“It didn’t matter what the bill said...”: Influences on abortion policy legislative decision-making in Georgia

E. Barton, S. Narasimhan, Dabney P. Evans
{"title":"“It didn’t matter what the bill said...”: Influences on abortion policy legislative decision-making in Georgia","authors":"E. Barton, S. Narasimhan, Dabney P. Evans","doi":"10.20429/JGPHA.2021.080302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In March 2019 the Georgia legislature passed HB 481 described as a “heartbeat bill”, prohibiting abortion at around six weeks gestation. Given the prevalence of anti-abortion legislation and the public health implications of abortion restrictions, we sought to understand how Georgia legislators made decisions on this early abortion ban legislation. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with nine legislators from the Georgia House of Representatives who participated in the 2019 legislative session. In-depth interviews were conducted in-person and over the phone. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and inductive codes identified. Codes focused primarily on views of: abortion in general; specific abortion policy; and how information about HB 481 was obtained. A thematic analysis was performed to elucidate legislators’ perspectives. Results: Legislators had clear considerations that differed by party affiliation. Democrats described concerns with HB 481 grounded in reproductive autonomy and justice. They claimed concern with the lives of pregnant persons citing the physical and emotional harm bills like HB 481 cause. They questioned the medical evidence used to support HB 481 and argued that it violated the freedom to choose when to have children. Republican legislators evoked a similar harm reduction framework, but were concerned with protecting the lives of the unborn, arguing that a fetus should be considered a person once a “heartbeat” is detected and that abortion after this point is equal to killing a person. Republicans also described aligning with their constituents’ values. Despite the arguments and evidence presented during the legislative session, legislators voted according to their previously held beliefs on abortion. Conclusions: improve policy outcomes related to reproductive health and rights.","PeriodicalId":73981,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20429/JGPHA.2021.080302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: In March 2019 the Georgia legislature passed HB 481 described as a “heartbeat bill”, prohibiting abortion at around six weeks gestation. Given the prevalence of anti-abortion legislation and the public health implications of abortion restrictions, we sought to understand how Georgia legislators made decisions on this early abortion ban legislation. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with nine legislators from the Georgia House of Representatives who participated in the 2019 legislative session. In-depth interviews were conducted in-person and over the phone. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and inductive codes identified. Codes focused primarily on views of: abortion in general; specific abortion policy; and how information about HB 481 was obtained. A thematic analysis was performed to elucidate legislators’ perspectives. Results: Legislators had clear considerations that differed by party affiliation. Democrats described concerns with HB 481 grounded in reproductive autonomy and justice. They claimed concern with the lives of pregnant persons citing the physical and emotional harm bills like HB 481 cause. They questioned the medical evidence used to support HB 481 and argued that it violated the freedom to choose when to have children. Republican legislators evoked a similar harm reduction framework, but were concerned with protecting the lives of the unborn, arguing that a fetus should be considered a person once a “heartbeat” is detected and that abortion after this point is equal to killing a person. Republicans also described aligning with their constituents’ values. Despite the arguments and evidence presented during the legislative session, legislators voted according to their previously held beliefs on abortion. Conclusions: improve policy outcomes related to reproductive health and rights.
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
“法案说什么并不重要……:对格鲁吉亚堕胎政策立法决策的影响
背景:2019年3月,佐治亚州立法机构通过了被称为“心跳法案”的HB 481,禁止在怀孕六周左右堕胎。鉴于反堕胎立法的普遍性和堕胎限制对公共健康的影响,我们试图了解佐治亚州立法者是如何就这项早期堕胎禁令立法做出决定的。方法:我们对参加2019年立法会议的佐治亚州众议院九名议员进行了深入采访。深入访谈是亲自和通过电话进行的。访谈录音被逐字转录,归纳代码被识别。守则主要侧重于以下观点:一般堕胎;具体的堕胎政策;以及如何获得关于HB 481的信息。进行了专题分析,以阐明立法者的观点。结果:立法者有明确的考虑,但因党派不同而有所不同。民主党人描述了对HB 481基于生育自主和正义的担忧。他们声称对孕妇的生命感到担忧,并引用了HB 481等身体和精神伤害法案。他们质疑用于支持HB 481的医学证据,并认为这侵犯了选择何时生孩子的自由。共和党立法者提出了类似的减少伤害框架,但他们关心保护未出生婴儿的生命,认为一旦检测到“心跳”,胎儿就应该被视为一个人,在此之后堕胎等于杀人。共和党人还描述了与选民的价值观保持一致。尽管在立法会议期间提出了论点和证据,但立法者还是根据他们之前对堕胎的信念进行了投票。结论:改善与生殖健康和权利有关的政策成果。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Health Communications Trial with a Resistant Population to Increase Public Health Compliance during a Pandemic An analysis of Georgia mothers who gave birth in 2015 and 2016 without receiving prenatal care Role of Community-level Health Behaviors and Social Determinants of Health in Preventable Hospitalizations Elderly Educated Blacks and the influence of exercise identity, self-determination, and social determinants of health on physical activity Perception of Health Care Access in Rural Georgia: Findings From a Community Health Needs Assessment Survey
×
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