Latina teen birth rates, particularly those of immigrant Latinas, surpass those of any major racial/ ethnic group. Little is known about how immigration experiences influence early childbearing. Fourteen pregnant Latina immigrant teens were interviewed regarding their feelings about pregnancy and birth control, educational and vocational expectations, and their partners' influences. Common themes included feelings of isolation, barriers to education and future opportunities, and a heavy reliance on partners as a stable source of emotional and financial support, all of which appeared to influence teens' desire for pregnancy. Findings suggest the need to help immigrant youth overcome barriers to education and work and to offer them culturally and linguistically appropriate clinical care including birth control information and services, preconception and prenatal care, and assistance navigating the system.

Context

In 2012, Utah became the first state to enact a 72-hour waiting period for abortion. Despite debate about the law's potential effects, research has not examined women's experiences with it.

Methods

A cohort of 500 women recruited at four family planning facilities in Utah in 2013-2014 completed baseline surveys at the time of an abortion information visit and follow-up telephone interviews three weeks later. Logistic regression and coding of open-ended responses were used to examine which women had abortions and, for those who did not, their reasons.

Results

Among the 309 women completing follow-up, 86% had had an abortion, 8% were no longer seeking abortion, 3% had miscarried or discovered they had not been pregnant, and 2% were still seeking abortion; one woman was still deciding, and the waiting period had pushed one woman beyond her facility's gestational limit for abortion. At the information visit, women reported little conflict about the abortion decision (mean score on a scale of 0-100 was 13.9 for those who eventually had an abortion and 28.5 for others). Low decisional conflict, but not socioeconomic status, was associated with having an abortion (odds ratio, 1.1). On average, eight days elapsed between the information visit and the abortion.

Conclusion

As most women in this cohort were not conflicted about their decision when they sought care, the 72-hour waiting requirement seems to have been unnecessary. Individualized patient counseling for the small minority who were conflicted when they presented for care may have been more appropriate.

Purpose

This paper examines how Utah's two-visit requirement and 72-hour waiting period influence women's certainty about their decision to have an abortion.

Procedures

This study uses data from a prospective cohort study of 500 women who presented at an abortion information visit at four Utah family planning facilities. At the information visit, participants completed a baseline survey; 3 weeks later, they completed telephone interviews that assessed their pregnancy outcome, change in certainty, and factors affecting changes in certainty.

Main findings

Overall, 63% reported no change in certainty owing to the information visit and 74% reported no change in certainty owing to the waiting period. Changes in certainty were primarily in the direction of increased certainty, with more women reporting an increase (29%) than a decrease (8%) in certainty owing to the visit and more women reporting an increase (17%) than a decrease (8%) owing to waiting. Changes in certainty in either direction were concentrated among the minority (8%) who were conflicted about their decision at baseline. Learning about the procedure, meeting staff, and discovering that the facility was a safe medical environment were main contributors to increased certainty.

Conclusion

Most women were certain of their decision to have an abortion when they presented for their abortion information visit and their certainty remained unchanged despite the information visit and 72-hour waiting period. Changes in certainty were largely concentrated in the minority of women who expressed uncertainty about their decision before the beginning of the information visit. Thus, individualized counseling for the minority who are conflicted when they first present for care seems more appropriate than universal requirements.

The decrease in adolescent birth rates in the United States has been slower among Latinas than among other ethnic/racial groups. Limited research has explored how socioeconomic opportunities influence childbearing among Latina adolescents. We conducted in-depth interviews with 65 pregnant foreign- and US-born Latina women (31 adolescents; 34 adults) in two California counties. We assessed perceived socioeconomic opportunities and examined how family, immigration and acculturation affected the relationships between socioeconomic opportunities and adolescent childbearing. Compared with women who delayed childbearing into adulthood, pregnant adolescents described having few resources for educational and career development and experiencing numerous socioeconomic and social barriers to achieving their goals. Socioeconomic instability and policies limiting access to education influenced childbearing for immigrant adolescents. In contrast, family disintegration tied to poverty figured prominently in US-born adolescents childbearing. Limited socioeconomic opportunities may play a large role in persistently high pregnancy rates among Latina adolescents.

