research topic on abortion

Read our research on: Abortion | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Key facts about the abortion debate in america.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade – the decision that had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years – has shifted the legal battle over abortion to the states, with some prohibiting the procedure and others moving to safeguard it.

As the nation’s post-Roe chapter begins, here are key facts about Americans’ views on abortion, based on two Pew Research Center polls: one conducted from June 25-July 4 , just after this year’s high court ruling, and one conducted in March , before an earlier leaked draft of the opinion became public.

This analysis primarily draws from two Pew Research Center surveys, one surveying 10,441 U.S. adults conducted March 7-13, 2022, and another surveying 6,174 U.S. adults conducted June 27-July 4, 2022. Here are the questions used for the March survey , along with responses, and the questions used for the survey from June and July , along with responses.

Everyone who took part in these surveys is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories.  Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

A majority of the U.S. public disapproves of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe. About six-in-ten adults (57%) disapprove of the court’s decision that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion and that abortion laws can be set by states, including 43% who strongly disapprove, according to the summer survey. About four-in-ten (41%) approve, including 25% who strongly approve.

About eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (82%) disapprove of the court’s decision, including nearly two-thirds (66%) who strongly disapprove. Most Republicans and GOP leaners (70%) approve , including 48% who strongly approve.

Most women (62%) disapprove of the decision to end the federal right to an abortion. More than twice as many women strongly disapprove of the court’s decision (47%) as strongly approve of it (21%). Opinion among men is more divided: 52% disapprove (37% strongly), while 47% approve (28% strongly).

About six-in-ten Americans (62%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to the summer survey – little changed since the March survey conducted just before the ruling. That includes 29% of Americans who say it should be legal in all cases and 33% who say it should be legal in most cases. About a third of U.S. adults (36%) say abortion should be illegal in all (8%) or most (28%) cases.

Generally, Americans’ views of whether abortion should be legal remained relatively unchanged in the past few years , though support fluctuated somewhat in previous decades.

Relatively few Americans take an absolutist view on the legality of abortion – either supporting or opposing it at all times, regardless of circumstances. The March survey found that support or opposition to abortion varies substantially depending on such circumstances as when an abortion takes place during a pregnancy, whether the pregnancy is life-threatening or whether a baby would have severe health problems.

While Republicans’ and Democrats’ views on the legality of abortion have long differed, the 46 percentage point partisan gap today is considerably larger than it was in the recent past, according to the survey conducted after the court’s ruling. The wider gap has been largely driven by Democrats: Today, 84% of Democrats say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up from 72% in 2016 and 63% in 2007. Republicans’ views have shown far less change over time: Currently, 38% of Republicans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, nearly identical to the 39% who said this in 2007.

However, the partisan divisions over whether abortion should generally be legal tell only part of the story. According to the March survey, sizable shares of Democrats favor restrictions on abortion under certain circumstances, while majorities of Republicans favor abortion being legal in some situations , such as in cases of rape or when the pregnancy is life-threatening.

There are wide religious divides in views of whether abortion should be legal , the summer survey found. An overwhelming share of religiously unaffiliated adults (83%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do six-in-ten Catholics. Protestants are divided in their views: 48% say it should be legal in all or most cases, while 50% say it should be illegal in all or most cases. Majorities of Black Protestants (71%) and White non-evangelical Protestants (61%) take the position that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while about three-quarters of White evangelicals (73%) say it should be illegal in all (20%) or most cases (53%).

In the March survey, 72% of White evangelicals said that the statement “human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights” reflected their views extremely or very well . That’s much greater than the share of White non-evangelical Protestants (32%), Black Protestants (38%) and Catholics (44%) who said the same. Overall, 38% of Americans said that statement matched their views extremely or very well.

Catholics, meanwhile, are divided along religious and political lines in their attitudes about abortion, according to the same survey. Catholics who attend Mass regularly are among the country’s strongest opponents of abortion being legal, and they are also more likely than those who attend less frequently to believe that life begins at conception and that a fetus has rights. Catholic Republicans, meanwhile, are far more conservative on a range of abortion questions than are Catholic Democrats.

Women (66%) are more likely than men (57%) to say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to the survey conducted after the court’s ruling.

More than half of U.S. adults – including 60% of women and 51% of men – said in March that women should have a greater say than men in setting abortion policy . Just 3% of U.S. adults said men should have more influence over abortion policy than women, with the remainder (39%) saying women and men should have equal say.

The March survey also found that by some measures, women report being closer to the abortion issue than men . For example, women were more likely than men to say they had given “a lot” of thought to issues around abortion prior to taking the survey (40% vs. 30%). They were also considerably more likely than men to say they personally knew someone (such as a close friend, family member or themselves) who had had an abortion (66% vs. 51%) – a gender gap that was evident across age groups, political parties and religious groups.

Relatively few Americans view the morality of abortion in stark terms , the March survey found. Overall, just 7% of all U.S. adults say having an abortion is morally acceptable in all cases, and 13% say it is morally wrong in all cases. A third say that having an abortion is morally wrong in most cases, while about a quarter (24%) say it is morally acceptable in most cases. An additional 21% do not consider having an abortion a moral issue.

Among Republicans, most (68%) say that having an abortion is morally wrong either in most (48%) or all cases (20%). Only about three-in-ten Democrats (29%) hold a similar view. Instead, about four-in-ten Democrats say having an abortion is morally  acceptable  in most (32%) or all (11%) cases, while an additional 28% say it is not a moral issue. 

White evangelical Protestants overwhelmingly say having an abortion is morally wrong in most (51%) or all cases (30%). A slim majority of Catholics (53%) also view having an abortion as morally wrong, but many also say it is morally acceptable in most (24%) or all cases (4%), or that it is not a moral issue (17%). Among religiously unaffiliated Americans, about three-quarters see having an abortion as morally acceptable (45%) or not a moral issue (32%).

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

Public Opinion on Abortion

Majority in u.s. say abortion should be legal in some cases, illegal in others, three-in-ten or more democrats and republicans don’t agree with their party on abortion, partisanship a bigger factor than geography in views of abortion access locally, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Introduction: The Politics of Abortion 50 Years after Roe

Katrina Kimport is a professor with the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences and a medical sociologist with the ANSIRH program at the University of California, San Francisco. Her research examines the (re)production of inequality in health and reproduction, with a topical focus on abortion, contraception, and pregnancy. She is the author of No Real Choice: How Culture and Politics Matter for Reproductive Autonomy (2022) and Queering Marriage: Challenging Family Formation in the United States (2014) and co-author, with Jennifer Earl, of Digitally Enabled Social Change (2011). She has published more than 75 articles in sociology, health research, and interdisciplinary journals.

[email protected]

Rebecca Kreitzer is an associate professor of public policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research focuses on gendered political representation and intersectional policy inequality in the US states. Much of her research focuses on the political dynamics of reproductive health care, especially surrounding contraception and abortion. She has published dozens of articles in political science, public policy, and law journals.

[email protected]

• Standard View
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Katrina Kimport , Rebecca Kreitzer; Introduction: The Politics of Abortion 50 Years after Roe . J Health Polit Policy Law 1 August 2023; 48 (4): 463–484. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10451382

Download citation file:

• Reference Manager

Abortion is central to the American political landscape and a common pregnancy outcome, yet research on abortion has been siloed and marginalized in the social sciences. In an empirical analysis, the authors found only 22 articles published in this century in the top economics, political science, and sociology journals. This special issue aims to bring abortion research into a more generalist space, challenging what the authors term “the abortion research paradox,” wherein abortion research is largely absent from prominent disciplinary social science journals but flourishes in interdisciplinary and specialized journals. After discussing the misconceptions that likely contribute to abortion research siloization and the implications of this siloization for abortion research as well as social science knowledge more generally, the authors introduce the articles in this special issue. Then, in a call for continued and expanded research on abortion, the introduction to this special issue closes by offering three guiding practices for abortion scholars—both those new to the topic and those deeply familiar with it—in the hopes of building an ever-richer body of literature on abortion politics, policy, and law. The need for such a robust literature is especially acute following the US Supreme Court's June 2022 overturning of the constitutional right to abortion.

Abortion has been both siloed and marginalized in social science research. But because abortion is a perennially politically and socially contested issue as well as vital health care that one in four women in the United States will experience in their lifetime (Jones and Jerman 2022 ), it is imperative that social scientists make a change. This special issue brings together insightful voices from across disciplines to do just that—and does so at a particularly important historical moment. Fifty years after the United States Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade (1973) decision set a national standard amid disparate state policies on abortion, we again find ourselves in a country with a patchwork of laws about abortion. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion it had established in Roe , purportedly returning the question of legalization of abortion to the states. In the immediate aftermath of the Dobbs decision, state policies polarized, and public opinion shifted. This moment demands scholarly evaluation of where we have been, how we arrived at this moment, and what we should be attentive to in coming years. This special issue came about, in part, in response to the on-the-ground conditions of abortion in the United States.

As we argue below, the siloization of abortion research means that the social science literature broadly is not (yet) equipped to make sense of this moment, our history, and what the future holds. First, though, we make a case for the importance of political scientists, economists, and sociologists studying abortion. Then we describe the siloization of abortion research through what we call the “abortion research paradox,” wherein abortion research—despite its social and political import—is curiously absent from top disciplinary journals, even as it thrives in other publication venues that are often interdisciplinary and usually specialized. We theorize some reasons for this siloization and discuss the consequences, both for generalist knowledge and for scientific understanding of abortion. We then introduce the articles in this special issue, noting the breadth of methodological, topical, and theoretical approaches to abortion research they demonstrate. Finally, we offer three suggestions for scholars—both those new to abortion research and those already deeply familiar with it—embarking on abortion research in the hopes of building an ever-richer body of literature on abortion politics, policy, and law.

• Why Abortion?

Abortion has arguably shaped the American political landscape more than any other domestic policy issue in the last 50 years. Since the Supreme Court initially established a nationwide right to abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973), debate over this right has influenced elections at just about every level of office (Abramowitz 1995 ; Cook, Hartwig, and Wilcox 1993 ; Cook, Jelen, and Wilcox 1994 ; Cook, Jelen, and Wilcox 1992 ; Paolino 1995 ; Roh and Haider-Markel 2003 ), inspired political activism (Carmines and Woods 2002 ; Killian and Wilcox 2008 ; Maxwell 2002 ; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995 ) and social movements (Kretschmer 2014 ; Meyer and Staggenborg 1996 , 2008 ; Munson 2010a , Munson 2010b ; Rohlinger 2006 ; Staggenborg 1991 ), and fundamentally structured partisan politics (Adams 1997; Carsey and Layman 2006 ; Killian and Wilcox 2008 ). Position on abortion is frequently used as the litmus test for those seeking political office (Flaten 2010 ; Kreitzer and Osborn 2019 ). Opponents to legal abortion have transformed the federal judiciary (Hollis-Brusky and Parry 2021 ; Hollis-Brusky and Wilson 2020 ). Indeed, abortion is often called the quintessential “morality policy” issue (Kreitzer 2015 ; Kreitzer, Kane, and Mooney 2019 ; Mooney 2001 ; Mucciaroni, Ferraiolo, and Rubado 2019 ) and “ground zero” in the prominent culture wars that have polarized Americans (Adams 1997 ; Lewis 2017 ; Mouw and Sobel 2001 ; Wilson 2013 ). Almost fifty years after Roe v. Wade , in June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, ushering in a new chapter of political engagement on abortion.

But abortion is not simply an abstract political issue; it is an extremely common pregnancy outcome. Indeed, as noted above, about one in four US women will get an abortion in her lifetime (Jones and Jerman 2022 ), although the rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion vary substantially across racial and socioeconomic groups (Dehlendorf, Harris, and Weitz 2013 ; Jones and Jerman 2022 ). Despite rampant misinformation claiming otherwise, abortion is a safe procedure (Raymond and Grimes 2012 ; Upadhyay et al. 2015 ), reduces physical health consequences and mortality (Gerdts et al. 2016 ), and does not cause mental health issues (Charles et al. 2008 ; Major et al. 2009 ) or regret (Rocca et al. 2013 , 2015 , 2020 ). Abortion also has a significant impact on people's lives beyond health outcomes. Legal abortion is associated with educational attainment (Everett et al. 2019 ; Ralph et al. 2019 ; Mølland 2016 ) as well as higher female labor force participation, and it affects men's and women's long-term earning potential (Bernstein and Jones 2019 ; Bloom et al. 2009 ; Everett et al. 2019 ; Kalist 2004 ). Access to abortion also shapes relationship satisfaction and stability (Biggs et al. 2014 ; Mauldon, Foster, and Roberts 2015 ). The preponderance of evidence, in other words, demonstrates substantial benefits and no harms to allowing pregnant people to choose abortion.

Yet access to abortion in the United States has been rapidly declining for years. Most abortion care in the United States takes place in stand-alone outpatient facilities that primarily provide reproductive health care (Jones, Witwer, and Jerman 2019 ). As antiabortion legislators in some states have advanced policies that target these facilities, the number of abortion clinics has decreased (Gerdts et al. 2022 ; Venator and Fletcher 2021 ), leaving large geographical areas lacking an abortion facility (Cartwright et al. 2018 ; Cohen and Joffe 2020 ) and thus diminishing pregnant people's ability to obtain abortion care when and where they need it.

The effects of policies regulating abortion, including those that target facilities, have been unevenly experienced, with people of color (Jones and Jerman 2022 ), people in rural areas (Bearak, Burke, and Jones 2017 ), and those who are financially struggling (Cook et al. 1999 ; Roberts et al. 2019 ) disproportionately affected. Even before the Dobbs decision overturned the constitutional right to abortion, the American landscape was characterized by ever-broadening contraception deserts (Axelson, Sealy, and McDonald-Mosley 2022 ; Barber et al. 2019 ; Kreitzer et al. 2021 ; Smith et al. 2022 ), maternity care deserts (Simpson 2020 ; Taporco et al. 2021 ; Wallace et al. 2021 ), and abortion deserts (Cartwright et al. 2018 ; Cohen and Joffe 2020 ; Engle and Freeman 2022 ; McNamara et al. 2022 ; Pleasants, Cartwright, and Upadhyay 2022 ). After Dobbs , access to abortion around the country changed in a matter of weeks. In the 100 days after Roe was overturned, at least 66 clinics closed in 15 states, with 14 of those states no longer having any abortion facilities (Kirstein et al. 2022 ). In this moment of heightened contention about an issue with a long history of social and political contestation, social scientists have a rich opportunity to contribute to scientific knowledge as well as policy and practice that affect millions of lives. This special issue steps into that opportunity.

• The Abortion Research Paradox

This special issue is also motivated by what we call the abortion research paradox. As established above, abortion fundamentally shapes politics in a myriad of ways and is a very common pregnancy outcome, with research consistently demonstrating that access to abortion is consequential and beneficial to people's lives. However, social science research on abortion is rarely published in top disciplinary journals. Abortion is a topic of clear social science interest and is well suited for social science inquiry, but it is relatively underrepresented as a topic in generalist social science journals. To measure this underrepresentation empirically, we searched for original research articles about abortion in the United Sates in the top journals of political science, sociology, and economics. We identified the top three journals for each discipline by considering journal reputation within their respective discipline as well as impact factors and Google Scholar rankings. (There is room for debate about what makes a journal a “top” general interest journal, but that is beyond our scope. Whether these journals are exactly the top three is debatable; nonetheless, these are undoubtedly among the top general-interest or “flagship” disciplinary journals and thus representative of what the respective disciplines value as top scholarship.) Then we searched specified journal databases for the keyword “abortion” for articles published in this century (i.e., 2000–2021), excluding commentaries and book reviews. We found few articles about abortion: just seven in economics journals, eight in political science journals, and seven in sociology journals. We read the articles and classified each into one of three categories: articles primarily about abortion; articles about more than one aspect of reproductive health, inclusive of abortion; or articles about several policy issues, among which abortion is one ( table 1 ).

In the three top economics journals, articles about abortion focused on the relationships between abortion and crime or educational attainment, or on the impact of abortion policies on trends in the timing of first births of women (Bitler and Zavodny 2002 ; Donohue III and Levitt 2001 ; Myers 2017 ). Articles that studied abortion as one among several topics also studied “morally controversial” issues (Elías et al. 2017 ), the electoral implications of abortion (Glaeser, Ponzetto, and Shapiro 2005 ; Washington 2008 ), or contraception (Bailey 2010 ). Articles published in the three top political science journals that focused primarily on abortion evaluated judicial decision-making and legitimacy (Caldarone, Canes-Wrone, and Clark 2009 ; Zink, Spriggs, and Scott 2009 ) or public opinion (Kalla, Levine, and Broockman 2022 ; Rosenfeld, Imai, and Shapiro 2016 ). More commonly, abortion was one of several (or many) different issues analyzed, including government spending and provision of services, government help for African Americans, law enforcement, health care, education, free speech, Hatch Act restrictions, and the Clinton impeachment. The degree to which these articles are “about abortion” varies considerably. In the three top sociology journals, articles represented a slightly broader range of topics, including policy diffusion (Boyle, Kim, and Longhofer 2015 ), public opinion (Mouw and Sobel 2001 ), social movements (Ferree 2003 ), and crisis pregnancy centers (McVeigh, Crubaugh, and Estep 2017 ). Unlike in economics and political science, articles in sociology on abortion mostly focused directly on abortion.

The Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law ( JHPPL ) would seem well positioned to publish research on abortion. Yet, even in JHPPL , abortion research is not very common. In the same time period (2000–2021), JHPPL published five articles on reproductive health: two articles on abortion (Daniels et al. 2016 ; Kimport, Johns, and Upadhyay 2018 ), one on contraception (Kreitzer et al. 2021 ), one on forced interventions on pregnant people (Paltrow and Flavin 2013 ), and one about how states could respond to the passage of the Affordable Care Act mandate regarding reproductive health (Stulberg 2013 ).

This is not to say that there is no extensive, rigorous published research on abortion in the social science literature. Interdisciplinary journals that are focused on reproductive health, such as Contraception and Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health , as well as health research journals, such as the American Journal of Public Health and Social Science & Medicine , regularly published high-quality social science research on abortion during the focal time period. Research on abortion can also be found in disciplinary subfield journals. In the same time period addressed above, the Journal of Women, Politics, and Public Policy and Politics & Gender— two subfield journals focused on gender and politics—each published around 20 articles that mentioned abortion in the abstract. In practice, while this means excellent research on abortion is published, the net effect is that abortion research is siloed from other research areas in the disciplines of economics, political science, and sociology. This special issue aims to redress some of this siloization and to inspire future scholarship on abortion. Our motivation is not simply premised on quantitative counts, however. As we assert below, abortion research siloization has significant consequences for knowledge—and especially for real people's lives. First, though, we consider some of the possible reasons for this siloization.

• The Origins of Siloization

We do not know why abortion research is not more commonly published in top disciplinary journals, given the topic's clear importance in key areas of focus for these disciplines, including public discourse, politics, law, family life, and health. The siloing and marginalization of abortion is likely related to several misconceptions. For one, because of social contention on the issue, peer reviewers may not have a deep understanding of abortion as a research topic, may express hostility to the topic, or may believe that abortion is exceptional in some way—a niche or ungeneralizable research topic better published in a subfield journal. Scholars themselves may share this mischaracterization of abortion. As Borgman ( 2014 ) argues about the legal arena, and as Roberts, Schroeder, and Joffe ( 2020 ) provide evidence of in medicine, abortion is regularly treated as exceptional, making it both definitional and reasonable that abortion be treated differently in the law and in health care from other medical experiences. Scholars are not immune to social patterns that exceptionalize abortion. In their peer and editor reviews, they may inappropriately—and perhaps inadvertently—draw on their social, rather than academic, knowledge. For scholars of abortion, reviews premised on social knowledge may not be constructive to strengthening the research, and additional labor may be required to educate reviewers and editors on the academic parameters of the topic, including which social assumptions about abortion are scientifically inaccurate. Comments from authors educating editors and peer reviewers on abortion research may then counterintuitively reinforce the (mis)perception that abortion research is niche and not of general interest.

