Can someone be both pro-life and pro-choice? Results from a national survey of US adults.

"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are closely associated with discussions about abortion; we refer to the extent that people identify with these terms as "abortion identity." Most polling measures present pro-life and pro-choice as mutually exclusive options, but there is a dearth of information about people who might simultaneously endorse both (or neither) labels. METHOD: We administered a survey to adults in the United States (n = 580) that included two different formats for participants to select their abortion identity: a categorical item with response options ranging from strongly pro-choice to strongly pro-life (and "both" and "neither") and two separate items (sliders) that asked people the extent to which they identify with each term. We asked participants endorsing both pro-life and pro-choice to some extent on the slider items to explain their responses in an open-ended item. We used logistic regression to examine the relationship between participants' socio-demographic characteristics and the likelihood of dual identification slider scores; we analyzed open-ended data for content and themes. RESULTS: On the sliders, more than 64% of participants identified as both pro-life and pro-choice to some extent. Variability existed between people's abortion identity on the close-ended items and their response to the open-ended questions. Among those with mixed abortion identities, participants described abortion as a serious and undesirable option but reflected positively on notions of personal choice and bodily autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate complexity in measuring people's endorsement of abortion identity labels. We recommend developing more nuanced and consistent measures to assess abortion attitudes.

Analyzing Reddit Forums Specific to Abortion That Yield Diverse Dialogues Pertaining to Medical Information Seeking and Personal Worldviews: Data Mining and Natural Language Processing Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Attitudes toward abortion have historically been characterized via dichotomized labels, yet research suggests that these labels do not appropriately encapsulate beliefs on abortion. Rather, contexts, circumstances, and lived experiences often shape views on abortion into more nuanced and complex perspectives. Qualitative data have also been shown to underpin belief systems regarding abortion. Social media, as a form of qualitative data, could reveal how attitudes toward abortion are communicated publicly in web-based spaces. Furthermore, in some cases, social media can also be leveraged to seek health information. OBJECTIVE: This study applies natural language processing and social media mining to analyze Reddit (Reddit, Inc) forums specific to abortion, including r/Abortion (the largest subreddit about abortion) and r/AbortionDebate (a subreddit designed to discuss and debate worldviews on abortion). Our analytical pipeline intends to identify potential themes within the data and the affect from each post. METHODS: We applied a neural network-based topic modeling pipeline (BERTopic) to uncover themes in the r/Abortion (n=2151) and r/AbortionDebate (n=2815) subreddits. After deriving the optimal number of topics per subreddit using an iterative coherence score calculation, we performed a sentiment analysis using the Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner to assess positive, neutral, and negative affect and an emotion analysis using the Text2Emotion lexicon to identify potential emotionality per post. Differences in affect and emotion by subreddit were compared. RESULTS: The iterative coherence score calculation revealed 10 topics for both r/Abortion (coherence=0.42) and r/AbortionDebate (coherence=0.35). Topics in the r/Abortion subreddit primarily centered on information sharing or offering a source of social support; in contrast, topics in the r/AbortionDebate subreddit centered on contextualizing shifting or evolving views on abortion across various ethical, moral, and legal domains. The average compound Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner scores for the r/Abortion and r/AbortionDebate subreddits were 0.01 (SD 0.44) and -0.06 (SD 0.41), respectively. Emotionality scores were consistent across the r/Abortion and r/AbortionDebate subreddits; however, r/Abortion had a marginally higher average fear score of 0.36 (SD 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that people posting on abortion forums on Reddit are willing to share their beliefs, which manifested in diverse ways, such as sharing abortion stories including how their worldview changed, which critiques the value of dichotomized abortion identity labels, and information seeking. Notably, the style of discourse varied significantly by subreddit. r/Abortion was principally leveraged as an information and outreach source; r/AbortionDebate largely centered on debating across various legal, ethical, and moral abortion domains. Collectively, our findings suggest that abortion remains an opaque yet politically charged issue for people and that social media can be leveraged to understand views and circumstances surrounding abortion.

People's perception of changes in their abortion attitudes over the life course: A mixed methods approach.

