Advertisement
Contraception
Advanced searchSave search
Original Research Article|Articles in Press, 109922

“They were there because they were pregnant. Which is a really apolitical thing”—Medical student discussions of politics in abortion care in the United States

  • Author Footnotes
    1 Present address, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Ave., Chicago, IL 60637, United States.
    Katherine Rivlin
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author.
    Footnotes
    1 Present address, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Ave., Chicago, IL 60637, United States.
    Affiliations
    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    2 Present address, Cerner Enviza: An Oracle Company, University of Maryland-College Park, 2195 Morrill Hall, 7313 Preinkert Dr., College Park, MD 20742, United States.
    Alexandra Kissling
    Footnotes
    2 Present address, Cerner Enviza: An Oracle Company, University of Maryland-College Park, 2195 Morrill Hall, 7313 Preinkert Dr., College Park, MD 20742, United States.
    Affiliations
    Department of Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    3 Present address, Kaiser Permanente, 1600 Owens Street, SF, CA 94158, United States.
    Maryl G. Sackeim
    Footnotes
    3 Present address, Kaiser Permanente, 1600 Owens Street, SF, CA 94158, United States.
    Affiliations
    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    1 Present address, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Ave., Chicago, IL 60637, United States.
    2 Present address, Cerner Enviza: An Oracle Company, University of Maryland-College Park, 2195 Morrill Hall, 7313 Preinkert Dr., College Park, MD 20742, United States.
    3 Present address, Kaiser Permanente, 1600 Owens Street, SF, CA 94158, United States.
Published:December 16, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2022.109922
“They were there because they were pregnant. Which is a really apolitical thing”—Medical student discussions of politics in abortion care in the United States
Previous ArticleSelf-managed medication abortion in South Korea: A retrospective records review of the uptake of medication abortion through online telemedicine prior to decriminalization
Next ArticleCorrigendum to “A cross-sectional study of factors associated with immediate postpartum uptake of contraceptive implants in Papua New Guinea” [Contraception 117C Pages 25-29]

      Abstract

      Objectives

      State abortion policies can vary widely. Geographic location and political climate could influence a medical student's abortion education experience. We compared how medical students training in one permissive and one restrictive state discussed politics in abortion care.

      Study design

      From 2018 to 2019, we interviewed US medical students during their Obstetrics and Gynecology rotation from two Midwestern academic centers with differing state abortion policies—one in Ohio (restrictive) and one in Illinois (permissive). In-depth interviews occurred following an abortion shadowing experience and included questions about politics in abortion care. We sorted data using flexible coding, with index codes around “politics,” followed by specific analytic coding. We compared codes by medical school using NVIVO software.

      Results

      We interviewed 28 students (50% in Ohio). Students in Ohio discussed specific barriers to patient care and how politics infringed upon the quality of medical care, describing abortion as stigmatized care. Students in Illinois described abortion as high-quality medical care, delivered without the infringement of restrictive laws. Students at both schools described their medical school climates as supportive to abortion, yet in Ohio, students described exposure to more diverse abortion views than Illinois students. Ohio students also described engaging in abortion advocacy work, while Illinois students felt more politically disconnected.

      Conclusions

      Even as clinical training opportunities decline, restrictive states may hold unique advocacy opportunities. Educators should tailor abortion curricula to address state level differences, as disparities in abortion access and student learning opportunities widen.

      Implications

      Students training in permissive states see abortion as routine health care, occurring without political interference. Students in restrictive states see abortion as hindered by politics and stigmatized, which may encourage advocacy. Educators should tailor curricula to address state level differences as disparities in abortion access and student learning opportunities widen.

      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
      Register: Create an account
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics. APGO medical student educational objectives 11th edition. https://cdn.ymaws.com/apgo.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/apgo-11th-ed-mso-book.pdf; 2019 (accessed June 17, 2022).

        View in Article
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
        Committee opinion no. 612: abortion training and education.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 124: 1055-1059https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000456327.96480.18
        View in Article
        • Espey E
        • Ogburn T
        • Leeman L
        • Nguyen T
        • Gill G.
        Abortion education in the medical curriculum: a survey of student attitudes.
        Contraception. 2008; 77: 205-208https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2007.11.011
        View in Article
        • Peterson AT
        • Kelly J
        • Ferzandi TR
        U.S. medical student attitudes regarding abortion before and after their OB/GYN clerkship.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 127: 25Shttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000483344.48347.b3
        View in Article
        • Burns RM
        • Shaw KA.
        Standardizing abortion education: what medical schools can learn from residency programs.
        Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 32: 387-392https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000663
        View in Article

      6. Blazina C, Lipka M, Gramlich J. Key facts about the abortion debate in America. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/3q2pn61;2021 (accessed June 17, 2022).