Second, authors' negative experiences while trying to publish about abortion or reproductive health in top disciplinary journals may compound as scholars share information about journals. This is the case for research on gender; evidence from political science suggests that certain journals are perceived as more or less likely to publish research on gender (Brown et al. 2020 ). Such reputations, especially for venues that do not publish abortion research, may not even be rooted in negative experiences. The absence of published articles on abortion may itself dissuade scholars from submitting to a journal based on an educated guess that the journal does not welcome abortion research. Regardless of the veracity of these perceptions, certain journals may get a reputation for publishing on abortion (or not), which then may make future submissions of abortion research to those outlets more (or less) likely. After all, authors seek publication venues where they believe their research will get a robust review and is likely to be published. This pattern may be more common for some author groups than others. Research from political science suggests women are more risk averse than men when it comes to publishing strategies and less likely to submit manuscripts to journals where the perceived likelihood of successful publication is lower (Key and Sumner 2019 ). Special issues like this one are an important way for journals without a substantial track record of publishing abortion research to establish their willingness to do so.

Third, there might be a methodological bias, which unevenly intersects with some author groups. Top disciplinary journals are more likely to publish quantitative approaches rather than qualitative ones, which can result in the exclusion of women and minority scholars who are more likely to utilize mixed or qualitative methods (Teele and Thelen 2017 ). To the extent that investigations of abortion in the social sciences have utilized qualitative rather than quantitative methods, that might contribute to the underrepresentation of abortion-focused scholarship in top disciplinary journals.

Stepping back from the idiosyncrasies of peer review and methodologies, a fourth explanation for why abortion research is not more prominent in generalist social science journals may arise far earlier than the publishing process. PhD-granting departments in the social sciences may have an undersupply of scholars with expertise in reproductive health who can mentor junior scholars interested in studying abortion. (We firmly believe one need not be an expert in reproductive health to mentor junior scholars studying reproductive health, so this explanation only goes so far.) Anecdotally, we have experienced and heard many accounts of scholars who were discouraged from focusing on abortion in dissertation research because of advisors', mentors', and senior scholars' misconceptions about the topic and about the viability of a career in abortion research. In data provided to us by Key and Sumner from their analysis of the “leaky pipeline” in the publication of research on gender at top disciplinary journals in political science (Key and Sumner 2019 ), there were only nine dissertations written between 2000 and 2013 that mention abortion in the abstract, most of which are focused on judicial behavior or political party dynamics rather than focusing on abortion policy itself. If few junior scholars focus on abortion, it makes sense there may be an undersupply of cutting-edge social science research on abortion submitted to top disciplinary journals.

• The Implications of Siloization

The relative lack of scholarly attention to abortion as a social phenomenon in generalist journals has implications for general scholarship. Most concerningly, it limits our ability to understand other social phenomena for which the case of abortion is a useful entry point. For example, the case of abortion as a common, highly safe medical procedure is useful for examining medical innovations and technologies, such as telemedicine. Similarly, given the disparities in who seeks and obtains abortion care in the United States, abortion is an excellent case study for scholars interested in race, class, and gender inequality. It also holds great potential as an opportunity for exploration of public opinion and attitudes, particularly as a case of an issue whose ties to partisan politics have solidified over time and that is often—but not always—“moralized” in policy engagement (Kreitzer, Kane, and Mooney 2019 ). Additionally, there are missed opportunities to generate theory from the specifics of abortion. For example, there is ample evidence of abortion stigma and stigmatization (Hanschmidt et al. 2016 ) and of their effects on people who obtain abortions (Sorhaindo and Lavelanet 2022 ). This research is often unmoored from existing theorization on stigmatization, however, because the bulk of the stigma literature focuses on identities; and having had an abortion is not an identity the same way as, for example, being queer is. (For a notable exception to this trend, see Beynon-Jones 2017 .)

There is, it must be noted, at least one benefit of abortion research being regularly siloed within social science disciplines. The small but growing number of researchers engaged in abortion research has often had to seek mentorship and collaborations outside their disciplines. Indeed, several of the articles included in this special issue come from multidisciplinary author teams, building bridges between disciplinary literatures and pushing knowledge forward. Social scientists studying abortion regularly engage with research by clinicians and clinician-researchers, which is somewhat rare in the academy. The interdisciplinary journals noted above that regularly publish social science abortion research ( Contraception and Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health ) also regularly publish clinical articles and are read by advocates and policy makers. In other words, social scientists studying abortion frequently reach audiences that include clinicians, advocates, and policy makers, marking an opportunity for social science research to influence practice.

The siloization of abortion research in the social sciences affects more than broad social science knowledge; it also dramatically shapes our understanding of abortion. When abortion researchers are largely relegated to their own spaces, they risk missing opportunities to learn from other areas of scholarship that are not related to abortion. Lacking context from other topics, abortion scholars may inaccurately understand an aspect of abortion as exceptional that is not, or they may reinvent the proverbial theoretical wheel to describe an abortion-related phenomenon that is not actually unique to abortion. For example, scholars have studied criminalized behavior for decades, offering theoretical insights and methodological best practices for research on illegal activities. With abortion now illegal in many states, abortion researchers can benefit from drawing on that extant literature to examine the implications of illegality, identifying which aspects of abortion illegality are unique and which are common to other illegal activities. Likewise, methodologically, abortion researchers can learn from other researchers of illegal activities about how to protect participants' confidentiality.

The ontological and epistemological implications for the siloization of abortion research extend beyond reproductive health. When abortion research is not part of the central discussions in economics, political science, and sociology, our understanding of health policy, politics, and law is impoverished. We thus miss opportunities to identify and address chronic health disparities and health inequities, with both conceptual and practical consequences. These oversights matter for people's lives. Following the June 2022 Dobbs decision, millions of people with the capacity of pregnancy are now barred from one key way to control fertility: abortion. The implications of scholars' failure to comprehensively grapple with the place of abortion in health policy, politics, and law are playing out in those people's lives and the lives of their loved ones.

Articles in this Special Issue

In this landscape, we offer this special issue on “The Politics of Abortion 50 Years After Roe .” We seek in this issue to illustrate some of the many ways abortion can and should be studied, with benefits not only for scholarly knowledge about abortion and its role in policy, politics, and law but also for general knowledge about health policy, politics, and law themselves.

The issue's articles represent multiple disciplines, including several articles by multidisciplinary teams. Although public health has long been a welcoming home for abortion research, authors in this special issue point to opportunities in anthropology, sociology, and political science, among other disciplines, for the study of abortion. We do not see the differences and variations among disciplinary approaches as a competition. Rather, we believe that the more diverse the body of researchers grappling with questions about abortion, abortion provision, and abortion patients, the better our collective knowledge about abortion and its role in the social landscape.

The same goes for diversity of methodological approaches. Authors in this issue employ qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, showcasing compelling methodological variation. There is no singular or best methodology for answering research questions about abortion. Instead, the impressive variation in methodological approaches in this special issue highlights the vast methodological opportunities for future research. A diversity of methodologies enables a diversity of research questions. Indeed, different methods can identify, generate, and respond to different research questions, enriching the literature on abortion. The methodologies represented in this issue are certainly not exhaustive, but we believe they are suggestive of future opportunities for scholarly exploration and investigation. We hope these articles will provide a road map for rich expansions of the research literature on abortion.

By way of brief introduction, we offer short summaries of the included articles. Baker traces the history of medication abortion in the United States, cataloging the initial approval of the two-part regimen by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), subsequent policy debates over FDA-imposed restrictions on how medication abortion is dispensed, and the work of abortion access advocates to get medication abortion to people who need it. Weaving together accounts of health care policy, abortion advocacy, and on-the-ground activism, Baker illustrates both the unique contentions specific to abortion policy and how the history of medication abortion can be seen as a case of health care advocacy.

Two of the issue's articles focus on state-level legislative policy on abortion. Roth and Lee generate an original data set cataloging the introduction and implementation of statutes on abortion and other aspects of reproductive health at the state level in the United States monthly, from 1994 to 2022. In their descriptive analysis, the authors highlight trends in abortion legislation and the emergent pattern of state polarization around abortion. Their examination adds rich longitudinal context to contemporary analyses of reproductive health legislation, providing a valuable resource for future scholarship. Carson and Carter similarly attend to state-level legislation, zeroing in on the case of abortion policy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to show how legislation unrelated to abortion has been opportunistically used to restrict abortion access. The authors also examine how abortion is discursively constructed as a risk to public health. This latter move, they argue, builds on previous constructions of abortion as a risk to individual health and points to a new horizon of antiabortion constructions of the meaning of abortion access.

Kim et al. and Kumar examine the implementation of US abortion policies. Kim et al. use an original data set of 20 years of state supreme court decisions to investigate factors that affect state supreme court decision-making on abortion. Their regression analysis uncovers the complex relationship between state legislatures, state supreme courts, and the voting public for the case of abortion. Kumar charts how 50 years of US abortion policy have affected global access to abortion, offering insights into the underexamined international implications of US abortion policy and into social movement advocacy that has expanded abortion access around the world.

Karlin and Joffe and Heymann et al. draw on data collected when Roe was still the law of the land to investigate phenomena that are likely to become far more common now that Roe has been overturned. Karlin and Joffe utilize interviews with 40 physicians who provide abortions to examine their perspectives on people who terminate their pregnancies outside the formal health care system—an abortion pathway whose popularity increases when abortion access constricts (Aiken et al. 2022 ). By contextualizing their findings on the contradictions physicians voiced—desiring to support reproductive autonomy but invested in physician authority—in a historical overview of how mainstream medicine has marginalized abortion provision since the early days after Roe , the authors add nuance to understandings of the “formal health care system,” its members, and the stakes faced by people bypassing this system to obtain their desired health outcome. Heymann et al. investigate a process also likely to increase in the wake of the Dobbs decision: the implementation of restrictive state-level abortion policy by unelected bureaucrats. Using the case of variances for a written transfer agreement requirement in Ohio—a requirement with no medical merit that is designed to add administrative burden to stand-alone abortion clinics—Heymann et al. demonstrate how bureaucratic discretion by political appointees can increase the administrative burden of restrictive abortion laws and thus further constrain abortion access. Together, these two articles demonstrate how pre- Roe data can point scholars to areas that merit investigation after Roe has been overturned.

Finally, using mixed methods, Buyuker et al. analyze attitudes about abortion acceptability and the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, distinguishing what people think about abortion from what they know about abortion policy. In addition to providing methodological insights about survey items related to abortion attitudes, the authors expose a disconnect between how people think about abortion acceptability and their support for the Roe decision. In other words, as polarized as abortion attitudes are said to be, there is unacknowledged and largely unmeasured complexity in how the general public thinks about abortion.

Future Research on Abortion

We hope that a desire to engage in abortion research prompts scholars to read the excellent articles in this special issue. We also hope that reading these pieces inspires at least some readers to engage in abortion research. Having researched abortion for nearly three decades between us, we are delighted by the emerging interest in studying abortion, whether as a focal topic or alongside a different focus. This research is essential to our collective understanding of abortion politics, policy, and law and the many millions of people whose lives are affected by US abortion politics, policy, and law annually. In light of the limitations of the current field of abortion research, we have several suggestions for scholars of abortion, regardless of their level of familiarity with the topic.

First, know and cite the existing literature on abortion. To address the siloization of abortion research, and particularly the scarcity of abortion research published in generalist journals, scholars must be sure to build on the impressive work that has been published on the topic in specialized spaces. Moreover, becoming familiar with existing research can help scholars avoid several common pitfalls in abortion research. For example, being immersed in existing literature can help scholars avoid outdated, imprecise, or inappropriate language and terminology. Smith et al. ( 2018 ), for instance, illuminate the implications of clinicians deploying seemingly everday language around “elective” abortion. They find that it muddies the distinction between the use of “elective” colloquially and in clinical settings, contributing to the stigmatization of abortion and abortion patients. Examinations like theirs advance understanding of abortion stigmatization while highlighting for scholars the importance of being sensitive to and reflective about language. Familiarity with existing research can help scholars avoid methodological pitfalls as well, such as incomplete understanding of the organization of abortion provision. Although Planned Parenthood has brand recognition for providing abortion care, the majority of abortions in the United States are performed at independent abortion clinics. Misunderstanding the provision landscape can have consequences for some study designs.

Second, we encourage scholars of abortion to think critically about the ideological underpinnings of how their research questions and findings are framed. Academic research of all kinds, including abortion, is better when it is critical of ideologically informed premises. Abortion scholars must be careful to avoid uncritically accepting both antiabortion premises and abortion-supportive premises, especially as those premises unconsciously guide much of the public discourse on abortion. Scholars have the opportunity to use methodological tools not to find an objective truth per se but to challenge the uncontested common sense claims that frequently guide public thinking on abortion. One strategy for avoiding common framing pitfalls is to construct research and analysis to center the people most affected by abortion politics, policy, and law (Kimport and McLemore 2022 ). Another strategy is to critique what Baird and Millar ( 2019 , 2020 ) have termed the performative nature of abortion scholarship. Abortion scholarship, they note, has predominantly focused on negative aspects and effects of abortion care. Research that finds and explores affirmatively positive aspects—for instance, the joy in abortion—can crucially thicken scholarly understanding.

Third, related to our discussion above, scholars of abortion face an interesting challenge regarding how abortion is and is not exceptional. Research on abortion must attend to how abortion has been exceptionalized—and marginalized—in policy and practices. But there are also numerous instances where abortion is only one example of many. In these cases, investigation of abortion under the assumption that it is exceptional is an unnecessary limitation on the work's contribution. Scholars of abortion benefit from mastery of the literature on abortion, yet knowing this literature is not sufficient. There are important bridges from scholarship on abortion to scholarship in other areas, important conversations across and within literatures, that can yield insights both about abortion and about other topical foci.

As guest coeditors of this special issue, we are delighted by the rich and growing body of scholarship on abortion, to which the articles in this special issue represent an important addition. There is still much more work to be done. Going forward, we are eager to see future scholarship on abortion build on this work and tackle new questions.

• Acknowledgments

The authors thank Krystale Littlejohn, Jon Oberlander, Ellen Key, and Jane Sumner for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article. Both authors contributed equally to this article and are listed alphabetically.

• Previous Issue
• Next Article

Advertisement

Data & Figures

Number of Articles about Abortion in Top Disciplinary Journals, 2000–2021

Note : AER  =  American Economic Review ; QJE  =  Quarterly Journal of Economics ; JPE  =  Journal of Political Economy ; APSR  =  American Political Science Review ; AJPS  =  American Journal of Political Science ; JOP  =  Journal of Politics ; ASR  =  American Sociological Review ; AJS  =  American Journal of Sociology ; ARS  =  Annual Review of Sociology.

Supplements

Citing articles via, email alerts, related articles, related book chapters, related topics, affiliations.

• About Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law
• Editorial Board
• For Authors
• Rights and Permissions Inquiry
• Online ISSN 1527-1927
• Print ISSN 0361-6878
• Copyright © 2024 Duke University Press
• Duke University Press
• 905 W. Main St. Ste. 18-B
• Durham, NC 27701
• (888) 651-0122
• International
• +1 (919) 688-5134
• Information For
• Advertisers
• Book Authors
• Booksellers/Media
• Journal Authors/Editors
• Journal Subscribers
• Prospective Journals
• Licensing and Subsidiary Rights
• View Open Positions
• email Join our Mailing List
• catalog Current Catalog
• Accessibility
• Get Adobe Reader

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 02 January 2024

Psychological traits and public attitudes towards abortion: the role of empathy, locus of control, and need for cognition

• Jiuqing Cheng 1 ,
• Ping Xu 2 &
• Chloe Thostenson 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  23 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1423 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Social policy

In the summer of 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the historic Roe v. Wade ruling, prompting various states to put forth ballot measures regarding state-level abortion rights. While earlier studies have established associations between demographics, such as religious beliefs and political ideologies, and attitudes toward abortion, the current research delves into the role of psychological traits such as empathy, locus of control, and need for cognition. A sample of 294 U.S. adults was obtained via Amazon Mechanical Turk, and participants were asked to provide their attitudes on seven abortion scenarios. They also responded to scales measuring empathy toward the pregnant woman and the unborn, locus of control, and need for cognition. Principal Component Analysis divided abortion attitudes into two categories: traumatic abortions (e.g., pregnancies due to rape) and elective abortions (e.g., the woman does not want the child anymore). After controlling for religious belief and political ideology, the study found psychological factors accounted for substantial variation in abortion attitudes. Notably, empathy toward the pregnant woman correlated positively with abortion support across both categories, while empathy toward the unborn revealed an inverse relationship. An internal locus of control was positively linked to support for both types of abortions. Conversely, external locus of control and need for cognition only positively correlated with attitudes toward elective abortion, showing no association with traumatic abortion attitudes. Collectively, these findings underscore the significant and unique role psychological factors play in shaping public attitudes toward abortion. Implications for research and practice were discussed.

Similar content being viewed by others

Death anxiety as mediator of relationship between renunciation of desire and mental health as predicted by Nonself Theory

Yi-Fen Kuo, Yun-Ming Chang, … Yung-Jong Shiah

The Psychological Science Accelerator’s COVID-19 rapid-response dataset

Erin M. Buchanan, Savannah C. Lewis, … Maximilian A. Primbs

Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats

Bert N. Bakker, Gijs Schumacher, … Kevin Arceneaux

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the long-time landmark ruling of Roe v. Wade in 2022 summer. Debates and legal challenges regarding legal abortion in the U.S. have been heated (Felix et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, residents in several states have or will cast their vote on a ballot measure to determine abortion rights at the state level. A Gallup poll released in 2023 summer found that about one third of voters indicated that they would only vote for a candidate who shared their views on abortion (Saad, 2023 ). Therefore, it is imperative to understand people’s attitudes toward abortion. Past research on such attitudes have mainly focused on the role of political ideology and religious belief (e.g., Hess and Rueb, 2005 ); however, to our knowledge, relatively few studies have been done to examine the psychological underpinnings. Here we propose that examining the correlations between psychological factors and attitudes toward abortion has the potential to make contributions from the perspectives of both research and practice.

First, compared to attitudes in everyday life such as attitudes toward a product or brand, attitudes toward abortion are unique because it often elicits strong emotional response and conflict experience (Foster et al., 2012 ; Scott, 1989 ). Moreover, such an attitude goes beyond individual preference as it is deeply intertwined with one’s moral and religious beliefs, cultural background, and societal norms. Debate on abortion is not merely about a personal choice; it is about the definitions of life, rights, and autonomy (Osborne et al., 2022 ; Scott, 1989 ). For abortion, the contrasting views may lead to polarized opinions. In contrast, disagreements about a product or brand preference are typically less emotionally charged and do not carry the same societal weight. Therefore, given the unique nature of attitudes toward abortion as described above, it remains unclear whether psychological factors that correlate with attitudes in other areas still apply and, if so, in what capacity they do so. Additionally, as introduced below, several studies in this area employed a qualitative approach (interview). While the qualitative approach offered valuable insights into individuals’ perspectives on abortion, we aim to expand upon these findings by employing a quantitative approach. Especially, the quantitative approach allows us to explore the unique relationship between psychology and abortion attitudes after statistically controlling for other powerful factors like religious belief and political ideology. Together, a major goal of the present study is to provide initial empirical evidence for the correlations between attitudes toward abortion and certain psychological factors. We will further detail how our study might fill research gaps when introducing specific psychological factors as described below.