Research examining the extent that people's attitudes toward abortion vary across the life course is mixed. Some studies do not show a strong relationship between abortion attitudes and life stage, while others do find strong associations in both directions-older age associated with both more and less favorable attitudes toward legal abortion. Taken together, these findings suggest that individual attitudes toward abortion are static for some but malleable for others. Little is known about the prevalence, reasons, and directionality of attitude changes. This explanatory sequential mixed methods study investigates people's perceptions of whether, how, why, and for whom their abortion attitudes may have changed over their life course. We qualitatively investigated the reasons (e.g., experiences, life events) that triggered changes in respondents' abortion attitudes and quantitatively explored the sociodemographic factors associated with the perceived direction of those changes. The quantitative data come from a 2020 online survey completed by 1501 English and Spanish-speaking adults in the US. Qualitative data were collected from a subsample (n = 24) of the survey respondents who indicated interest in a follow-up in-depth interview. Our findings indicate that access to information and knowledge played an important role in changing abortion attitudes across a spectrum of support or opposition. For those who indicated becoming more opposed to abortion over time, experiencing parenthood was an important trigger for change and family/religious upbringing were key to shaping attitudes. For those who became more supportive of abortion over time, empathy for women was an important trigger for change and disagreeing with or distancing oneself from family/religious upbringing were key to shaping their attitudes. If attitudinal change occurs, becoming more supportive of abortion over the life-course is more common than becoming more opposed, however there are some nuances across age and gender. Understanding the different factors that influence attitudinal change regarding abortion has important implications for public opinion research and possible ramifications for abortion legality.

People's knowledge of and attitudes toward abortion laws before and after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision.

Although media response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision was widespread in the United States, the extent to which people were aware of the Mississippi law leading to the decision, the Dobbs v. Jackson case, is unclear, as are the resulting effects of the decision on legal abortion. As such, we examined people's awareness of abortion legality prior to and after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision announcement, as well as the potential implications associated with the decision (i.e. overturning of Roe v. Wade). We also examined people's attitudes toward abortion legality, specifically focusing on 15 weeks' gestation to correspond with the Mississippi law that led to Dobbs v. Jackson. Data were collected across two studies at different times. In Study 1, a 15-minute survey was administered to IPSOS' KnowledgePanel (N = 1014) prior to the decision announcement. A shorter version of that survey was administered to a second sample using NORC's AmeriSpeak Omnibus panel (N = 1002). Nearly half of that sample (42.2%) completed the survey prior to the decision announcement. People were generally unaware of the Mississippi law, the Dobbs v. Jackson case, and implications associated with the decision (e.g. overturning Roe v. Wade). People generally endorsed abortion being legal at 15 weeks or later, but this varied by circumstance. We did not find meaningful effects of the decision announcement on people's knowledge and attitudes. Our findings suggest that the intense response to the decision from the media and people involved in the abortion movement may not represent the general public's reaction.

Perceptions of abortion access across the United States prior to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision: Results from a national survey.

CONTEXT: Abortion is common in the United States (US), although access is becoming more difficult for some. In addition to restrictive policies that ban most abortion, limit the number of providers and increase costs, barriers to access also include less supportive cultural climates and stigma related to abortion. Prior to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision of the United States Supreme Court, research suggested that people generally believed it was easy to access abortion, but this research did not examine the underlying factors that drive these perceptions. METHODS: In 2019, using data from closed and open-ended survey questions, we examined differences in people's assessment of abortion access within the state they reside and factors that influence those perceptions. We recruited English- and Spanish-speaking US adults (N = 2599) from Qualtrics' national panel using quota-based sampling to participate in a web-based survey. We used multinomial logistic regression to examine predictors of access perceptions across demographic characteristics and thematic analysis to analyze open-ended responses. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of participants believed abortion was easy to access in their state. Spanish speakers and participants from legislatively "hostile" states were more likely to perceive access as difficult. Legality-related knowledge and pro-life identity were associated with perceiving abortion access as easy. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to Dobbs, participants' interpretation of the ease or difficulty of accessing abortion were subjective. Misconceptions about state abortion laws and the prevalence of providers were common, suggesting a need for more education about abortion laws, policies, and access.

An exploratory examination of attitudes toward illegal abortion in the U.S. through endorsement of various punishments.

