PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Pro-choice Groups”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

106 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
PubMed1995

The American abortion debate: culture war or normal discourse?

This paper investigates whether James Hunter's culture war thesis is an apt characterization of the American abortion debate. The author focuses on three arguments central to Hunter's analysis: 1) that the abortion debate involves two paradigmatically opposed world views; 2) that debate about abortion, since it involves moral discourse, is structurally different than other political debates; and 3) that the new alignments in abortion politics are culturally significant. Examining existing research in each of these three domains, the author finds that the debate over abortion is more complex than suggested by Hunter. World views of pro-life and pro-choice activists, for example, share a commitment to some overlapping values; the argumentative structure of abortion discourse has a pattern rather similar to that of political debate more generally, and new alignments on abortion, such as that between the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention, do not displace historically embedded differences in symbolic resources and cultural orientation. As suggested by the author, it may be more helpful, therefore, to think of the abortion debate as an ongoing public conversation about America's cultural tradition and how it should be variously expressed in contemporary laws and practices.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1991

Abortion attitudes and practices of family and general practice physicians.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 1.5 million abortions are performed each year in the United States. Little information has been published on the abortion attitudes and practices of family physicians. The object of this investigation was to assess the abortion attitudes and practices of family and general practice physicians in Kansas. METHODS: A 19-item self-administered survey questionnaire was designed and mailed to 856 family and general practice physicians in Kansas. RESULTS: A 63% survey response rate was obtained. Seventy-eight percent of the physicians reported that abortion should be legal, but only 56% of the respondents classified themselves as pro-choice. Conversely, only 8% reported that legal abortion should not be available, even though 33% classified themselves as pro-life. The majority of physicians reported that abortion is an appropriate option to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, and when a fetal anomaly is diagnosed. Only three respondents (0.5%) had performed abortions during the previous year. In general, female physicians and physicians over the age of 40 years (regardless of sex) were more likely to be pro-choice and to view a woman's personal decision as a circumstance in which abortion may be appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Physician's views about abortion and their practice patterns are important components of health care for thousands of women each day.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed2004

Uneasy allies: pro-choice physicians, feminist health activists and the struggle for abortion rights.

Abortion represents a particularly interesting subject for a social movements analysis of healthcare issues because of the involvement of both feminist pro-choice activists and a segment of the medical profession. Although both groups have long shared the same general goal of legal abortion, the alliance has over time been an uneasy one, and in many ways a contradictory one. This paper traces points of convergence as well as points of contention between the two groups, specifically: highlighting the tensions between the feminist view of abortion as a women-centred service, with a limited, 'technical' role for the physicians, and the abortion-providing physicians' logic of further medicalization/professional upgrading of abortion services as a response to the longstanding marginality and stigmatisation of abortion providers. Only by noting the evolving relationships between these two crucial sets of actors can one fully understand the contemporary abortion rights movement. We conclude by speculating about similar patterns in medical/lay relationships in other health social movements where 'dissident doctors' and lay activists are similarly seeking recognition for medical services that are controversial.

Abortion, Illegal↗
PubMed1981

Orientations toward abortion: guilty or knowledge?

Students (N = 118) were classified as pro-choice, anti-abortion, or mixed on the basis of their responses to ten fictitious case histories of females who requested abortion. The distribution of participants on the abortion issue was quite similar to the results of a 1979 national survey. As expected, these groups differed on attitudes toward abortion as murder, the legalization of abortion, and the morality of premarital sex. The groups differed significantly in levels of sex guilt, but did not exhibit significant differences in levels of sexual knowledge. The results were discussed within the context of the public controversy over abortion. It was suggested that the affective messages accompanying the sexual socialization of children and adolescents may be more predictive of orientations toward abortion than the weight of intellectual arguments regarding the rights of the fetus, the point at which a fetus becomes viable, or a woman's right to have control over her own body.