Second, examining the correlations between psychological factors and attitudes toward abortion may also offer practical insights. Consider the role of thinking style, for instance. The decision to pursue an abortion is imperative and often a prominently salient one, impacting not just the pregnant woman but also her family and extensive social network. Such a decision is complex and challenging due to intense feelings (e.g., conflict) and the balance between a woman’s bodily autonomy and fetal rights. From this viewpoint, there might be a correlation between attitudes toward abortion and one’s thinking style, especially their willingness to address complex and difficult issues. Past research has highlighted the connection between rational decision-making and the availability of relevant information (Shafir and LeBoeuf, 2002 ). Hence, to facilitate informed decisions, comprehensive knowledge about abortion is both essential and beneficial. The present study will examine the relationship between thinking style and abortion attitudes. Should a correlation be identified, our study would suggest individuals engage more deeply in critical thinking about the issues of abortion to enhance abortion-related education and informed decision-making.

Together, the present study aims to shed more light on the unique role of psychology in abortion attitudes, particularly in the presence of political ideology and religious belief. Specifically, we choose to examine the factors of empathy, locus of control, and thinking style (need for cognition) based on three considerations. Firstly, from a face validity perspective, the psychological constructs are predicted to exhibit a relationship with abortion attitudes. For example, the internal locus of control aligns well with the pro-choice mantra, ‘my body, my choice. Secondly, as detailed below, although these constructs have been explored in previous studies, they have only received limited attention and their relations with abortion attitudes remain inconclusive. Hence, our study aims to fill the gaps from past research by further clarifying their roles in attitudes toward abortion. Thirdly, research has indicated significant intersections between elements like cognitive style, empathy, and locus of control with various decisions, especially in health contexts (Marton et al., 2021 ; Pfattheicher et al., 2020 ; Xu and Cheng, 2021 ). These elements are tied to motivation, information analysis, and make trade-offs (Fischhoff and Broomell, 2020 ). Building on this, our study seeks to explore the applicability of these factors to the deeply sensitive and polarizing decision of abortion. On the other hand, it is worth noting that the psychological factors examined in our study are not exhaustive or driven by theoretical considerations. However, as mentioned in recent publications (Osborne et al., 2022 ; Valdez et al., 2022 ), past research on abortion attitudes with a psychological perspective is still limited. Therefore, our hope is that the present study could provide initial yet meaningful empirical evidence to exhibit the sophisticated role of psychology in attitudes toward abortion. We detail our rationales for each factor below.

Empathy refers to a variety of cognitive and affective responses, including sharing and understanding, toward others’ experiences (Pfattheicher et al., 2020 ). Previous studies have demonstrated a positive association between empathy and prosocial behaviors, such as caring for others (Moudatsou et al., 2020 ; Klimecki et al., 2016 ), as well as a reduction in conflict and stigma (Batson et al., 1997 ; Klimecki, 2019 ). Recently, Pfattheicher et al. ( 2020 ) also demonstrated that inducing empathy for the vulnerable people could promote taking preventative measures during the Covid-19 pandemic. While researchers advocated for incorporating empathy into abortion-related mental health intervention (Brown et al., 2022 ), the role of empathy in attitudes toward abortion remains understudied. Hunt ( 2019 ) investigated the impact of empathy toward pregnant women by presenting testimonial videos in which a pregnant woman described the challenges she faced due to legal abortion restrictions in Arkansas. However, this manipulation did not significantly reduce participants’ support for the abortion restrictions. Research has found that people’s views on abortion tends to be stable over time (Jelen and Wilcox, 2003 ; Pew Research Center, 2022 ). Hence, a short video used in Hunt ( 2019 ) might not be able to change people’s long-held views on abortion. Instead, we here hypothesize that the pre-existing but not temporality induced empathy play a role in abortion attitudes.

Furthermore, in addition to the empathy toward pregnant woman, it is also reasonable to assume that (some) people may feel empathy toward the unborn. For instance, interviews with Protestant religious leaders exhibited empathy toward both pregnant women and unborn (Dozier et al., 2020 ). Embree ( 1998 ) asked participants to indicate their opinions when responding to different scenarios of abortion. As a result, the study found that 64% and 17% of participants showed a moderate and strong level of empathy for the unborn, respectively. Despite the informative findings, the relationship between attitudes toward abortion and empathy toward the unborn remains unclear, particularly when taking empathy toward pregnant woman and other factors (e.g., political ideology) into account.

Together, we raise three hypotheses regarding the role of empathy as shown below.

H1a: Empathy toward pregnant woman and unborn can coexist.

H1b: People’s empathy toward pregnant woman are positively related to the support toward abortion.

H1c: People’s empathy toward unborn are negatively related to the support toward abortion.

As empathy has been highlighted in the intervention process when dealing with abortion-related mental health issues (Brown et al., 2022 ; Whitaker et al., 2015 ), we hope our findings could generate implications for future research and practice.

Locus of control

Locus of control (LOC) refers to people’s beliefs regarding whether their life outcomes are controlled and determined by their own (internal LOC) or external resources (fate, chance and/or powerful people, external LOC) (Levenson, 1981 ). Before delving into details, it is important to note that the internal and external LOC refer to different dimensions and are not mutually exclusive (Levenson, 1981 ; Reknes et al., 2019 ). For example, a person’s success may be determined by both hardworking and support from others. Regarding abortion attitudes, Sundstrom et al. ( 2018 ) analyzed interview contents and found that some women’s thoughts on pregnancy and abortion aligned with an internal locus of control (e.g., “As women, we need to take control as much as possible of our reproductive health”), while others aligned with an external locus of control (e.g., “leave it in God’s hands…we’ll just play it by ear and if I get pregnant, I get pregnant”).

The findings from Sundstrom et al. ( 2018 ) were informative and consistent with common sense. For example, at face value level, the slogan of “my body my choice” well aligns with the concept of internal LOC. However, the role of internal LOC in abortion attitudes may be more complicated. That is, religious belief may complicate the association between internal LOC and abortion attitudes. Past studies, including a meta-analysis and a study with over 20,000 participants, found a positive relationship between internal LOC and religious belief (Coursey et al., 2013 ; Falkowski, 2000 ; Iles-Caven et al., 2020 ). As noted in these articles, there are similarities between internal LOC and religious belief. For instance, religious beliefs often provide individuals with a sense of meaning, purpose, and guidance in life. Meanwhile, people higher in internal LOC are more likely to report higher levels of existential well-being and purpose in life, which can be associated with religious belief and engagement (Kim-Prieto et al., 2005 ; Krause and Hayward, 2013 ). Thus, the relationship between internal LOC and religious belief may complicate how internal LOC is involved in the abortion attitudes. Sundstrom et al. ( 2018 ) used interviews to explore the role of LOC in thoughts about abortion. However, this method might not sufficiently differentiate the influence of religious beliefs. In this study, we adopt a quantitative approach, using a classical scale to measure LOC. We aim to empirically assess the relationship between internal LOC and attitudes toward abortion, especially when accounting for religious belief. Furthermore, considering that the relationship between internal LOC and abortion attitudes might be intertwined with religious beliefs, we refrain from positing a specific hypothesis at this point.

External LOC, on the other hand, does not appear to have a significant relationship with religious belief. Additionally, a few studies found that people higher in external LOC tended to attribute outcomes to external reasons (Falkowski, 2000 ; Reknes et al., 2019 ). Building on this concept, individuals with a higher external locus of control (LOC) may be more inclined to attribute pregnancy to external factors and place less emphasis on personal responsibility. Accordingly, we predict the hypothesis below.

H2: External LOC will be positively related to the support toward abortion.

Need for cognition

Based on face validity, thinking style might pertain to one’s perception of abortion. For instance, individuals who prioritize comprehensive and empirical data might arrive at a different conclusion than those who lean on personal stories and emotional narratives. A few studies have tapped into the relationship between thinking style and attitudes toward abortion. Valdez et al. ( 2022 ) conducted qualitative interviews on abortion and employed natural language processing techniques to analyze the interviews. The study identified analytical thinking, which involved considering abortion from multiple perspectives, had a negative relationship with the number of cognitive distortions (such as polarized and rigid thinking about abortion). However, such a finding conflicted with another study by Hill ( 2004 ) where the concept of cognitive complexity (thinking beyond surface-level observations) did not correlate with attitudes toward abortion. The inconsistency might be due to methodological issues. For example, the correlations described above in Valdez et al. ( 2022 ) were derived from a small sample consisting of 16 participants. A low reliability of the cognitive complexity scale used in Hill ( 2004 ) might (partly) address the non-significant relationship. Thus, the present study will utilize the Need for Cognition scale, a widely recognized and validated instrument that measures thinking style, to examine its correlation with attitudes toward abortion in a larger sample.

Need for cognition (NFC) pertains to the inclination to derive satisfaction from and actively participate in effortful thinking (Cacioppo et al., 1984 ). Consistent with its concept, past research demonstrated that NFC was positively correlated with information seeking (Verplanken et al., 1992 ), academic achievement (Richardson et al., 2012 ), and logical reasoning performance (Ding et al., 2020 ). As for attitudes toward abortion, we hypothesize the following.

H3: There will be a positive correlation between NFC and attitudes toward abortion.

Our prediction is based on two reasons. First, NFC drives individuals to actively seek and update information and knowledge. It was discovered that acquiring a deeper understanding of abortion correlated with increased support for it (Hunt, 2019 ; Mollen et al., 2018 ). Second and relatedly, NFC was found to be negatively associated with various stereotype memories and positively related to non-prejudicial social judgments (Crawford and Skowronski, 1998 ; Curşeu and de Jong, 2017 ).

In sum, the present study aims to provide empirical evidence for the association between attitudes toward abortion and psychology by examining and clarifying the role of empathy, locus of control, and need for cognition. Past research has repeatedly found the involvement of political ideology and religious belief in abortion attitudes (e.g., Hess and Rueb, 2005 ; Holman et al., 2020 ; Jelen, 2017 ; Osborne et al., 2022 ; Prusaczyk and Hodson, 2018 ). Given their powerful and robust effect, it is crucial to gather additional empirical evidence to elucidate the distinct contribution of psychology to attitudes toward abortion, while considering the influence of political ideology and religious beliefs. Additionally, when describing attitudes toward abortion, the dichotomization of “pro-choice” and “pro-life” have been widely used for decades. However, some studies have criticized that the dichotomization oversimplified attitudes toward abortion (Hunt, 2019 ; Osborne et al., 2022 ; Rye and Underhill, 2020 ). That is, people’s views on abortion vary across different scenarios and reasons. For instance, people showed less support toward abortion with elective reasons than with traumatic reasons (Hoffmann and Johnson, 2005 ). With confirmatory analysis, Osborne et al. ( 2022 ) derived two types of abortion: traumatic (e.g., pregnancy due to rape) vs. elective (e.g., the woman does not want the child anymore). Building on prior research, the current study aims exploring potential variations in attitudes across different abortion reasons. Furthermore, we also intend to examine whether the psychological factors described above have varying associations with different types of abortion.

Participants

The study was approved by IRB before data collection. Participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk) on October 20th, 2022. To be eligible for the study, participants must be an adult, a U.S. citizen, and have an approval rating greater than 98% in mTurk. A total of 300 participants were enrolled into the study. Each participant received $3 for compensation. Six participants did not complete at least 80% of the items and were removed from the study. Thus, the effective sample size was 294. Demographics are presented in the Results section.

Materials and procedures

Participants took an online survey developed by Qualtrics. Our study did not set a specific time restriction. Across 294 participants, the average survey completion time was 682.8 s (SD = 286.6 s). The median completion time was 595.0 s (IQR = 344.8 s). The following questionnaires were completed.

Attitudes toward abortion

Hoffmann and Johnson ( 2005 ) and Osborne et al. ( 2022 ) analyzed attitudes toward abortion with six different scenarios (scenarios a-f below) that were measured by the U.S. General Social Survey. We further added an additional item regarding underage pregnancy for two reasons. First, compared to other Western industrialized nations, the U.S. has historically had a higher rate of underage pregnancies. Additionally, underage pregnant individuals tended to have a higher likelihood of seeking abortions compared to their older counterparts (Lantos et al., 2022 ; Kearney and Levine, 2012 ; Sedgh et al., 2015 ). Second, underage pregnancy is linked to various adverse outcomes, such as increased risk during childbirth, heightened stress and depression, disruptions in education, and financial challenges (Eliner et al., 2022 ; Hodgkinson et al., 2014 ; Kearney and Levine, 2012 ). Given the significance and prevalence of underage pregnancy, we chose to include it as a scenario to understand the public’s perception. Additionally, we understood that people might feel conflict or uncertain toward one or more scenarios. Hence, instead of using binary response (yes/no format) adopted in the U.S. General Social Survey, we employed a 1 to 7 Likert scale for each scenario, with a higher score indicating stronger support for a pregnant woman to obtain legal abortion.

The seven scenarios in the present study included: (a) there is a strong chance of serious defect in the baby; (b) the woman’s own health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy; (c) the woman became pregnant as a result of rape; (d) the woman is married and does not want any more children; (e) the family has a very low income and cannot afford any more children; (f) the woman is not married and does not want to marry the man; and (g) the woman is underage.

Following the wording used to measure empathy in Pfattheicher et al. ( 2020 ), we developed six items to measure the empathy toward the pregnant woman and unborn or fetus, respectively. The scale of empathy toward pregnant woman included: (a) I am very concerned about the pregnant woman who may lose access to legal abortion; (b) I feel compassion for the pregnant women who may lose access to legal abortion; and (c) I am quite moved by the pregnant women who may lose access to legal abortion. The scale of empathy toward unborn included: (a) I am very concerned about the fetus or unborn child; (b) I feel compassion for the fetus or unborn child; and (c) I am quite moved by the fetus or unborn child. Participants rated each item on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. Thus, a higher score demonstrated stronger empathy toward the target. The Cronbach’s α for the scale of toward pregnant woman was 0.90 in the present study. The Cronbach’s α for the scale of toward unborn was 0.92.

The need for cognition scale (NFC, Cacioppo et al., 1984 ) intends to measure the tendency to engage into deep thinking. It has 18 items, such as “I only think as hard as I have to” and “I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours”. Participants rated each item on a five-point Likert scale, with a higher score indicating a greater tendency to enjoy deep thinking. In the present study, the reliability of this scale was 0.93.

The present study adopted Levenson multidimensional locus of control scale (Levenson, 1981 ). Across 24 items, this scale measures three dimensions of locus of control: internality (sample item: Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability); powerful others (sample item: I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people); and chance (sample item: To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings). In the present study, participants rated each item on a 1 to 6 Likert scale, with a higher score indicating a stronger belief that fate was controlled by self, powerful others, or chance. The Cronbach’s α for the subscales of internality, powerful others, and chance was 0.84, 0.91, and 0.93, respectively. As shown below, there was a high agreement between powerful others and chance subscales ( r  = 0.87, p  < 0.001). Hence, we combined these two subscales to form an external locus of control composite.

Demographics

After completing the scales described above, participants were asked to report their demographic information including race, age, gender, education, annual household income, current relationship status, abortion experience, religious belief, and political ideology. Gender was coded with 1 = male, 2 = female, and 3 = other. Race was coded with 1 = White or Caucasian, 2 = Hispanic or Latinx, 3 = Black or African American, 4 = Asian or Asian American, and 5 = Other. Education was coded with six levels: 1 = Less than high school graduate, 2 = High school graduate or equivalent, 3 = Some college or associate degree, 4 = Bachelor’s degree, 5 = Master’s degree, 6 = Doctoral degree. Annual household income was categorized into 13 levels and ranged between under $9,999 and above $120,000 with increments of $9,999. Current relationship status was coded into six levels: 1 = single and not dating, 2 = single but in a relationship, 3 = married, 4 = divorced, 5 = widowed, 6 = other. For abortion experience participants were asked “For any reason, have you had an abortion?”. For this question, the answer was coded with 1 = yes and 2 = no.

Religious belief was measured with three items. The first item asked “How often do you attend religious services?” Participants selected one option out of the following: 1 = never, 2 = a few times per year, 3 = once a month, 4 = 2–3 times a month, 5 = once a week or more. The second item asked “How important is religion to you personally?” Participants rated this question on a five-point Likert point, with 5 being most important. The third question asked “How would you describe your religious denomination”. The options included 1 = Christian, 2 = Islam, 3 = Judaism, 4 = Buddhism, 5 = Hinduism, 6 = other or atheism. In the present study, the first two items were highly correlated ( r  = 0.77, p  < 0.001). Following Hunt ( 2019 ), we combined the two items to form a general religiosity composite, with a higher score indicating a stronger religious belief.

Political ideology was measured with two items: (a) Generally, how would you describe your views on most social political issues (e.g., education, religious freedom, death penalty, gender issues, etc.)? and (b) Generally, how would you describe your views on most economic political issues (e.g., minimum wage, taxes, welfare programs, etc.)? Participants rated each item with a five-point Likert scale, with 1 = strongly conservative 2 = conservative 3 = moderate 4 = liberal 5 = strongly liberal. We found a strong correlation between the two political ideology items, r  = 0.76, p  < 0.001. Hence, we combined the two items to form a general political ideology composite.

SPSS 24.0 was employed to perform all the analyses. Across 294 participants, age ranged from 21 to 79, with a mean of 40.4 and a standard deviation of 12.4. Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics for the variables of gender, race, education, annual household income, current relationship status, religious denomination, and abortion experience.

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of attitudes toward abortion in different scenarios, religious belief, political ideology, and the scores of the psychological scales. Similar to the results obtained from the large-scale surveys in the U.S. and New Zealand (Osborne et al., 2022 ), the support toward abortion was strong (neutral = 4) across all scenarios.

To examine the structure of attitudes toward abortion in different scenarios, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with a Varimax orthogonal rotation was performed on all seven scenarios. With eigenvalue ≥ 1 as the threshold, two components were generated, accounting for 81.34% of the variability. Table 3 presents the PCA results. As shown, we obtained two distinct components. The first one included the scenarios of baby defection, pregnant woman’s health being endangered, pregnancy caused by rape, and underage pregnancy. The second component included the scenarios of not wanting the child, low income, and not wanting to marry. Such a differentiation between the two components was consistent with the notion in Osborne et al. ( 2022 ). Following this paper and the face validity of the scenarios, we labeled the two components traumatic abortion and elective abortion, respectively. Accordingly, we also computed a composite score for each component by averaging the corresponding items. In line with previous research (Hoffmann and Johnson, 2005 ), the support was significantly stronger toward the traumatic abortion (mean = 5.84, SD = 1.24) than the elective abortion (mean = 4.94, SD = 1.74), t (293) = 11.51, p  < 0.001, Cohen’s d  = 0.67.

