According to the SOGC clinical practice guidelines, the key information that should be communicated to the patient are gestational age limits and the risk of complications with increasing gestational age [ 2 , 3 ]. The guidelines also indicate that wait times , travel times , and cost considerations may be important in a person’s choice of abortion method and should be addressed [ 2 , 3 ].

We compiled a long list of attributes for our expert panel and then consolidated and refined the attribute list through each stage of the prototype evaluation. For evidence of how these factors differed for medication and procedural abortion, we drew primarily from the SOGC clinical practice guidelines for abortion [ 2 , 3 ]. For cost considerations, we described the range of federal, provincial, and population-specific programs that provide free coverage of abortion care for people in Canada.

Step 1: Developing the Prototype

Our goal was to produce an interactive, web-based PtDA that would be widely accessible to people seeking an abortion in Canada by leveraging the widespread use of digital health information, especially among reproductive-aged people [ 30 ]. Our first prototype was based on a previously identified paper-based question-and-answer comparison grid that presented evidence-based information about the medication and procedural options [ 9 , 31 ]. We calculated readability by inputting the plain text of the paper-based prototype into a Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index calculator [ 32 ].

We made 2 intentional deviations from common practices in PtDA development [ 33 ]. First, we did not include an “opt-out” or “do nothing” option, which would describe the natural course of pregnancy. We chose to exclude this option to ensure clarity for users regarding the decision point; specifically, our decision point of interest was the method of abortion, not the choice to terminate or continue a pregnancy. Second, we characterized attributes of the options as key points rather than positive and negative features to avoid imposing value judgments onto subjective features (eg, having the abortion take place at home may be beneficial for some people but may be a deterrent for others).

Step 2: Usability Testing of the Prototype

We first conducted usability testing involving think-aloud interviews with patient participants to assess the paper-based prototype. Inclusion criteria included people aged 18-49 years assigned-female-at-birth who resided in Canada and could speak and read English. In January 2020, we recruited participants for the first round of think-aloud interviews [ 34 ] via email and poster advertising circulated to (1) a network of parent research advisors who were convened to guide a broader program of research about pregnancy and childbirth in British Columbia, Canada, and (2) a clinic providing surgical abortion care in Nova Scotia, Canada, as well as snowball sampling with participants. We purposively sought to advertise this study with these populations to ensure variation in age, ethnicity, level of education, parity, and abortion experience. Interested individuals reviewed this study information form and provided consent to participate, before scheduling an interview. The interviewer asked participants to think aloud as they navigated the prototype, for example describing what they liked or disliked, missing information, or lack of clarity. The interviewer noted the participant’s feedback on a copy of the prototype during the interview. Finally, the participant responded to questions adapted from the System Usability Scale [ 35 ], a measure designed to collect subjective ratings of a product’s usability, and completed a brief demographic questionnaire. The interviews were conducted via videoconferencing and were audio recorded. We deidentified the qualitative data and assigned each participant a unique identifier. Then, the interviewer listened to the recording and revised their field notes with additional information including relevant quotes.

For the analysis of think-aloud interviews, we used inductive content analysis to describe the usability and acceptability of different elements of the PtDA [ 36 ]. Further, 3 family medicine residents (KD-L, CMB, and NC) under guidance from a senior coauthor (SM) completed open coding to develop a list of initial categories, which we grouped under higher-order headings. We then organized these results in a table to illustrate usability issues (categories), illustrative participant quotes, and modifications to make. We then used the results of interviews to adapt the prototype into a web-based format, which we tested via further think-aloud interviews and a survey with people capable of becoming pregnant and health care professionals involved with abortion care.

Step 3: Usability Testing of the Website

For the web-based format, we used DecideApp PtDA open-source software, which provides a sustainable solution to the problems of low quality and high maintenance costs faced by web-based PtDAs by allowing developers to host, maintain, and update their tools at no cost. This software has been user-tested and can be accessed by phone, tablet, or computer [ 37 , 38 ]. It organizes a PtDA into 6 sections: Introduction, About Me, My Values, My Choice, Review, and Next Steps. In the My Values section, an interactive values clarification exercise allows users to rank and make trade-offs between attributes of the options. The final pages provide an opportunity for users to make a choice, complete a knowledge self-assessment, and consider the next steps to access their chosen method.

From July to August 2020, we recruited patient and health care professional participants using Twitter and the email list of the Canadian Abortion Providers Support platform, respectively. Participants received an email with a link to the PtDA and were redirected to the survey once they had navigated through the PtDA. As above, inclusion criteria included people aged 18-49 years assigned as female-at-birth who resided in Canada. Among health care professionals, we included eligible prescribers who may not have previously engaged in abortion care (family physicians, residents, nurse practitioners, and midwives), and allied health professionals and stakeholders who provide or support abortion care, who practiced in Canada. All participants had to speak and read English.

The survey included 3 sections: usability, implementation, and participant characteristics. The usability section consisted of the System Usability Scale [ 35 ], and purpose-built questions about what participants liked and disliked about the PtDA. The implementation section included open- and close-ended questions about how the PtDA compares to other resources and when it could be implemented in the care pathway. Patient participants also completed the Control Preference Scale, a validated measure used to determine their preferred role in decision-making (active, collaborative, or passive) [ 39 ]. Data on participant characteristics included gender, abortion experience (patient participants), and abortion practice (health care professional participants). We deidentified the qualitative data and assigned each participant a unique identifier. For the analysis of survey data, we characterized close-ended responses using descriptive statistics, and, following the analysis procedures described in Step 2 in the Methods section, used inductive content analysis of open-ended responses to generate categories associated with usability and implementation [ 36 ]. In 2021, we made minor revisions to the website based on the results of usability testing and published the PtDA for use in routine clinical care.

In the following sections, we outline the results of the development process including the results of the think-aloud interviews and survey, as well as the final decision aid prototype.

Our initial prototype, a paper-based question-and-answer comparison grid, presented evidence-based information comparing medication and procedural abortion. The first version of the prototype also included a second medication abortion regimen involving off-label use of methotrexate, however, we removed this option following a review by the clinical expert panel who advised us that there is very infrequent use of this regimen in Canada in comparison to the gold standard medication abortion option, mifepristone. Other changes at this stage involved clarifying the scope of practice (health care professionals other than gynecologists can perform a procedural abortion), abortion practice (gestational age limit and how the medication is taken), the abortion experience (what to expect in terms of bleeding), and risk (removing information about second- and third-trimester abortion). The updated prototype was finalized by a scientist (SM) and trainee (KJW) with expertise in PtDA development. The prototype (see Multimedia Appendix 1 ) was ultimately 4 pages long and described 18 attributes of each option framed as Frequently Asked Questions, including abortion eligibility (How far along in pregnancy can I be?), duration (How long does it take?), and side effects (How much will I bleed?). The SMOG grade level was 8.4.

Participant Characteristics

We included 11 participants in think-aloud interviews between January and July 2020, including 7 recruited through a parent research advisory network and 4 individuals who had recently attended an abortion clinic. The mean interview duration was 36 minutes (SD 6 minutes). The participants ranged in age from 31 to 37 years. All had been pregnant and 8 out of 11 (73%) participants had a personal experience of abortion (4 participants who had recently attended an abortion clinic and 4 participants from the parent research advisory who disclosed their experience during the interview). The characteristics of the sample are reported in Table 1 .

Overall, participants had a positive view of the paper-based, comparison grid PtDA. In total, 1 participant who had recently sought an abortion said, “I think this is great and super helpful. It would’ve been awesome to have had access to this right away … I don’t think there’s really anything missing from here that I was Googling about” (DA010). The only participant who expressed antichoice views indicated that the PtDA would be helpful to someone seeking to terminate a pregnancy (DA001). Another participant said, “[The PtDA] is not biased, it’s not like you’re going to die. It’s a fact, you know the facts and then you decide whether you want it or not. A lot of people feel it’s so shameful and judgmental, but this is very straightforward. I like it.” (DA002). Several participants stated they felt more informed and knowledgeable about the options.

In response to questions adapted from the System Usability Scale, all 11 participants agreed that the PtDA was easy to use, that most people could learn to use it quickly, and that they felt very confident using the prototype, and disagreed that it was awkward to use. In total, 8 (73%) participants agreed with the statement that the components of the PtDA were well-integrated. A majority of participants disagreed with the statements that the website was unnecessarily complex (n=8, 73%), that they would need the support of an expert to use it (n=8, 73%), that it was too inconsistent (n=9, 82%), and that they would need to learn a lot before using it (n=8, 73%). Further, 2 (18%) participants agreed with the statements that the PtDA was unnecessarily complex and that they would need to learn a lot before using it. Furthermore, 1 (9%) participant agreed with the statement that the PtDA was too inconsistent.

Through inductive analysis of think-aloud interviews, we identified 4 key usability categories: design, language, process, and experience.

Participants liked the side-by-side comparison layout, appreciated the summary of key points to remember, and said that overall, the presented information was clear. For example, 1 participant reflected, “I think it’s very clear ... it’s very simplistic, people will understand the left-hand column is for medical abortion and the right-hand column is for surgical.” (DA005) Some participants raised concerns about the aesthetics of the PtDA, difficulties recalling the headers across multiple pages, and the overall length of the PtDA.

Participants sought to clarify language at several points in the PtDA. Common feedback was that the gestational age limit for the medication and the procedure should be clarified. Participants also pointed out inconsistent use of language (eg, doctor and health care professional) and medical jargon.

Several participants were surprised to learn that family doctors could provide abortion care. Others noted that information about the duration—including travel time—and number of appointments for both medication and procedural abortion could be improved. In addition to clarifying the abortion process, several participants suggested including additional information and resources to help identify an abortion health care professional, understand when to seek help for abortion-related complications, and access emotional support. It was also important to participants that financial impacts (eg, hospital parking and menstrual pads) were included for each option.

Participants provided insight into the description of the physical, psychological, and other consequences associated with the abortion medication and procedure. Participants who had both types of abortion care felt that the description of pain that “may be worse than a period” was inaccurate. Other participants indicated that information about perceived and real risks was distressing or felt out of place, such as correcting myths about future fertility or breast cancer. Some participants indicated that patient stories would be valuable saying, for example, “I think what might be nice to help with the decision-making process is reading stories of people’s experiences” (DA006).

Modifications Made

Changes made based on these findings are described in Table 2 . Key user-centered modifications included transitioning to a web-based format with a consistent color scheme, clarifying who the PtDA is for (for typical pregnancies up to 10 weeks), adding information about telemedicine to reflect guidelines for the provision of abortion during pandemics, and developing brief first-person qualitative descriptions of the pain intensity for each option.

