Abortion as a Public Health Risk in COVID-19 Antiabortion Legislation.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1215/03616878-10449950
Saphronia Carson, Shannon K Carter
{"title":"Abortion as a Public Health Risk in COVID-19 Antiabortion Legislation.","authors":"Saphronia Carson,&nbsp;Shannon K Carter","doi":"10.1215/03616878-10449950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, 12 states banned or restricted abortion access under elective-procedure restrictions. The rationale was preserving hospital capacity and personal protective equipment (PPE); however, abortions commonly take place in clinics and use less PPE than childbirth. This paper investigates the discursive construction of abortions, the people who get them, and the fetuses in this legislation. The authors analyzed 13 antiabortion documents using an iterative process of thematic coding and memo writing. Twenty-three percent of the legislation listed abortion as banned, whereas the remaining laws implied abortion within the terms \"elective\" or \"nonessential.\" Legislation used common antiabortion tactics, such as the trivialization of abortion, risk discourses, and constructions of motherhood and fetal personhood. Discourses delegitimized abortion providers and used quasi-medical justifications for banning abortion. Finally, legislation constructed abortion clinics as sites of contagion and waste and consequently as risks to public health. The results highlight the vulnerability of abortion and the connection between abortion policy and other conservative policies, and they gesture toward a strategic attempt to ban abortion federally. These findings have several implications for a post-Roe United States and for stakeholders wishing to increase abortion access.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10449950","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, 12 states banned or restricted abortion access under elective-procedure restrictions. The rationale was preserving hospital capacity and personal protective equipment (PPE); however, abortions commonly take place in clinics and use less PPE than childbirth. This paper investigates the discursive construction of abortions, the people who get them, and the fetuses in this legislation. The authors analyzed 13 antiabortion documents using an iterative process of thematic coding and memo writing. Twenty-three percent of the legislation listed abortion as banned, whereas the remaining laws implied abortion within the terms "elective" or "nonessential." Legislation used common antiabortion tactics, such as the trivialization of abortion, risk discourses, and constructions of motherhood and fetal personhood. Discourses delegitimized abortion providers and used quasi-medical justifications for banning abortion. Finally, legislation constructed abortion clinics as sites of contagion and waste and consequently as risks to public health. The results highlight the vulnerability of abortion and the connection between abortion policy and other conservative policies, and they gesture toward a strategic attempt to ban abortion federally. These findings have several implications for a post-Roe United States and for stakeholders wishing to increase abortion access.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在反堕胎立法中,堕胎是一种公共卫生风险。
在2019冠状病毒病大流行的最初几个月,有12个州根据选举程序限制禁止或限制堕胎。其理由是保留医院容量和个人防护装备;然而,堕胎通常在诊所进行,使用的个人防护装备少于分娩。本文考察了该立法中堕胎、堕胎者和胎儿的话语建构。作者使用主题编码和备忘录写作的迭代过程分析了13个反堕胎文件。23%的立法将堕胎列为禁止,而其余的法律则将堕胎定义为“选择性”或“非必要”。立法使用了常见的反堕胎策略,如将堕胎庸俗化,风险话语,以及母亲和胎儿人格的建构。一些言论使堕胎提供者非法化,并用准医学理由禁止堕胎。最后,立法将堕胎诊所视为传染和浪费的场所,从而对公众健康构成威胁。研究结果突出了堕胎的脆弱性,以及堕胎政策与其他保守政策之间的联系,表明了在联邦范围内禁止堕胎的战略尝试。这些发现对罗伊案后的美国和希望增加堕胎机会的利益相关者具有若干意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
期刊最新文献
Pandemic Times and Health Care Exclusion: Attitudes Toward Health Care Exclusion of Undocumented Immigrants. Political Partisanship, Confucian Collectivism, and Public Attitudes toward the Vaccination Policy in Taiwan. Regulating Abortion Later in Pregnancy: Fetal-Centric Laws and the Erasure of Women's Subjectivity. The Limits to Food and Beverage Industry Influence over Fiscal and Regulatory Policy in Latin America. Equity Investment in Physician Practices: What's All This Brouhaha?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1