The Public Health Risks of Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Rosen, Joanne D

doi:10.1363/4420112

Cited by 48 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The promotion of inaccurate information about abortion has been identified in abstinence-only education (AOE) programmes (Ott and Santelli 2007) and Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) (Bryant and Levi 2012;Rosen 2012), both of which tend to exaggerate the health risks of abortion, specifically depression, breast cancer and infertility (Russo and Denious 2005;Kulczycki 2007;Mauro and Joffe 2007). 4 Of the 17 states requiring AOE programmes, just over half (53%) were 'red' states (Stanger-Hall, Hall, and Vitzthum 2011), while the majority of the 25 states that rejected federal funding for AOE were 'blue' states, as of 2009 (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States 2011).…”

Section: Differences In State Abortion Laws and Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does state-level context matter for individuals' knowledge about abortion, legality and health? Challenging the ‘red states v. blue states’ hypothesis

Bessett

Gerdts

Littman

et al. 2015

Culture, Health & Sexuality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, the hypothesis that state-level political context influences individuals' cultural values--the 'red states v. blue states' hypothesis--has been invoked to explain the hyper-polarisation of politics in the USA. To test this hypothesis, we examined individuals' knowledge about abortion in relation to the political context of their current state of residence. Drawing from an internet-survey of 586 reproductive-age individuals in the USA, we assessed two types of abortion knowledge: health-related and legality. We found that state-level conservatism does not modify the existing relationships between individual predictors and each of the two types of abortion knowledge. Hence, our findings do not support the 'red states' versus 'blue states' hypothesis. Additionally, we find that knowledge about abortion's health effects in the USA is low: 7% of our sample thought abortion before 12 weeks gestation was illegal.

show abstract

Section: Differences In State Abortion Laws and Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does state-level context matter for individuals' knowledge about abortion, legality and health? Challenging the ‘red states v. blue states’ hypothesis

Bessett

Gerdts

Littman

et al. 2015

Culture, Health & Sexuality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, providers of lawful abortion services may be deterred from publicly advertising themselves as such, but may prefer to be known by euphemisms that refer, for instance, to women's health. In some countries, however, this has opened the way to deceptive practices of so‐called crisis pregnancy centers, whose staff lack gynecologic training and are motivated only to prevent women's access to abortion services, even in cases of health‐ or life‐endangering pregnancy [18]. Stigmatization such as of unmarried pregnancy, abortion, and HIV positivity may drive resort to indicated medical care underground, into the hands of unqualified caregivers, and so exacerbate risks to the health of affected individuals and to the wellbeing of their dependents.…”

Section: Effects Of Stigmatizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing stigma in reproductive health

Cook

Dickens

2014

Intl J Gynecology & Obste

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stigmatization marks individuals for disgrace, shame, and even disgust-spoiling or tarnishing their social identities. It can be imposed accidentally by thoughtlessness or insensitivity; incidentally to another purpose; or deliberately to deter or punish conduct considered harmful to actors themselves, others, society, or moral values. Stigma has permeated attitudes toward recipients of sexual and reproductive health services, and at times to service providers. Resort to contraceptive products, to voluntary sterilization and abortion, and now to medically assisted reproductive care to overcome infertility has attracted stigma. Unmarried motherhood has a long history of shame, projected onto the "illegitimate" (bastard) child. The stigma of contracting sexually transmitted infections has been reinvigorated with HIV infection. Gynecologists and their professional associations, ethically committed to uphold human dignity and equality, especially for vulnerable women for whom they care, should be active to guard against, counteract, and relieve stigmatization of their patients and of related service providers.

show abstract

“…These findings represent an important addition to the literature on pregnancy resource centers. Scholars have documented that these centers disseminate scientifically inaccurate information about abortion and contraception, and have argued that they play an inappropriate role in women's abortion decision making . This study extends this knowledge by including accounts of visits from pregnant women themselves, revealing the valued role these centers play in some women's lives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Pregnant Women's Reasons for and Experiences of Visiting Antiabortion Pregnancy Resource Centers

Kimport

2020

Perspect Sexual Reproductive

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONTEXT The primary mission of pregnancy resource centers is to dissuade women from choosing abortion. Reproductive health and rights advocates have asserted that these centers interfere in abortion decision making. However, the reasons pregnant women go to such centers and what they experience while there have not been examined. METHODS Between June 2015 and June 2017, in‐depth, semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 21 pregnant women who had presented at prenatal care clinics in southern Louisiana and Baltimore, Maryland, and who had visited a pregnancy resource center. Topics covered in the interviews included reasons for visiting a center and the experience of the visit. Transcripts were analyzed first thematically and then using grounded theory. RESULTS Most of the women were low income and had not been considering abortion when they visited a pregnancy resource center. Respondents reported that they had gone to these centers for pregnancy‐related services, material goods and social support. They chose these centers because the resources were free, and they were largely satisfied with their experiences. Nonetheless, their receipt of services and goods was limited and often contingent on participation in the centers’ activities. CONCLUSIONS Pregnancy resource centers play a role in meeting the acute material and social needs of low‐income pregnant women. However, the constraints on the resources the centers offer mean that this support cannot be part of a reliable system of care. Advocates and policymakers should take a nuanced approach to regulating these centers and consider the reasons women visit them, especially low‐income women.

show abstract

The Public Health Risks of Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Cited by 48 publications

References 25 publications

Does state-level context matter for individuals' knowledge about abortion, legality and health? Challenging the ‘red states v. blue states’ hypothesis

Does state-level context matter for individuals' knowledge about abortion, legality and health? Challenging the ‘red states v. blue states’ hypothesis

Reducing stigma in reproductive health

Pregnant Women's Reasons for and Experiences of Visiting Antiabortion Pregnancy Resource Centers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About