Abortion, Legal↗
PubMed1994

Health care reformers hear from pro-choice colleagues, Catholic bishops.

On July 13, more than 6 dozen House members signed their names to a letter sent to Speaker Thomas Foley (D-WA) indicating that they would not support a health care reform measure if it did not include abortion coverage. Drafted by Representatives Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR), the letter stated that "...any health care reform package that comes before the House must contain coverage for contraceptive and abortion services if it is to gain our support." Speaking at a news conference releasing the letter, Representative Don Edwards (D-CA) said, "I resent that certain religious groups are entering this political fight in Congress." Rep. Edwards was referring to a National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) campaign to oppose "any health care bill that requires coverage of abortion" announced on the same day. The NCCB represents the top leaders in the nation's Roman Catholic church, which has 25,000 parishes across the country. In a letter sent to 30 Congressional leaders, the NCCB reaffirmed its support for universal coverage in a national health plan, but only if abortion is not included. Although not well publicized, an additional component of the NCCB campaign is the push to have Congress allow employers to opt out of coverage for contraception. The Bishops claim to have garnered 5 million cards from people who say they have told their lawmakers of their opposition to any coverage for abortion. The NCCB strategy calls for further grassroots action--including lobbying legislators, a telegram-writing campaign, and town meetings--and a national advertising campaign. In Cleveland, Ohio, the Catholic Diocese's Pro-Life Office announced on July 14 that it would start urging pastors and parishioners to speak out against abortion coverage.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1992

Abortion among adolescents: research findings and the current debate.

Utilizing research that focuses on adolescents as well as findings in samples which might have special relevance to young, unmarried women, this report summarizes research on the consequences of abortion among adolescents. It discusses prior literature in the area of parental notification and parental consent, subjects on which public opinion is not divided along familiar pro-choice/anti-choice lines. Following a discussion of methodological problems identified in prior research, it reports on a study designed to address these problems in an adolescent population; it discusses implications for the current debate of this and other studies' findings that there are no identifiable adverse sequelae of the abortion process.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed2004

Fetal discourses and the politics of the womb.

Discourse on abortion rights inevitably centres on the fetus, and is often framed around the dichotomy of "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" positions. This dichotomy is not, however, the only framework to discuss abortion; concerns about the fetus have found varied expression in theological, legal and medical constructs. This article examines discourses on the fetus from the Philippines, Iran and the United States, to show how complex they can be. It examines laws punishing abortion compared to laws punishing the murder of children, and also looks at the effects of ultrasound, amniocentesis and stem cell research on anti-abortion discourse. Although the fetus figures prominently in much legal discourse, it actually figures less prominently in popular discourse, at least in the English and Philippine languages, where terms like "child" and "baby" are used far more often. Finally, the article highlights the need to examine the experiences and narratives of women who have had abortions, and the implications for public policies and advocacy. It is important to expose the way anti-abortion groups manipulate popular culture and women's experience, driving home their messages through fear and guilt, and to show that pregnant women often decide on abortion in order to defend their family's right to survive.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed2003

Selective reduction.