Through analysis of the interviews and consultation with our panel of clinical experts, we also identified that, among the 18 initial attributes in our prototype, 7 had the most relative importance to patients in choosing between medication and procedural abortion. These attributes also represented important differences between each option which forced participants to consider the trade-offs they were willing to make. Thus we moved all other potential attributes into an information section (My Options) that supported the user to gain knowledge before clarifying what mattered most to them by considering the differences between options (My Values).

a PtDA: patient decision aid.

b SOGC: Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.

Description of the PtDA

As shown in Figure 2 , the revised version of the PtDA resulting from our systematic process is an interactive website. Initially, the title was My Body, My Choice ; however, this was changed to avoid association with antivaccine campaigns that co-opted this reproductive rights slogan. The new title, It’s My Choice or C’est Mon Choix , was selected for its easy use in English and French. The PtDA leads the user through 6 sections:

• The Introduction section provides the user with information about the decision and the PtDA, as well as grids comparing positive and negative features of the abortion pill and procedure, including their chance of benefits (eg, effectiveness), harms (eg, complications), and other relevant factors (eg, number of appointments and cost).
• The About Me section asks the user to identify any contraindications to the methods. It then prompts users to consider their privacy needs and gives examples of how this relates to each option (eg, the abortion pill can be explained to others as a miscarriage; procedural care can be completed quickly).
• The My Values section includes a values clarification exercise, in which the user selects and weights (on a 0-100 scale) the relative importance of at least three of 7 decisional attributes: avoiding pain, avoiding bleeding, having the abortion at home, having an experience that feels like a miscarriage, having fewer appointments, less time off for recovery, and having a companion during the abortion.
• The My Choice section highlights 1 option, based on the attribute weights the user assigned in the My Values section. For instance, if a user strongly preferred to avoid bleeding and have fewer appointments, the software would suggest that a procedural abortion would be a better match. For a user who preferred having the abortion at home and having a companion present, the software would suggest that a medication abortion would be a better match. The user selects the option they prefer.
• The Review section asks the user to complete the 4-item SURE (Sure of Myself, Understand Information, Risk-Benefit Ratio, Encouragement) screening test [ 41 ], and advises them to talk with an expert if they answer “no” to any of the questions. This section also includes information phone lines to ensure that users can seek confidential, accurate, and nonjudgmental support.
• Lastly, in the Next Steps section, users see a summary of their choice and the features that matter most to them, instructions for how to save the results, keep the results private, and find an abortion health care professional. Each section of the PtDA includes a “Leave” button in case users need to navigate away from the website quickly.

We calculated readability by inputting the plain text of the web-based PtDA into a SMOG Index calculator [ 32 ], which assessed the reading level of the web-based PtDA as grade 9.2.

To ensure users’ trust in the information as accurate and unbiased we provided a data declaration on the landing page: “the clinical information presented in this decision aid comes from Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists best practice guidelines.” On the landing page, we also specify “This website was developed by researchers at the University of British Columbia and Dalhousie University. This tool is not supported or connected to any pharmaceutical company.”

A total of 50 participants, including 25 patients and 25 health care professionals, reviewed the PtDA website and completed the survey between January and March 2021. The majority of patient (n=23, 92%) and health care professional (n=23, 92%) participants identified as cisgender women. Among patient participants, 16% (n=4) reported one or more previous abortions in various clinical settings. More than half (n=16, 64%) of health care professionals offered care in private medical offices, with other locations including sexual health clinics, community health centers, and youth clinics. Many health care professionals were family physicians (n=11, 44%), and other common types were nurse practitioners (n=7, 28%) and midwives (n=3, 12%). The mean proportion of the clinical practice of each health care professional devoted to abortion care was 18% (SD 13%). Most health care professional respondents (n=18, 72%) were involved with the provision of medication, but not procedural, abortion care. The characteristics of patient and health care professional participants are reported in Table 3 .

a In total, 4 participants reported a history of abortion care, representing 6 abortion procedures.

b Not available.

The mean System Usability Score met the threshold for good usability among both patient (mean 85.7, SD 8.6) and health care professional (mean 80, SD 12) participants, although some health care professionals agreed with the statement, “I found the website to be unnecessarily complex,” (see Multimedia Appendix 3 for the full distribution of responses from patient and health care professionals). All 25 patients and 22 out of 25 (88%) health care professional respondents indicated that the user-friendliness of the PtDA was good or the best imaginable. When asked what they liked most about the PtDA, both participant groups described the ease of use, comparison of options, and the explicit values clarification exercise. When asked what they liked least about the PtDA, several health care professionals and some patients pointed out that it was difficult to use on a cell phone. A summary of usability results is presented in Table 4 .

In total, 21 (84%) patients and 18 (72%) health care professionals felt that the PtDA was not missing any information needed to decide about the method of abortion in early pregnancy. While acknowledging that it is “hard to balance being easy to read/understand while including enough accurate clinical information,” several health care professionals and some patients indicated that the PtDA was too long and repetitive. Among the 4 (16%) patient participants who felt information was missing, the most common suggestion was a tool for locating an abortion health care professional. The 7 (28%) health care professionals who felt information was missing primarily made suggestions about the medical information included in the PtDA (eg, listing midwives as health care professionals with abortion care in scope of practice and the appropriateness of gender-inclusive terminology) and the accessibility of information for various language and cultural groups.

a Not available.

Implementation

Participants viewed the PtDA as a positive addition to current resources. Patients with a history of abortion care described looking for the information on the internet and speaking with friends, family members, and health care professionals. Compared with these sources of information, many patients liked the credibility and anonymity of the PtDA, whereas some disliked that it was less personal than a conversation. Further, 18 (72%) health care professional participants said that the PtDA would add to or replace the resources they currently use in practice. Compared with these other resources, health care professionals liked that the PtDA could be explored by patients independently and that it would support them in thinking about the option that was best for them. The disadvantages of the PtDA compared with existing resources were the length—which health care professionals felt would make it difficult to use in a clinical interaction—and the lack of localized information. In total, 23 each (92%) of patient and health care professional participants felt that they would use the PtDA before a consultation.

Principal Results

We designed a web-based, interactive PtDA for the choice of method of abortion in early pregnancy [ 42 ], taking a user-centered approach that involved usability testing with 36 patients and 25 health care professionals. Both patient and health care professional participants indicated that the PtDA had good usability and would be a valuable resource for decision-making. This PtDA fills a critical need to support the autonomy of patients and shared decision-making with their health care professional related to the preference-sensitive choice of method of abortion.

Comparison With Prior Work

A 2017 systematic review and environmental scan found that existing PtDAs for the method of abortion are of suboptimal quality [ 9 ]. Of the 50 PtDAs identified, all but one were created without expertise in decision aid design (eg, abortion services, reproductive health organizations, and consumer health information organizations); however, the development process for this UK-based pamphlet-style PtDA was not reported. The remaining PtDAs were noninteractive websites, smartphone apps, and PDFs that were not tested with users. The authors found that the information about methods of abortion was presented in a disorganized, inconsistent, and unequal way. Subsequent work has found that existing PtDAs emphasize medical (versus social, emotional, and practical) attributes, do not include values clarification, and can be biased to persuade users of a certain method [ 13 ].

To address some of the challenges identified in the literature, we systematically structured and designed elements of the PtDA following newly proposed IPDAS criteria (eg, showing positive and negative features with equal detail) [ 33 ]. We included an explicit values-clarification exercise, which a recent meta-analysis found to decrease decisional conflict and values-incongruent choices [ 43 ].

We based the decision aid on comprehensive and up-to-date scientific evidence related to the effectiveness and safety of medication abortion and procedural abortion; however, less evidence was available for nonmedical attributes. For example, many existing PtDAs incorrectly frame privacy as a “factual advantage” of medication abortion [ 13 ]. To address this, we included privacy in the About Me section as something that means “different things to different people.” Similarly, evidence suggests that patients who do not feel appropriately informed about the pain associated with their method of abortion are less satisfied with their choice [ 44 , 45 ]; and the degree of pain experienced varies across options and among individuals. Following the suggestion of patient participants to include stories and recognizing that evidence for the inclusion of narratives in PtDAs is emerging [ 46 ], we elected to develop brief first-person qualitative descriptions of the pain experience. The inclusion of narratives in PtDAs may be effective in supporting patients to avoid surprise and regret, to minimize affective forecasting errors, and to “visualize” their health condition or treatment experience [ 46 ]. Guided by the narrative immersion model, our goal was to provide a “real-world preview” of the pain experience [ 47 ].

In addition to integrating user perspectives on the optimal tone, content, and format of the PtDA, user testing provided evidence to inform the future implementation of the PtDA. A clear barrier to the completion of the PtDA during the clinical encounter from the health care professional perspective was its length, supporting the finding of a recent rapid realist review, which theorized that health care professionals are less likely to use long or otherwise complex PtDAs that are difficult to integrate into routine practice [ 48 ]. However, 46 out of 50 (92%) participants endorsed the use of the PtDA by the patient alone before the initial consultation, which was aligned with the patient participant’s preference to take an active role in making the final decision about their method of abortion as well as the best practice of early, pre-encounter distribution of PtDAs [ 48 ].

A unique feature of this PtDA was that it resulted from a broader program of integrated knowledge translation designed to support access to medication abortion once mifepristone became available in Canada in 2017. Guided by the principle that including knowledge users in research yields results that are more relevant and useful [ 49 ], we developed the PtDA in response to a knowledge user need, involved health care professional users as partners in our research process, including as coauthors, and integrated feedback from the expert panel. This parallels a theory of PtDA implementation that proposes that early involvement of health care professionals in PtDA development “creates a sense of ownership, increases buy-in, helps to legitimize content, and ensures the PtDA (content and delivery) is consistent with current practice” thereby increasing the likelihood of PtDA integration into routine clinical settings [ 48 ].

Viewed through an integrated knowledge translation lens, our findings point toward future areas of work to support access to abortion in Canada. Several patient participants indicated a need for tools to identify health care professionals who offer abortion care. Some shared that their primary health care professionals did not offer medication abortion despite it being within their scope of practice, and instead referred them to an abortion clinic for methods of counseling and care. We addressed this challenge in the PtDA by including links to available resources, such as confidential phone lines that link patients to health care professionals in their region. On the website we also indicated that patient users could ask their primary care providers whether they provide abortion care; however, we acknowledge that this may place the patient in a vulnerable position if their health care professional is uncomfortable with, or unable to, provide this service for any reason. Future work should investigate opportunities to shorten the pathway to this time-sensitive care, including how to support patients who use the decision aid to act on their informed preference for the method of abortion. This work may involve developing a tool for patients to talk to their primary care provider about prescribing medication abortion.

