OBJECTIVE: In recent years, U.S. states have passed many restrictive abortion policies with a rationale of protecting health and safety, in apparent contravention of abundant scientific evidence on abortion safety. This study explored whether and how state legislators use scientific evidence when deciding abortion policy. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted 29 semi-structured interviews with state legislators and their aides in Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia in March through July 2017. We recruited via e-mail to members of all health-related committees of the General Assembly in each state, plus sponsors and co-sponsors of 2017 abortion bills, with follow-up via phone and in person. We conducted iterative thematic analysis of all interview transcripts. RESULTS: We found no cases of lawmakers decisions on abortion being shifted by evidence. However, some lawmakers used evidence in simplified form to support their claims on abortion. Lawmakers gave credence to evidence they received from trusted sources, and that which supported their pre-existing policy preferences. Personal stories appeared more convincing than evidence, with participants drawing broad conclusions from anecdotes. Democrats and Republicans had different views on bias in evidence. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, evidence did not drive state legislators policymaking on abortion. However, evidence did help inform high-level understanding of abortion, if such evidence supported legislators pre-existing policy preferences. This work may help public health practitioners and researchers develop more realistic expectations for how research interacts with policymaking. IMPLICATIONS OF THIS WORK: To increase the utility of research, reproductive health researchers and practitioners should 1) work with established intermediaries to convey findings to lawmakers; 2) present stories that illustrate research findings; and 3) consider the evidence needs of the judicial branch, in addition to those of legislators.

OBJECTIVE:In recent years, U.S. states have passed many laws addressing alcohol use in pregnancy, despite limited evidence on the impact of such policies. This study explores how state legislators use evidence when making policy on alcohol use in pregnancy. METHOD:Study data are drawn from semistructured interviews with 29 state lawmakers and their aides in Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia, conducted in March through July 2017. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed by inductive and deductive methods. RESULTS:Despite evidence on the harms of alcohol use in pregnancy, most lawmakers did not express concern about this topic. Instead, they expressed concern about opioid use in pregnancy. Personal experiences, anecdotes, and known contacts influenced legislators' views on substance use in pregnancy, whereas evidence, for the most part, did not. The intermediaries who typically bring evidence about problems and solutions to legislators did not appear to be raising the issue of alcohol use in pregnancy on legislators' agenda. CONCLUSIONS:Basic evidence on the prevalence and harms of alcohol use in pregnancy did not appear to influence state lawmakers' policy priorities. Concern over opioid use in general may provide a window of opportunity to educate legislators on the relative scope and harms of alcohol and opioid use in pregnancy. It remains unclear why states are passing alcohol-in-pregnancy policies. More research is needed to explore how state lawmakers form their understanding of substance use in pregnancy and related policies.

Objective

In recent years, U.S. states have passed many restrictive abortion policies with a rationale of protecting health and safety, in apparent contravention of abundant scientific evidence on abortion safety. This study explored whether and how state legislators use scientific evidence when deciding abortion policy.

Study design

We conducted 29 semi-structured interviews with state legislators and their aides in Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia in March through July 2017. We recruited via e-mail to members of all health-related committees of the General Assembly in each state, plus sponsors and co-sponsors of 2017 abortion bills, with follow-up via phone and in person. We conducted iterative thematic analysis of all interview transcripts.

Results

We found no cases of lawmakers' decisions on abortion being shifted by evidence. However, some lawmakers used evidence in simplified form to support their claims on abortion. Lawmakers gave credence to evidence they received from trusted sources, and that which supported their pre-existing policy preferences. Personal stories appeared more convincing than evidence, with participants drawing broad conclusions from anecdotes. Democrats and Republicans had different views on bias in evidence.

Conclusions

In this sample, evidence did not drive state legislators' policymaking on abortion. However, evidence did help inform high-level understanding of abortion, if such evidence supported legislators' pre-existing policy preferences. This work may help public health practitioners and researchers develop more realistic expectations for how research interacts with policymaking.

Implications of this work

To increase the utility of research, reproductive health researchers and practitioners should 1) work with established intermediaries to convey findings to lawmakers; 2) present stories that illustrate research findings; and 3) consider the evidence needs of the judicial branch, in addition to those of legislators.

Objective

In recent years, U.S. states have passed many laws addressing alcohol use in pregnancy, despite limited evidence on the impact of such policies. This study explores how state legislators use evidence when making policy on alcohol use in pregnancy.

Method

Study data are drawn from semistructured interviews with 29 state lawmakers and their aides in Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia, conducted in March through July 2017. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed by inductive and deductive methods.

Results

Despite evidence on the harms of alcohol use in pregnancy, most lawmakers did not express concern about this topic. Instead, they expressed concern about opioid use in pregnancy. Personal experiences, anecdotes, and known contacts influenced legislators' views on substance use in pregnancy, whereas evidence, for the most part, did not. The intermediaries who typically bring evidence about problems and solutions to legislators did not appear to be raising the issue of alcohol use in pregnancy on legislators' agenda.

Conclusions

Basic evidence on the prevalence and harms of alcohol use in pregnancy did not appear to influence state lawmakers' policy priorities. Concern over opioid use in general may provide a window of opportunity to educate legislators on the relative scope and harms of alcohol and opioid use in pregnancy. It remains unclear why states are passing alcohol-in-pregnancy policies. More research is needed to explore how state lawmakers form their understanding of substance use in pregnancy and related policies.

