RÉSUMÉ
Objectives: In public discourses in the United States, adoption is often suggested as a less objectionable, equal substitute for abortion, despite this pregnancy outcome occurring much less frequently than the outcomes of abortion and parenting. This qualitative study explores whether and how abortion patients weighed adoption as part of their pregnancy decisions and, for those who did, identifies factors that contributed to their ultimate decision against adoption. Study design: We interviewed 29 abortion patients from 6 facilities in Michigan and New Mexico in 2015. We conducted a thematic analysis using both deductive and inductive approaches to describe participants' perspectives, preferences, and experiences regarding the consideration of adoption for their pregnancy. Results: Participants' reasons why adoption was not an appropriate option for their pregnancy were grounded in their ideas of the roles and responsibilities of parenting and fell into three themes. First, participants described continuing the pregnancy and giving birth as inseparable from the decision to parent. Second, choosing adoption would represent an irresponsible abnegation of parental duty. Third, adoption could put their child's safety and well-being at risk. Conclusions: Adoption was not an equally acceptable substitute for abortion among abortion patients. For them, adoption was a decision that represented taking on, and then abdicating, the role of parent. This made adoption a particularly unsuitable choice for their pregnancy. Implications: Rhetoric suggesting that adoption is an equal alternative to abortion does not reflect the experiences, preferences, or values of how abortion patients assess what options are appropriate for their pregnancy.
RÉSUMÉ
BACKGROUND: In Peru, abortion is legal only to preserve the life and health of the woman. A non-profit clinic system in Peru implemented a harm-reduction model for women with unwanted pregnancy that included pre-abortion care with instructions about misoprostol use and post-abortion care; they started offering telephone follow-up for clients in 2011. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the harm-reduction model, and to compare outcomes by type of follow-up obtained. METHODS: Between January 2012 and March 2013, 500 adult women seeking harm-reduction services were recruited into the study. Telephone surveys were conducted approximately four weeks after their initial harm-reduction counseling session with 262 women (response rate 52%); 9 participants were excluded. The survey focused on whether women pursued an abortion, and if so, what their experience was. Demographic and clinical data were also extracted from clinic records. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent of participants took misoprostol; among those taking misoprostol, 89% reported a complete abortion at the time of the survey. Twenty-two percent obtained an aspiration after taking misoprostol and 8% self-reported adverse events including hemorrhage without transfusion, infection, or severe pain. Among women who took misoprostol, 46% reported receiving in-person follow-up (in some cases both telephone and in-person), 34% received telephone only, and 20% did not report receiving any form of follow-up. Those who had in-person follow-up with the counselor were most likely to report a complete abortion (<0.001). Satisfaction with both types of follow-up was very high, with 81%-89% reporting being very satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Liberalization of restrictive abortion laws is associated with improvements in health outcomes, but the process of legal reform is often lengthy. In the interim, giving women information about evidence-based regimens of misoprostol, as well as offering a range of follow-up options to ensure high quality post-abortion care, may reduce the risks associated with unsafe abortion.