Strengths and Limitations

Several factors affect the interpretation of our work. Although potential patient users participated in the iterative development process, the patient perspective was not represented in a formal advisory panel in the same way that the health care professional experts were. Participant characteristics collected for the think-aloud interviews demonstrated that our patient sample did not include people with lower education attainment, for whom the grade level and length of the PtDA could present a barrier [ 50 ]. Any transfer of the PtDA to jurisdictions outside Canada must consider how legal, regulatory, and other contextual factors affect the choice of the method of abortion. Since this study was completed, we have explored additional strategies to address these concerns, including additional user testing with people from equity-deserving groups, drop-down menus to adjust the level of detail, further plain language editing, and videos illustrating core content. Since the focus of this study was usability, we did not assess PtDA effectiveness, including impact on knowledge, decisional conflict, choice predisposition and decision, or concordance; however, a randomized controlled trial currently underway will measure the impact of the PtDA on these outcomes in a clinical setting. Finally, our integrated knowledge translation approach added to the robustness of our study by ensuring that health care professionals and patients were equal partners in the research process. One impact of this partnered approach is that our team has received funding support from Health Canada to implement the website on a national scale for people across Canada considering their abortion options [ 51 ].

Conclusions

The PtDA provides people choosing a method of early abortion and their health care professionals with a resource to understand methods of abortion available in the Canadian context and support to make a values-aligned choice. We designed the PtDA using a systematic approach that included both patient and health care professional participants to help ensure its relevance and usability. Our future work will seek to evaluate the implementation of the PtDA in clinical settings, create alternate formats to enhance accessibility, and develop a sustainable update policy. We will also continue to advance access to abortion care in Canada with our broader integrated knowledge translation program of research.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participants for contributing their time and expertise to the design of this tool. Family medicine residents CMB, NC, KD-L, and JS were supported by Sue Harris grants, Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia. KJW was supported by the Vanier Scholar Award (2020-23). SM was supported by a Michael Smith Health Research BC Scholar Award (18270). WVN was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Public Health Agency of Canada Chair in Applied Public Health Research (2014-2024, CPP-329455-107837). All grants underwent external peer review for scientific quality. The funders played no role in the design of this study, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or preparation of this paper.

Data Availability

Our ethics approval has specified the primary data is not available.

Authors' Contributions

KJW, SM, and MB conceived of and designed this study. CMB, NC, and KD-L led interview data collection, analysis, and interpretation with input from SM. RS and JS led survey data collection, analysis, and interpretation with input from SM and MB. AW, LCL, and WVN contributed to the synthesis and interpretation of results. KJW, SM, and LT wrote the first draft of this paper, and all authors contributed to this paper’s revisions and approved the final version.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Patient decision aid prototype.

Raw data for pain narratives.

Full distribution of System Usability Scale scores for patients and providers.

• Norman WV. Induced abortion in Canada 1974-2005: trends over the first generation with legal access. Contraception. 2012;85(2):185-191. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Costescu D, Guilbert E, Bernardin J, Black A, Dunn S, Fitzsimmons B, et al. Medical abortion. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016;38(4):366-389. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Costescu D, Guilbert É. No. 360-induced abortion: surgical abortion and second trimester medical methods. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2018;40(6):750-783. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wennberg JE. Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. BMJ. 2002;325(7370):961-964. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Elwyn G, Frosch D, Rollnick S. Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions. Implement Sci. 2009;4:75. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sepucha KR, Mulley AG. A practical approach to measuring the quality of preference-sensitive decisions. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G, editors. Shared Decision-Making in Health Care: Achieving Evidence-based Patient Choice. Oxford. Oxford University Press; 2009;151-156.
• Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Légaré F, Adekpedjou R, Stacey D, Turcotte S, Kryworuchko J, Graham ID, et al. Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;7(7):CD006732. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Donnelly KZ, Elwyn G, Thompson R. Quantity over quality-findings from a systematic review and environmental scan of patient decision aids on early abortion methods. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):316-326. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sepucha KR, Abhyankar P, Hoffman AS, Bekker HL, LeBlanc A, Levin CA, et al. Standards for Universal Reporting of Patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE checklist. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(5):380-388. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Stacey D, Lewis KB, Smith M, Carley M, Volk R, Douglas EE, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;1(1):CD001431. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wong SSM, Thornton JG, Gbolade B, Bekker HL. A randomised controlled trial of a decision-aid leaflet to facilitate women's choice between pregnancy termination methods. BJOG. 2006;113(6):688-694. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Donnelly KZ, Elwyn G, Theiler R, Thompson R. Promoting or undermining quality decision making? A qualitative content analysis of patient decision aids comparing surgical and medication abortion. Womens Health Issues. 2019;29(5):414-423. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Grant K. Long-awaited abortion pill Mifegymiso makes Canadian debut. The Globe and Mail. 2017. URL: https:/​/www.​theglobeandmail.com/​news/​national/​long-awaited-abortion-pill-mifegymiso-rolls-out-in-canada/​article33695167/​?ref=http:/​/www.​theglobeandmail.​com& [accessed 2023-04-03]
• Norman WV, Munro S, Brooks M, Devane C, Guilbert E, Renner R, et al. Could implementation of mifepristone address Canada's urban-rural abortion access disparity: a mixed-methods implementation study protocol. BMJ Open. 2019;9(4):e028443. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Munro SB, Dunn S, Guilbert ER, Norman WV. Advancing reproductive health through policy-engaged research in abortion care. Semin Reprod Med. 2022;40(5-06):268-276. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dunn SI, Bhati DK, Reszel J, Kothari A, McCutcheon C, Graham ID. Understanding how and under what circumstances integrated knowledge translation works for people engaged in collaborative research: metasynthesis of IKTRN casebooks. JBI Evid Implement. 2023;21(3):277-293. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Norman WV, Guilbert ER, Okpaleke C, Hayden AS, Lichtenberg ES, Paul M, et al. Abortion health services in Canada: results of a 2012 national survey. Can Fam Physician. 2016;62(4):e209-e217. [ FREE Full text ] [ Medline ]
• Munro S, Guilbert E, Wagner MS, Wilcox ES, Devane C, Dunn S, et al. Perspectives among canadian physicians on factors influencing implementation of mifepristone medical abortion: a national qualitative study. Ann Fam Med. 2020;18(5):413-421. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Munro S, Wahl K, Soon JA, Guilbert E, Wilcox ES, Leduc-Robert G, et al. Pharmacist dispensing of the abortion pill in Canada: diffusion of innovation meets integrated knowledge translation. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):76. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Health care policy and strategies program. Call for proposals: funding opportunities for sexual and reproductive health. Health Canada. URL: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/health-care-policy-strategies-program.html [accessed 2024-03-14]
• Dopp AR, Parisi KE, Munson SA, Lyon AR. A glossary of user-centered design strategies for implementation experts. Transl Behav Med. 2019;9(6):1057-1064. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Vaisson G, Provencher T, Dugas M, Trottier ME, Dansokho SC, Colquhoun H, et al. User involvement in the design and development of patient decision aids and other personal health tools: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(3):261-274. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Witteman HO, Maki KG, Vaisson G, Finderup J, Lewis KB, Steffensen KD, et al. Systematic development of patient decision aids: an update from the IPDAS collaboration. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):736-754. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Joseph-Williams N, Newcombe R, Politi M, Durand MA, Sivell S, Stacey D, et al. Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified Delphi consensus process. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(6):699-710. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Stacey D, Volk RJ, IPDAS Evidence Update Leads (Hilary Bekker, Karina Dahl Steffensen, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Kirsten McCaffery, Rachel Thompson, Richard Thomson, Lyndal Trevena, Trudy van der Weijden, and Holly Witteman). The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) collaboration: evidence update 2.0. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):729-733. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hoffman AS, Volk RJ, Saarimaki A, Stirling C, Li LC, Härter M, et al. Delivering patient decision aids on the internet: definitions, theories, current evidence, and emerging research areas. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S13. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kanstrup C, Mäkelä M, Graungaard AH. Women's reasons for choosing abortion method: a systematic literature review. Scand J Public Health. 2018;46(8):835-845. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Murray ME, Casson M, Pudwell J, Waddington A. Patients' motivation for surgical versus medical abortion. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019;41(9):1325-1329. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kummervold PE, Chronaki CE, Lausen B, Prokosch HU, Rasmussen J, Santana S, et al. eHealth trends in Europe 2005-2007: a population-based survey. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(4):e42. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Early abortion options. Reproductive Health Access Project. 2022. URL: https://www.reproductiveaccess.org/resource/early-abortion-options/ [accessed 2019-03-24]
• Readability Formulas: free readability assessment tools to help you write for your readers. URL: https://readabilityformulas.com/ [accessed 2022-12-15]
• Martin RW, Andersen SB, O'Brien MA, Bravo P, Hoffmann T, Olling K, et al. Providing balanced information about options in patient decision aids: an update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):780-800. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lundgrén-Laine H, Salanterä S. Think-aloud technique and protocol analysis in clinical decision-making research. Qual Health Res. 2010;20(4):565-575. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2008;24(6):574-594. [ CrossRef ]
• Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107-115. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bansback N, Li LC, Lynd L, Bryan S. Development and preliminary user testing of the DCIDA (Dynamic Computer Interactive Decision Application) for 'nudging' patients towards high quality decisions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:62. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Trenaman L, Munro S, Almeida F, Ayas N, Hicklin J, Bansback N. Development of a patient decision aid prototype for adults with obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Breath. 2016;20(2):653-661. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):21-43. [ Medline ]
• Patev AJ, Hood KB. Towards a better understanding of abortion misinformation in the USA: a review of the literature. Cult Health Sex. 2021;23(3):285-300. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Légaré F, Kearing S, Clay K, Gagnon S, D'Amours D, Rousseau M, et al. Are you SURE?: Assessing patient decisional conflict with a 4-item screening test. Can Fam Physician. 2010;56(8):e308-e314. [ FREE Full text ] [ Medline ]
• The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. URL: https://www.sexandu.ca/its-my-choice/ [accessed 2024-03-30]
• Witteman HO, Ndjaboue R, Vaisson G, Dansokho SC, Arnold B, Bridges JFP, et al. Clarifying values: an updated and expanded systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):801-820. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cavet S, Fiala C, Scemama A, Partouche H. Assessment of pain during medical abortion with home use of misoprostol. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017;22(3):207-211. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Baraitser P, Free C, Norman WV, Lewandowska M, Meiksin R, Palmer MJ, et al. Improving experience of medical abortion at home in a changing therapeutic, technological and regulatory landscape: a realist review. BMJ Open. 2022;12(11):e066650. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Shaffer VA, Brodney S, Gavaruzzi T, Zisman-Ilani Y, Munro S, Smith SK, et al. Do personal stories make patient decision aids more effective? An update from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):897-906. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Shaffer VA, Focella ES, Hathaway A, Scherer LD, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. On the usefulness of narratives: an interdisciplinary review and theoretical model. Ann Behav Med. 2018;52(5):429-442. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Joseph-Williams N, Abhyankar P, Boland L, Bravo P, Brenner AT, Brodney S, et al. What works in implementing patient decision aids in routine clinical settings? A rapid realist review and update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards collaboration. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):907-937. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Guide to knowledge translation planning at CIHR: integrated and end-of-grant approaches. Government of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2012. URL: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45321.html [accessed 2018-10-08]
• Muscat DM, Smith J, Mac O, Cadet T, Giguere A, Housten AJ, et al. Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids: an update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):848-869. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• The CART access project. Contraception and Abortion Research Team (CART-GRAC). 2024. URL: https://cart-grac.ubc.ca/the-cart-access-project-2/ [accessed 2024-01-28]