Table 4 presents the zero-order correlations between attitudes toward traumatic and elective abortions, demographics, and scores of the psychological factors. Consistent with the findings from past research (e.g., Hess and Rueb, 2005 ; Holman et al., 2020 ), a stronger religious belief was negatively related to the support toward both types of abortions. A stronger liberal ideology was positively related to the support toward both types of abortions. Additionally, empathy toward the pregnant woman was positively associated with the support toward both types of abortions whereas empathy toward unborn or fetus had an opposite effect. Based on the zero-order correlation, we did not find a significant relationship between internal locus of control and attitudes toward either type of abortion. The external locus of control (either powerful others or chance), on the other hand, was positively related to the support toward elective but not traumatic abortion. As there was a high agreement between the two external locus of control subscales ( r  = 0.87, p  < 0.001), we formed a general external locus of control composite by averaging the two items in the following regressions. Finally, need for cognition was positively related to attitudes toward elective abortion but not traumatic abortion.

While the zero-order correlations were informative, we were mindful that the Type I error might be greatly inflated due to a vast amount of repeated testing. Moreover, one goal of the study was to examine the role of psychological factors in the presence of religious belief and political ideology. Thus, we performed a hierarchical linear regression on each type of abortion, with age, gender, income, and education in the first block, religious belief and political ideology in the second block, and psychological factors in the third block. We separated the regression between the two types of abortion because the role of predictors might vary. This approach was also employed in Osborne et al. ( 2022 ). Table 5 exhibits the regression results.

As shown in Table 5 , the demographic variables of age, gender, education, and income did not account for a significant portion of the variability in attitudes toward either type of abortion. The present study added to the literature that there might not necessarily be a difference in attitudes toward abortion between males and females (Bilewicz et al., 2017 ; Jelen and Wilcox, 1997 ). By contrast, in the second block, religious belief and political ideology collectively explained a sizable portion of the variability in attitudes toward both types of abortion. In block 3, in the presence of demographic variables including religious belief and political ideology, psychological factors could still account for a significant portion of the variability.

Looking at the individual psychological predictors (for more detailed interpretations please refer to the discussion part), consistent with our hypothesis, empathy toward the pregnant woman was positively associated with the support toward both types of abortion. By contrast, empathy toward the unborn or fetus was negatively associated the support toward abortion. For the factor of locus of control, the internal locus of control was not related to any type of abortion attitudes when zero-order correlation was used (Table 4 ); yet it was positively related to abortion attitudes after all other predictors were taken into account, indicating a suppressing effect. Upon further examination, we identified two suppressors: religious belief and empathy toward the unborn. After removing these two variables, internal locus of control was no longer significant. The observed pattern reflected our previous prediction, indicating that the role of internal locus of control could be complicated by religious beliefs. External locus of control, on the other hand, was positively correlated with the support toward elective abortion. Similarly, need for cognition (NFC) also had a positive relationship with the support toward elective abortion. Neither external locus of control nor NFC had a significant correlation with attituded toward traumatic abortion. Hence, our hypotheses regarding external locus of control and NFC were partially supported. We detailed out interpretation and discussion of the results below.

The present study aimed to provide empirical evidence for the correlations between psychological factors and attitudes toward abortion. As introduced earlier, while it is common to find the involvement of psychology in everyday life attitudes and preferences, attitudes toward abortion are unique and drastically different. Given its unique nature, it lacks empirical evidence regarding whether psychological factors that interplay with attitudes in other areas still apply and, if so, in what capacity they do so. Past research has primarily focused on the role of religious belief and political ideology. Our study demonstrated a substantial involvement ( R 2 change = 0.27 and 0.24 for traumatic and elective abortion, respectively) of the psychological factors, after controlling for religious belief and political ideology. More importantly, these effects were comparable to the variability accounted for by religious belief and political ideology combined, particularly in the elective abortion category. The results highlighted the influential role of psychological factors in shaping attitudes toward abortion.

Additionally, past research has shown the interconnection between psychology and the public’s attitudes toward major societal events. For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, while the perception of mask-wearing and/or social distancing was highly politicized, studies found that attitudes toward these preventative measures to be related to thinking style, self-control, numeracy, and working memory capacity (Steffen and Cheng, 2023 ; Xie et al., 2020 ; Xu and Cheng, 2021 ). In line with this, our study further underscored the significant influence of psychology on another pressing societal topic: abortion. In the sections below, we detail our findings and relevant implications. We are fully aware that our study was preliminary and hope it could serve as a starting point for future research and practice. We also acknowledge the limitations of our study and address them at the end.

Some past studies on empathy and abortion only considered the empathy toward the pregnant woman (e.g., Brown et al., 2022 ; Homaifar et al., 2017 ; Hunt, 2019 ; Whitaker et al., 2015 ). The present study identified two types of empathy when dealing abortion: empathy toward the pregnant woman and empathy toward the unborn. In the presence of each other, we found that greater empathy toward the pregnant woman was associated with more support toward abortion, whereas greater empathy toward the unborn or fetus was associated with less support toward abortion. Such a pattern suggested that empathy might be a source of conflict feeling. That is, when considering abortion, concerns and care toward pregnant woman and unborn could coexist, potentially leading to conflict and dilemma when people thought about abortion. While the present study examined the public’s attitudes toward abortion with a diverse sample, pregnant women might have a similar pattern of empathy and hence feel conflict and dilemma when thinking about abortion. To cope with such a conflict, it might be beneficial for a counselor to acknowledge conflicting emotions that arise from empathizing with both the unborn and the pregnant individual. Moreover, the counselor could guide the client through the process of reconciling these emotions to alleviate feelings of isolation or confusion the client may experience. Future research in the realms of mental health and counseling should consider integrating these dual empathy perspectives and empirically assess the efficacy of such therapeutic interventions.

Additionally, Hunt ( 2019 ) did not find a significant influence of empathy on abortion attitudes change when participants were exposed to testimonial videos featuring pregnant women discussing the legal obstacles they faced. The disparity between Hunt’s ( 2019 ) findings and our own could potentially be attributed to the inherent stability and longstanding nature of abortion attitudes. Research has found that people’s views on abortion tends to be stable over time (Jelen and Wilcox, 2003 ; Pew Research Center, 2022 ). As a result, it is possible that pre-existing empathy, rather than empathy induced temporarily, was the factor correlated with individuals’ perception and consideration of abortion. Our findings were consistent with this possibility. Together, our findings supported H1a to H1c. Moreover, our study shed more light on empathy by showing its association with distinct views on abortion. The results suggest that future research could investigate how different types of empathy are formed and how they influence the shaping and persuasion of abortion attitudes.

Through qualitative interviews, Sundstrom et al. ( 2018 ) unveiled individual differences in the locus of control when discussing opinions on abortion. However, these interviews might not have fully captured the interplay between internal and external locus of control and other factors involved attitudes toward abortion. To fill the gap, our study employed a quantitative approach to delve deeper into how locus of control correlated with abortion attitudes. Consistent with Levenson ( 1981 ) and Reknes et al. ( 2019 ), we found that the constructs internal locus of control and external locus of control were differentiated but not unidimensional. For internal locus of control, interestingly, we found a suppressing effect. As discussed earlier, the role of internal locus of control in abortion attitudes might be complicated. That is, on the one hand, by face validity, the internal locus of control well aligned with the concept of “my body, my choice” (Sundstrom et al., 2018 ). On the other hand, in line with past research (Coursey et al., 2013 ; Falkowski, 2000 ; Iles-Caven et al., 2020 ), our study found that internal locus of control was positively related to religious belief. Furthermore, as shown in Table 4 , internal locus of control was also positively related to the empathy toward the unborn, and such a relationship was significantly mediated by religious belief (mediation effect = 0.21, SE = 0.5, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.31]). Therefore, when using zero-order correlation, the effect of internal locus of control might be neutralized by the two opposite parts (“my body, my choice” vs. religious belief) discussed above. By contrast, in regression, the “my body, my choice” part stood out because the religiosity part was partialled out by the variables of religious belief and empathy toward the unborn.

In addition to internal locus of control, we also discovered that external locus of control was involved in abortion attitudes. Specifically, we found a positive relationship between external locus of control and support toward elective abortion (H2 was partially supported). Past research has found that locus of control is related to attribution (Falkowski, 2000 ; Reknes et al., 2019 ). Thus, our finding was in line with the notion that those with a greater level of external locus of control might be more likely to attribute unwanted pregnancy to external reasons (not personal responsibility), and hence showed more support toward abortion.

Our findings regarding locus of control suggest that individuals might simultaneously believe in personal autonomy (“my body, my choice”) while also feeling that certain life events, like unwanted pregnancies, are influenced by external factors beyond their control. This is particularly true when thinking about elective abortion. Education and counseling practices might be designed to reflect this duality. For example, materials and discussions could simultaneously emphasize the importance of personal choices and responsibilities, while also exploring societal, cultural, or circumstantial factors that might influence abortion decision. Incorporating both perspectives would allow to create a supportive environment where individuals feel seen and acknowledged in their complexities.

As introduced earlier, past research on the relationship between thinking style and abortion attitudes was inconclusive. To clarify the relationship, the present study adopted the validated need for cognition scale. Need for cognition has demonstrated its involvement in consequential events, such as political elections and the adoption of preventive measures during the Covid-19 pandemic (Sohlberg, 2019 ; Xu and Cheng, 2021 ). In the present study, we discovered that need for cognition was positively related to the support toward elective abortion. Such a finding was consistent with the notion that need for cognition was negatively related to stereotypes (Crawford and Skowronski, 1998 ; Curşeu and de Jong, 2017 ). Additionally, as need for cognition drives individuals to seek and update knowledge, our result was also in line with the finding that gaining knowledge about abortion led to more positive view on abortion (Hunt, 2019 ; Mollen et al., 2018 ). Our study implied that future research could empirically evaluate if indeed abortion knowledge mediates the relationship between need for cognition and abortion attitudes.

It is worth noting that the present study also clarified the role of need for cognition in attitudes toward abortion by examining a potential artifact. Specifically, the observed positive relationship between need for cognition and support for abortion might be an artifact, given that liberal ideology is positively correlated with both abortion attitudes and need for cognition (Young et al., 2019 ). However, as shown in our regression, the relationship between need for cognition and elective abortion remained significant in the presence of other variables, including political ideology. Thus, the finding suggested that at least part of the relationship between need for cognition and attitude toward abortion was unique and not driven by political ideology.

Our findings related to need for cognition had an implication on abortion-related education. As discussed earlier, having adequate knowledge about abortion could facilitate the support for making informed decisions. As need for cognition was found to be related to openness and motivation to seek and update information (Russo et al., 2022 ), our finding suggested that cultivating willingness to engage into critical thinking might be beneficial for education on abortion and reproductive rights. While we are fully aware that correlation does not equate to causation, our study still offers a starting point for future research and practice on abortion-related education.

Traumatic abortion vs. elective abortion

While some researchers argued that the dichotomization of “pro-choice” and “pro-life” was oversimplified, to date, only two studies have empirically examined attitude variation between different abortion scenarios (Hoffmann and Johnson, 2005 ; Osborne et al., 2022 ). Both studies demonstrated that public views on abortion can be grouped into two categories: traumatic and elective. Our research not only replicated these findings but also introduced two significant advancements. First, we incorporated a scenario addressing underage pregnancy, given its high prevalence and significance. Secondly, instead of a binary response, we employed a 7-point Likert scale, allowing us to more accurately capture potential conflicting attitudes among participants.

Furthermore, our findings revealed that the roles of external locus of control and need for cognition varied in relation to attitudes toward the two types of abortion. Interestingly, we observed that neither of these variables significantly related to attitudes toward traumatic abortion, as indicated by both zero-order correlation and regression analyses. Conceptually, the scenarios of traumatic abortion (e.g., pregnancy caused by rape; mother life endangered) tend to be more extreme and emergent than the scenarios of elective abortion. Hence, there might be less room for psychological factors, such as thinking or attribution, to function in traumatic abortion than in elective abortion. Our interpretation was also consistent with the statistical pattern between the two abortions. That is, compared to elective abortion, the standard deviation of traumatic abortion was smaller. Additionally, there were more participants rated seven on the Likert scale in the scenarios of traumatic abortion (29.6%) than in the scenarios of elective abortion (18%). Despite the difference between the two types of abortion, it is essential to acknowledge that elective abortion does not imply a stress-free experience. Both traumatic and elective abortions involve significant levels of stress and emotional challenges. While traumatic abortion scenarios can be considered more extreme, it is crucial to recognize that individuals undergoing elective abortion may also experience considerable emotional distress.

Taken together, with concrete evidence, our study demonstrated that the public’s attitude toward abortion depended on abortion reasons. Our study also implied that future research should focus on attitudes toward specific abortion scenarios rather than a holistic concept of abortion. Furthermore, the differentiation between the traumatic and elective abortions suggested the limitation and potential ineffectiveness of one-size-fits-all legislative solutions. Given the varying and often conflicting attitudes that people harbor, it would be reasonable for legislative frameworks to be flexible, adaptive, and cognizant of the different circumstances surrounding abortion. This will not only be more reflective of public opinions but also more supportive of individuals who undergo different types of abortion experiences, each of which carries its own set of emotional and psychological challenges.

Expanding findings with a quantitative approach

Some past studies employed a qualitive approach when dealing with attitudes toward abortion (e.g., Dozier et al., 2020 ; Sundstrom et al., 2018 ; Valdez et al., 2022 ; Woodruff et al., 2018 ). These investigations have provided insights and served as inspirations for our own research. However, the relationship between abortion attitudes and pertinent factors may remain somewhat opaque. This is particularly true when considering the intricate interconnectedness among these factors. The present study demonstrated that findings from qualitative studies could be extended and enriched with a quantitative approach. For instance, we utilized quantitative scales to measure empathy toward the unborn —a variable that was previously identified through interviews in the study by Dozier et al. ( 2020 ). Moreover, we further exhibited the role of empathy toward the unborn when statistically controlled other variables, including empathy toward the pregnant. Similarly, the role of internal locus of control was revealed in interviews in Sundstrom et al. ( 2018 ). With validated scales, we exhibited the correlation with internal locus of control in both types of abortion. Furthermore, by detecting and interpreting a suppressing effect, we showed the interplay between internal locus of control, religious belief, and attitude toward abortion. Thus, our study implied that using quantitative scales and analyses was a viable approach to examine attitude toward abortion and could deepen the understanding of relevant factors.

Limitations and future directions

Despite the contributions, limitations should be acknowledged as well. First and foremost, we believe our study was still in the explorative stage. The specific psychological factors tested in the present study were not exhaustive and not theoretically driven. We hope the present study could provide initial empirical evidence to show the sophisticated role of psychology in attitudes toward abortion. Future studies could use a more theoretical driven approach to examine the specific psychological involvement in abortion attitudes. For example, given the correlation between need for cognition and attitudes toward abortion, future research could further elucidate the role of thinking style in attitudes toward abortion by incorporating the Dual-Process Theory (Evans, 2008 ). The Dual-Process Theory posits that humans have two distinct systems of information processing: System 1, which is intuitive, automatic, and fast; and System 2, which is deliberate, analytical, and slower. By examining the interplay between these two systems, researchers might gain insights into how intuitive emotional responses versus more deliberate cognitive analyses influence individuals’ attitudes toward abortion. For instance, are individuals who predominantly rely on System 1 more swayed by emotive narratives or imagery related to abortion?

Second, when analyzing and discussing the results, we proposed several possible underlying mechanisms that might elucidate the relationships observed. To illustrate, we employed the concept of attribution to shed light on the role of an external locus of control, positing that individuals with a strong external locus might attribute abortion decisions to external factors or circumstances rather than personal choices. Furthermore, we suggested that the observed positive relationship between the need for cognition and abortion attitudes might be mediated through abortion knowledge. This implies that individuals with a higher need for cognition could potentially seek out more information on abortion, leading to more informed attitudes. However, while these interpretations offer potential insights, we recognize their speculative nature. It’s crucial to emphasize that our proposed mechanisms require rigorous empirical testing for validation. For example, it would be of interest to test whether indeed, gaining various types of abortion knowledge improves views of abortion.

Third, as described above, we strived to show how our findings could be potentially used in abortion-related counseling. However, we acknowledge that our study is explorative but not counseling focused. Therefore, while we believe our findings offer meaningful implications, we caution against over-extrapolating their direct applicability to counseling contexts. Future research could delve into empirically investigating how psychological factors, such as varying empathy types and loci of control, could be utilized to alleviate negative feelings associated with abortion decisions. Additionally, understanding how various psychological factors interact with cultural and social norms could further help tailor counseling approaches.

Fourth, the present study did not include an attention check item. We believe the quality of our survey could have been improved had we included one or more attention check items. However, the reliabilities of our scales were relatively high (ranged from 0.84 to 0.93). Additionally, we also replicated some major findings from previous research (e.g., the associations between attitudes toward abortion and religious belief and political ideology). Thus, we believe that overall, inattention did not affect the quality of our data. Future online surveys could consider using attention check items for quality control.

In conclusion, the present study demonstrates the unique contribution of empathy, locus of control, and need for cognition to how people perceived abortion in different scenarios. The findings suggests that attitudes toward complex moral issues like abortion are shaped by individual psychological traits and cognitive needs, in addition to societal, religious, and cultural norms. Future research could use our study as a starting point to expand on these findings, exploring other psychological traits and cognitive processes that may similarly affect perceptions of abortion and other controversial subjects.

Data availability

Data included in this project may be found in the online repository, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/E5AB5R .

