Poster
Crawford, B.L., LaRoche, K,J., Jozkowski, K.N., Handley, M.N., Solon, M., Turner, R.C., & Lo, W. (2021, October 1 - October 2). If it becomes illegal, what should happen? US adults' attitudes toward consequenecs of illegal abortion. Society for Family Planning Annual Meeting, Virtual.
Objective: Endorsement of legal abortion among US adults ranges from 30-90% depending on the circumstance. Yet, if abortion is made illegal, it follows that there may be criminal sanctions or consequences for abortion patients. Legislation is supposed to reflect the will of the people; thus, it is important to understand attitudes toward abortion legality and potential consequences for illegal abortion.
Method: We administered an online survey comprising open- and close-ended questions to a national sample of English and Spanish-speaking US adults (N = 3000) to examine perceptions of potential consequences of obtaining an abortion if abortion were illegal and why people held these beliefs.
Results: If abortion were illegal, most (70.3%) participants indicated women should not be punished for having an abortion; however, when asked to select from a list of specific penalties, only 32.3% reported there should be no penalty. Of those who endorsed a penalty for illegal abortion though, most supported education or therapy (59.8%). Participants who indicated there should be no penalty stated the reason for holding such beliefs were primarily associated with support for women’s autonomy. Reasons for supporting penalties varied widely, including the perceived need to punish illegal acts, and that abortion equates to taking a life and therefore should have consequences.
Conclusion: Our findings suggest most people do not endorse penalizing abortion seekers, and even if abortion is made illegal, there is not widespread support for criminal sanctions. Public sentiment does not seem aligned with the increased legislative efforts to restrict or outlaw abortion.
Oral
Jozkowski, K.N., LaRoche, K.J., Crawford, B.L., *Jackson, F., Turner, R.C., Lo, W. (2021, October 1 - October 2). "Because I understand both sides": Exploring attitudes of US adults who simultaneously identify as pro-life and pro-choice. Society for Family Planning Annual Meeting, Virtual.
Objective: Most polling items that assess abortion labels present pro-life and pro-choice as mutually exclusive options. Yet, some studies suggest a proportion of people identify with both terms, leading to questions about whether there are comprehension challenges associated with this measure. As such, we assessed if and why people may identify as both pro-life and pro-choice.
Methods: We administered a web-based survey to a national sample of US adults (n=449) which included two slider items assessing the extent that people identify as pro-life and pro-choice on a zero (not at all pro-life/pro-choice) to six (completely pro-life/pro-choice) point scale. We then asked participants who identified as both pro-life and pro-choice to some extent (greater than 0 on both items) to explain their responses in an open-ended format; we used content and thematic analysis to better understand why people identified with both labels.
Results: Approximately 65% of participants identified as both pro-life and pro-choice to some extent. People provided a variety of reasons for dual-endorsement such as abortion being an undesirable option and morally wrong, but also a personal choice and important for bodily autonomy. Participants' responses to the closed-ended items were not deterministic of their responses on the open-ended item.
Conclusion: People can simultaneously endorse both labels and dual-endorsement is likely not a function of measurement error. Researchers should consider a wider array of response options when measuring people's selection of abortion labels. Understanding how individuals use and conceptualize "pro-life" and "pro-choice" may have implications for movement building and advocacy work.