        View in Article
        • Baird B
        • Millar E.
        Abortion at the edges: politics, practices, performances.
        Womens Stud Int Forum. 2020; 80102372https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2020.102372
        View in Article

      8. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

        View in Article

      9. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. (2022).

        View in Article
        • Nash E.
        For the first time ever, U.S. states enacted more than 100 abortion restrictions in a single year.
        Guttmacher Institute, 2021
        https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2021/10/first-time-ever-us-states-enacted-more-100-abortion-restrictions-single-year
        (accessed June 17, 2022)
        View in Article
        • Jones RK
        • Witwe E
        • Jerman J.
        Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2017.
        Guttmacher Institute, 2019
        https://www.guttmacher.org/report/abortion-incidence-service-availability-us-2017
        (accessed June 17, 2022)
        View in Article
        • Nash E.
        State abortion policy landscape: from hostile to supportive.
        Guttmacher Institute, 2019
        https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2019/08/state-abortion-policy-landscape-hostile-supportive
        (accessed June 17, 2022)
        View in Article

      13. Ohio Revised Code Section 5101.57.

        View in Article
        • Rivlin K
        • Sedlander E
        • Cepin A.
        "It allows you to challenge your beliefs": examining medical students' reactions to first trimester abortion.
        Womens Health Issues. 2020; 30: 353-358https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2020.06.004
        View in Article
        • Deterding NM
        • Waters MC.
        Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: a twenty-first-century approach.
        Sociol Methods Res. 2021; 50: 708-739https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799377
        View in Article
        • Merz AA
        • Janiak E
        • Mokashi M
        • Allen RH
        • Jackson C
        • Berkowitz L
        • et al.
        "We're called upon to be nonjudgmental": a qualitative exploration of United States medical students' discussions of abortion as a reflection of their professionalism.
        Contraception. 2022; 106: 57-63https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2021.09.004
        View in Article
        • Steinauer J
        • Adler A
        • Turk J
        • Chien J
        • Landy U.
        Professionalism in family planning care workshop.
        MedEdPORTAL. 2022; 18: 11212https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11212
        View in Article
        • Reisman AB.
        Outing the hidden curriculum.
        Hastings Cent Rep. 2006; 36: 9https://doi.org/10.1353/hcr.2006.0065
        View in Article
        • Goffman E
        Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity.
        Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ1963: 3
        View in Article
        • Hanschmidt F
        • Linde K
        • Hilbert A
        • Riedel-Heller SG
        • Kersting A
        Abortion stigma: a systematic review.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2016; 48: 169-177https://doi.org/10.1363/48e8516
        View in Article
        • Norris A
        • Bessett D
        • Steinberg JR
        • Kavanaugh ML
        • De Zordo S
        • Becker D.
        Abortion stigma: a reconceptualization of constituents, causes, and consequences.
        Women's Health Issues. 2011; 21: S49-S54https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2011.02.010
        View in Article
        • Smith B
        • Bartz D
        • Goldberg AB
        • Janiak E.
        "Without any indication": stigma and a hidden curriculum within medical students' discussion of elective abortion.
        Soc Sci Med. 2018; 214: 26-34https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.014
        View in Article
        • Giglio ME
        • Magalski GR
        • Doan YP
        • Bowman S.
        Abortion training in medical education - implications of the Supreme Court's upcoming decision.
        N Engl J Med. 2022; 386: 707-709https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2117368
        View in Article
        • Vinekar K
        • Karlapudi A
        • Nathan L
        • Turk JK
        • Rible R
        • Steinauer J.
        Projected implications of overturning Roe v Wade on abortion training in U.S. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 140: 146-149https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004832
        View in Article
        • Mengesha B
        • Zite N
        • Steinauer J.
        Implications of the Dobbs decision for medical education: inadequate training and moral distress.
        JAMA. 2022; 328: 1697-1698https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.19544
        View in Article

      Article info

      Publication history

      Published online: December 16, 2022
      Accepted: November 30, 2022
      Received in revised form: November 29, 2022
      Received: June 21, 2022

      Publication stage

      In Press Corrected Proof

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2022.109922

      Copyright

      © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect
      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the for this site.
      Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties. The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      RELX