Abbreviations

Edited by T Leung; submitted 07.05.23; peer-reviewed by G Sebastian, R French, B Zikmund-Fisher; comments to author 11.01.24; revised version received 23.02.24; accepted 25.02.24; published 16.04.24.

©Kate J Wahl, Melissa Brooks, Logan Trenaman, Kirsten Desjardins-Lorimer, Carolyn M Bell, Nazgul Chokmorova, Romy Segall, Janelle Syring, Aleyah Williams, Linda C Li, Wendy V Norman, Sarah Munro. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 16.04.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

America’s Abortion Quandary

1. americans’ views on whether, and in what circumstances, abortion should be legal, table of contents.

• Broad public agreement that abortion should be legal if pregnancy endangers a woman’s health or is the result of rape 
• Most Americans open to some restrictions on abortion
• Views of penalties for abortion in situations where it is illegal 
• Partisan differences in views of abortion 
• Women are more likely than men to have thought ‘a lot’ about abortion, but there are only modest gender differences in views of legality
• White evangelicals are most opposed to abortion – but majorities across Christian subgroups see gray areas
• Guide to this report
• Abortion at various stages of pregnancy 
• Abortion and circumstances of pregnancy 
• Parental notification for minors seeking abortion
• Penalties for abortions performed illegally 
• Public views of what would change the number of abortions in the U.S.
• A majority of Americans say women should have more say in setting abortion policy in the U.S.
• How do certain arguments about abortion resonate with Americans?
• In their own words: How Americans feel about abortion 
• Personal connections to abortion 
• Religion’s impact on views about abortion
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

As the long-running debate over abortion reaches another  key moment at the Supreme Court  and in  state legislatures across the country , a majority of U.S. adults continue to say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. About six-in-ten Americans (61%) say abortion should be legal in “all” or “most” cases, while 37% think abortion should be  illegal  in all or most cases. These views have changed little over the past several years: In 2019, for example, 61% of adults said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 38% said it should be illegal in all or most cases.    Most respondents in the new survey took one of the middle options when first asked about their views on abortion, saying either that abortion should be legal in  most  cases (36%) or illegal in  most  cases (27%). 

Respondents who said abortion should either be legal in  all  cases or illegal in  all  cases received a follow-up question asking whether there should be any exceptions to such laws. Overall, 25% of adults initially said abortion should be legal in all cases, but about a quarter of this group (6% of all U.S. adults) went on to say that there should be some exceptions when abortion should be against the law.

One-in-ten adults initially answered that abortion should be illegal in all cases, but about one-in-five of these respondents (2% of all U.S. adults) followed up by saying that there are some exceptions when abortion should be permitted. 

Altogether, seven-in-ten Americans say abortion should be legal in some cases and illegal in others, including 42% who say abortion should be generally legal, but with some exceptions, and 29% who say it should be generally illegal, except in certain cases. Much smaller shares take absolutist views when it comes to the legality of abortion in the U.S., maintaining that abortion should be legal in all cases with no exceptions (19%) or illegal in all circumstances (8%). 

There is a modest gender gap in views of whether abortion should be legal, with women slightly more likely than men to say abortion should be legal in all cases or in all cases but with some exceptions (63% vs. 58%). 

Younger adults are considerably more likely than older adults to say abortion should be legal: Three-quarters of adults under 30 (74%) say abortion should be generally legal, including 30% who say it should be legal in all cases without exception. 

But there is an even larger gap in views toward abortion by partisanship: 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared with 38% of Republicans and GOP leaners.  Previous Center research  has shown this gap widening over the past 15 years. 

Still, while partisans diverge in views of whether abortion should mostly be legal or illegal, most Democrats and Republicans do not view abortion in absolutist terms. Just 13% of Republicans say abortion should be against the law in all cases without exception; 47% say it should be illegal with some exceptions. And while three-in-ten Democrats say abortion should be permitted in all circumstances, half say it should mostly be legal – but with some exceptions. 

There also are sizable divisions within both partisan coalitions by ideology. For instance, while a majority of moderate and liberal Republicans say abortion should mostly be legal (60%), just 27% of conservative Republicans say the same. Among Democrats, self-described liberals are twice as apt as moderates and conservatives to say abortion should be legal in all cases without exception (42% vs. 20%).

Regardless of partisan affiliation, adults who say they personally know someone who has had an abortion – such as a friend, relative or themselves – are more likely to say abortion should be legal than those who say they do not know anyone who had an abortion.

Views toward abortion also vary considerably by religious affiliation – specifically among large Christian subgroups and religiously unaffiliated Americans. 

For example, roughly three-quarters of White evangelical Protestants say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. This is far higher than the share of White non-evangelical Protestants (38%) or Black Protestants (28%) who say the same. 

Despite  Catholic teaching on abortion , a slim majority of U.S. Catholics (56%) say abortion should be legal. This includes 13% who say it should be legal in all cases without exception, and 43% who say it should be legal, but with some exceptions. 

Compared with Christians, religiously unaffiliated adults are far more likely to say abortion should be legal overall – and significantly more inclined to say it should be legal in all cases without exception. Within this group, atheists stand out: 97% say abortion should be legal, including 53% who say it should be legal in all cases without exception. Agnostics and those who describe their religion as “nothing in particular” also overwhelmingly say that abortion should be legal, but they are more likely than atheists to say there are some circumstances when abortion should be against the law.

Although the survey was conducted among Americans of many religious backgrounds, including Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, it did not obtain enough respondents from non-Christian groups to report separately on their responses.

As a  growing number of states  debate legislation to restrict abortion – often after a certain stage of pregnancy – Americans express complex views about when   abortion should generally be legal and when it should be against the law. Overall, a majority of adults (56%) say that how long a woman has been pregnant should matter in determining when abortion should be legal, while far fewer (14%) say that this should  not  be a factor. An additional one-quarter of the public says that abortion should either be legal (19%) or illegal (8%) in all circumstances without exception; these respondents did not receive this question.

Among men and women, Republicans and Democrats, and Christians and religious “nones” who do not take absolutist positions about abortion on either side of the debate, the prevailing view is that the stage of the pregnancy should be a factor in determining whether abortion should be legal.

Americans broadly are more likely to favor restrictions on abortion later in pregnancy than earlier in pregnancy. Many adults also say the legality of abortion depends on other factors at every stage of pregnancy. 

Overall, a plurality of adults (44%) say that abortion should be legal six weeks into a pregnancy, which is about when cardiac activity (sometimes called a fetal heartbeat) may be detected and before many women know they are pregnant; this includes 19% of adults who say abortion should be legal in all cases without exception, as well as 25% of adults who say it should be legal at that point in a pregnancy. An additional 7% say abortion generally should be legal in most cases, but that the stage of the pregnancy should not matter in determining legality. 1

One-in-five Americans (21%) say abortion should be  illegal  at six weeks. This includes 8% of adults who say abortion should be illegal in all cases without exception as well as 12% of adults who say that abortion should be illegal at this point. Additionally, 6% say abortion should be illegal in most cases and how long a woman has been pregnant should not matter in determining abortion’s legality. Nearly one-in-five respondents, when asked whether abortion should be legal six weeks into a pregnancy, say “it depends.” 

Americans are more divided about what should be permitted 14 weeks into a pregnancy – roughly at the end of the first trimester – although still, more people say abortion should be legal at this stage (34%) than illegal (27%), and about one-in-five say “it depends.”

Fewer adults say abortion should be legal 24 weeks into a pregnancy – about when a healthy fetus could survive outside the womb with medical care. At this stage, 22% of adults say abortion should be legal, while nearly twice as many (43%) say it should be  illegal . Again, about one-in-five adults (18%) say whether abortion should be legal at 24 weeks depends on other factors. 

Respondents who said that abortion should be illegal 24 weeks into a pregnancy or that “it depends” were asked a follow-up question about whether abortion at that point should be legal if the pregnant woman’s life is in danger or the baby would be born with severe disabilities. Most who received this question say abortion in these circumstances should be legal (54%) or that it depends on other factors (40%). Just 4% of this group maintained that abortion should be illegal in this case.

This pattern in views of abortion – whereby more favor greater restrictions on abortion as a pregnancy progresses – is evident across a variety of demographic and political groups. 

Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say that abortion should be legal at each of the three stages of pregnancy asked about on the survey. For example, while 26% of Republicans say abortion should be legal at six weeks of pregnancy, more than twice as many Democrats say the same (61%). Similarly, while about a third of Democrats say abortion should be legal at 24 weeks of pregnancy, just 8% of Republicans say the same. 

However, neither Republicans nor Democrats uniformly express absolutist views about abortion throughout a pregnancy. Republicans are divided on abortion at six weeks: Roughly a quarter say it should be legal (26%), while a similar share say it depends (24%). A third say it should be illegal. 

Democrats are divided about whether abortion should be legal or illegal at 24 weeks, with 34% saying it should be legal, 29% saying it should be illegal, and 21% saying it depends. 

