Advertisement

Analyzing the impacts of abortion clinic structures and processes: a qualitative analysis of women's negative experience of abortion clinics

  • Katrina Kimport
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 510 986 8929.
    Affiliations
    Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway, Ste. 1100, Oakland, CA 94612, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Kate Cockrill
    Affiliations
    Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway, Ste. 1100, Oakland, CA 94612, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Tracy A. Weitz
    Affiliations
    Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway, Ste. 1100, Oakland, CA 94612, USA
    Search for articles by this author

      Abstract

      Background

      In the United States, the social myth that abortion clinics are unsafe, lonely places is pervasive. Little research has investigated the extent to which women's negative experiences of clinic interactions and processes confirm or contest this myth.

      Study Design

      Semistructured interviews with 41 women who received an abortion at a clinic were conducted and analyzed using qualitative analytical techniques in Atlas 5.0.

      Results

      The processes and structures of the abortion clinic necessitated by the realities of antiabortion hostilities lead some women to react negatively to the clinic experience in ways consistent with the social myth of the abortion clinic. Staff interactions can mitigate or alleviate these experiences.

      Conclusions

      Clinic workers and administrators should be aware that safety structures and processes may create negative experiences for some women. Policymakers should be aware of the extent to which public policies and conflict over abortion render the social myth of the clinic a reality.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Jones R.K.
        • Zolna M.R.
        • Henshaw S.K.
        • Finer L.B.
        Abortion in the United States: incidence and access to services, 2005.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2008; 40: 6-16
        • Joffe C.
        Dispatches from the abortion wars: the costs of fanaticism to doctors, patients, and the rest of us.
        Beacon Press, Boston (MA)2009
        • Joffe C.
        Doctors of conscience: the struggle to provide abortion before and after Roe v. Wade.
        Beacon Press, Boston (MA)1995
        • Joffe C.
        • Weitz T.A.
        • Stacey C.L.
        Uneasy allies: pro-choice physicians, feminist health activists and the struggle for abortion rights.
        Soc Health & Illness. 2004; 26: 775-796
        • Reitman J.
        Juno.
        Fox Searchlight, USA2007
        • Cher
        • Savoca N.
        If these walls could talk.
        Home Box Office Home Video, USA1996
        • Weitz T.A.
        • Hunter A.
        Six feet under brings abortion to the surface.
        in: Herdt G.H. Howe C. 21st century sexualities: contemporary issues in health, education, and rights. Routledge, New York2007: 69-73 ([2003])
        • Kyle D.K.
        Blood money: the business of abortion.
        TAH.LLC Film in association with Zippercity Productions, USA2010
        • Picker Institute
        From the patient's perspective: quality of abortion care.
        Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park (CA)1999
        • Winikoff B.
        • Ellertson C.
        • Elul B.
        • Sivin I.
        Acceptability and feasibility of early pregnancy termination by mifepristone–misoprostol. Results of a large multicenter trial in the United States. Mifepristone Clinical Trials Group.
        Arc of Fam Med. 1998; 7: 360-366
        • Afable-Munsuz A.
        • Gould H.
        • Stewart F.
        • Phillips K.A.
        • Van Bebber S.L.
        • Moore C.
        Provider practice models for and costs of delivering medication abortion — evidence from 11 US abortion care settings.
        Contraception. 2007; 75: 45-51
        • Harvey S.M.
        • Beckman L.J.
        • Satre S.J.
        Choice of and satisfaction with methods of medical and surgical abortion among U.S. clinic patients.
        Fam Plann Perspect. 2001; 33: 212-216
        • Condit C.M.
        Decoding abortion rhetoric: communicating social change.
        University of Illinois Press, Urbana (IL)1990
      1. ATLAS.ti. Version 5.0. ScientificSoftware Development, Berlin2004 ([Computer software])
        • Cozzarelli C.
        • Major B.
        The impact of antiabortion activities on women seeking abortion.
        in: Beckman L.J. Harvey S.M. The new civil war: the psychology, culture, and politics of abortion. American Psychological Association, Washington (DC)1998: 81-104
        • Cozzarelli C.
        • Major B.
        • Karrasch A.
        • Fuegen K.
        Women's experiences of and reactions to antiabortion picketing.
        Basic and Applied Soc Psyc. 2000; 22: 265-275
        • Wolkomir M.
        • Powers J.
        Helping women and protecting the self: the challenge of emotional labor in an abortion clinic.
        Qual Soc. 2007; 30: 153-169
        • Siegel R.B.
        The right's reasons: constitutional conflict and the spread of woman-protective antiabortion argument.
        Duke Law Jour. 2008; 57: 1641-1692