OBJECTIVES: We examined people's (1) attitudes about abortion using an item from Pew Research Center (i.e., whether abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases) and (2) support for different punishments if abortion were illegal in all cases for different people involved in the abortion-the pregnant person, their partner, an informant and the healthcare provider. STUDY DESIGN: We administered a web-based survey to 2,204 U.S. adults using quota-based sampling. Post-stratification weights were applied to the data so that the sample was comparable to U.S. benchmarks for gender, race, Hispanic ethnicity, age, education, and political affiliation. We compared endorsement of various punishments for a pregnant person, their partner, informant, and healthcare provider. Additionally, we compared the endorsement of these punishments across response options of Pew's abortion legality item. RESULTS: Overall, most of our sample indicated that abortion should be legal in most (34%) or legal in all scenarios (21%). However, if abortion were illegal in all circumstances, most of our sample supported some form of punishment for the pregnant person (72%-75%), their partner (65%-68%), and healthcare providers (70%-71%), but not informants (47%-49%). Among the endorsed punishments, therapy/education typically received the most support. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision and the subsequent overturning of Roe v. Wade, abortion is illegal in a significant number of states and a punishable offense. Our findings suggest that current punishments associated with many of these laws are counter to public sentiment. IMPLICATIONS: Despite majority support for some punishment, the categories of "no punishment" or therapy/education had the most support. Given the lack of plurality or majority support for fines or incarceration, abortion laws including these punishments, including bounty-style laws passed in Texas and Oklahoma, may be out of step with public opinion.

A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding the Disconnection between Perceptions of Abortion Acceptability and Support for Roe v. Wade among US Adults.

The relationship between people's attitudes about abortion acceptability and the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade-two distinct but related issues-has not been rigorously explored. The authors used a mixed-methods approach for analyzing in-depth interviews to better understand how participants' feelings toward abortion acceptability are related to perceptions of whether abortion should be legal. The authors then assessed (1) correlations between abortion acceptability and different measures of support for Roe v. Wade, and (2) how the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade may evoke different responses via an online survey fielded in 2018. The study's qualitative results highlight that there is a disjuncture between people's moral feelings toward abortion and their attitudes toward abortion legality. The study's quantitative results further demonstrate that correlations between abortion acceptability and support for Roe v. Wade are moderate, and the differences in responses to the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade are moderated by knowledge. The authors recommend that when researchers develop survey items, they avoid ambiguities of abortion as a general construct, especially when public opinion measures on abortion are employed for research and the design of social and health policy and practice.

"It Was Just Really Hard to Be Pregnant in a Smaller Town ": Pregnant and Parenting Teenagers' Perspectives of Social Support in Their Rural Communities.

Teenage pregnancy has a history of being a "social problem" in the United States, with there being higher rates in rural communities. Social support, a contributor to improving mental health outcomes, can significantly impact a teenager's pregnancy and parenting experience. Using House's (1981) social support framework, this study explores the teenagers' perceptions of how their rural community reacted and responded to them as pregnant and parenting teenagers. The results were formulated through the thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews (n = 26) with current and former pregnant and/or parenting teenagers. The participants reported experiencing both positive and negative social support. There were more reports of emotional support and instrumental support among the forms of positive support than there were in the other categories. Informational support was lacking. The appraisal support from community members was negative. There is a need for rural communities to develop effective social support strategies to provide positive support for pregnant and parenting teenagers.

Identifying accurate pro-choice and pro-life identity labels in Spanish: Social media insights and implications for comparative survey research.

INTRODUCTION: Although debate remains about the saliency and relevance of pro-choice and pro-life labels (as abortion belief indicators), they have been consistently used for decades to broadly designate abortion identity. However, clear labels are less apparent in other languages (e.g., Spanish). Social media, as an exploratory data science tool, can be leveraged to identify the presence and popularity of online abortion identity labels and how they are contextualized online. PURPOSE: This study aims to determine how popularly used Spanish-language pro-choice and pro-life identity labels are contextualized online. METHOD: We used Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic models, an unsupervised natural language processing (NLP) application, to generate themes about Spanish language tweets categorized by Spanish abortion identity labels: (1) proelección (pro-choice); (2) derecho a decidir (right to choose); (3) proaborto (pro-abortion); (4) provida (pro-life); (5) antiaborto (anti-abortion); and (6) derecho a vivir (right to life). We manually reviewed themes for each identity label to assess scope. RESULTS: All six identity labels included in our analysis contained some references to abortion. However, several labels were not exclusive to abortion. Proelección (pro-choice), for example, contained several themes related to ongoing presidential elections. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: No singular Spanish abortion identity label encapsulates abortion beliefs; however, there are several viable options. Just as the debate remains ongoing about pro-choice and pro-life as accurate indicators of abortion beliefs in English, we must also consider that identity is more complex than binary labels in Spanish.

Assessing rigid modes of thinking in self-declared abortion ideology: natural language processing insights from an online pilot qualitative study on abortion attitudes.