Background

Public health agencies in the United States have engaged in abortion-related activities for nearly 50 years. Prior research indicates that, while most state health departments engage in some abortion-related work, their efforts reflect what is required by law rather than the breadth of core public health activities. In contrast, local health departments appear to engage in abortion-related activities less often but, when they do, initiate a broader range of activities.

Methods

This study aimed to: 1) describe the abortion-related activities undertaken by maternal and child health (MCH) and family planning professionals in state and local health departments; 2) understand how health departments approach their programmatic work on abortion, and 3) examine the facilitators and barriers to whether and how abortion work is implemented. Between November 2017 and June 2018, we conducted key informant interviews with 29 professionals working in 22 state and local health departments across the U.S. Interview data were thematically coded and analyzed using an iterative approach.

Results

MCH and family planning professionals described a range of abortion-related activities undertaken within their health departments. We identified three approaches to this work: those mandated strictly by law or policy; those initiated when mandated by law but informed by public health principles (e.g., scientific accuracy, expert engagement, lack of bias, promoting access to care) in implementation; and those initiated by professionals within the department to meet identified needs. More state health departments engaged in activities when mandated, and more local health departments initiated activities based on identified needs. Key barriers and facilitators included political climate, funding opportunities and restrictions, and departmental leadership.

Conclusions

Although state health departments are tasked with implementing legally-required abortion-related activities, some agencies bring public health principles to their mandated work. Efforts are needed to engage public health professionals in developing and implementing best practices around engaging in abortion-related activities.

U.S. public attitudes toward abortion have been studied extensively, but little is known about these attitudes among women who seek abortion. This mixed-methods study explores women's attitudes about abortion after receiving or being denied an abortion. Data are from the Turnaway Study, a prospective, longitudinal study of women seeking abortions at 30 U.S. facilities. Participants presented just before a facility's gestational limit and received abortions, or just beyond the limit and were denied abortions. Using mixed effects logistic regression, we assessed 812 participants' attitudes about abortion over four years. At five years after abortion-seeking, we conducted in-depth interviews with 31 participants; this analysis includes the comments of 19 participants who discussed their abortion attitudes in those interviews. We find that six months after abortion-seeking, nearly all women supported abortion legality in all (80%) or some (18%) situations, yet 20% also believed abortion is morally wrong. Women denied an abortion were significantly less likely to support the legal right to abortion at six months (62%) and 4.5 years (77%) after abortion-seeking than women who had received a near-limit abortion (78% and 88%, respectively). In open-ended interviews, women expressed nuanced views, including reporting increased empathy for others facing an unwanted pregnancy. Women's own reproductive experiences impact their views on abortion. Distinguishing between morality and legality of abortion is critical in understanding abortion attitudes.

Objective

In recent years, in an attempt to counter stigma and increase empathy, public education campaigns have encouraged people to share their personal abortion stories. This exploratory study sought to document negative and positive experiences of those who have shared their abortion stories publicly.

Study design

We conducted an anonymous online survey of people who have shared their abortion story publicly (N = 88), recruited via partners affiliated with two abortion story-sharing campaigns. The survey asked about the context in which respondents shared their abortion story, any negative and positive experiences online and in "real life" as a result of story sharing, and any problems or benefits resulting from these experiences. We analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and categorizing responses to open-ended questions.

Results

Sixty percent of respondents reported experiencing harassment and other negative incidents after sharing their story publicly. These experiences contributed to emotional stress, problems with loved ones and difficulties at work and/or school. These harms were reported even by many respondents who used only a first name or alias when sharing their story. Despite this, positive experiences as a result of story sharing were reported by four out of five respondents and motivated many to continue sharing their story.

Conclusions

This exploratory study indicates that many people who share their abortion story publicly find it to be an empowering, rewarding experience. Yet they also experience harassment and threats at high rates. Future research should explore both positive and negative experiences in more depth.

Implications

Sharing one's personal abortion story as part of a public education campaign can be a positive, empowering experience. Nevertheless, policymakers, journalists and reproductive health advocates should recognize the potential harms experienced by people who share their abortion story publicly and consider measures to support these individuals.

Background

Five U.S. states where recreational cannabis is legal require Mandatory Warning Signs for cannabis use during pregnancy (MWS-cannabis) to be posted in cannabis dispensaries. Previous research has found adverse health consequences associated with MWS-cannabis and that people lack trust in information on signs. This qualitative study explores people's perspectives and preferences regarding MWS-cannabis.

Methods

We conducted in-depth interviews with 34 pregnant or recently pregnant individuals from multiple states with varying policy climates in the U.S. who used cannabis before and/or during pregnancy. We asked participants about their perspectives on MWS-cannabis and reactions to specific messages. We reviewed transcripts using thematic analysis.

Results

Participants reported mostly negative views on MWS-cannabis, suggesting they may have stigmatizing and negative impacts on pregnant people who use cannabis, discouraging them from seeking care. Many said that the scientific evidence is not strong enough to justify MWS-cannabis, and that they are unlikely to deter pregnant people from using cannabis. Participants asserted that vague or fear-based messages, distrust of government, and the location and timing of the signs undermine the goals of MWS-cannabis. When reacting to specific messages, participants preferred messages that are evidence-based, clear, specific, and aligned with autonomous decision-making.

Conclusions

Pregnant and recently pregnant people who use cannabis have mostly negative perceptions of MWS-cannabis and believe they have negative consequences. More work is needed to develop health information resources that meet the needs of people who use cannabis in pregnancy without increasing stigma.