Batson CD, Polycarpou MP, Harmon-Jones E, Imhoff HI, Mitchener EC, Highberger L et al. (1997) Empathy and attitudes: can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? J Person Soc Psychol 72(1):105–118

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bilewicz M, Mikołajczak G, Babińska M (2017) Speaking about the preborn. How specific terms used in the abortion debate reflect attitudes and (de)mentalization. Person Individ Differ 111:256–262

Article   Google Scholar  

Brown L, Swiezy S, McKinzie A, Komanapalli S, Bernard C (2022) Evaluation of family planning and abortion education in preclinical curriculum at a large midwestern medical school. Heliyon 8(7):e09894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09894

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Kao CF (1984) The efficient assessment of need for cognition. J Person Assess 48(3):306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13

Comrey AL, Lee HB (1992) A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc

Coursey LE, Kenworthy JB, Jones JR (2013) A meta-analysis of the relationship between intrinsic religiosity and locus of control. Arch Psychol Relig 35:347–368. https://doi.org/10.1163/15736121-12341268

Crawford MT, Skowronski JJ (1998) When motivated thought leads to heightened bias: high need for cognition can enhance the impact of stereotypes on memory. Person Soc Psycholo Bull 24(10):1075–1088. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982410005

Curşeu PL, de Jong JP (2017) Bridging social circles: need for cognition, prejudicial judgments, and personal social network characteristics. Front Psychol 8:1251. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01251

Ding D, Chen Y, Lai J, Chen X, Han M, Zhang X (2020) Belief bias effect in older adults: roles of working memory and need for cognition. Front Psychol 10:2940. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02940

Dozier JL, Hennink M, Mosley E, Narasimhan S, Pringle J, Clarke L, Blevins J, James-Portis L, Keithan R, Hall KS, Rice WS (2020) Abortion attitudes, religious and moral beliefs, and pastoral care among Protestant religious leaders in Georgia. PloS one 15(7):e0235971. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235971

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Eliner Y, Gulersen M, Kasar A, Lenchner E, Grünebaum A, Chervenak FA, Bornstein E (2022) Maternal and neonatal complications in teen pregnancies: a comprehensive study of 661,062 patients. J Adolesc Health 70(6):922–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.12.014

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Embree RA (1998) Attitudes toward elective abortion: preliminary evidence of validity for the personal beliefs scale. Psychol Rep 82(3 Pt 2):1267–1281. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1998.82.3c.1267

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Evans JSTBT (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment and social cognition. Ann Rev Psychol 59:255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629

Falkowski CK (2000) Locus of control, religious values, work values and social policy choices. Diss Abstracts Int. Sec B: Sci Eng 61:1694

Google Scholar  

Felix., M., Sobel, L., & Salganicoff, A. (2023). Legal challenges to state abortion bans since the dobbs decision. Kaiser Family Foundation . Retrieved from https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/legal-challenges-to-state-abortion-bans-since-the-dobbs-decision/

Fischhoff B, Broomell SB (2020) Judgment and decision making. Ann Rev Psychol 71:331–355

Foster DG, Gould H, Taylor J, Weitz TA (2012) Attitudes and decision making among women seeking abortions at one U.S. clinic. Perspect Sexual Reprod Health 44(2):117–124. https://doi.org/10.1363/4411712

Hess JA, Rueb JD (2005) Attitudes toward abortion, religion, and party affiliation among college students. Curr Psychol 24(1):24–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-005-1002-0

Hill A (2004) The relationship between attitudes about abortion and cognitive complexity. UW-J Undergrad Res VII:1–6

ADS   Google Scholar  

Hodgkinson S, Beers L, Southammakosane C, Lewin A (2014) Addressing the mental health needs of pregnant and parenting adolescents. Pediatrics 133(1):114–122. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0927

Hoffmann JP, Johnson SM (2005) Attitudes toward abortion among religious traditions in the United States: change or continuity. Soc Relig 66(2):161–182. https://doi.org/10.2307/4153084

Holman M, Podrazik E, Silber Mohamed H (2020) Choosing choice: how gender and religiosity shape abortion attitudes among Latinos. J Race Ethnicity Politics 5(2):384–411. https://doi.org/10.1017/%20rep.2019.51

Homaifar N, Freedman L, French V (2017) “She’s on her own”: a thematic analysis of clinicians’ comments on abortion referral. Contraception 95(5):470–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.01.007

Hunt ME (2019) Shifting Abortion Attitudes using an Empathy-based Media Intervention: a randomized controlled study. graduate theses and dissertations Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/3256

Jelen TG (2017) Public attitudes toward abortion and LGBTQ issues: a dynamic analysis of region and partisanship. SAGE Open 7(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017697362

Jelen TG, Wilcox C (1997) Attitudes toward abortion in Poland and the United States. Soc Sci Q 78(4):907–921

Jelen TG, Wilcox C (2003) Causes and consequences of public attitudes toward abortion: a review and research agenda. Political Res Q 56(4):489–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/3219809

Kearney MS, Levine PB (2012) Why is the teen birth rate in the United States so high and why does it matter. J Econ Perspect 26(2):141–166. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.2.141

Kim-Prieto C, Diener E, Tamir M, Scollon C, Diener M (2005) Integrating the diverse definitions of happiness: a time-sequential framework of subjective well-being. J Happiness Studies 6(3):261–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-005-7226-8

Klimecki O, Mayer S, Jusyte A et al. (2016) Empathy promotes altruistic behavior in economic interactions. Sci Rep 6:31961. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31961

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Klimecki OM (2019) The role of empathy and compassion in conflict resolution. Emotion Rev 11(4):310–325

Krause N, Hayward RD (2013) Prayer beliefs and change in life satisfaction over time. J Relig Health 52:674–694

Lantos, H., Pliskin, E., Wildsmith, E., & Manlove, J. (2022). State-level abortion restrictions will negatively impact teens and children. Child Trend s. Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/blog/state-level-abortion-restrictions-will-negatively-impact-teens-and-children

Levenson H (1981) Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In: Lefcourt HM (Ed.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Academic Press, New York, NY, p 15–63. 10.1016/b978-0-12-443201-7.50006-3

Iles-Caven Y, Gregory S, Ellis G, Golding J, Nowicki S (2020) The relationship between locus of control and religious behavior and beliefs in a large population of parents: an observational study. Front Psychol 11:1462. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01462

Marton G, Pizzoli SFM, Vergani L, Mazzocco K, Monzani D, Bailo L, Pancani L, Pravettoni G (2021) Patients’ health locus of control and preferences about the role that they want to play in the medical decision-making process. Psychol Health Med 26(2):260–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2020.1748211

Mollen D, Hargons C, Klann EM, Mosley DV (2018) Abortion knowledge and attitudes among psychologists and graduate students. Counseling Psychol 46(6):738–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000018795296

Moudatsou M, Stavropoulou A, Philalithis A, Koukouli S (2020) The role of empathy in health and social care professionals. Healthcare 8(1):26. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8010026

Osborne D, Huang Y, Overall NC, Sutton RM, Petterson A, Douglas KM, Davies PG, Sibley CG (2022) Abortion attitudes: an overview of demographic and ideological differences. Political Psychol 43:29–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12803

Pew Research Center. (2022, May 17). Public Opinion on Abortion. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

Pfattheicher S, Nockur L, Böhm R, Sassenrath C, Petersen MB (2020) The emotional path to action: empathy promotes physical distancing and wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol Sci 31(11):1363–1373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620964422

Prusaczyk E, Hodson G (2018) Left-right differences in abortion policy support in America: clarifying the role of sex and sexism in a nationally representative 2016 sample. Person Individual Differ 127:22–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.030

Reknes I, Visockaite G, Liefooghe A, Lovakov A, Einarsen SV (2019) Locus of control moderates the relationship between exposure to bullying behaviors and psychological strain. Front Psychol 10:446169. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01323

Richardson M, Abraham C, Bond R (2012) Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 138(2):353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838

Russo D, Masegosa AR, Stol KJ (2022) From anecdote to evidence: the relationship between personality and need for cognition of developers. Empir Software Eng 27:71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10106-1

Rye BJ, Underhill A (2020) Pro-choice and pro-life are not enough: an investigation of abortion attitudes as a function of abortion prototypes. Sexuality Culture 24:1829–1851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09723-7

Saad, L. (2023, June 21). Abortion remains a potent issue for pro-choice voters. Gallup . Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/507527/abortion-remains-potent-issue-pro-choice-voters.aspx

Sedgh G, Finer LB, Bankole A, Eilers MA, Singh S (2015) Adolescent pregnancy, birth, and abortion rates across countries: levels and recent trends. J Adolesc Health 56(2):223–30

Scott J (1989) Conflicting beliefs about abortion: legal approval and moral doubts. Soc Psychol Q 52(4):319–326. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786995

Shafir E, LeBoeuf RA (2002) Rationality. Ann Rev Psychol 53(1):491–517. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135213

Sohlberg J (2019) Elections are (not) exciting: need for cognition and electoral behaviour. Scand Political Stud 42(2):138–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12138

Steffen J, Cheng J (2023) The influence of gain-loss framing and its interaction with political ideology on social distancing and mask wearing compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Curr Psychol 42(10):8028–8038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02148-x

Sundstrom B, Szabo C, Dempsey A (2018) “My Body. My Choice”: a qualitative study of the influence of trust and locus of control on postpartum contraceptive choice. J Health Commun 23(2):162–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2017.1421728

Valdez D, Jozkowski KN, Haus K et al. (2022) Assessing rigid modes of thinking in self-declared abortion ideology: natural language processing insights from an online pilot qualitative study on abortion attitudes. Pilot Feasib Stud 8:127. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-022-01078-0

Verplanken B, Hazenberg PT, Palenéwen GR (1992) Need for cognition and external information search effort. J Res Person 26(2):128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(92)90049-A

Whitaker AK, Quinn MT, Martins SL, Tomlinson AN, Woodhams EJ, Gilliam M (2015) Motivational interviewing to improve postabortion contraceptive uptake by young women: development and feasibility of a counseling intervention. Contraception 92(4):323–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.06.015

Woodruff K, Biggs MA, Gould H, Foster DG (2018) Attitudes toward abortion after receiving vs. being denied an abortion in the USA. Sexuality Res Soc Policy 15(4):452–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0325-1

Xie W, Campbell S, Zhang W (2020) Working memory capacity predicts individual differences in social distancing compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. PNAS 117(30):17667–17674

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Xu P, Cheng J (2021) Individual differences in social distancing and mask-wearing in the pandemic of COVID-19: the role of need for cognition, self-control and risk attitude. Person Individual Differ 175:110706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110706

Young DG, Bagozzi BE, Goldring A, Poulsen S, Drouin E (2019) Psychology, political ideology, and humor appreciation: why is satire so liberal. Psychol Popular Media Culture 8(2):134–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000157

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, 50614, USA

Jiuqing Cheng & Chloe Thostenson

Wenzhou University, Wenzhou, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JC: conceptualization, data curation and analysis, writing, review& editing; PX: conceptualization, writing, review; CT: conceptualization, data curation and analysis, review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiuqing Cheng .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board (IRB 23-0018) at the University of Northern Iowa with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cheng, J., Xu, P. & Thostenson, C. Psychological traits and public attitudes towards abortion: the role of empathy, locus of control, and need for cognition. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 23 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02487-z

Download citation

Received : 18 July 2023

Accepted : 30 November 2023

Published : 02 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02487-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Consequences, challenges, and adaptation to abortion care throughout and beyond COVID-19

Policy Brief 07 December 2022 Challenges to the implementation of telemedicine in abortion care for victims of sexual violence in Brazil Beatriz Galli  and  Jina Dillon 1,245 views 0 citations

Perspective 23 September 2022 The impact of COVID-19 on safe abortion access in Africa: An analysis through a framework of reproductive justice and lens of structural violence Amanda Tiew ,  2 more  and  Ruvani T. Jayaweera 1,650 views 1 citations

Loading... Policy Brief 06 September 2022 Saving more lives on time: Strategic policy implementation and financial inclusion for safe abortion in Indonesia during COVID-19 and beyond Putri Widi Saraswati 3,502 views 0 citations

Loading... Original Research 17 August 2022 Quality of information offered to women by drug sellers providing medical abortion in Nigeria: Evidence from providers and their clients Akanni Akinyemi ,  3 more  and  Akinrinola Bankole 2,777 views 2 citations

Loading... Original Research 01 August 2022 Abortion as an Essential Health Service in Latin America During the COVID-19 Pandemic Agustina Ramón Michel ,  1 more  and  Susana Chávez 1,904 views 2 citations

About Abortion

Narrow the topic.

• Articles & Videos
• MLA Citation This link opens in a new window
• APA Citation This link opens in a new window

• Is abortion immoral?
• How can Roe v. Wade be overturned?
• Should the "right of conscience" regulation apply to pharmacists?
• Should the rights of the unborn be more important than the rights of the mother?
• Is abortion justifiable after a rape?
• Is the fight against Planned Parenthood justified?
• Is partial birth abortion infanticide?
• Should Planned Parenthood be funded by the government?
• Next: Library Resources >>
• Last Updated: Feb 6, 2024 11:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.broward.edu/abortion

Home — Blog — Topic Ideas — 50 Abortion Essay Topics: Researching Abortion-Related Subjects

50 Abortion Essay Topics: Researching Abortion-Related Subjects

Abortion remains a contentious social and political issue, with deeply held beliefs and strong emotions shaping the debate. It is a topic that has been at the forefront of public discourse for decades, sparking heated arguments and evoking a range of perspectives from individuals, organizations, and governments worldwide.

The complexity of abortion stems from its intersection with fundamental human rights, ethical principles, and societal norms. It raises questions about the sanctity of life, individual autonomy, gender equality, and public health, making it a challenging yet critically important subject to explore and analyze.

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of the significance of choosing the right abortion essay topics and abortion title ideas , offering valuable insights and practical advice for students navigating this challenging yet rewarding endeavor. By understanding the multifaceted nature of abortion and its far-reaching implications, students can make informed decisions about their topic selection, setting themselves up for success in producing well-researched, insightful, and impactful essays.

Choosing the Right Abortion Essay Topic

For students who are tasked with writing an essay on abortion, choosing the right topic is essential. A well-chosen topic can be the difference between a well-researched, insightful, and impactful piece of writing and a superficial, uninspired, and forgettable one.

This guide delves into the significance of selecting the right abortion essay topic, providing valuable insights for students embarking on this challenging yet rewarding endeavor. By understanding the multifaceted nature of abortion and its far-reaching implications, students can identify topics that align with their interests, research capabilities, and the overall objectives of their essays.

Abortion remains a contentious social and political issue, with deeply held beliefs and strong emotions shaping the debate on abortion topics . It is a topic that has been at the forefront of public discourse for decades, sparking heated arguments and evoking a range of perspectives from individuals, organizations, and governments worldwide.

List of Abortion Argumentative Essay Topics

Abortion argumentative essay topics typically revolve around the ethical, legal, and societal aspects of this controversial issue. These topics often involve debates and discussions, requiring students to present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and persuasive language.

• The Bodily Autonomy vs. Fetal Rights Debate: A Balancing Act
• Navigating the Ethical Labyrinth of Abortion: Life, Choice, and Consequences
• Championing Gender Equality and Reproductive Freedom in the Abortion Debate
• Considering Abortion as a Human Right
• The Impact of Abortion Stigma on Women's Mental Health and Well-being
• The Impact of Abortion Restrictions on Poverty, Inequality, and Social Disparities
• Addressing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Abortion Access and Health Outcomes
• Analyzing the Impact of Public Opinion and Voter Attitudes on Abortion Legislation
• Discussion on Whether Abortion is a Crime
• Abortion Restrictions and Women's Economic Opportunity
• Government Intervention in Abortion Regulation
• Religion, Morality, and Abortion Attitudes
• Parental Notification and Consent Laws
• Education and Counseling for Informed Abortion Choices
• Media Representation and Abortion Perceptions

Ethical Considerations: Abortion raises profound ethical questions about the sanctity of life, personhood, and individual choice. Students can explore these ethical dilemmas by examining the moral implications of abortion, the rights of the unborn, and the role of personal conscience in decision-making.

Legal Aspects: The legal landscape surrounding abortion is constantly evolving, with varying regulations and restrictions across different jurisdictions. Students can delve into the legal aspects of abortion by analyzing the impact of laws and policies on access, safety, and the well-being of women.

Societal Impact: Abortion has a significant impact on society, influencing public health, gender equality, and social justice. Students can explore the societal implications of abortion by examining its impact on maternal health, reproductive rights, and the lives of marginalized communities.

Effective Abortion Topics for Research Paper

Research papers on abortion demand a more in-depth and comprehensive approach, requiring students to delve into historical, medical, and international perspectives on this multifaceted issue.

Medical Perspectives: The medical aspects of abortion encompass a wide range of topics, from advancements in abortion procedures to the health and safety of women undergoing the procedure. Students can explore medical perspectives by examining the evolution of abortion techniques, the impact of medical interventions on maternal health, and the role of healthcare providers in the abortion debate.

Historical Analysis: Abortion has a long and complex history, with changing attitudes, practices, and laws across different eras. Students can engage in historical analysis by examining the evolution of abortion practices in ancient civilizations, tracing the legal developments surrounding abortion, and exploring the shifting social attitudes towards abortion throughout history.

International Comparisons: Abortion laws and regulations vary widely across different countries, leading to diverse experiences and outcomes. Students can make international comparisons by examining abortion access and restrictions in different regions, analyzing the impact of varying legal frameworks on women's health and rights, and identifying best practices in abortion policies.

List of Abortion Research Paper Topics

• The Socioeconomic Factors and Racial Disparities Shaping Abortion Access
• Ethical and Social Implications of Emerging Abortion Technologies
• Abortion Stigma and Women's Mental Health
• Telemedicine and Abortion Access in Rural Areas
• International Human Rights and Abortion Access
• Reproductive Justice and Other Social Justice Issues
• Men's Role in Abortion Decision-Making
• Abortion Restrictions and Social Disparities
• Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Abortion Access
• Alternative Approaches to Abortion Regulation
• Political Ideology and Abortion Policy Debates
• Public Health Campaigns for Informed Abortion Decisions
• Abortion Services in Conflict-Affected Areas
• Healthcare Providers and Medical Ethics of Abortion
• International Cooperation on Abortion Policies

By exploring these topics and subtopics for abortion essays , students can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of the abortion debate and choose a specific focus that aligns with their interests and research objectives.

Choosing Abortion Research Paper Topics

When selecting research paper topics on abortion, it is essential to consider factors such as research feasibility, availability of credible sources, and the potential for original contributions.

Abortion is a complex and multifaceted issue that intersects with various aspects of society and individual lives. By broadening the scope of abortion-related topics, students can explore a wider range of perspectives and insights.

• Demystifying Abortion Statistics: Understanding the Global and Domestic Landscape
• Abortion and Women's Rights: A Historical and Contemporary Perspective
• Decoding the Impact of Abortion on Public Health and Social Welfare
• Unveiling the Role of Media and Public Discourse in Shaping Abortion Perceptions
• Comparative Analysis of Abortion Laws Worldwide
• Historical Evolution of Abortion Rights and Practices
• Impact of Abortion on Public Health and Maternal Mortality
• Abortion Funding and Access to Reproductive Healthcare
• Role of Misinformation and Myths in Abortion Debates
• International Perspectives on Abortion and Reproductive Freedom
• Abortion and the UN Sustainable Development Goals
• Abortion and Gender Equality in the Global Context
• Abortion and Human Rights: A Legal and Ethical Analysis
• Religious and Cultural Influences on Abortion Perceptions
• Abortion and Social Justice: Addressing Disparities and Marginalization
• Anti-abortion and Pro-choice Movements: Comparative Analysis and Impact
• Impact of Technological Advancements on Abortion Procedures and Access
• Ethical Considerations of New Abortion Technologies and Surrogacy
• Role of Advocacy and Activism in Shaping Abortion Policy and Practice
• Measuring the Effectiveness of Abortion Policy Interventions

Navigating the complex landscape of abortion-related topics can be a daunting task, but it also offers an opportunity for students to delve into a range of compelling issues and perspectives. By choosing the right topic, students can produce well-researched, insightful, and impactful essays that contribute to the ongoing dialogue on this important subject.

The 50 abortion essay ideas presented in this guide provide a starting point for exploring the intricacies of abortion and its far-reaching implications. Whether students are interested in argumentative essays that engage in ethical, legal, or societal debates or research papers that delve into medical, historical, or international perspectives, this collection offers a wealth of potential topics to ignite their curiosity and challenge their thinking.

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• MJC Library & Learning Center
• Research Guides
• Abortion Research

Start Learning About Your Topic

Create research questions to focus your topic, featured current news, find articles in library databases, find web resources, find books in the library catalog, cite your sources, key search words.

Use the words below to search for useful information in books and articles .

• birth control
• pro-choice movement
• pro-life movement
• reproductive rights
• Roe v. Wade
• Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs v. Jackson)

Background Reading:

It's important to begin your research learning something about your subject; in fact, you won't be able to create a focused, manageable thesis unless you already know something about your topic.

This step is important so that you will:

• Begin building your core knowledge about your topic
• Be able to put your topic in context
• Create research questions that drive your search for information
• Create a list of search terms that will help you find relevant information
• Know if the information you’re finding is relevant and useful

If you're working from off campus , you'll be prompted to sign in if you aren't already logged in to your MJC email or Canvas. If you are prompted to sign in, use the same credentials you use for email and Canvas. 