INTRODUCTION: Although much work has been done on US abortion ideology, less is known relative to the psychological processes that distinguish personal abortion beliefs or how those beliefs are communicated to others. As part of a forthcoming probability-based sampling designed study on US abortion climate, we piloted a study with a controlled sample to determine whether psychological indicators guiding abortion beliefs can be meaningfully extracted from qualitative interviews using natural language processing (NLP) substring matching. Of particular interest to this study is the presence of cognitive distortions-markers of rigid thinking-spoken during interviews and how cognitive distortion frequency may be tied to rigid, or firm, abortion beliefs. METHODS: We ran qualitative interview transcripts against two lexicons. The first lexicon, the cognitive distortion schemata (CDS), was applied to identify cognitive distortion n-grams (a series of words) embedded within the qualitative interviews. The second lexicon, the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC), was applied to extract other psychological indicators, including the degrees of (1) analytic thinking, (2) emotional reasoning, (3) authenticity, and (4) clout. RESULTS: People with polarized abortion views (i.e., strongly supportive of or opposed to abortion) had the highest observed usage of CDS n-grams, scored highest on authenticity, and lowest on analytic thinking. By contrast, people with moderate or uncertain abortion views (i.e., people holding more complex or nuanced views of abortion) spoke with the least CDS n-grams and scored slightly higher on analytic thinking. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest people communicate about abortion differently depending on their personal abortion ideology. Those with strong abortion views may be more likely to communicate with authoritative words and patterns of words indicative of cognitive distortions-or limited complexity in belief systems. Those with moderate views are more likely to speak in conflicting terms and patterns of words that are flexible and open to change-or high complexity in belief systems. These findings suggest it is possible to extract psychological indicators with NLP from qualitative interviews about abortion. Findings from this study will help refine our protocol ahead of full-study launch.

Abortion vs. Sexual Assault: People's Perceptions of Kavanaugh's Nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Public reaction to Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States initially centered around abortion. However, approximately two months after the nomination, sexual assault accusations against Kavanaugh were made public. We examined the extent that people's perceptions of Kavanaugh's stance on abortion and people's attitudes toward whether Kavanaugh committed sexual assault were associated with perceptions of Kavanaugh as a good Supreme Court justice. Data were collected from English- and Spanish-speaking participants (N = 2,883) in the United States via Qualtrics' panel. Using an exploratory hierarchical regression approach, we found that people's perceptions of whether Kavanaugh committed sexual assault was a stronger predictor of their attitudes toward Kavanaugh's quality as a Supreme Court justice [F(1,2855) = 1736.54, p < .001] than people's perceptions of him regarding abortion, after controlling for demographic characteristics and participants' abortion identity (e.g., identifying as pro-life, pro-choice). That sexual assault was a stronger predictor could suggest the importance of sexual assault regarding opinions of Supreme Court justices or potential over inflation of abortion as a salient issue. Researchers should investigate the saliency of sexual and reproductive health issues in relation to Supreme Court nominees.

Translation frameworks and questionnaire design approaches as a component of health research and practice: A discussion and taxonomy of popular translation frameworks and questionnaire design approaches.

Multilanguage surveys are a vital component of comparative public health science. And, with dozens of tools available to guide the translation and design process, an open dialogue about key translation frameworks and design approaches and their strengths and limitations is needed. Herein, we briefly summarize the application and use of several popular translation frameworks and questionnaire design approaches. Our purpose is to draw attention to the complexities of multilanguage surveys by noting how the most appropriate framework or approach is entirely dependent on the context of a specific study. We conclude with a call encouraging the adoption of frameworks and approaches that value high degrees of cultural input, ideally among a large team of culture, language, and subject matter experts. And, as the implemented translation framework or questionnaire design approach may hold implications for the quality and validity of data, we also call on editors to create recommendations that encourage disclosure of the translation framework(s) and/or questionnaire design approaches guiding multilanguage surveys.

