Katrina Kimport1, Rebecca Kriz2, Sarah C M Roberts3. 1. Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA 94612, USA. Electronic address: katrina.kimport@ucsf.edu. 2. California Preterm Birth Initiative, Department of Family Health Care Nursing, University of California, San Francisco. Electronic address: rebecca.kriz@ucsf.edu. 3. Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA 94612, USA. Electronic address: sarah.roberts@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Investigations into Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) have documented the provision of deceptive information about abortion, but it is unclear how many pregnant women actually visit CPCs and what impact visits have on their pregnancy decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a mixed-methods study. We surveyed patients at one of two local abortion clinics and three prenatal clinics in Southern Louisiana about whether they had visited a CPC for this pregnancy and conducted in-depth interviews with prenatal patients who reported a CPC visit about their experience. RESULTS: We surveyed 114 abortion patients and 269 prenatal patients, and interviewed 12 prenatal patients about their CPC visit. Just 6% of abortion patients (n=7) and 5% of prenatal patients (n=14) visited a CPC for this pregnancy. Prenatal patients went to CPCs primarily for free pregnancy tests and reported receiving information about abortion from CPC staff that was inaccurate. They also generally recognized the CPC was antiabortion, ideologically Christian, and not a medical establishment. Only three had been considering abortion at the time of their visit and reported that the visit impacted their plan for the pregnancy. However, all three also faced additional barriers to abortion, including inability to find an abortion provider, difficulty securing funding, gestational limits, ambivalence about choosing abortion, and opposition to abortion from family members. CONCLUSIONS: We do not find evidence that pregnant women regularly seek CPC services or that CPCs persuade women who are certain abortion is the right decision for them to continue their pregnancies. IMPLICATIONS: Given little evidence that CPCs impact pregnant women's decision-making on a broad scale, future research should examine other aspects of CPCs, such as their role in the antiabortion movement and/or the impact of CPC visits on maternal health and birth outcomes among women who continue their pregnancies.
OBJECTIVES: Investigations into Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) have documented the provision of deceptive information about abortion, but it is unclear how many pregnant women actually visit CPCs and what impact visits have on their pregnancy decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a mixed-methods study. We surveyed patients at one of two local abortion clinics and three prenatal clinics in Southern Louisiana about whether they had visited a CPC for this pregnancy and conducted in-depth interviews with prenatal patients who reported a CPC visit about their experience. RESULTS: We surveyed 114 abortion patients and 269 prenatal patients, and interviewed 12 prenatal patients about their CPC visit. Just 6% of abortion patients (n=7) and 5% of prenatal patients (n=14) visited a CPC for this pregnancy. Prenatal patients went to CPCs primarily for free pregnancy tests and reported receiving information about abortion from CPC staff that was inaccurate. They also generally recognized the CPC was antiabortion, ideologically Christian, and not a medical establishment. Only three had been considering abortion at the time of their visit and reported that the visit impacted their plan for the pregnancy. However, all three also faced additional barriers to abortion, including inability to find an abortion provider, difficulty securing funding, gestational limits, ambivalence about choosing abortion, and opposition to abortion from family members. CONCLUSIONS: We do not find evidence that pregnant women regularly seek CPC services or that CPCs persuade women who are certain abortion is the right decision for them to continue their pregnancies. IMPLICATIONS: Given little evidence that CPCs impact pregnant women's decision-making on a broad scale, future research should examine other aspects of CPCs, such as their role in the antiabortion movement and/or the impact of CPC visits on maternal health and birth outcomes among women who continue their pregnancies.
Authors: Joseph E Potter; Amanda Jean Stevenson; Kate Coleman-Minahan; Kristine Hopkins; Kari White; Sarah E Baum; Daniel Grossman Journal: Contraception Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 3.375