Most current background reading 

• Issues and Controversies: Should Women in the United States Have Access to Abortion? June 2022 article (written after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade) that explores both sides of the abortion debate.
• Access World News: Abortion The most recent news and opinion on abortion from US newspapers.

More sources for background information

• CQ Researcher Online This link opens in a new window Original, comprehensive reporting and analysis on issues in the news. Check the dates of results to be sure they are sufficiently current.
• Gale eBooks This link opens in a new window Authoritative background reading from specialized encyclopedias (a year or more old, so not good for the latest developments).
• Gale In Context: Global Issues This link opens in a new window Best database for exploring the topic from a global point of view.

Choose the questions below that you find most interesting or appropriate for your assignment.

• Why is abortion such a controversial issue?
• What are the medical arguments for and against abortion?
• What are the religious arguments for and against abortion?
• What are the political arguments for and against abortion?
• What are the cultural arguments for and against abortion?
• What is the history of laws concerning abortion?
• What are the current laws about abortion?
• How are those who oppose access to abortion trying to affect change?
• How are those who support access to abortion trying to affect change?
• Based on what I have learned from my research, what do I think about the issue of abortion?
• State-by-State Abortion Laws Updated regularly by the Guttmacher Institute
• What the Data Says About Abortion in the U.S. From the Pew Research Center in June 2022, a look at the most recent available data about abortion from sources other than public opinion surveys.

Latest News on Abortion from Google News

All of these resources are free for MJC students, faculty, & staff.

• Gale Databases This link opens in a new window Search over 35 databases simultaneously that cover almost any topic you need to research at MJC. Gale databases include articles previously published in journals, magazines, newspapers, books, and other media outlets.
• EBSCOhost Databases This link opens in a new window Search 22 databases simultaneously that cover almost any topic you need to research at MJC. EBSCO databases include articles previously published in journals, magazines, newspapers, books, and other media outlets.
• Facts on File Databases This link opens in a new window Facts on File databases include: Issues & Controversies , Issues & Controversies in History , Today's Science , and World News Digest .
• MEDLINE Complete This link opens in a new window This database provides access to top-tier biomedical and health journals, making it an essential resource for doctors, nurses, health professionals and researchers engaged in clinical care, public health, and health policy development.
• Access World News This link opens in a new window Search the full-text of editions of record for local, regional, and national U.S. newspapers as well as full-text content of key international sources. This is your source for The Modesto Bee from January 1989 to the present. Also includes in-depth special reports and hot topics from around the country. To access The Modesto Bee , limit your search to that publication. more... less... Watch this short video to learn how to find The Modesto Bee .

Browse Featured Web Sites:

• American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists Medical information and anti-abortion rights advocacy.
• American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Use the key term "abortion" in the search box on this site for links to reports and statistics.
• Guttmacher Institute Statistics and policy papers with a world-wide focus from a "research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights worldwide."
• NARAL Pro-Choice America This group advocates for pro-abortion rights legislation. Current information abortion laws in the U.S.
• National Right to Life Committee This group advocates for anti-abortion rights legislation in the U.S.

Why Use Books:

Use books to read broad overviews and detailed discussions of your topic. You can also use books to find  primary sources , which are often published together in collections.  

Where Do I Find Books?

You'll use the library catalog to search for books, ebooks, articles, and more.  

What if MJC Doesn't Have What I Need?

If you need materials (books, articles, recordings, videos, etc.) that you cannot find in the library catalog , use our  interlibrary loan service .

Your instructor should tell you which citation style they want you to use. Click on the appropriate link below to learn how to format your paper and cite your sources according to a particular style.

• Chicago Style
• ASA & Other Citation Styles
• Last Updated: Feb 14, 2024 12:41 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mjc.edu/abortion

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and CC BY-NC 4.0 Licenses .

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The Editorial Board

The Persistent Threat to Abortion Rights

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values . It is separate from the newsroom.

The Supreme Court this week heard the first major challenge to abortion rights since it struck down Roe v. Wade two years ago — an attempt to severely limit access to mifepristone, the most commonly used abortion pill in the country, by a group of doctors who are morally opposed to the practice.

The justices seem prepared to throw out the lawsuit. During oral arguments, they questioned whether the doctors had suffered the harm necessary to bring the suit in the first place.

But that should come as small comfort to anyone concerned for the future of reproductive freedom in America. Judges at the state and federal level are ready to further restrict reproductive options and health care access. The presumptive Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump, has indicated support for a 15-week national abortion ban. And while the Supreme Court, in overturning Roe, ostensibly left it to each state to decide abortion policy, several states have gone against the will of their voters on abortion or tried to block ballot measures that would protect abortion rights. Anti-abortion forces may have had a tough week in the Supreme Court, but they remain focused on playing and winning a longer game.

Even potential victories for reproductive freedom may prove short-lived: The mifepristone case, for instance, is far from dead. Another plaintiff could bring the same case and have it considered on the merits, a possibility Justice Samuel Alito raised during oral arguments.

“Is there anybody who could challenge in court the lawfulness of what the F.D.A. did here?” he asked the solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar. Such a challenge would be exceptionally weak, given that the F.D.A. provided substantial support for its approval and regulatory guidance on the use of mifepristone, but the right-wing justices on the Roberts court may be willing to hear it again anyway. The justices have already illustrated their hostility to the authority of administrative agencies, and that hostility may persist even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

Then there is the Comstock Act, a 151-year-old federal law that anti-abortion activists are trying to revive to block the mailing of mifepristone and other abortion medication. During the oral arguments this week, Justices Alito and Clarence Thomas repeatedly expressed their openness to the use of the law, which was pushed by an anti-vice crusader decades before women won the right to vote. If anti-abortion activists can get themselves before a sympathetic court and secure a national injunction on this medication being mailed, they may well be able to block access to abortion throughout the country, including in states where it is legal.

However the mifepristone case turns out, the threats to reproductive rights the justices unleashed by overturning Roe go much further.

The anti-abortion movement is pursuing its aims on many legal fronts. One focus of intense activity are so-called fetal-personhood laws , which endow fetuses (and, in some cases, even fertilized eggs) with the same legal rights as living, breathing human beings. Last month, Alabama’s Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created through in vitro fertilization were to be protected as “extrauterine children,” relying in part on an 1872 state law. That sent lawmakers in Alabama scrambling to protect a procedure that is highly popular among Republicans and Democrats alike. Three weeks after the court ruling, they passed a law protecting patients and doctors who perform I.V.F. procedures from legal liability.

Fetal-personhood laws can also be used to target access to birth control, embryonic stem cell research and even women who suffer miscarriages.

In eliminating a woman’s constitutional right to choose what happens in her own body, the Supreme Court claimed to be respecting the democratic process by allowing state legislatures to determine whether abortion should be legal, and what, if any, limits should be placed on it. Roe v. Wade had been “egregiously wrong” to wrest a fraught public debate from the American public, Justice Alito wrote in the majority opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health in 2022. It was “time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Instead of being settled at the state level, less than two years since the Dobbs ruling the issue of abortion has returned to the court and is likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

The Dobbs ruling has forced a new public debate on abortion, and galvanized Americans’ support for it, which has been strong for decades. Since 1975, a majority of Americans have supported legal abortion in some or all cases, according to polling by Gallup , and that support has increased slightly since Dobbs. The percentage of Americans who think abortion should be illegal in all cases has gone down.

Since Roe was overturned in 2022, in every state where reproductive rights has been on the ballot, from Vermont to Kentucky, the abortion rights side has won . This past Tuesday, the same day that the court heard the mifepristone case, voters in Alabama elected to the state legislature a Democrat who ran on a platform of protecting access to abortion and I.V.F. The candidate, Marilyn Lands, had lost her race in 2022 by seven points; she won this week by 25 points.

There are limits to the state-by-state approach when it comes to protecting bodily autonomy. Some states don’t allow ballot initiatives of the type that have led to abortion rights victories elsewhere. In Ohio and other states, lawmakers have sought to block or overturn attempts by voters to protect abortion rights, and anti-abortion lawmakers in several states have sought to prosecute anyone who helps a woman travel to another state to get an abortion.

In short, there is no silver bullet for reproductive rights. The judiciary is no haven, not as long as the current Supreme Court majority holds; state and lower federal courts aren’t much better, going by the Alabama I.V.F. ruling and the decisions that pushed the mifepristone case to the Supreme Court. At the same time, voter support for reproductive rights won’t make a difference if they can’t use ballot measures to make that support known.

That is why any successful strategy to protect or restore abortion rights must understand reproductive rights and representative democracy as inextricably linked.

That means understanding the stakes of the elections in November. If Mr. Trump’s party wins solid control of the House and Senate, this could put Americans’ reproductive rights at further risk, especially if Republicans first decide to do away with the filibuster. That would lower the threshold for passing legislation such as a 15-week abortion ban , which Mr. Trump seems likely to support .

Voters will be faced with a stark choice: the choice of whether to protect not just reproductive rights, but true equality for women.

Source photograph by Getty Images.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Abortion attitudes, religious and moral beliefs, and pastoral care among Protestant religious leaders in Georgia

Jessica l. dozier.

1 Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America

2 The Center for Reproductive Health Research in the Southeast, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

Monique Hennink

3 Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

Elizabeth Mosley

4 Department of Behavioral, Social and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

Subasri Narasimhan

Johanna pringle, lasha clarke.

5 Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

John Blevins

6 Graduate Division of Religion, Laney Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

Latishia James-Portis

7 Reproductive Justice Activist and Movement Chaplain, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

Rob Keithan

8 All Souls Church Unitarian, Washington, D.C., United States of America

Kelli Stidham Hall

9 Heilbrunn Department of Population & Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States of America

Whitney S. Rice

Associated data.

Our data are comprised of transcripts from qualitative interviews with Protestant religious leaders in Georgia surrounding abortion attitudes and pastoral care. These data cannot be shared publicly, as the qualitative data presents potential risks and harms beyond those agreed to by study participants in the consent process and approved by the Emory University Institutional Review Board. However, data access requests may be sent to ude.yrome@BRI . In order to facilitate research transparency, we provide the study interview guide and codebook as Supporting Information files.

The purpose of this study is to explore Protestant religious leaders’ attitudes towards abortion and their strategies for pastoral care in Georgia, USA. Religious leaders may play an important role in providing sexual and reproductive health pastoral care given a long history of supporting healing and health promotion.

We conducted 20 in-depth interviews with Mainline and Black Protestant religious leaders on their attitudes toward abortion and how they provide pastoral care for abortion. The study was conducted in a county with relatively higher rates of abortion, lower access to sexual and reproductive health services, higher religiosity, and greater denominational diversity compared to other counties in the state. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by thematic analysis.

Religious leaders’ attitudes towards abortion fell on a spectrum from “pro-life” to “pro-choice”. However, most participants expressed attitudes in the middle of this spectrum and described more nuanced, complex, and sometimes contradictory views. Differences in abortion attitudes stemmed from varying beliefs on when life begins and circumstances in which abortion may be morally acceptable. Religious leaders described their pastoral care on abortion as “journeying with” congregants by advising them to make well-informed decisions irrespective of the religious leader’s own attitudes. However, many religious leaders described a lack of preparation and training to have these conversations. Leaders emphasized not condoning abortion, yet being willing to emotionally support women because spiritual leaders are compelled to love and provide pastoral care. Paradoxically, all leaders emphasized the importance of empathy and compassion for people who have unplanned pregnancies, yet only leaders whose attitudes were “pro-choice” or in the middle of the spectrum expressed an obligation to confront stigmatizing attitudes and behaviors towards people who experience abortion. Additionally, many leaders offer misinformation about abortion when offering pastoral care.

These findings contribute to limited empirical evidence on pastoral care for abortion. We found religious leaders hold diverse attitudes and beliefs about abortion, rooted in Christian scripture and doctrine that inform advice and recommendations to congregants. While religious leaders may have formal training on pastoral care in general or theological education on the ethical issues related to abortion, they struggle to integrate their knowledge and training across these two areas. Still, leaders could be potentially important resources for empathy, compassion, and affirmation of agency in abortion decision-making, particularly in the Southern United States.

Introduction

Abortion is a common experience for U.S. women of reproductive age—approximately 1 in 4 will have an abortion by age 45 [ 1 ]. In the United States, 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age were reported in 2017. While national and regional abortion rates have been declining, rates in the state of Georgia have increased in recent years [ 2 ]. The rate of abortion in Georgia was 16.9 abortions/1,000 women aged 15–44 in 2017 [ 2 ].

Despite abortion being common, most people in Georgia face systemic and socio-cultural barriers limiting access to abortion services. Attitudes that condemn abortion emerge in policy, systems, and at the community-level [ 3 ]. Manifestations of abortion stigma [ 3 – 6 ] may influence people’s ability to exercise reproductive autonomy [ 7 , 8 ]. Researchers suggest “abortion stigma confounds a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy due to worries about judgment, isolation, self-judgment, and community condemnation” [ 9 ]. In 2014, only 4% of counties had clinics that provided abortion, leaving 58% of women in Georgia without a clinic in their county. Restrictive state legislation threatens to impose additional barriers to abortion access. For example, in 2019, Georgia legislators introduced HB 481, a bill that sought to outlaw abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected [ 10 ]. This bill aimed to restrict abortion as early as 6 weeks gestation, before many people know they are pregnant [ 11 ]—one of the strictest abortion bans in the nation [ 12 ]. A federal judge granted an injunction in early October 2019, which blocked the law while it is argued in court [ 13 ].

More restrictive policies leave the most vulnerable, economically disadvantaged, and socially isolated people with few choices but to carry pregnancies they feel they are unable to support to term; however, those who carry pregnancies also face systemic barriers including limited access to perinatal care. Georgia has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the United States [ 14 ], yet access to obstetric services is limited by a declining obstetrician/gynecologist workforce, especially in rural areas [ 15 ]. Moreover, half of all counties in Georgia are without a single obstetrician/gynecologist or hospital where women can give birth or access basic services [ 16 ].

Religious leaders are pivotal in their faith communities [ 17 ] and may be influential in shaping attitudes towards sexual and reproductive health (SRH), norms, and behaviors at the individual, family and community levels [ 8 , 17 , 18 ]; however, religious doctrine and beliefs may come in direct conflict with public health recommendations regarding abortion and contraception [ 19 ]. Previous research [ 4 ] has found links between religiosity and experiences of abortion stigma and it is “often the religious voices that oppose sexual and reproductive rights that have been the most visible in the media and most influential in policy debates” [ 17 ]. In a landmark 2014 case, Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores , Inc ., the Supreme Court ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 allows a for-profit company to deny its employees coverage for contraception through the employer-based health plan because of the religious objections of the Hobby Lobby owners [ 20 ]. Conversely, Mainline Protestant religious leaders have historically played a role in shaping SRH policy, specifically with advocacy efforts for increased access to contraception and abortion during the twentieth century [ 17 ].

While many religions are perceived to condemn abortion [ 21 ], religiously affiliated women do have abortions—the majority (62%) of women who obtained an abortion in 2008 and 2014 claimed a religious affiliation [ 22 ]. Of these women, 17% identified an affiliation with a Mainline Protestant denomination [ 22 ]. This percentage is higher than that found in the American population as a whole; in 2010, Mainline Protestants only represented 7.2% of the United States population [ 23 ].

Religious leaders may play an important role in providing SRH-related pastoral care and resources given that “religions have a venerable tradition supporting healing, health care, disease prevention, and health promotion [and a] commitment to the most marginalized, the most vulnerable, and the most likely to be excluded” [ 17 ]. Still, little is known about the pastoral care practices of religious leaders as they relate to abortion, especially in the southern states of the United States and there are few resources in pastoral theology that address abortion. In fact, a review of publications from Mainline Protestant publishing houses over the last two decades identified only two books published on pastoral care and abortion [ 24 , 25 ]. A keyword review of the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) database identified no peer-reviewed articles exploring abortion published in pastoral theology journals over the last twenty years. Given their potential reach and influence, there is a need to understand the religious and moral views that shape religious leaders’ attitudes toward abortion, and their pastoral care practices, particularly in Georgia, a state with high religious influence [ 26 ] and gaps in reproductive healthcare [ 15 , 16 , 27 ]. This study aims to explore Mainline and Black Protestant religious leaders’ attitudes towards abortion and how they provide pastoral care regarding abortion.

Materials and methods

Participant recruitment.

Participants were recruited from two religious traditions based on categorization developed by Steensland and colleagues [ 28 ]. Mainline Protestantism is a branch of Protestantism that consists of denominations that are generally considered theologically liberal and moderate (e.g. Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, and the United Church of Christ). Black Protestantism (also known as “the Black Church”) is theologically and structurally similar to white evangelical denominations, “but also emphasizes social justice and community activism” [ 29 ]. According to the Association of Religious Data Archives, Black Protestant denominations are generally economically liberal and socially conservative [ 29 ]. The tradition consists of seven major denominations, such as the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Church of God in Christ, and the Progressive National Baptist Church [ 29 ].

For this study, 20 semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with religious leaders serving in Mainline and Black Protestant churches in a county with urban and rural areas outside of Atlanta, Georgia. The study site was selected due to its higher abortion rates, lower SRH service access, a higher religious adherence, greater denominational diversity, and an abundance of Mainline Protestant and Black Protestant churches as compared to other similar counties in Georgia. Religious leaders were eligible to participate if they were currently serving in a Mainline Protestant or Black Protestant church as a clergy member or lay leader (i.e. a non-ordained member of a Christian church [ 29 ]) for at least 6 months prior to the interview, were over 18 years old, and spoke English.

Purposive sampling was used to recruit a sample of religious leaders diverse in denomination and sociodemographic characteristics. Churches were identified using a publicly available list of churches by county published by The Association of Religious Data Archives. Names and contact information for the primary religious leader of these churches were obtained from church websites and social media. Lay leaders were recruited by social media messages and snowball sampling because their contact information was often not publicly available on church websites. Religious leaders were contacted up to five times by email, phone, and social media message using standard Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved scripts. Leaders were also approached in person and recruited at centers of commerce (e.g. local strip malls) in the county using a standard recruitment script, screened for eligibility, and interviewed at a later date in a private location.

Participant characteristics

Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants are presented in Table 1 . The majority of participants recruited were men (80%) serving in senior pastoral roles (60%). Other religious titles reported included: pastor, associate pastor, first lady, minister, regional minister, youth minister, and lay leader. The average length of time served in the participant’s current role was 8.3 years (6 months to 40+ years). Age ranged from 28 to 72 years, with a mean age of 48. Sixty-five percent of participants had a graduate degree—most commonly a Masters of Divinity. Church membership size ranged from less than 50 to over 1000 people.

Data collection

In-depth interviews were conducted between October 2018 and September 2019 using a semi-structured interview guide (See S1 Appendix ). The interview guide included questions on participants’ views about unplanned pregnancy and abortion, pastoral care on these topics, and suggestions for discussions and programming around unintended pregnancy and abortion in faith settings. Some of the questions included, “ What are your personal views on abortion ? ” and “ What advice would you give someone in your congregation considering abortion ?” Researchers probed for barriers and facilitators to providing pastoral care on these topics and specific resources and scripture religious leaders would rely on during these conversations. The interview guide was pilot-tested in four interviews with clergy members serving in Mainline and Black Protestant churches in metro-Atlanta and then refined for clarity. Iterative changes were made to the interview guide and to participant recruitment throughout the data collection period to explore new topics raised and to include participants with differing perspectives, as is usual in qualitative data collection.

