Disseminating Evidence on Abortion Facilities to Health Departments: A Randomized Study of E-mail Strategies.

Given the politicization of abortion, professionals working in U.S. health departments (HDs) may not be receptive to communications about abortion, despite often regulating abortion facilities. This paper reports results of a randomized, prospective, observational study to test the effects of e-mail language when disseminating evidence on abortion to HD professionals. Our sample was 302 HD employees who oversee healthcare facilities inspection/regulation in all 50 U.S. state HDs, clustered by HD and randomized into two study groups. In November-December 2019, we sent biweekly e-mails containing links to a website summarizing evidence on abortion facility regulation. E-mails/headers sent to one group emphasized public health values and did not include the word abortion; e-mails/headers to the other group used the word abortion. Primary outcome measures were e-mail open rates and click-through rates. Among 221 participants to whom e-mails were deliverable, the overall open rate was 36%. Open rate was 25% for PH values and 46% for abortion groups (p < .05). Effects were moderated by state abortion policy environment: in both supportive and restrictive environments, participants in the abortion messaging group were statistically more likely to open e-mails than those in the PH values group. There was no difference between groups in states with middle-ground abortion policy environments. Among participants opening at least one e-mail, 19% clicked through to the website, with no significant difference by group. This study demonstrates that repeated targeted e-mail campaigns can reach HD professionals with research summaries. Concerns that communications to HDs should avoid the word abortion are unsupported.

Abortion and the Mission of MCH: Perspectives of MCH and Family Planning Professionals in Health Departments.

INTRODUCTION: Prior research shows that maternal and child health (MCH) and family planning (FP) divisions in health departments (HDs) engage in some abortion-related activities, largely when legally mandated; some agencies also initiate abortion-related activities. Yet little is known about health department MCH/FP professionals' views on how abortion-related work aligns with their professional mission. METHODS: Between November 2017 and June 2018, we conducted in-depth interviews with 29 MCH/FP professionals working in 22 state and local HDs across the U.S. We conducted inductive thematic analysis to identify themes regarding participants' professional mission and values in relation to abortion-related work. RESULTS: Participants described a strong sense of professional mission. Two contrasting perspectives on abortion and the MCH/FP mission emerged: some participants saw abortion as clearly outside the scope of their mission, even a threat to it, while others saw abortion as solidly within their mission. In states with supportive or restrictive abortion policy environments, professionals' views on abortion and professional mission generally aligned with their overall state policy environment; in states with middle-ground abortion policy environments, a range of perspectives on abortion and professional mission were expressed. Participants who saw abortion as within their mission anchored their work in core public health values such as evidence-based practice, social justice, and ensuring access to health care. DISCUSSION: There appears to be a lack of consensus about whether and how abortion fits into the mission of MCH/FP. More work is needed to articulate whether and how abortion aligns with the MCH/FP mission.

Pregnant people's experiences discussing their cannabis use with prenatal care providers in a state with legalized cannabis.

BACKGROUND: As cannabis legalization spreads, so do concerns about potential harms from use during pregnancy. Legalization may facilitate improved patient-provider interactions about cannabis use. Yet little is known about pregnant people's discussions of cannabis use with healthcare providers in an environment where recreational cannabis is legal. METHODS: In May-August 2019, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 33 pregnant or postpartum people in California who used cannabis during pregnancy, and explored their discussions with healthcare providers about their cannabis use. We audio-recorded and transcribed interviews, and conducted thematic analysis using inductive and deductive methods. RESULTS: Participants were diverse by age, race/ethnicity, and socio-economic position. Most reported daily cannabis use, both before and during pregnancy. Most participants did not disclose their cannabis use to their prenatal care providers, due to fears of being reported to child protective services (CPS), or fears of provider judgment. Participants reported that few providers initiated any discussions about cannabis use in pregnancy with them; some participants interpreted this omission as tacit endorsement of cannabis use in pregnancy. When participants and providers did discuss cannabis use in pregnancy, participants heard a wide range of sometimes-conflicting health messages, as well as some legal threats. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents notable deficits in patient-provider interactions about cannabis. Pregnant patients' fears of being reported to CPS and separated from their children for cannabis use persist despite cannabis legalization. Providers' role as potential reporters to CPS appears to pose a significant barrier to comprehensive, compassionate counseling and education on cannabis use in pregnancy.

