Abstract
Objectives
To analyze the association between number of antiabortion protesters and patients’
and their companions’ experiences accessing abortion clinics in North Carolina.
Study design
In this concurrent mixed-methods study conducted in 2018–2019 at two independent abortion
clinics in North Carolina, the author triangulated the methods of participant observation,
descriptive statistical analysis of survey data, and thematic content analysis of
open-ended responses to compare experiences of respondents who observed larger (>10)
versus smaller (1–10) numbers of protesters at their clinic visit. The analytic sample
contained experiences of patients and companions who saw protesters during the study
period.
Results
Of 1530 people approached for the survey, 886 (58%) completed the questionnaire. Overall,
655 respondents were included in the analysis. Most respondents (n = 546, 83%) saw 1 to 10 protesters, versus those who saw >10 protesters (n = 109, 17%). Respondents who saw 1 to 10 protesters had their cars stopped at higher
rates (53%) than those who saw >10 protesters (40%) but reported being physically
approached at similar rates (22% vs. 23%). Respondents who saw >10 protesters indicated
that it was more dangerous to drive into the clinic (44% vs. 23%) and more difficult
to access the clinic (65% vs. 39%), when compared with people who saw 1 to 10 protesters.
Respondents who saw >10 protesters also reported that they thought about leaving more
frequently (21% vs. 12%), that the protesters made them feel unsafe (44% vs. 23%),
made their visit more stressful (71% vs. 59%), and protesters negatively impacted
their clinic experience at higher rates (47% vs. 31%).
Conclusions
Respondents experienced logistical barriers to clinic access regardless of the number
of protesters, though these worsened with larger numbers of protesters. Respondents
perceived larger numbers of protesters as more intimidating and felt less safe navigating
into the clinic. While all respondents made it to their appointments, these perceptions
about larger numbers show how clinic protesting is an intimidating force that interferes
with clinic access.
Implications
Showing the ways that the number of protesters relates to logistical and emotional
barriers can help clinics in planning mitigation measures to address issues of clinic
access for their patients and their companions.
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 accessOne-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 ContraceptionAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2011.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2014; 46: 3-14https://doi.org/10.1363/4304111
- Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2014.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2017; 49: 17-27https://doi.org/10.1363/2019.30760
Feminist Majority Foundation. 2018 National clinic violence survey. https://www.feminist.org/anti-abortion-violence/images/2018-national-clinic-violence-survey.pdf (accessed September 20, 2022).
- Violence & disruption statistics.2021 (accessed September 20, 2022)
- Antiabortion violence in the United States.Contraception. 2012; 86: 562-566https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.02.011
Blasdell J, Goss K. Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act: National Abortion Federation. 2006. https://5aa1b2xfmfh2e2mk03kk8rsx-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/face_act.pdf (accessed September 20, 2022).
- Words, wounds, and relationships: why social ties matter to free speech in high-conflict protests.J Commun Monogr. 2019; 21: 168-258https://doi.org/10.1177/1522637919859599
- Effect of abortion protesters on women's emotional response to abortion.Contraception. 2013; 87: 81-87https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.09.005
- Abortion patient experiences with protestors while accessing care in Mississippi.Sex Res Social Policy. 2021; 19: 886-893https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00643-1
- Women's experiences of and reactions to antiabortion picketing.Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 2000; 22: 265-275https://doi.org/10.1207/15324830051035974
- Experiences of women accessing an abortion clinic confronted by religiously motivated demonstrators: a pilot study.Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2020; 25: 228-230https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2020.1748185
- I didn't doubt my choice, but I felt bad: a qualitative exploration of Canadian abortion patients’ experiences with protesters.Contraception. 2020; 102: 308-313https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2020.06.001
- Analyzing the impacts of abortion clinic structures and processes: a qualitative analysis of women's negative experience of abortion clinics.Contraception. 2012; 85: 204-210https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2011.05.020
- Real men love babies: protest speech and masculinity at abortion clinics in the Southern United States.NORMA. 2020; : 1-16https://doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2020.1778311
- The ripping apart of silence”: sonic patriarchy and anti-abortion harassment.Resonance. 2020; 1: 422-442https://doi.org/10.1525/res.2020.1.4.422
- Women’s experiences with protestors while accessing abortion care in Louisiana.PRC Res Brief. 2019; 4: 1-4https://doi.org/10.26153/TSW/5821
- Abortion misinformation from crisis pregnancy centers in North Carolina.Contraception. 2012; 86: 752-756https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.06.001
- Obstacle course the everyday struggle to get an abortion in America.California University of California Press, Oakland, CA2020
- Overturning Roe could make NC a temporary destination for abortion seekers.The Charlotte Observer. 2022; (accessed September 20, 2022)
- Roe v. Wade Overturned, anti-abortion clinic protests to get worse.Washingtonian. 2022; (accessed September 20, 2022)
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 16, 2022
Accepted:
November 30,
2022
Received in revised form:
October 17,
2022
Received:
January 31,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