Participants were consented verbally. They were read an IRB-approved consent script, invited to ask follow-up questions, and asked if they agreed to take part in the study. A short demographic survey was administered after the informed consent process. Interviews were conducted in private offices at the participant’s church, at Emory University, or another location (e.g. a private room in a coffee shop) and digitally audio-recorded. Interviews lasted between 45 and 90 minutes, and participants received a $50 gift card. The study was approved by the IRB at Emory University (IRB 00106069).

Five researchers collected the data. They were trained on qualitative research methods, the study protocol, and research ethics. All researchers were cisgender women of reproductive age: four multi-ethnic women and one white woman. They had varying religious backgrounds and level of experience within Christian churches. Throughout data collection, the researchers practiced reflexivity by journaling their own thoughts and impressions about the research topic or participant’s experiences. They also noted potential biases that may have influenced data collected. Researchers shared these reflexive notes in team debriefing sessions and discussed ways to minimize researcher influence on the data collection process. Debriefing sessions included discussions on how researcher’s social identities and preconceptions about the study issues may have influenced the data as well as strategies to minimize these influences. For example, reflexivity revealed emerging data on race and religion, whereby the team felt that matching the race of researchers and participants may provide a more enabling environment for a deeper, more nuanced data on participants views on race and abortion.

Data analysis

Thematic analysis was used to describe Mainline and Black Protestant religious leaders’ attitudes towards abortion and how they provide pastoral care regarding abortion. Interviews were transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription company and de-identified by the research team. Data were managed and organized using Dedoose version 8.0.35, a software package for qualitative data analysis [ 30 ]. Data collection, coding, and analysis occurred simultaneously to assess meaning saturation, or a “richly textured understanding” of abortion attitudes and pastoral care practices [ 31 ]. Saturation was reached at 20 interviews when a diversity of views and denominations was achieved and no new themes were observed.

Data were read in detail and memoed in order to develop a codebook (See S2 Appendix ). Codes were developed through inductive (emerging from the data) and deductive (pre-determined topics from the interview guide) strategies. An inter-coder agreement exercise was conducted prior to coding all data to ensure consistency in the coding process. Weekly team meetings were held to refine code definitions, resolve discrepancies in coding, and discuss reflexivity in data interpretation during the coding process. For example, researchers discussed how our underlying epistemologies, public health training, and differing views on scripture and doctrine, might influence interpretation of data during analysis.

Researchers explored data by codes (e.g., abortion , attitudes & beliefs , and pastoral care) , conducted structured comparisons of codes by sub-groups of participants (e.g., by sociopolitical attitudes, denomination, and gender). Patterns in the data were examined and sub-themes within codes were identified. Illustrative quotes were then selected for each sub-theme.

Results were organized around 1) abortion attitudes; 2) moral and religious beliefs; and 3) pastoral care.

Abortion attitudes

When asked about their views on abortion, most participants noted affiliation with sociopolitical attitudes regarding abortion (e.g. “pro-life” and “pro-choice”). Differences among attitudes were observed in the participant’s understanding of when life begins, an affirmation of a women’s autonomy, and expression of the circumstances in which abortion may be morally acceptable. All participants identified at least one circumstance in which abortion may be the best decision for a pregnant person. Participants who identified their views as “pro-life” offered fewer moral exceptions for abortion, explaining that the circumstances of most unplanned pregnancies are surmountable, and therefore do not need to be resolved by abortion.

Nonetheless, the majority of participants expressed statements not readily fitting into a dichotomy of attitudes, but rather intermediate between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in the so-called “gray area.” Attitudes in the “gray area” were nuanced, complex, and fell along a spectrum between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” attitudes. “Gray Area” attitudes were distinguished by an understanding that people have to make decisions on their own, yet “all life is sacred” and should be protected. In addition, participants with these “gray area” attitudes expressed tentativeness about taking a strong stance of “pro-life” or “pro-choice,” noting tensions between beliefs held in both categories and a desire to hold onto religious beliefs while acknowledging legal right to abortion. Illustrative quotes of the range of common attitudes are presented in Table 2 .

“Pro-life”

There was no pattern among participants with “pro-life” attitudes by gender, tradition, denomination, or leadership role; participants included both men and women, senior pastors and a first lady and other lay leaders, and came from multiple denominations, including United Methodist Church, Congregational Methodist, National Missionary Baptist Convention, Inc., and a Non-denominational congregation. Those with “pro-life” attitudes felt abortion is “too common” and “ought to be a last resort” that is not rushed into or taken lightly given the gravity of its implications. They expressed perceptions that abortion is too often thought of as a first option and explained that they would encourage congregants to make well-informed, carefully considered decisions when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Moreover, participants with “pro-life” attitudes explained that abortion is too often discussed in a “cold and sterile” medical manner. They explained that this perspective is limited because it presents abortion only as a solution to a medical problem, but detaches moral implications of ending the “potential for life.” Participants with “pro-life” attitudes explained it is impossible to honestly discuss abortion in only medical terms; morality must also be considered and negotiated. These participants emphasized the importance of sharing religious beliefs of life and scared worth when providing pastoral care for someone considering abortion.

Participants with “pro-life” attitudes acknowledged abortion as a legal option but explained they would only counsel women to consider this recourse in cases of risk to maternal life or in some cases of sexual assault. Some participants were less decided about the moral acceptability of abortion in cases of rape, stating tensions between the belief that something good might come out of the pregnancy and concerns for the mental health of the mother. One Mainline Protestant pastor raised concerns about abortion in cases of rape and expressed that it may be morally acceptable only when the woman has no shared “responsibility for [the pregnancy],” such as a woman being under the influence of alcohol versus being “attacked by an evil person.” The same participant explained that abortion is not a morally acceptable option for fetal anomaly because such anomalies are the result of “the sinful nature that we’re born into (due to original sin of Adam and Eve)”, and because God does not make mistakes, therefore all pregnancies should be carried to term.

Attitudes in the intermediate, “Gray Area”

Participants from several denominations such as United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, African Methodist Episcopal expressed attitudes intermediate between “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” These participants were tentative about making strong statements about what the ideal resolution of unplanned pregnancies should be and explained that they were not “qualified” to make such determinations for others. Several participants expressed the importance of individual autonomy to make abortion decisions and careful consideration of the context of an unplanned pregnancy in deciding on the ideal resolution of the pregnancy; however, most of the participants with attitudes in the “gray area” expressed that they would prefer abortions are less common. Participants cited tension between belief in the sanctity of life and respect for individual autonomy. One participant described this tension:

“'So I don't believe that it's my right as a human being to tell a woman what they're going to do with their body because a woman and a child are literally inexorably linked as far as being in utero and in womb . And so I have no right to say to someone who's carrying a child that you can or cannot do this or that or the other because that child is your body and you have the right to see your body . But at the same time , there is also the potential for a life being carried inside of that body . And the part of me that values the sacredness of all life says , ‘Oh , but look at the potential there . Look what good that future human being could do in the world . ’ So I sort of stand at a very strange gray area and crossroads with abortion . ” (Senior Pastor, Mainline Protestant)

Some participants in the “Gray Area” cited that abortion may be the best decision for some people if having an abortion would alleviate potential suffering or in cases in which a mother is not able to care for herself or for a child. Another senior pastor explained his view on abortion,

“My personal views on abortion is that I believe that in some cases , abortion could be the best option for that individual , if they come to that conclusion , such as poorly–development of a fetus that does not have , medically speaking , the chance for–productive or normal life outside of the womb . Okay ? People make those decisions on their own . One of the more sensitive issues is having a healthy child , but if that child is the result of rape or incest , I don't believe that God cannot forgive anyone for any decision that possibly could be against his will . His will , of course , is that we have life , but I also hold to this belief that every , every , every–conceivable sin is forgivable by God , except for blasphemy …” (Senior Pastor, Black Protestant)

“Pro-choice”

There was no identifiable pattern by gender, tradition, denomination, or leadership role among participants who identified themselves as “pro-choice.” These participants discussed tensions between the need for abortion and the need for women to exercise bodily autonomy. They felt pregnancy-related decision making should rest with a pregnant person and God, but they would try to guide people considering abortion to the best outcome for the mother and the baby. They emphasized that their pastoral care would consist of much listening and understanding. A senior pastor at an Episcopal church who identified as “pro-choice” explained that he could not make decisions about abortion for people because to do so would be “treading on a violation of the relationship between [them] and God.”

Most participants with “pro-choice” attitudes expressed that abortion is a psychologically difficult decision that they wished people did not have to go through but underscored that it may be the best option for some people. These participants explained that abortion might be the best decision if there is a risk to the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, and in cases of fetal anomaly. Conversely, some participants expressed that abortion should not be used as a primary means of birth control or contraception. A senior pastor at an Episcopal church expressed that abortion should not be allowed for sex-selection, although he did not believe this was a common occurrence. Several other participants acknowledged abortion as a legal option but emphasized the importance of supporting women and providing children the care they need so there are better alternatives to abortion.

Religious and moral beliefs across the abortion attitude spectrum

All life has sacred worth.

All participants expressed that their abortion attitudes are influenced by the understanding and interpretation of Christian scripture and doctrine (See Table 3 ). The majority of participants identified beliefs about sanctity and sacredness of all life as central to their views on abortion. They explained that people are created in God’s image, therefore human life has sacred worth which should be protected. The majority of participants stated views that public and pastoral care conversations about abortion should include recognition of the sacredness of life because Christian believers walk that experience (i.e. it is fundamental to Christian beliefs).

Many participants across the attitude spectrum expressed the perception that abortion is ending life; however, participants had mixed views about when life begins and starts to bear the image of God. Participants with a “pro-life” attitude toward abortion described the beginning of life at early stages in fetal development, with some reporting life begins at conception, and others explaining that life begins when there is a fetal heartbeat. Participants expressing intermediate attitudes in the “gray area” did not have a consensus about when life begins, or, in other words, whether an abortion would end a life that was created in God’s image. One senior pastor with abortion attitudes in the “gray area” stated that he rejects the notion that “a fetus is just a grouping of cells.” Another senior pastor who also expressed attitudes falling in the intermediate “gray area” stated that he was not qualified to state when life begins but was confident it was not conception. He expressed uncertainty about when a fertilized egg starts “bearing the image of God,” but expressed that it was sometime between conception and birth. One participant with a “pro-choice” attitude toward abortion expressed beliefs about the beginning of life that were unique among other participants. She discussed views about life beginning when God’s spirits are brought into “our earthly journey” through the process of birth. She explained that any spirits that are not birthed go back to God and wait for the next chance at life, even as flesh dies during an abortion. She expressed this happens because God is loving:

“If God is a God of love , why would God punitively respond to that entity of life that has no choice ? I think God is bigger than that …” (Regional Minister, Mainline Protestant)

Many participants across the attitude spectrum expressed that there is a process of healing, redemption, or becoming “whole” that women must undergo following an abortion to resolve adverse psychological and spiritual effects. Most participants describe these effects, such as emotional guilt, regret, and spiritual effects, such as questioning whether God would forgive them. They expressed that these effects are often lasting and lifelong for those who cannot or will not “do the work [of] resolving their own minds.” Across abortion attitudes, participants expressed that adverse psychological effects are especially salient for women who never end up having children or learn later that they are infertile. In addition, some participants from both Mainline and Black Protestant churches expressed that there may be guilt, condemnation, criticism, and judgment from members of their congregation towards people who have an abortion. These participants expressed that stigmatizing responses from members of the congregation would continue to distress women after an abortion until they sought spiritual and emotional healing. Several participants explained the process of redemption and healing after having an abortion involves women reckoning with ending a life, recognizing they are covered by God’s grace and God does not condemn them, even if they may condemn themselves for their decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Pastoral care

Across the abortion attitude spectrum.

Many participants had little or no experience providing pastoral care related to abortion in their careers. They attributed their inexperience to perceptions that unplanned pregnancy and abortion not being major concerns in their churches and congregant perceptions that the church is not a safe place for conversations due to stigma. In addition, some men perceived women congregants would not come to them for pastoral care surrounding these issues or would prefer to go to women religious leaders. In such cases where leaders had little or no experience, they responded to hypothetical situations in which they would provide pastoral care to congregants considering abortion and often discussed these issues in the context of unmarried adolescents experiencing an unplanned pregnancy. Many participants expressed uncertainty about their qualifications to provide this type of pastoral care or lead faith-based health programs that included discussions of unintended pregnancy and abortion.

Across the spectrum of attitudes, participants expressed the importance of supporting a person facing an unplanned pregnancy and “journeying with” them in their decision-making, yet expressed a clear preference for continuing an unplanned pregnancy to term and utilizing adoption of the baby as a strategy (See Table 4 ). Paradoxically, all participants expressed their desire to counsel women away from abortion, or not “encourage” abortion as a solution to an unplanned pregnancy given beliefs about all life being sacred and needing protection. Several participants discussed the obligation to preserve God’s creation.

1 In-vivo codes

Similarly, many participants across the attitude spectrum emphasized the importance of expressing love when proving pastoral care for someone considering abortion, even if their theology led them to be morally opposed to abortion. All participants emphasized that they, the congregation, and God love a woman with an unplanned pregnancy that is considering abortion. Participants explained a loving response was a part of their duty as spiritual leaders. Participants with “pro-choice” attitudes and those falling in the “gray area” explained that part of their pastoral care would be to encourage their congregations to love and support someone considering abortion or who has had an abortion.

Several participants expressed that abortion will not separate women from the love of God, or the love of the participant, even if the decision to abort is not pleasing to God. Some participants equated abortion to sin such as divorce but explained that every sin, except blasphemy, is forgivable by God. These participants believed therefore, it was not their job to judge someone who has an abortion, even if they believe that abortion is ending a life. Some participants across the attitude spectrum expressed that God’s view of the sanctity of life is not punitive; therefore it is not appropriate for religious leaders to condemn women who have abortions to Hell or require them to publicly confess this sin. Additionally, many participants explained that people who have abortions are covered by God’s grace and forgiveness, religious beliefs that they would convey in their pastoral care.

Many participants across the spectrum of attitudes expressed the importance of not condemning a person because of abortion, citing scripture punitively, or passing judgment. A participant from an Episcopal church who identified as “pro-choice” said,

“…I also think it’s letting them know that they’re loved . I go back to that , with–that’s–love will win . I know it’s become sort of a moniker and nobody takes it seriously , but– …It will . So how do we love ? How do we love that woman who didn’t plan , and that baby that’s going to result from it ? Or the woman that planned , and still she got pregnant . It’s not what do we with them . It’s how do we love them , and make sure they know they’re loved ? That’s the part I see my role as . ” (Male Senior Pastor, Mainline Protestant)

When asked about how they would provide pastoral care for abortion, participants with “pro-life” and “gray area” attitudes cited examples of instrumental support they would provide as part of their pastoral care for unplanned pregnancies and emphasized providing support for continuing a pregnancy.

Participants with “pro-life” attitudes shared a belief that regardless of the intendedness of pregnancy, there are no “accidental children” because “God does not make mistakes.” They explained that they would draw upon this belief when providing pastoral care and would advise congregants considering abortion to first consider what God is calling them to do and consider the potential of their unborn child. Additionally, several participants with “pro-life” attitudes expressed that they would encourage people to first see an ultrasound or hear a fetal heartbeat before deciding on abortion. They cited examples of knowing people and hearing stories of young women who were seeking an abortion until they saw an ultrasound or heard a fetal heartbeat. While most participants across the attitude spectrum expressed they would encourage pregnant women to seek healthcare services, namely prenatal care, without being prompted, participants with “pro-life” attitudes discussed close ties to Crisis Pregnancy Centers and local pro-life advocacy groups they would call upon as resources. One senior pastor from a United Methodist Church explained his process in providing pastoral care to a young woman and making an appointment for her at a Crisis Pregnancy Center:

“She didn't want to acknowledge that she was pregnant, so I set up with a crisis pregnancy center a time for her to go in for an ultrasound, start receiving prenatal care, and then she didn't show up … she didn't show up for the ultrasound, and all that. I was put in the awkward position of having to be a little bit aggressive with them, ‘Look, this is your life, and the child's life are at stake if you don't receive any prenatal care.’ … That was kind of a strange situation that I felt at some times like maybe I was overstepping my bounds by being pushy, but they weren't even talking to their parents about it. … That involved not just counseling but a lot of, I don't know what you would say, arm-twisting like, ‘You need to go get checked out, ’… It was a strange role, one of those they don't train you for in seminary, that's for sure. ” (Male Senior Pastor, Mainline Protestant)

Attitudes in the intermediate “gray area”

Participants with attitudes falling in the “gray area” explained they would encourage women to slow down and take stock of their available resources before making a decision about an unplanned pregnancy. These participants explained they would encourage congregants to consider if they had adequate child care, family support, and finances to parent a child. Some leaders expressed they would encourage women to careful gather all available information about options when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. These participants believed the congregation would likely encourage a fellow congregant with an unplanned pregnancy to keep the baby. Many suggested that they would counsel women considering abortion to not make a “rash” decision based on pressure from the congregation. In many of these cases, the participants expressed tension between beliefs shared in a pastoral care setting and beliefs of the congregation. These participants shared that they would encourage women to consider both options—to have an abortion or not have an abortion. Religious leaders with attitudes in the “gray area” expressed that they would advise a woman not to go through with an abortion unless there are where no other options. These leaders often emphasized contraceptive use as a primary method to prevent a pregnancy.

Many participants who expressed “pro-choice” attitudes explained how they would provide support to a congregant seeking pastoral following an abortion. They expressed the process of helping a woman to reckon with ending a life and considering how God might view their action. They expressed women would need and want redemption, which would be available if sought. Others expressed they would attempt to use scripture to the best of their ability to encourage women seeking pastoral care, but would be careful not to “dictate what the bible says in terms of abortion” because little is written and free choice is allowed.

This study provides insight into the complex intersection of sociopolitical attitudes about abortion, religious and moral beliefs, and pastoral care among Mainline and Black Protestant religious leaders in Georgia. This analysis is part of a larger intervention development study to understand existing attitudes, norms, and values, in order to inform a faith-centered program on sexual and reproductive health that promotes compassionate attitudes and norms in Protestant religious contexts. While abortion attitudes fell on a spectrum ranging from “pro-life” to “pro-choice,” the majority of participants expressed attitudes intermediate, or in a “gray area,” between these views. Differences in abortion attitudes stemmed from varying beliefs on when life begins and circumstances in which abortion may be morally acceptable. Participants stressed that they would support women in pregnancy decision-making and advise them to make well-informed decisions irrespective of their own attitudes; yet, many described their lack of preparation and training to have these conversations.

Results showed numerous similarities and differences among Protestant religious leaders’ attitudes, beliefs, and pastoral care practices. For example, all participants agreed that they would participate in providing pastoral care for abortion at the initiation of congregants’ advice seeking. Other key similarities in pastoral care across the spectrum of abortion attitudes include recognition of the importance of the sanctity of life, emphasis on using scripture to encourage (i.e., not using scripture in a punitive manner), and acknowledgment that spiritual leaders are called to love and care for people unconditionally. In addition, many participants across denominations highlighted the psychological effects of abortion and a need for spiritual healing after abortion. Still, participants differed in their descriptions of their belief about when life begins, acknowledgement of moral agency to make pregnancy- and abortion-related decisions, and the circumstances in which abortion may be morally acceptable. For example, participants with “pro-choice” attitudes and participants with abortion attitudes in the “gray area” emphasized a preference against abortion but recognized a pregnant person’s moral agency to make decisions for their bodies and lives, whereas participants with “pro-life” attitudes did not express the same recognition.

