282958
Targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) legislation: Missed opportunities for pro-choice communities to combat abortion stigma
Lisa Martin, PhD,
Women's and Gender Studies Program/Health Policy Studies Program, University of Michigan, Dearborn, Dearborn, MI
Lisa Harris, MD, PhD,
Obstetrics and Gynecology and Women's Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Emily Youatt, MPH,
Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI
Objective: Half of US states have enacted Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws. We examined the role abortion stigma played in the introduction, debate, and passage of recent TRAP laws in Michigan (HB5711) and Virginia (SB 924). Methods: We conducted qualitative analysis of bills as introduced and ultimately passed; pro-choice and anti-abortion responses to them; and media coverage of the legislation. We identified themes using an iterative process and coded documents using Dedoose, a mixed methods web-based program. Results: Proponents of restrictive abortion bills in both states claimed the regulations were necessary to ensure patient safety. However, they do not apply to other medical or surgical procedures conducted in similar outpatient settings. Specifically, they suggested that abortion providers become more dangerous the more procedures they do and are incapable of providing the necessary institutional infrastructure to safely provide abortions. This stereotypes providers as lacking clinical judgment and accountability. Pro-choice oppositional arguments focused on the laws' potential to restrict access to abortion and cited data on the safety of abortion procedures, but did not address the skill or legitimacy of abortion providers. Discussion: Legislators and anti-choice advocates relied on stigmatizing and delegitimizing stereotypes of abortion providers to justify TRAP laws. In combating these bills, the pro-choice community did not challenge these stereotypes. Instead, most counterarguments focused on issues of access and women's rights. A sound pro-choice strategy should include challenging abortion provider stigma head-on. This may prove effective in influencing legislators and public opinion, while simultaneously supporting the abortion-providing workforce.
Learning Areas:
Advocacy for health and health education
Social and behavioral sciences
Learning Objectives:
Describe how targeted regulation of abortion provider laws rely on stigmatized stereotypes of abortion providers;
Demonstrate how the pro-choice response to TRAP laws fail to directly challenge abortion stigma;
Propose new pro-choice strategies to better combat abortion stigma
Keyword(s): Abortion, Women's Health
Presenting author's disclosure statement:Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I am a public health researcher who has been studying abortion stigma for the past six years. Understanding how abortion stigma is reproduced in our laws and its impact on providers has been a special interest of mine.
Any relevant financial relationships? No
I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines,
and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed
in my presentation.