The decrease in adolescent birth rates in the United States has been slower among Latinas than among other ethnic/racial groups. Limited research has explored how socioeconomic opportunities influence childbearing among Latina adolescents. We conducted in-depth interviews with 65 pregnant foreign- and US-born Latina women (31 adolescents; 34 adults) in two California counties. We assessed perceived socioeconomic opportunities and examined how family, immigration and acculturation affected the relationships between socioeconomic opportunities and adolescent childbearing. Compared with women who delayed childbearing into adulthood, pregnant adolescents described having few resources for educational and career development and experiencing numerous socioeconomic and social barriers to achieving their goals. Socioeconomic instability and policies limiting access to education influenced childbearing for immigrant adolescents. In contrast, family disintegration tied to poverty figured prominently in US-born adolescents' childbearing. Limited socioeconomic opportunities may play a large role in persistently high pregnancy rates among Latina adolescents.

Background

In February 2011, an Ohio law took effect mandating use of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved protocol for mifepristone, which is used with misoprostol for medication abortion. Other state legislatures have passed or enacted similar laws requiring use of the FDA-approved protocol for medication abortion. The objective of this study is to examine the association of this legal change with medication abortion outcomes and utilization.

Methods and findings

We used a retrospective cohort design, comparing outcomes of medication abortion patients in the prelaw period to those in the postlaw period. Sociodemographic and clinical chart data were abstracted from all medication abortion patients from 1 y prior to the law's implementation (January 2010-January 2011) to 3 y post implementation (February 2011-October 2014) at four abortion-providing health care facilities in Ohio. Outcome data were analyzed for all women undergoing abortion at ≤49 d gestation during the study period. The main outcomes were as follows: need for additional intervention following medication abortion (such as aspiration, repeat misoprostol, and blood transfusion), frequency of continuing pregnancy, reports of side effects, and the proportion of abortions that were medication abortions (versus other abortion procedures). Among the 2,783 medication abortions ≤49 d gestation, 4.9% (95% CI: 3.7%-6.2%) in the prelaw and 14.3% (95% CI: 12.6%-16.0%) in the postlaw period required one or more additional interventions. Women obtaining a medication abortion in the postlaw period had three times the odds of requiring an additional intervention as women in the prelaw period (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.11, 95% CI: 2.27-4.27). In a mixed effects multivariable model that uses facility-months as the unit of analysis to account for lack of independence by site, we found that the law change was associated with a 9.4% (95% CI: 4.0%-18.4%) absolute increase in the rate of requiring an additional intervention. The most common subsequent intervention in both periods was an additional misoprostol dose and was most commonly administered to treat incomplete abortion. The percentage of women requiring two or more follow-up visits increased from 4.2% (95% CI: 3.0%-5.3%) in the prelaw period to 6.2% (95% CI: 5.5%-8.0%) in the postlaw period (p = 0.003). Continuing pregnancy was rare (0.3%). Overall, 12.6% of women reported at least one side effect during their medication abortion: 8.4% (95% CI: 6.8%-10.0%) in the prelaw period and 15.6% (95% CI: 13.8%-17.3%) in the postlaw period (p < 0.001). Medication abortions fell from 22% (95% CI: 20.8%-22.3%) of all abortions the year before the law went into effect (2010) to 5% (95% CI: 4.8%-5.6%) 3 y after (2014) (p < 0.001). The average patient charge increased from US$426 in 2010 to US$551 in 2014, representing a 16% increase after adjusting for inflation in medical prices. The primary limitation to the study is that it was a pre/post-observational study with no control group that was not exposed to the law.

Conclusions

Ohio law required use of a medication abortion protocol that is associated with a greater need for additional intervention, more visits, more side effects, and higher costs for women relative to the evidence-based protocol. There is no evidence that the change in law led to improved abortion outcomes. Indeed, our findings suggest the opposite. In March 2016, the FDA-protocol was updated, so Ohio providers may now legally provide current evidence-based protocols. However, this law is still in place and bans physicians from using mifepristone based on any new developments in clinical research as best practices continue to be updated.