There also is considerable division among each partisan group by ideology. At six weeks of pregnancy, just one-in-five conservative Republicans (19%) say that abortion should be legal; moderate and liberal Republicans are twice as likely as their conservative counterparts to say this (39%). 

At the same time, about half of liberal Democrats (48%) say abortion at 24 weeks should be legal, while 17% say it should be illegal. Among conservative and moderate Democrats, the pattern is reversed: A plurality (39%) say abortion at this stage should be illegal, while 24% say it should be legal. 

Christian adults are far less likely than religiously unaffiliated Americans to say abortion should be legal at each stage of pregnancy.  

Among Protestants, White evangelicals stand out for their opposition to abortion. At six weeks of pregnancy, for example, 44% say abortion should be illegal, compared with 17% of White non-evangelical Protestants and 15% of Black Protestants. This pattern also is evident at 14 and 24 weeks of pregnancy, when half or more of White evangelicals say abortion should be illegal.

At six weeks, a plurality of Catholics (41%) say abortion should be legal, while smaller shares say it depends or it should be illegal. But by 24 weeks, about half of Catholics (49%) say abortion should be illegal. 

Among adults who are religiously unaffiliated, atheists stand out for their views. They are the only group in which a sizable majority says abortion should be  legal  at each point in a pregnancy. Even at 24 weeks, 62% of self-described atheists say abortion should be legal, compared with smaller shares of agnostics (43%) and those who say their religion is “nothing in particular” (31%). 

As is the case with adults overall, most religiously affiliated and religiously unaffiliated adults who originally say that abortion should be illegal or “it depends” at 24 weeks go on to say either it should be legal or it depends if the pregnant woman’s life is in danger or the baby would be born with severe disabilities. Few (4% and 5%, respectively) say abortion should be illegal at 24 weeks in these situations.

The stage of the pregnancy is not the only factor that shapes people’s views of when abortion should be legal. Sizable majorities of U.S. adults say that abortion should be legal if the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the pregnant woman (73%) or if pregnancy is the result of rape (69%). 

There is less consensus when it comes to circumstances in which a baby may be born with severe disabilities or health problems: 53% of Americans overall say abortion should be legal in such circumstances, including 19% who say abortion should be legal in all cases and 35% who say there are some situations where abortions should be illegal, but that it should be legal in this specific type of case. A quarter of adults say “it depends” in this situation, and about one-in-five say it should be illegal (10% who say illegal in this specific circumstance and 8% who say illegal in all circumstances). 

There are sizable divides between and among partisans when it comes to views of abortion in these situations. Overall, Republicans are less likely than Democrats to say abortion should be legal in each of the three circumstances outlined in the survey. However, both partisan groups are less likely to say abortion should be legal when the baby may be born with severe disabilities or health problems than when the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape. 

Just as there are wide gaps among Republicans by ideology on whether how long a woman has been pregnant should be a factor in determining abortion’s legality, there are large gaps when it comes to circumstances in which abortions should be legal. For example, while a clear majority of moderate and liberal Republicans (71%) say abortion should be permitted when the pregnancy is the result of rape, conservative Republicans are more divided. About half (48%) say it should be legal in this situation, while 29% say it should be illegal and 21% say it depends.

The ideological gaps among Democrats are slightly less pronounced. Most Democrats say abortion should be legal in each of the three circumstances – just to varying degrees. While 77% of liberal Democrats say abortion should be legal if a baby will be born with severe disabilities or health problems, for example, a smaller majority of conservative and moderate Democrats (60%) say the same. 

White evangelical Protestants again stand out for their views on abortion in various circumstances; they are far less likely than White non-evangelical or Black Protestants to say abortion should be legal across each of the three circumstances described in the survey. 

While about half of White evangelical Protestants (51%) say abortion should be legal if a pregnancy threatens the woman’s life or health, clear majorities of other Protestant groups and Catholics say this should be the case. The same pattern holds in views of whether abortion should be legal if the pregnancy is the result of rape. Most White non-evangelical Protestants (75%), Black Protestants (71%) and Catholics (66%) say abortion should be permitted in this instance, while White evangelicals are more divided: 40% say it should be legal, while 34% say it should be  illegal  and about a quarter say it depends. 

Mirroring the pattern seen among adults overall, opinions are more varied about a situation where a baby might be born with severe disabilities or health issues. For instance, half of Catholics say abortion should be legal in such cases, while 21% say it should be illegal and 27% say it depends on the situation. 

Most religiously unaffiliated adults – including overwhelming majorities of self-described atheists – say abortion should be legal in each of the three circumstances. 

Seven-in-ten U.S. adults say that doctors or other health care providers should be required to notify a parent or legal guardian if the pregnant woman seeking an abortion is under 18, while 28% say they should not be required to do so.  

Women are slightly less likely than men to say this should be a requirement (67% vs. 74%). And younger adults are far less likely than those who are older to say a parent or guardian should be notified before a doctor performs an abortion on a pregnant woman who is under 18. In fact, about half of adults ages 18 to 24 (53%) say a doctor should  not  be required to notify a parent. By contrast, 64% of adults ages 25 to 29 say doctors  should  be required to notify parents of minors seeking an abortion, as do 68% of adults ages 30 to 49 and 78% of those 50 and older. 

A large majority of Republicans (85%) say that a doctor should be required to notify the parents of a minor before an abortion, though conservative Republicans are somewhat more likely than moderate and liberal Republicans to take this position (90% vs. 77%). 

The ideological divide is even more pronounced among Democrats. Overall, a slim majority of Democrats (57%) say a parent should be notified in this circumstance, but while 72% of conservative and moderate Democrats hold this view, just 39% of liberal Democrats agree. 

By and large, most Protestant (81%) and Catholic (78%) adults say doctors should be required to notify parents of minors before an abortion. But religiously unaffiliated Americans are more divided. Majorities of both atheists (71%) and agnostics (58%) say doctors should  not  be required to notify parents of minors seeking an abortion, while six-in-ten of those who describe their religion as “nothing in particular” say such notification should be required. 

Americans are divided over who should be penalized – and what that penalty should be – in a situation where an abortion occurs illegally. 

Overall, a 60% majority of adults say that if a doctor or provider performs an abortion in a situation where it is illegal, they should face a penalty. But there is less agreement when it comes to others who may have been involved in the procedure. 

While about half of the public (47%) says a woman who has an illegal abortion should face a penalty, a nearly identical share (50%) says she should not. And adults are more likely to say people who help find and schedule or pay for an abortion in a situation where it is illegal should  not  face a penalty than they are to say they should.

Views about penalties are closely correlated with overall attitudes about whether abortion should be legal or illegal. For example, just 20% of adults who say abortion should be legal in all cases without exception think doctors or providers should face a penalty if an abortion were carried out in a situation where it was illegal. This compares with 91% of those who think abortion should be illegal in all cases without exceptions. Still, regardless of how they feel about whether abortion should be legal or not, Americans are more likely to say a doctor or provider should face a penalty compared with others involved in the procedure. 

Among those who say medical providers and/or women should face penalties for illegal abortions, there is no consensus about whether they should get jail time or a less severe punishment. Among U.S. adults overall, 14% say women should serve jail time if they have an abortion in a situation where it is illegal, while 16% say they should receive a fine or community service and 17% say they are not sure what the penalty should be. 

A somewhat larger share of Americans (25%) say doctors or other medical providers should face jail time for providing illegal abortion services, while 18% say they should face fines or community service and 17% are not sure. About three-in-ten U.S. adults (31%) say doctors should lose their medical license if they perform an abortion in a situation where it is illegal.

Men are more likely than women to favor penalties for the woman or doctor in situations where abortion is illegal. About half of men (52%) say women should face a penalty, while just 43% of women say the same. Similarly, about two-thirds of men (64%) say a doctor should face a penalty, while 56% of women agree.

Republicans are considerably more likely than Democrats to say both women and doctors should face penalties – including jail time. For example, 21% of Republicans say the woman who had the abortion should face jail time, and 40% say this about the doctor who performed the abortion. Among Democrats, far smaller shares say the woman (8%) or doctor (13%) should serve jail time.  

White evangelical Protestants are more likely than other Protestant groups to favor penalties for abortions in situations where they are illegal. Fully 24% say the woman who had the abortion should serve time in jail, compared with just 12% of White non-evangelical Protestants or Black Protestants. And while about half of White evangelicals (48%) say doctors who perform illegal abortions should serve jail time, just 26% of White non-evangelical Protestants and 18% of Black Protestants share this view.

• Only respondents who said that abortion should be legal in some cases but not others and that how long a woman has been pregnant should matter in determining whether abortion should be legal received questions about abortion’s legality at specific points in the pregnancy.  ↩

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Christianity
• Evangelicalism
• Political Issues
• Politics & Policy
• Protestantism
• Religion & Abortion
• Religion & Politics
• Religion & Social Values

Most Popular

Report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Abortion Research Paper

This essay about abortion research papers provides a comprehensive overview of the topic, covering historical context, research methodologies, ethical considerations, key findings, policy implications, and future directions. It explores the diverse perspectives and insights offered by abortion research, emphasizing its significance in informing public discourse, policymaking, and advocacy efforts for reproductive rights and healthcare equity.

How it works

Abortion remains a contentious topic that continues to spark debates across various domains of society. In the realm of academia, research papers on abortion stand as critical contributions to understanding the multifaceted dimensions of this complex issue. From historical analyses to contemporary studies, the landscape of abortion research is vast and ever-evolving. In this essay, we will explore the unique nuances and perspectives presented in research papers on abortion, shedding light on the diverse methodologies, ethical considerations, key findings, policy implications, and future directions within this field.

Historical Context: The historical context of abortion is rich and varied, reflecting shifting cultural, religious, and legal attitudes towards reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. Throughout centuries, societies have grappled with the ethical implications of terminating pregnancies, with practices varying widely across different cultures and time periods. From ancient civilizations to modern nation-states, the debate surrounding abortion has been marked by a complex interplay of religious doctrine, medical advancements, and social norms. Understanding this historical backdrop is essential for contextualizing contemporary abortion research and recognizing the enduring significance of this issue throughout human history.