Multifetal pregnancy reduction continues to be controversial. Attitudes about MFPR have not, in our experience, followed a simple "pro-choice/pro-life" dichotomy. As far back as the mid to late 1980s, opinions about the subject were varied. Even then, when much less was known about the subject, opinions did not always parallel the usual pro-choice/theological boundaries. We believe that the real debate over the next 5 to 10 years will not be whether or not MFPR should be performed with triplets or more. The fact is that MFPR does improve those outcomes. A serious debate will emerge over whether or not it is appropriate to offer MFPR routinely for twins, even natural ones, for whom the outcome is commonly considered "good enough." Our data suggest that reduction of twins to a singleton improves the outcome of the remaining fetus. No consensus on appropriateness of routine 2-1 reductions is ever likely to emerge. The ethical issues surrounding MFPR will always be controversial. Over the years, much has been written on the subject. Opinions will always vary from outraged condemnation to complete acceptance. No short paragraph could do justice to the subject other than to state that most proponents do not believe this is a frivolous procedure but do believe in the principle of proportionality ie, therapy to achieve the most good for the least harm). Over the past 15 years, MFPR has become a well-established and integral part of infertility therapy and attempts to deal with the sequelae of aggressive infertility management. In the mid 1980s, the risks and benefits of the procedure could only be guessed. We now have clear and precise data on the risks and benefits of the procedure and an understanding that the risks increase substantially with the starting and finishing number of fetuses in multifetal pregnancies. The collaborative loss rate numbers (ie, 4.5% for triplets, 8% for quadruplets. 11% for quintuplets, and 15% for sextuplets or more) seem reasonable to present to patients for the procedure performed by an experienced operator. Our experiences and anecdotal experiences from other groups suggest that less experienced operators have worse outcomes. Pregnancy loss is not the only poor outcome. The other main issue with which to be concerned is very early premature delivery, where there is an increasing rate of poor outcomes correlated with the starting number. The finishing numbers are also critical, with twins having the best outcomes for cases starting with three or more. Triplets and singletons do not do as well. We hope that MFPR will become obsolete as better control of ovulation agents and assisted reproductive technologies make multifetal pregnancies uncommon.

Female↗
PubMed2004

Anxieties and attitudes towards abortion in women presenting for medical and surgical abortions.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the differences in anxiety levels and attitudes towards abortion between women having an early medical abortion and women having a surgical (manual vacuum aspiration) abortion. METHODS: Women who presented for an early medical abortion or a surgical abortion at an urban, free-standing abortion clinic were invited to participate in this study. Fifty-nine women having a medical abortion and 43 women having a surgical abortion answered questionnaires before their scheduled abortion, and again 2 to 4 weeks after the abortion. Thirty women were interviewed about their answers. RESULTS: Anxiety levels were similar in both groups before the abortion procedure. Anti-choice views about abortion were seen in 60.5% of women having a medical abortion and in 37.3% of women having a surgical abortion (P = .027). Women who were pro-choice had a mean anxiety score of 5.0 (range, 0-10) before and 2.7 after the abortion, whereas women who were anti-choice had a mean anxiety score of 5.2 before and 4.4 after the abortion (P = .005). CONCLUSION: It is important for providers of abortion care to understand that women undergoing a medical abortion may be more ambivalent about abortion than women undergoing a surgical abortion, and women who are anti-choice but having an abortion may have unresolved anxiety after the procedure.

Abortifacient Agents↗
PubMed1994

Massachusetts high court supports use of civil rights law to bar blockades.

In a 4-3 opinion issued on April 11, the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts affirmed a lower court order preventing anti-choice activists from blocking access to a facility providing abortion counseling or services. Granted under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, the injunction also prohibits using force against anyone entering, leaving, or working at such a location (see RFN II/22). Several health care providers and pro-choice organizations obtained a preliminary injunction in 1989 against trespassing or blockading at specific clinics. The following year, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts intervened in the case and was granted a similar statewide order by Superior Court Judge Peter Lauriat. Upholding application of the civil rights statute in this context, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the trial court "properly concluded that the defendants' conduct constituted threats, intimidation, and coercion" of women seeking to exercise their constitutional right to choose abortion. Moreover, the state High Court held that the trial court "did not abuse its discretion in denying disclosure of the identities of the women affected by the defendants' conduct." Anti-choice activists had claimed they needed to question patients to show that blockades--not threats, intimidation, or coercion--caused them to delay their abortion procedures. Congratulations to John Henn of Foley, Hoag and Eliot of Boston, who represented plaintiffs in Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts v. Blake. CRLP's Janet Benshoof, Catherine Albisa, and Priscilla Smith filed an amicus brief in the case (see RFN II/22).

Abortion, Induced↗