Experiences of harassment and empowerment after sharing personal abortion stories publicly.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, in an attempt to counter stigma and increase empathy, public education campaigns have encouraged people to share their personal abortion stories. This exploratory study sought to document negative and positive experiences of those who have shared their abortion stories publicly. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an anonymous online survey of people who have shared their abortion story publicly (N = 88), recruited via partners affiliated with two abortion story-sharing campaigns. The survey asked about the context in which respondents shared their abortion story, any negative and positive experiences online and in "real life" as a result of story sharing, and any problems or benefits resulting from these experiences. We analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and categorizing responses to open-ended questions. RESULTS: Sixty percent of respondents reported experiencing harassment and other negative incidents after sharing their story publicly. These experiences contributed to emotional stress, problems with loved ones and difficulties at work and/or school. These harms were reported even by many respondents who used only a first name or alias when sharing their story. Despite this, positive experiences as a result of story sharing were reported by four out of five respondents and motivated many to continue sharing their story. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study indicates that many people who share their abortion story publicly find it to be an empowering, rewarding experience. Yet they also experience harassment and threats at high rates. Future research should explore both positive and negative experiences in more depth. IMPLICATIONS: Sharing one's personal abortion story as part of a public education campaign can be a positive, empowering experience. Nevertheless, policymakers, journalists and reproductive health advocates should recognize the potential harms experienced by people who share their abortion story publicly and consider measures to support these individuals.

Approaches, barriers, and facilitators to abortion-related work in U.S. health departments: perspectives of maternal and child heath and family planning professionals.

BACKGROUND: Public health agencies in the United States have engaged in abortion-related activities for nearly 50 years. Prior research indicates that, while most state health departments engage in some abortion-related work, their efforts reflect what is required by law rather than the breadth of core public health activities. In contrast, local health departments appear to engage in abortion-related activities less often but, when they do, initiate a broader range of activities. METHODS: This study aimed to: 1) describe the abortion-related activities undertaken by maternal and child health (MCH) and family planning professionals in state and local health departments; 2) understand how health departments approach their programmatic work on abortion, and 3) examine the facilitators and barriers to whether and how abortion work is implemented. Between November 2017 and June 2018, we conducted key informant interviews with 29 professionals working in 22 state and local health departments across the U.S. Interview data were thematically coded and analyzed using an iterative approach. RESULTS: MCH and family planning professionals described a range of abortion-related activities undertaken within their health departments. We identified three approaches to this work: those mandated strictly by law or policy; those initiated when mandated by law but informed by public health principles (e.g., scientific accuracy, expert engagement, lack of bias, promoting access to care) in implementation; and those initiated by professionals within the department to meet identified needs. More state health departments engaged in activities when mandated, and more local health departments initiated activities based on identified needs. Key barriers and facilitators included political climate, funding opportunities and restrictions, and departmental leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Although state health departments are tasked with implementing legally-required abortion-related activities, some agencies bring public health principles to their mandated work. Efforts are needed to engage public health professionals in developing and implementing best practices around engaging in abortion-related activities.

"My good friends on the other side of the aisle aren't bothered by those facts": U.S. State legislators' use of evidence in making policy on abortion.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, U.S. states have passed many restrictive abortion policies with a rationale of protecting health and safety, in apparent contravention of abundant scientific evidence on abortion safety. This study explored whether and how state legislators use scientific evidence when deciding abortion policy. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted 29 semi-structured interviews with state legislators and their aides in Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia in March through July 2017. We recruited via e-mail to members of all health-related committees of the General Assembly in each state, plus sponsors and co-sponsors of 2017 abortion bills, with follow-up via phone and in person. We conducted iterative thematic analysis of all interview transcripts. RESULTS: We found no cases of lawmakers' decisions on abortion being shifted by evidence. However, some lawmakers used evidence in simplified form to support their claims on abortion. Lawmakers gave credence to evidence they received from trusted sources, and that which supported their pre-existing policy preferences. Personal stories appeared more convincing than evidence, with participants drawing broad conclusions from anecdotes. Democrats and Republicans had different views on bias in evidence. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, evidence did not drive state legislators' policymaking on abortion. However, evidence did help inform high-level understanding of abortion, if such evidence supported legislators' pre-existing policy preferences. This work may help public health practitioners and researchers develop more realistic expectations for how research interacts with policymaking. IMPLICATIONS OF THIS WORK: To increase the utility of research, reproductive health researchers and practitioners should 1) work with established intermediaries to convey findings to lawmakers; 2) present stories that illustrate research findings; and 3) consider the evidence needs of the judicial branch, in addition to those of legislators.

"Alcohol During Pregnancy? Nobody Does That Anymore": State Legislators' Use of Evidence in Making Policy on Alcohol Use in Pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, U.S. states have passed many laws addressing alcohol use in pregnancy, despite limited evidence on the impact of such policies. This study explores how state legislators use evidence when making policy on alcohol use in pregnancy. METHOD: Study data are drawn from semistructured interviews with 29 state lawmakers and their aides in Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia, conducted in March through July 2017. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed by inductive and deductive methods. RESULTS: Despite evidence on the harms of alcohol use in pregnancy, most lawmakers did not express concern about this topic. Instead, they expressed concern about opioid use in pregnancy. Personal experiences, anecdotes, and known contacts influenced legislators' views on substance use in pregnancy, whereas evidence, for the most part, did not. The intermediaries who typically bring evidence about problems and solutions to legislators did not appear to be raising the issue of alcohol use in pregnancy on legislators' agenda. CONCLUSIONS: Basic evidence on the prevalence and harms of alcohol use in pregnancy did not appear to influence state lawmakers' policy priorities. Concern over opioid use in general may provide a window of opportunity to educate legislators on the relative scope and harms of alcohol and opioid use in pregnancy. It remains unclear why states are passing alcohol-in-pregnancy policies. More research is needed to explore how state lawmakers form their understanding of substance use in pregnancy and related policies.