Research Methodologies: Abortion research encompasses a diverse array of methodologies, each offering unique insights into different aspects of the topic. Quantitative studies leverage statistical analyses to examine trends in abortion rates, demographic patterns among individuals seeking abortions, and the impact of legislative policies on abortion access. Meanwhile, qualitative research delves into the lived experiences of individuals who have undergone abortions, providing nuanced perspectives on their motivations, emotions, and societal contexts. Additionally, interdisciplinary approaches, such as bioethical analyses or sociocultural studies, offer multifaceted understandings of the moral, ethical, and social dimensions of abortion.

Ethical Considerations: Ethical considerations are paramount in abortion research, given the sensitive nature of the topic and the potential implications for individuals’ rights and well-being. Researchers must navigate a complex ethical terrain, ensuring that their studies uphold principles of autonomy, justice, and beneficence. This includes obtaining informed consent from participants, protecting their privacy and confidentiality, and minimizing any potential harms associated with participation. Moreover, researchers must remain vigilant in addressing their own biases and avoiding the instrumentalization of participants’ experiences for political or ideological agendas.

Key Findings: Research on abortion has yielded a wealth of findings that contribute to our understanding of its complexities and implications. Studies have debunked myths and misconceptions surrounding the safety and efficacy of abortion procedures, affirming that when performed by trained healthcare providers in regulated settings, abortions are generally safe medical procedures. Furthermore, research has highlighted disparities in abortion access based on factors such as socioeconomic status, geographic location, and race/ethnicity, underscoring the importance of addressing structural barriers to reproductive healthcare.

Policy Implications: Abortion research holds significant implications for public policy, shaping legislative decisions and healthcare practices worldwide. Scholars have conducted research evaluating the impact of restrictive abortion laws on women’s health outcomes, reproductive rights, and social inequalities. Additionally, comparative studies examining abortion policies across different countries offer valuable insights into the effectiveness of various regulatory frameworks in ensuring safe and equitable access to abortion services. These findings can inform evidence-based policymaking and advocacy efforts aimed at promoting reproductive justice and healthcare equity.

Future Directions: Looking ahead, there are numerous avenues for further exploration within the field of abortion research. Longitudinal studies tracking individuals’ experiences and outcomes following abortion could provide invaluable insights into the long-term physical, emotional, and socioeconomic effects of the procedure. Additionally, interdisciplinary research examining the intersections of abortion with other social issues, such as poverty, gender inequality, and healthcare disparities, could deepen our understanding of the broader implications of reproductive rights and justice. By continuing to advance rigorous and nuanced research on abortion, scholars can contribute to informed public discourse, evidence-based policymaking, and the promotion of reproductive autonomy and well-being for all individuals.

Cite this page

Abortion Research Paper. (2024, Apr 07). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-research-paper/

"Abortion Research Paper." PapersOwl.com , 7 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-research-paper/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Abortion Research Paper . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-research-paper/ [Accessed: 19 Apr. 2024]

"Abortion Research Paper." PapersOwl.com, Apr 07, 2024. Accessed April 19, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-research-paper/

"Abortion Research Paper," PapersOwl.com , 07-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-research-paper/. [Accessed: 19-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Abortion Research Paper . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-research-paper/ [Accessed: 19-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Gail Collins

Abortion Is Remaking Our Political Landscape. Why Aren’t Guns?

By Gail Collins

Opinion Columnist

Why don’t we talk more about guns?

Not that the issue doesn’t come up. But think about the public debate on gun control versus the one we’re having on abortion rights. Perhaps the two biggest long-running social issues in American politics, and the gulf does seem huge.

A lot of politicians who were historically opposed to abortion have clearly gotten very nervous about public opinion, worrying that being anti-choice is costing them votes. Take Arizona’s Kari Lake, one of the Republican Party’s most famous crazy-person candidates, now running for a Senate nomination. In 2022 when she was trying to get elected governor, she was a big fan of her state’s ancient ban on virtually all abortions (“a great law”).

But like many, many ambitious pols, Lake noticed that the public — even much of the conservative public — didn’t like seeing politicians mess with a woman’s right to control what happens with her own body. When a state Supreme Court suddenly upheld that Arizona abortion ban, circa 1864, Lake said that the old law was indeed “out of line with where the people of this state are.” Then she tried to drown the debate with a mystery statement. (“I chose life, but I’m not every woman. I want to make sure that every woman who finds herself pregnant has more choices so that she can make that choice that I made.”)

Of course, if we’re talking about folks who are principle-free, there’s always Donald Trump. Our former president felt the pro-abortion-rights winds blowing when, after the Supreme Court majority he brags about creating declared abortion wasn’t a constitutional right, his party did worse than expected in the next House elections. Hoping to dump the problem on the governors, he embraced the theory that abortion was a state issue.

But when it comes to guns, Trump clearly hasn’t seen any need to search for a pseudo-middle ground. He recently attended an N.R.A. gathering in Pennsylvania, where he assured his audience that “every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated on my very first week back in office, perhaps my first day.”

Now, the idea of making abortion a state issue only works if you’re just looking for a make-believe answer that might let you escape from discussing the subject. But we don’t have a visible gun consensus. Even mass school shooting tragedies like Sandy Hook and Uvalde didn’t bring the debate to a head. Many, many politicians are still trying to protect the right of Americans to own weapons while giving at least some verbal deference to the right of everybody else not to be shot.

Shootings qualify as “mass” when a minimum of four people — shooter excluded — are hit. At this writing there have been 119 mass shootings this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive. (Really kinda depressing to be living in a country that requires the services of a Gun Violence Archive.) But don’t hold me to that number — it goes up fast. Just the other day one child was killed and 10 people injured at a backyard party in Chicago and 12 people were shot outside a New Orleans nightclub, one fatally.

These terrible gun stories often happen while people are pursuing what’s supposed to be their normal life. Late last month, an Uber driver in Ohio was killed when she was dispatched to the home of an 81-year-old man who believed she was working for somebody who was trying to scam him.

The last thing we should be leaving to the individual states is gun regulation, given that it’s extremely easy — and common — for weapons to travel across state lines. And anyway, you don’t really want to rely on state legislatures when it comes to national life-or-death issues. Basically, you’d be gambling on the wisdom and prudence of people like Colorado State Representative Don Wilson, who recently had to apologize for leaving a loaded semiautomatic handgun in the State Capitol restroom.

Or the state senators in Tennessee, whose response to the terrible Nashville school shooting that left six people, including three children, dead was to pass a bill allowing teachers to carry concealed guns to work.

Is it possible for us to get to the same place on gun safety that we’re getting to on abortion — where the people who make the policy feel pressure to be sensible? Christian Heyne, an official at Brady, an organization against gun violence, thinks that when it comes to public attitudes, we’re getting there. “It’s really a new ballgame for us,” he said.

That’s in large part because of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, passed in 2022, which prevents misdemeanor offenders from purchasing guns for five years after their release from prison and enhances background checks for gun buyers under 21.

A landmark bill. Truly, that’s what they called it. Because we live in a country where when it comes to guns, basically sane can be totally impossible. One of the leaders behind the bill, Senator Chris Murphy, feels Congress tackled both the abortion and gun issues because history forced it to. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the abortion protection in Roe v. Wade triggered an effort to pass some new authorization. And guns went back on the agenda after a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, took the lives of 19 students and two teachers.

Ordinary citizens, Murphy said, were drenched in “the feeling someone else controls their bodies and the fear that their child won’t come home from school.”

So, changes on both fronts. But totally irresponsible — sometimes totally criminal — people can still buy guns through online or gun-show setups and sell them to dealers who specialize in selling them to the exact people we don’t want to see walking around armed. Changes have been made, but the setup is still … scary. Women’s rights rule on the abortion front — or at least in states that want to restrict them, politicians are trying to disguise their intent. But the gun lobby still reigns on the shooting side of things. And Trump, for one, courts them with gusto.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Gail Collins is an Opinion columnist, is a former member of the editorial board and was the first woman to serve as the Times editorial page editor, from 2001 to 2007. @ GailCollins • Facebook

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Factors Influencing Abortion Decision-Making Processes among Young Women

Mónica frederico.

1 International Centre for Reproductive Health (ICRH), Ghent University, 9000 Gent, Belgium; [email protected]

2 Centro de Estudos Africanos, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, C. P. 1993, Maputo, Mozambique; [email protected]

Kristien Michielsen

Carlos arnaldo, peter decat.

3 Department of Family Medicine and primary health care, Ghent University, 9000 Gent, Belgium; [email protected]

Background: Decision-making about if and how to terminate a pregnancy is a dilemma for young women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. Those women are subject to sociocultural and economic barriers that limit their autonomy and make them vulnerable to pressures that influence or force decisions about abortion. Objective : The objective of this study was to explore the individual, interpersonal and environmental factors behind the abortion decision-making process among young Mozambican women. Methods : A qualitative study was conducted in Maputo and Quelimane. Participants were identified during a cross-sectional survey with women in the reproductive age (15–49). In total, 14 women aged 15 to 24 who had had an abortion participated in in-depth interviews. A thematic analysis was used. Results : The study found determinants at different levels, including the low degree of autonomy for women, the limited availability of health facilities providing abortion services and a lack of patient-centeredness of health services. Conclusions : Based on the results of the study, the authors suggest strategies to increase knowledge of abortion rights and services and to improve the quality and accessibility of abortion services in Mozambique.

1. Introduction

Abortion among adolescents and youth is a major public health issue, especially in developing countries. Estimates indicate that 2.2 million unplanned pregnancies and 25% (2.5 million) unsafe abortions occur each year, in sub-Saharan Africa, among adolescents [ 1 ]. In 2008, of the 43.8 million induced abortions, 21.6 million were estimated to be unsafe, and nearly all of them (98%) took place in developing countries, with 41% (8.7 million) being performed on women aged 15 to 24 [ 2 ].

The consequences of abortion, especially unsafe abortion, are well documented and include physical complications (e.g., sepsis, hemorrhage, genital trauma), and even death [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. The physical complications are more severe among adolescents than older women and increase the risk of morbidity and mortality [ 6 , 7 ]. However, the detrimental effects of unsafe abortion are not limited to the individual but also affect the entire healthcare system, with the treatment of complications consuming a significant share of resources (e.g., including hospital beds, blood supply, drugs) [ 5 , 8 ].

The decision if and how to terminate a pregnancy is influenced by a variety of factors at different levels [ 9 ]. At the individual level these factors include: their marital status, whether they were the victim of rape or incest [ 10 , 11 ], their economic independence and their education level [ 10 , 12 ]. Interpersonally factors include support from one’s partner and parental support [ 12 ]. Societal determinants include social norms, religion [ 9 , 13 ], the stigma of premarital and extra-marital sex [ 14 ], adolescents’ status, and autonomy within society [ 12 ]. At the organizational level, the existence of sex education [ 10 , 14 ], the health care system, and abortion laws influence the decisions if and where to have an abortion.