Attitudes of US adults toward using telemedicine to prescribe medication abortion during COVID-19: A mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVES: We explored public opinion about using telemedicine to provide medication abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. We also investigated the associations between socio-demographic characteristics and support for using telemedicine in this context and explored factors that influenced respondents' attitudes on the topic. STUDY DESIGN: In a nationally representative, web-based survey of US adults (n = 711), we asked open- and closed-ended questions about using telemedicine to prescribe medication abortion during COVID-19. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess the relationship between socio-demographic characteristics, endorsement of abortion labels, and political affiliation and support for telemedicine in this circumstance. Then, we conducted content and thematic analyses with the open-ended data to explore what influenced respondents' opinions. RESULTS: Overall, 332 (44%) of respondents supported using telemedicine for medication abortion during the pandemic; 237 (35%) opposed and 138 (21%) were unsure. Respondents who identified as prochoice were more likely to support using telemedicine for abortion during the pandemic than those who identified as prolife were to oppose it in this context (RRR 2.95; 95% CI 1.31-6.64). Via our content and thematic analysis, we identified that concerns about safety, the legitimacy of telemedicine, and the belief that abortion should occur as early in the pregnancy as possible influenced respondents' beliefs about using telemedicine for medication abortion. CONCLUSIONS: More respondents supported using telemedicine for medication abortion during COVID-19 than opposed it. Among respondents who expressed support, most thought that medication abortion was safe and that telemedicine was equivalent to the in-person provision of care. IMPLICATIONS: There appears to be support among US adults for the provision of medication abortion via telemedicine during COVID-19. Policymakers may consider public sentiment as well as clinical evidence when considering legislation about abortion.

Applicability of a Salient Belief Elicitation to Measure Abortion Beliefs.

Objectives: Salient belief elicitations (SBEs), informed by the Reasoned Action Approach (RAA), are used to identify 3 sets of beliefs - behavioral, control, and normative - that influence attitudes toward a health behavior. SBEs ask participants about their own beliefs through open-ended questions. We adapted a SBE by focusing on abortion, which is infrequently examined through SBEs; we also included a survey version that asked participants their views on what a hypothetical woman would do if contemplating an abortion. Given these deviations from traditional SBEs, the purpose of this study was to assess if the adapted SBE was understood by participants in English and Spanish through cognitive interviewing. Methods: We examined participants' interpretations of SBE items about abortion to determine if they aligned with the corresponding RAA construct. We administered SBE surveys and conducted cognitive interviews with US adults in both English and Spanish. Results: Participants comprehended the SBE questions as intended. Participants' interpretations of most questions were also in line with the respective RAA construct. Conclusions: SBE survey questions were comprehended well by participants. We discuss areas in which SBE questions can be modified to improve alignment with the underlying RAA construct to assess abortion beliefs.

Sexual Assault Supportive Attitudes: Rape Myth Acceptance and Token Resistance in Greek and Non-Greek College Students From Two University Samples in the United States.

Colleges are rape-prone cultures with high rates of sexual victimization. Fraternities' and sororities' relationships with sexual assault are consistent themes in literature focusing on sexual violence among college students. Previous research suggests that fraternity men are more likely to endorse rape-supportive attitudes compared with non-Greek men or sorority women. The present study examines rape-supportive attitudes as well as rape and sexual assault victimization in college students with a focus on gender and Greek-life (i.e., involvement in fraternities or sororities) status variables. College students ( N = 1,002) completed a survey including the Token Resistance to Sex Scale (TRSS), Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale-Short Form (IRMA-S), and items related to past experiences of nonconsensual sex. Two regression models tested predictors of token resistance and rape myth acceptance. Chi-square analyses tested between-group differences of experiencing rape and sexual assault. Gender ( p < .001), Greek status ( p < .001), and race/ethnicity ( p < .001) were predictors for TRSS scores. For IRMA scores, gender ( p < .001), Greek status ( p < .001), and race/ethnicity variables ( p < .001) were also significant. Interaction terms revealed that Greek men had higher token resistance and rape myth acceptance than any other group. Chi-square analyses indicate women more frequently report experiences of rape (χ2 = 25.57, df = 1, p < .001) and sexual assault (χ2 = 31.75, df = 1, p < .001). Men report high rates (40.8%) of experiencing sexual assault "because refusing was useless." No differences of victimization rates were found between Greeks and non-Greeks. Gender and sexual scripting theory can help explain gender differences in attitudes and experiences. Greater endorsement of rape myth acceptance and token resistance by Greeks, who influence college party culture, could be contributing to a culture conducive to rape. Findings demonstrate a continued need for interventions focused on shifting sociocultural dynamics (e.g., traditional roles and sexual scripting) on college campuses.

Factors Influencing Risk of Homelessness among Youth in Transition from Foster Care in Oklahoma: Implications for Reforming Independent Living Services and Opportunities.

Research suggests that youth aging out of foster care may be at higher risk of experiencing homelessness than other youth. Among this already at-risk population there may be certain characteristics that further exacerbate the risk. This paper uses data collected from various local and state agencies to further examine significant predictors of homelessness among youth who have aged out of foster care.