Coverage of Abortion in Select U.S. Newspapers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: News coverage can shape public understanding of policy issues in important ways. In the last decade, many new state-level abortion restrictions have been passed, often based on claims about the safety of abortion care, yet little is known about recent news coverage of abortion. This study analyzes a sample of news on abortion in the United States and explores the implications for reproductive health policymakers, practitioners, and advocates. METHODS: We analyzed a sample of news and opinion articles containing the term "abortion" published in three major U.S. newspaper sources in 2013 and 2016. The total sample was 783 unique pieces. We coded for story topics, references to fetal personhood, women's stories, and basic abortion facts. Three trained coders conducted the coding, with intercoder reliability rates ranging from 0.777 to 1.0. FINDINGS: Most of the time abortion appears in the news, it is merely mentioned, rather than discussed substantively. Abortion is covered as a political issue more than a health issue. The personal experiences of people who get abortions are present in only 4% of the sample, and language personifying the fetus appears more often than women's abortion stories. State abortion restrictions are newsworthy, yet basic facts on the commonality and safety of abortion are virtually absent. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the news does not support public understanding of abortion as a common, safe part of reproductive health care. Such framing may undermine public support for policies that protect access to this common health care service.

Attitudes Toward Abortion After Receiving vs. Being Denied an Abortion in the USA.

U.S. public attitudes toward abortion have been studied extensively, but little is known about these attitudes among women who seek abortion. This mixed-methods study explores women's attitudes about abortion after receiving or being denied an abortion. Data are from the Turnaway Study, a prospective, longitudinal study of women seeking abortions at 30 U.S. facilities. Participants presented just before a facility's gestational limit and received abortions, or just beyond the limit and were denied abortions. Using mixed effects logistic regression, we assessed 812 participants' attitudes about abortion over four years. At five years after abortion-seeking, we conducted in-depth interviews with 31 participants; this analysis includes the comments of 19 participants who discussed their abortion attitudes in those interviews. We find that six months after abortion-seeking, nearly all women supported abortion legality in all (80%) or some (18%) situations, yet 20% also believed abortion is morally wrong. Women denied an abortion were significantly less likely to support the legal right to abortion at six months (62%) and 4.5 years (77%) after abortion-seeking than women who had received a near-limit abortion (78% and 88%, respectively). In open-ended interviews, women expressed nuanced views, including reporting increased empathy for others facing an unwanted pregnancy. Women's own reproductive experiences impact their views on abortion. Distinguishing between morality and legality of abortion is critical in understanding abortion attitudes.

"The stakes are so high": interviews with progressive journalists reporting on abortion.

OBJECTIVES: Because news frames can influence public and policy agendas, proponents of abortion access should be concerned with how this issue is covered in the news. While previous research has examined the content of news on abortion, this analysis explores the process of newsmaking on abortion, examining how journalists understand their role in and experience of covering abortion. STUDY DESIGN: We recruited journalists with experience reporting on abortion through listservs for progressive and feminist reporters. Thirty-one participants, with experiences at 75 diverse media outlets, completed in-depth, open-ended interviews. We used grounded theory to code interview transcripts in Dedoose to identity emergent themes. RESULTS: Journalists described many challenges that applied to reporting generally, but that they perceived to be more difficult around abortion: grappling with the meaning of "neutrality" on this issue, finding new angles for articles, and handling editors with varying knowledge of abortion. Over one-third (n=13) of participants mentioned feeling that the stakes were higher around abortion: this urgency and polarization left journalists frustrated by efforts to find new sources or angles on abortion stories. Finally, over 80% (n=28) of participants reported experiencing anti-abortion harassment as a result of their abortion work. CONCLUSIONS: The difficulties journalists described when reporting on abortion were often rooted in abortion stigma and the political polarization around the issue. This pattern was true even for reporters who worked to counter abortion stigma through their reporting. IMPLICATIONS: Advocates interested in accurate, destigmatizing news frames might work pro-actively to educate editors and increase reporters' access to providers, patients, and advocates.

More than a message: framing public health advocacy to change corporate practices.

Framing battles in public health illustrate the tension in our society between individual freedom and collective responsibility. This article describes how two frames, market justice and social justice, first articulated in a public health context by Dan Beauchamp, influence public dialogue on the health consequences of corporate practices. The authors argue that public health advocates must articulate the social justice values motivating the changes they seek in specific policy battles that will be debated in the context of news coverage. The authors conclude with lessons for health education practitioners who need to frame public health issues in contentious and controversial policy contexts. Specific lessons include the importance of understanding the existing values and beliefs motivating the public health change being sought, the benefits of articulating core messages that correspond to shared values, and the necessity of developing media skills to compete effectively with adversaries in public debate.