Those factors are related to power and (gender) inequalities. They limit young women’s autonomy and make them vulnerable to pressure. Additionally, the situation is exacerbated when there is a lack of clarity and information on abortion status, despite the existence of a progressive law in this regard.

For example, Mozambican law has allowed abortion if the woman’s health is at risk since the 1980s [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. In 2014, a new abortion law was established that broadened the scope of the original law: women are now also allowed to terminate their pregnancy: (1) if they requested it and it is performed during the first 12 weeks; (2) in the first 16 weeks if it was the result of rape or incest, or (3) in the first 24 weeks if the mother’s physical or mental health was in danger or in cases of fetus disease or anomaly. Women younger than 16 or psychically incapable of deciding need parental consent [ 19 , 20 ].

Notwithstanding the progressive abortion laws in Mozambique, hospital-based studies report that unsafe abortion remains one of the main causes of maternal death in Mozambique [ 3 ]. However, hospital cases are only a small share of unsafe abortions in the country. Many women undergo an abortion in illegal and unsafe circumstances for a variety of reasons [ 3 ], such as legal restrictions, the fear of stigma [ 21 , 22 , 23 ], and a lack of knowledge of the availability of abortion services [ 3 , 9 , 23 ].

According to the 2011 Mozambican Demographic Health Survey (DHS), at least 4.5% of all adolescents reported having terminated a pregnancy [ 24 ]. Unpublished data from the records of Mozambican Association for Family Development (AMODEFA) which has a clinic that offers sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion, indicate that from 2010 to 2016 a total of 70,895 women had an induced abortion in this clinic, of which 43% were aged 15 to 24. Of the 1500 women that had an induced abortion in the AMODEFA clinic in the first three months of 2017, 27.9% were also in this age group [ 25 ]. These data show the high demand for (safe) abortion among young women.

For all this described above, Mozambique is an interesting place to study this decision-making process; given the changing legal framework, women may have to navigate gray areas in terms of legality, safety, and access when seeking abortion, which is stigmatized but necessary for the health, well-being, and social position of many young women.

The objective of this study is to explore the individual, interpersonal and environmental factors behind the abortion decision-making process. This entails both the decision to have an abortion and the decision on how to have the abortion. By examining fourteen stories of young women with an episode of induced abortion, we contribute to the documentation of the circumstances around the abortion decision making, and also to inform the policymakers on complexity of this issue for, which in turn can contribute to improve the strategies designed to reduce the cases of maternal morbidity and mortality in Mozambique.

2. Materials and Methods

This is an exploratory study using in-depth interview to explore factors related to abortion decision-making in a changing context. As research on this topic is limited, we opted for a qualitative research framework that aims to identify factors influencing this decision-making process.

2.1. Location of the Study

The study was conducted in two Mozambican cities, Maputo and Quelimane. These cities were selected because they registered more abortions than other cities in the same region. According to the 2014 data from the Direcção Nacional de Planificação, 629 and 698 women, respectively, were admitted to the hospital due to induced abortion complications in Maputo and Quelimane [ 26 ]. Furthermore, the two differ radically in terms of culture, with Maputo in the South being patrilineal and Quelimane in the Central Region matrilineal, which could influence the abortion decision-making process. The fieldwork took place between July–August 2016 and January–February 2017.

2.2. Data Collection

The data were collected through in-depth interviews, asking participants about their experiences with induced abortion and what motivated them to get an abortion. To approach and recruit participants ( Figure 1 ), we used the information collected during a cross-sectional survey with women in the reproductive age (15–49), These women were selected randomly applying multistage cluster based on household registers. The survey was designed to understand women’s sexual and reproductive health and included filter questions that allowed us to identify participants who had undergone an abortion. The information sheet and informed consent form for this household survey included information about a possible follow-up study.

The process of recruitment of the participants.

Participants who were within the age-range 15–24 years and who reported having had an abortion were contacted by phone. In this contact, the researcher (MF) introduced herself, reminded the participant of the study she took part in, explained the follow-up study and asked whether she was willing to participate in this. If she did, an appointment was made at a convenient location. Before each interview, we explained to each participant why she was invited to the second interview. Participants were also informed of interview procedures, confidentiality and anonymity in the management of the data, and the possibility to withdraw from the interview at any time. In total 14, young women (15–24) agreed to participate: nine in Maputo and five in Quelimane. Six of them were interviewed twice to explore further aspects that remained unclear after the first interview. The interviews were conducted in Portuguese.

To start the interview, the participant was invited to tell her life history from puberty until the moment when the abortion occurred. During the conversation, we used probing questions to elicit more details. Gradually, we added questions related to the abortion and factors that influenced the decision process. The main questions were related to the pregnancy history, abortion decision-making, and help-seeking behaviour. The guideline was adapted from WHO tools [ 27 , 28 ]. Before the implementation of the guideline, it was discussed first with another Mozambican researcher to see how they fell regarding the question. After those questions were revised or removed from the guideline.

2.3. Data Analysis

The analysis consisted of three steps: transcription, reading, and codification with NVivo version 11(QSR International Pty Ltd., Doncaster, Australia). After an initial reading, one of the authors (MF) developed a coding tree on factors determining the decision-making. A structured thematic analysis was used to make inferences and elicit key emerging themes from the text-based data [ 29 , 30 ]. The coding tree was based on the ecological model, which is a comprehensive framework that emphasizes the interaction between, and interdependence of factors within and across all levels of a health problem since it considers that the behaviour affects and is affected by multiple levels of influence [ 31 , 32 ].

Next, the codes and the classification were discussed among the researchers (Mónica Frederico, Kristien Michielsen, Carlos Arnaldo and Peter Decat). Finally, the data was interpreted, and conclusions were drawn [ 33 ].

2.4. Ethical Consideration

Before the implementation of this research, we obtained ethical approval from the Institutional Committee of the Faculty of Medicine and Nacional Bioethical Committee for Health (IRB00002657). We also asked for the institutional approval of the Minister of Health and authorities at the provincial and community levels. The participants gave their informed consent after the objectives and interview procedures had been explained to them. The participants were informed that they might be contacted and invited, within six months, to participate in another interview.

2.5. Concepts

The providers are the people who carried out the abortion procedure. These may be categorized into skilled and unskilled providers: the former refers to a professional (i.e., nurse or doctor) offering abortion services to a client, while the latter is someone without any medical training. Another concept that requires further explanation is the legal procedure. This corresponds to a set of steps to be followed to comply with the law [ 19 , 20 ]. Specifically, this means that a committee should authorize the induced abortion and an identification document should be available, as well as an informed consent form from the pregnant woman. If the woman is a minor, consent is given by her legal guardian. An ultrasound exam is required to determine the gestational age.

3.1. Characteristics of the Participants

The characteristics of the interviewees are summarized in Table 1 . The 14 participants were aged 17 to 24 years. Eight had completed secondary school, four had achieved the second level of primary school, and two were university students. Almost all (13) were Christian. Five participants were studying, eight were unemployed, and one was working. The median age of their first sexual intercourse was 15.5 years. Participants reported living with one or both parents (12), with their uncle (1) or alone (1). They lived in suburban areas of Maputo and Quelimane, which are slums with poor living conditions. In these areas, most households earn their income through small businesses that also involve child labour (e.g., selling food or drinks).

Socio-demographic characteristics and abortion procedure.

Among the participants, five reported more than one pregnancy. One interviewee first had a stillbirth and then two abortions. Another woman gave birth to a girl and afterward terminated two pregnancies. Two interviewees reported two pregnancies, the first of which was brought to full term and the second one terminated. One woman first had an abortion and afterward gave birth to a child. In short, 14 interviewees in total reported on the experiences and decision-making of 16 abortions. One participant stated that the pregnancy was the consequence of rape. Of the 16 reported abortions, seven were performed after the new law came into force at the end of 2014, and nine were carried out before this time.

3.2. Abortions Stories

In this study, 12 abortions were done by skilled providers and two by unskilled providers. The unskilled providers were a mother and a husband, respectively. None of the cases, whose abortion was done by a skilled provider, included in this study followed the legal procedure.

In the analysis of the interviews, we studied the personal, interpersonal and environmental factors that influenced six different types of abortion stories, see Table 2 : (1) an abortion was performed because the pregnancy was unwanted; (2) an abortion was carried out although the pregnancy was wanted; (3) the abortion was done by an unskilled provider at home; (4) an abortion was carried out by a skilled provider outside the hospital; (5) a particular abortion procedure (medical or chirurgical) was chosen, and (6) the legal procedure was not followed in the hospital. Factors influencing the choice for a particular technical procedure were also examined.

Summary of induced abortion stories. (We changed the table format, please confirm.)

* The result of rape; ** Seven participants; *** six participants.

3.3. Abortion Following an Unwanted Pregnancy

In the stories about unwanted pregnancies, mostly personal factors were mentioned as reasons, with some interviewees stating that they felt unable to be a mother at the time of the pregnancy: “ (It) was at the time that I was taking pills that I got pregnant, and I induced abortion because I was not prepared (for motherhood). ” (24 years)

Some had had a bad experience in the past: “ Maybe I would be abandoned and it would be the same. (Sigh)... I learned with my first pregnancy. ” (23 years)

Also, the existence of another child was mentioned as a reason to have an abortion: “ I got pregnant when I was 20, and I had a baby. When I became pregnant again, my daughter was a child, and I could not have another child. ” (23 years)

For other participants, studies were the main reason why the pregnancy was not wanted: “ He was informed about it, and he said that I should keep it. However, as I wanted to continue my studies, I told him no, no (I) do not. ” (17 years)

At the interpersonal level, a lack of support from the partner was often mentioned as a reason for not wanting the baby: “ He said that he recognizes the paternity, but it is not to keep that pregnancy. ” (22 years)

Women frequently mentioned environmental circumstances related to their poor socio-economic situation: “ I am staying at Mom's house; it is not okay to still be having babies there.” (23 years)

“ At home, we do not have any resources to take care of this child! ” (20 years)

3.4. Abortion Following a Wanted Pregnancy

In these cases, the decision to abort the pregnancy was not made by the woman herself but imposed by others or by the circumstances.

Some participants reported that their parents/family had decided what had to be done: “ They decided while I was at school. If (it) was my decision I would keep it because I wanted it. ” (18 years).

Other young women indicated the refusal of paternity as a reason to terminate the pregnancy.

“ Because my son’s father did not accept the (second) pregnancy. There was a time, we argued with each other, and we terminated the relationship. Later, we started dating again, and I got pregnant. He said it was not possible. ” (21 years)

“ (he) impregnated me and after that, he dumped me, (smiles)… I went to him, and I said that I was pregnant. He said eee: I do not know, that is not my child. ” (20 years).

Some women told the interviewers that they were convinced by their boyfriend to have an abortion: “ I talked to him, and he said okay we are going to have an abortion and I accepted. ” (22 years)

Others mentioned their partner’s indecision and changing attitude as a reason to get an abortion, even though they did want the baby:

“ I told him I was pregnant. First, he said to keep it. (Next) He was different. Sometimes he was calling me, and other times not. I understood that he did not want me. ” (20 years)

The fear of being excluded from their family due to their pregnancy was another reason reported by participants: “ So I went to talk with my older sister, and she said eee, you must abort because daddy will kick you out of our home. ” (20 years)

“ As I am an orphan, and I live with my uncle, they were going to kick me out. No one would assist me. ” (20 years)

3.5. Location of the Abortion: Home-Based Versus Hospital-Based

Two young women reported having had the abortion at home by an unskilled provider. It seems that these unskilled providers than the women (i.e. family members, partner) made the decisions.

“ It was mammy and my sister (who provided the induced abortion services). My sister knows these things. ” (18 years)

“ He (the father of the child) came to my house and took me back to his house. It was that moment when I aborted. ” (21 years)

Of the 16 abortions, seven were performed through health services, by a skilled provider. For some of them, the choice for a health service was influenced by the fact of knowing someone at the health facility.

“ I went to talk to her (friend), and she said that “I have an aunt who works at the hospital, she can help you. Just take money”. ” (20 years)

“ I Already knew who could induce it (abortion). No, I knew that person. I went to the hospital, and I talked to her, (and) she helped me. ” (22 years)

Other participants went to the health facility, but due to the lack of money to pay for an abortion at the facilities they sought help out of the health facility: “ They charged us money that we did not have. The ladies did not want to negotiate anything. I think they wanted 1200 mt (17.1 euros) if I am not wrong. He had a job, but he (boyfriend) did not have that amount of money. ” (22 years)

Some participants reported that they had an abortion outside regular facilities because the health provider recommended going to his house: “ She (mother) was the one who accompanied me. She is the one who knows the doctor. We went to the central hospital, but he (the doctor) was very busy, and he told us to go to his house. ” (17 years)

Others reported the fear of signing a document as a reason to seek help outside of official channels: “ I heard that to induce abortion at the hospital it is necessary for an adult to sign a consent form. I was afraid because I did not know who could accompany me. Because at that time I only wanted to hide it from others. ” (22 years).

3.6. Abortion Procedure

The women were not able to explain why a particular abortion procedure (i.e., pills or aspiration, curettage) was used. It appears that they were not given the opportunity to choose and that they submitted themselves to the procedure proposed by the provider.

“ The abortion was done here at home. They just went to the pharmacy, bought pills and gave them to me. ” (18 years)

3.7. Legal Procedure

None of those treated at the hospital stated that legal procedures were followed. They also mentioned that they had to pay without receiving any official receipt.

“ First we got there and talked to a servant (a helper of the hospital). The servant asked for money for a refreshment so he could talk to a doctor. After we spoke (with servant), he went to the doctor, and the doctor came, and we arranged everything with him. ” (22 years)

“ We went to the health center, and we talked to those doctors or nurses I mean, they said that they could provide that service. It was 1200 mt (17.1 euros), and they were going to deal with everything. They did not give us the chance to sign a document and follow those procedures. ” (20 years)

4. Discussion

The objective of this study was to describe abortion procedures and to explore factors influencing the abortion decision-making process among young women in Maputo and Quelimane.

The study pointed out determinants at the personal, interpersonal and environmental level. Analysing the results, we were confronted with four recurring factors that negatively impacted on the decision-making process: (1) women’s lack of autonomy to make their own decisions regarding the termination of the pregnancy, (2) their general lack of knowledge, (3) the poor availability of local abortion services, and (4) the overpowering influence of providers on the decisions made.

The first factor involves women’s lack of autonomy. In our study, most women indicate that decisions regarding the termination of a pregnancy are mostly taken by others, sometimes against their will. Parents, family members, partners, and providers decide what should happen. As shown in the literature, this lack of autonomy in abortion decision-making is linked to power and gender inequality [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]. On the one hand, power reflects the degree to which individuals or groups can impose their will on others, with or without the consent of those others [ 34 , 37 , 38 ]. In this case, the power of the parent/family is observed when they, directly or indirectly, influence their daughters to induce an abortion, for instance by threatening to kick them out of their home. On the other hand, gender inequality is also a factor. This refers to the power imbalance between men and women and is reflected by cases in which the partner makes the decision to terminate the pregnancy [ 38 ]. Besides this, the contextual environment of male chauvinism in Mozambique also makes it more socially acceptable for men to reject responsibility for a pregnancy [ 34 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 40 ]. Finally, women’s economic dependence makes them more vulnerable, dependent and subordinated. For economic reasons, women, have no other choice but to obey and follow the family or partner’s decisions. Closely linked with women’s lack of autonomy is their lack of knowledge. Interviewees report that they do not know where abortion services are provided. They are not acquainted with the legal procedures and do not know their sexual rights. This lack of knowledge among women contributes to the high prevalence of pregnancy termination outside of health facilities and not in accordance with legal procedures.

Our participants often report that abortion services are absent at a local level, as has also been pointed out by Ngwena [ 41 ]. This is a particular problem in Mozambique. Not all tertiary or quaternary health facilities are authorized to perform abortions. The fact that only some tertiary and quaternary facilities are allowed to do so creates a shortage of abortion centres to cover the demand. In fact, only people with a certain level of education and a sufficiently large social network have access to legal and proper abortion procedures.

Finally, our study shows that providers mostly decide on the location, the methods used and the legality of abortion procedures. Patients are highly dependent on the health providers’ commitment, professionality and accuracy and the selected procedures are not mutually decided by the provider and the patient. Providers often do not refer the client to the reference health facility or do not inform them of the legal procedures, creating a gap between law and practice that stimulates illegal and unsafe procedures. The reasons for this are unclear. It might be due to a lack of knowledge among health providers too, and, perhaps, provider saw here an opportunity to supplement the low salary [ 42 ]. Participants who seek help at the health facility they do so contacting the provider in particular, as indication given by someone.

This corroborates with studies conducted by Ngwena [ 41 , 43 ], Doran et al. [ 44 ], Pickles [ 45 ], Mantshi [ 46 ], and Ngwena [ 47 ], which pointed out the obstacles related to the availability of services and providers’ attitudes towards safe abortion, although the law grants the population this right [ 41 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ]. As Ngwena [ 41 , 43 ] argues, the liberalization of abortion laws is not always put into practice and abortion rights merely exist on paper. Braam’ study [ 48 ] therefore highlights the necessity of clarifying and informing women and providers of the current legislation and ensuring that abortion services are available in all circumstances described in the law.

Finally, despite cultural differences between Maputo and Quelimane, the result did not suggest differences between two areas studied regarding factors influencing the decision to terminate and how the abortion is done. However, the Figure 1 suggests that there was trend to have more participants from Maputo reporting abortion episode in her life than Quelimane. This difference maybe be because Maputo is much more multicultural and the people of this city have more access to information that gives them the opportunity to learn about matter of reproductive health including abortion, than Quelimane. So, due to this there is trend decrease the taboo relation to abortion in Maputo than in Quelimane.

These abortion stories illustrate the lack of autonomy in decision-making process given the power and gender inequalities between adults and young women, and also between man and women . They also show the lack of knowledge not only on the availability of abortion services at some health facilities, as well as, on the new law on abortion. All these lacks that women have are reinforced by poor availability of abortion services and the fact that the providers we not taking their role to help those women, as it is exposed in the next sections.

This study interviewed young women who had an induced abortion at some point in their lives (15 years up to their age at interview date). As such, it does not provide any information on the factors behind the decisions of those who did not terminate their pregnancy.

The results presented in this paper only reflect the perceptions of the young women who had an induced abortion, not those of their parents or partners. The paper is based on qualitative data that provides insights into factors influencing abortion decision-making. Since the sample included in the study is not representative for the population of young women in Mozambique, the results cannot be generalized.

5. Conclusions

Based on the results of the study, we recommend the following measures to improve the abortion decision-making process among young women:

First, strategies should be implemented to increase women's autonomy in decision-making: The study highlighted that gender and power inequalities obstructed young women to make their decision with autonomy. We reiterate the Chandra-Mouli and colleges [ 49 ] message. There is a need to address gender and power inequalities. Addressing gender inequality, and promotion of more equitable power relations leads to improved health outcomes. The interventions to promote gender-equitable and power relationships, as well as human rights, need to be central to all future programming and policies [ 49 ].

Second, patients and the whole population should be better informed about national abortion laws, the recommended and legal procedures and the location of abortion services, since, despite the decision to terminate pregnancy resulted to the imposition, if they were well informed on that, maybe they could be decide on safe and legal abortion, avoiding double autonomy deprivation. At the same time, providers must be informed about the status of national abortion laws. Additionally, they should be trained in communication skills to promote shared decision-making and patient orientation in abortion counseling.

Third, the number of health facilities providing abortions services should be increased, particularly in remote areas.

Finally, health providers should be trained in communication skills to promote shared decision-making and patient orientation in abortion counseling.

The abortion decision-making by young women is an important topic because it refers the decision made during the transitional period from childhood to adulthood. The decision may have life-long consequences, compromising the individual health, career, psychological well-being, and social acceptance. This paper, on abortion decision-making, calls attention to some attitudes that lead to the illegality of abortion despite it was done at a health facility.

Acknowledgments

Authors gratefully acknowledge the support, contribution, and comments from all those who collaborated direct or indirectly, especially Olivier Degomme, Eunice Remane Jethá, Emilia Gonçalves, Cátia Taibo, Beatriz Chongo, Hélio Maúngue and Rehana Capruchand.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed significantly to the manuscript. Mónica Frederico collected data and developed the first analysis. The themes were intensively discussed with Kristien Michielsen, Carlos Arnaldo and Peter Decat. The subsequent versions of the article were written with the active participation of all authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.