These results demonstrate that Protestant religious leaders may provide pastoral care differently according to their abortion attitudes, thus varying their advice and recommendations; however, several misperceptions regarding abortion underlie religious leaders’ attitudes, beliefs, and pastoral care practices and run counter to existing scientific evidence. For example, many pastors described the adverse psychological effects of having an abortion including spiritual questioning, guilt, and lifelong emotional struggle and pain. In contrast, thirty years of research—including studies that measured mental and emotional distress before pregnancy—suggest legal induced abortion does not pose significant mental health risks for women [ 32 – 34 ]; however, evidence suggests being denied an abortion may result in negative psychological effects on women [ 35 ]. In addition, some religious leaders with “pro-choice” and “gray area” attitudes stated they would advise against the use of abortion as contraception despite clinical guidelines clearly distinguishing between contraception as a form of primary pregnancy prevention while abortion is a form of pregnancy termination [ 36 ]. Further, despite religious leaders beliefs that women use abortion “conveniently” or as a primary pregnancy prevention method in the United States, people have abortions for diverse and interrelated reasons (e.g., 73% cited inability to afford a child and 74% cited having a baby would interfere with work, education, or ability to care for dependents) [ 37 ] and over half of U.S. abortion patients were using a contraceptive method when they became pregnant [ 38 ].

Participants who identified a “pro-life” attitude towards abortion cited informational support that encouraged women to continue their pregnancies and carefully consider the potential of the unborn child. Many of these participants expressed that their pastoral care would include instrumental support in the form of making referrals to Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) and pro-life advocacy organizations. Those with a “pro-life” attitude explained that CPCs were reliable sources of information and would help women to get prenatal care. They explained that women could go to a CPC to see an ultrasound or hear a fetal heartbeat. Some participants with a “pro-life” attitude explained that they would advise women to seek services at a CPC before deciding to have an abortion. Protestant religious leaders may view CPCs as reliable healthcare services because of their emphasis on religious ideology; however, evidence suggests women seeking care at these clinics “do not receive comprehensive, accurate, evidence-based clinical information about all available options” [ 39 ].

Only participants with “gray area” or “pro-choice” attitudes expressed a duty to confront stigmatizing attitudes and behaviors towards women who experience abortion. These participants discussed obligations to encourage empathy and dispel stigmatizing attitudes and treatment within their congregations. While these participants were the only religious leaders who expressed these views, all participants emphasized the importance of empathy, love, and compassion for others. Thus, Protestant religious leaders may be key players in confronting abortion stigma in Mainline and Black Protestant churches and should be involved at the onset of efforts to destigmatize abortion and “shift the cultural conversation from one of judgment to one of empathy, compassion, and affirmation of people’s moral agency” [ 17 ]. These findings hold promise for informing the development of multi-level faith-based interventions and secular and faith-based partnerships to reduce abortion stigma.

Many religious leaders cited that they had not had formal training on providing pastoral care for any sexual and reproductive issue, let alone abortion. Pastoral care training and interventions should be developed that emphasize Christian beliefs and value the sanctity of life and integrate public health recommendations. Key intervention components should: include information on evidence-based healthcare services and local supports, address beliefs about both the psychological and the spiritual effects of abortion, dispel misinformation, and integrate strategies to reduce abortion stigma. Some religious scholars are already considering faith-based, reproductive justice, and moral arguments for supporting abortion [ 19 , 40 – 44 ]. Existing moral arguments for legal abortion and this qualitative evidence could be used to inform intervention development.

These findings should be interpreted in context of the limitations and strengths of the study. Our diverse sample of Mainline and Black Protestant churches represent an array of perspectives on abortion and pastoral care, but cannot (and were never intended to) be generalized to all religious denominations (e.g., Evangelical Protestant, Catholic, and non-Christian groups were purposefully excluded). Additionally, only few women were recruited in this study, which somewhat reflects the gender makeup of senior leadership positions in Protestant religious institutions which are male dominated. It is possible that women lay leaders are providing pastoral care to congregants as well and may have different insights on the provision of pastoral care for abortion. Future research should seek to specifically recruit Mainline and Black Protestant women religious leaders. Investigation of how these findings compare to abortion attitudes and pastoral care practices among other religious traditions in Georgia, the Southeast region, and other states is warranted. It is possible the participants included in this study represent a group with more liberal views on abortion given the fairly liberal stances of their denominations compared to other religious traditions. It is a strength of this study, however, that many diverse political and socio-political attitudes were observed among participants from the same denominations.

The insights provided by this study help provide an understanding of how Mainline and Black Protestant religious leaders in Georgia provide pastoral care to congregants regarding decision-making for unintended pregnancies, including abortion decisions. Protestant religious leaders may play an important role in providing social support, and facilitating access to information and healthcare services. Finally, these findings help to understand complex religious and cultural perspectives on abortion and how these attitudes influence pastoral care. This is an important step towards creating partnerships between public health and Protestant religious organizations that improve reproductive health outcomes, reduce abortion stigma, and respect the intrinsic value of religious traditions on their own terms. Future research on the larger intervention development project will take another step by collecting congregant’s perspectives on pastoral care for unintended pregnancies and abortion, and investigate the barriers and facilitators to receiving support from their religious communities.

Supporting information

S1 appendix, s2 appendix, acknowledgments.

The authors would like to thank Kelli Komro for her contributions to the study conceptualization, design and leadership. A special thank you to the EnFaith project advisory committee, including Rev. Kim Jackson, Rebecca Todd Peters, M.Div, PhD, Cherisse Scott (SisterReach), and Charity Woods (Interfaith Voices for Reproductive Justice), who provided advice on data collection and research strategies. Thanks to Rebecca Todd Peters for sharing her bibliography on pastoral theological books from which sources for the introduction are drawn. The authors also wish to thank Indya Harrison, Mary Kan and Anastasia Jackson who helped with participant recruitment and interviews.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by the Center for Reproductive Health Research in the SouthEast ( https://rise.emory.edu ) with support from an anonymous foundation (to KSH). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

• Services Paper editing services Paper proofreading Business papers Philosophy papers Write my paper Term papers for sale Term paper help Academic term papers Buy research papers College writing services Paper writing help Student papers Original term papers Research paper help Nursing papers for sale Psychology papers Economics papers Medical papers Blog

159 Abortion Research Paper Topics: Creative Ideas List

Abortion is a very controversial issue discussed in different panels all over the world. Because of how vast the topic of abortion is, many interesting research papers can be written about it. For many students, picking the right topic to build their abortion thesis on can seem complicated, and finding the right topic is the bedrock to writing an excellent essay. This article aims at exposing all students to interesting abortion research topics that will help them write high-quality and in-depth research papers on abortion for their university programs. Abortion is simply a medical procedure that intentionally ends a pregnancy before a fetus is born. There are a lot of opinions about abortion, with some opposing it, stating various religious or ethical reasons why it is wrong. Those who support it do that with human rights and medical backing.

What Makes a Good Abortion Thesis Paper?

The first step to writing your essay is picking the right topic, but after you do that, there is a structure to put your thoughts into writing to deliver the best quality thesis paper. This section highlights how to outline and arrange your ideas to produce a good paper at the end. Follow the below outline when writing your abortion essay.

Before Beginning the Paper

Don’t just start writing immediately, do the below pre-writing activities first

Select a Topic : As mentioned above, an essential part of writing an essay is picking the right topic. The right topic should be interesting to you and appeal to your readers. State your Argument : Now that you know the abortion topic you want to write on, what is your argument? Are you going to oppose or support the issue? Your answer will help build a research paper on the topic. Conduct a Research : without proper research, you might end up misinforming your audience. Take time out to dig deep and find evidence that backs up your research. Organize your References : Your references need to be credible. The evidence shows you have done research to back your thesis.

Writing the Paper

After completing your pre-writing exercises, it is time to write your essay properly. Use this as a guideline.

• The Introduction : your Introduction should aim at grabbing the reader’s interest and ensuring that they are interested enough to read the rest of your paper. The opening is what starts the report. It also lets the reader know that your paper is worth reading.
• The Body : The body is the main section of the paper. This is where you present your actual writing. Here you state each idea and back it up with evidence. Your tone, style, and grammar must be concise, making your paper interesting enough for your professor to read. Do not miss out on any detail here. You are allowed to be as descriptive as you want.
• Conclusion : Here, you summarize the main points of your paper and highlight what you would like the reader to remember from reading your work.

Many students find writing a research paper challenging. Following the above structure will help you write a proper essay that will guarantee the best scores. Now that you know how to write a great paper, here are some good topics to help you begin. Before you get acquainted with our perfect list, remember you always have an opportunity to buy a custom research paper from our team of professional helpers. Just c ontact us with a “ do my research paper ” request and get a top grade.

 Abortion Topics for Research Paper

Abortion is a topic that has different opinions and conversations. These are some topics you can explore when writing about abortion.

• Explore the possible side effects of abortion.
• Medical reasons for abortions.
• Different religions and their stands on abortion.
• Why the government should ban abortion
• History of abortion.
• The abortion procedure explained.
• General misinformation about abortion.
• What other gender-borne concerns can be connected to abortion?
• Considering that the legislators who pass pro-life regulations are male, can abortion be considered reproductive control?
• The Problems of Abortion in Modern Society.
• Pro-life and Pro-choice Sides of Abortion. Who is right?
• Is Africa ready to embrace abortion?
• Abortion and virtue ethics.
• Legalizing Abortion: Advantages and Justification.
• Legalization of Abortion for Underage Girls.
• Abortion as a Crime and the Fight Against It
• Teenage Pregnancy, Abortion and Sex Education.
• Abortion in Ireland: Law and Public Opinion.
• The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in Canada.
• Abortion: An Unsolvable Dilemma?
• Abortion: Premeditated Murder or a Reasonable Way Out?
• Abortion: Strengths and Limitations
• Is the abortion rate declining? What are the factors contributing to it?
• Abortion is legal but is it ethical?
• The upward trend and demand for abortion in the United States.
• What is abortion counseling, and who should provide it?

Essay Topics on Abortions

To write a proper essay on abortion, you need to look at different perspectives before deciding on your topic. Here are some essay topics that explore different perspectives of the abortion discussion.

• Has the legalization of abortion played any part in reducing crime rates in the United States?
• How Have Abortion Laws Changed Around the World?
• How Has Abortion and Birth Control Affected the 20th and 21st Century?
• Who Should Decide the Legality of Abortion?
• Why Has Abortion Created Serious Debates and Controversies Among the Mainline?
• Should the Right to Have an abortion lay on the woman alone?
• Why Should Abortion Remain Legal and With Limitations?
• Historically, what were the main reasons women of various titles abort children?
• What were the methods used for abortion before the development of modern medicine?
• Is the history of abortion relevant to the contemporary debate? Why or why not?
• Understanding the risks of teenage abortion.
• Is Self-Defense Abortion Permissible?
• Should women have the right to abortion if serious handicaps are detected in their children?
• Third-trimester abortions: Are they ever morally permissible?
• Is it immoral to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will?
• Who can teenagers talk to if they want to get an abortion?
• Some medical effects of abortion on the woman’s body.
• How lack of resources affects the occurrences of unsafe abortions in developing countries.
• Is a woman who has had an abortion considered a mother?
• Republican and Democratic views on abortion.
• The roles religion plays in the social discussion and perception of abortion.
• Is abortion about women’s health, or is it a choice of convenience?
• What does early and late abortion mean?
• Who has more rights when it concerns abortion, and why?
• Should health insurance cover abortions?
• Abortion and how it affects adoptions.
• Why do teenagers need consent from a parent before having an abortion?
• In cases of incest, is abortion morally right?
• Abortion is always wrong. Explain
• How do we reduce the rate of abortion in the United States while keeping abortion safe and accessible to all women?
• What are the rights of a fetus?
• The effects of repeated abortions on future pregnancies.
• Abortion rights and patriarchy.
• The perception of abortion in different cultures.
• Why do the abortion policies differ per state in the United States?

Abortion Argumentative Topics

Everyone has a different view about abortion, which sometimes leads to intelligent arguments. Some topics that can present your points argumentatively include:

• Moral and ethical arguments concerning abortion.
• Abortion laws and how it contradicts women’s fundamental human rights.
• What are the pros and cons of having an abortion?
• Under what circumstances should abortion be considered?
• The abortion and mental health controversy.
• Abortion in older women. Is it safe?
• The rights of a father in the abortion decision.
• Christianity and abortion.
• Who should have the final say on abortion? The woman, the hospital, or the government?
• Cultural arguments surrounding abortion.
• Examine the generation gap in abortion support.
• How accessible is abortion in Africa?
• Mental health consequences of refused abortions.
• Is abortion a mortal sin?
• Why is there a stigma surrounding abortion?
• Abortions due to medical mistakes, should there be legal actions?
• Do mothers regret their actions after abortion?
• A cross-study of abortion laws in Malawi.
• Side effects of illegal abortions.
• The role of parents in the minor’s decision to abort.
• When is the best time to have an abortion?
• Psychiatric aspects of abortion.

Abortion Research Questions

There are many complex ethical, moral, legal, and religious perspectives concerning abortion. Some interesting questions you can research include:

• Should Abortions be legal?
• In what countries are abortions legal?
• How does abortion relate to mental health?
• What issues are agreeable reasons for abortions?
• Does rape justify abortion?
• Will abortion affect subsequent pregnancies?
• What are the abortion laws surrounding teenagers?
• Why is abortion such a controversial issue?
• What are the current laws regarding abortion?
• What do women want from abortion services?
• Has abortion been politicized?
• Why is abortion still illegal in some countries?
• Why is abortion such a controversial issue worldwide?

College Research Topics about Abortion

College students are responsible for writing clear and concise research papers built on good topics. The following are some interesting topics college students can write on.

• The Physiological effects of having an abortion
• Controversies surrounding abortion.
• A critical look at the United States laws concerning abortion?
• Common misconceptions about abortion.
• What is incomplete abortion, and how does it affects the woman’s health?
• Abortion amongst teenagers and adolescents.
• Understanding induced abortion.
• The process of legalization of abortion in Japan.
• When is abortion denied?
• The adverse effects of self-induced abortions.
• Post-abortion complications as a result of visiting illegal abortion centers.
• Childhood trauma and its connection to women seeking an abortion.
• What is a post-abortion syndrome?
• Understanding why some women opt for abortion.
• Barriers to access to abortion
• Different abortion methods, pros, and cons.
• Do the fathers have their say in abortion?
• Abortion laws and restrictions. A cross-examination of The United States and India.
• Clandestine abortion and all it entails.
• Abortion laws around the world: progress and pushbacks.
• Abortion and how it is linked to population growth and reduction.
• Looking at the punishment for abortion in countries where they ate illegal.
• Is abortion immoral?
• Should the rights of the unborn be more important than the mothers?
• What are the medical arguments for and against abortion?
• The evolution of abortion laws.
• What are the changes people opposing abortion are trying to effect?
• What changes are those supporting abortion trying to effect?
• What are the cultural arguments for and against abortion?
• History of the anti-abortion movement.
• Why do various religions have different views on abortion?
• Would a complete abortion ban be a correct solution from a religious viewpoint? Why or why not?
• When applied to abortion, what are the different ethical notions?
• What would be some negative consequences of an abortion ban?
• Why is abortion considered to be a feminist issue?
• Illegal abortions in India, and how it affects the girl child.
• Post-abortion discussion: How to avoid a repeat case of unwanted pregnancy.

Controversial Abortion Research Paper Topics

Abortion is one of the most controversial subjects in modern society, and there are many strong feelings for or against this topic. Some controversial abortion topics you can build on include:

• How has the rise of women’s rights affected abortion rates in The United States?
• What is late-term abortion?
• What is the difference between the morality and legality of abortion?
• When is abortion the right option?
• Why women should be able to have an abortion whenever they please.
• Canada and China have no legal restrictions on abortion. Any woman in these countries can get an abortion whenever she pleases. Should there be any restrictions on abortion? If not, why not? If so, what should those restrictions be and why?
• Does life begin at conception?
• Should we consider the fetus a separate being, or is it a part of its mother?
• What is a better option: abort an unplanned pregnancy or have the child neglected after birth?
• Adoption as an alternative to Abortion: Discuss
• How has legalizing abortion impacted the birth rate?
• Discuss the abortion debate and human rights.
• Why does the public support for legal termination of pregnancy remain high?
• Should men be allowed to discuss the termination of pregnancy?
• How race, poverty, and choice affect the abortion rate.
• Abortion vs. using embryos for research and IVF: Evaluate
• Should an aborting woman go through forced sterilization?
• Should birth control be considered as wrong as abortions?
• Why is it hard for some women to have an abortion even if something is wrong with a fetus?
• Why do many married couples have abortions?
• Is it better to have an abortion or give birth and place a baby in the orphanage?
• Is abortion a simple operation, or is it a severe psychological trauma for women?
• A woman’s life before and after abortion: what changes exactly?
• Canadian Abortion Laws and Women’s Rights.
• Debate on Abortion: Ethics and Principles.

Writing Help For Your Saviour

The success of an essay is first determined by the topic you write on. But picking the topic is not the only important factor. You are also required to write a detailed and concise essay. With all the workload of a college student, it might be tough to deliver your best when you write an essay. Sometimes, you should allow experts and professionals from different disciplines to provide thesis help and write the perfect essay. We provide custom research papers that can be delivered to you fast. Our team of writers consists of University graduates, professors, and teachers who can write essays suitable for undergraduate and Ph.D. students alike. Our research paper services are affordable, secure, and easily accessed by everyone online. 

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Terms & Conditions Loyalty Program Privacy Policy Money-Back Policy

Copyright © 2013-2024 MyPaperDone.com

How many people got abortions in 2023? New report finds increase despite bans

Abortions, particularly medication abortion, have increased in the United States in recent years despite bans prohibiting the procedure in more than a dozen states, according to a report published Tuesday.

More than a million abortions occurred in the formal U.S. healthcare system in 2023, the year after the Supreme Court overturned of Roe v. Wade , according to a monthly report from the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization that supports abortion rights.

That is the highest number in more than a decade and a 10% increase since 2020, the report said. And the numbers are likely an undercount because they don't include self-managed abortions that happen outside the healthcare system.

But experts said the increase does not mean it's gotten easier to access abortion care. Rather, they said the increase in people traveling out of state indicates that financial and logistical burdens have grown for many patients and clinics that have to work harder to meet increased demand.

"Making abortion illegal does not make it less common. I think that's exactly what we're seeing," said Jennifer Kerns , a professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive science at the University of California, San Francisco. "What it does is it places incredible burdens on people who are going to access it and who need to access it."

What's causing the increase in abortion?

The number of abortions in the United States peaked in 1990 at 1.6 million and have been falling for several decades until the trend began to reverse in 2019. Almost every state without an abortion ban saw an increase in the number of abortions in 2023. In most states, the majority of the increase was driven by residents having more abortions, according to Isaac Maddow-Zimet , a data scientist at Guttmacher.

But an increasing amount of patients are traveling across state lines to have abortions as well, and states that shared a border with those that have enacted abortion bans - including Illinois , New Mexico , Virginia and North Carolina - saw particularly sharp increases, according to the report.

More than 160,000 people traveled out of state to have an abortion in 2023, more than double the number found in 2020, Maddow-Zimet said. Traveling to have an abortion comes with significant challenges, but abortion funds have helped make it possible and clinics have undergone what he called Herculean efforts to provide care. But, he said advocates are worried such efforts may not be sustainable.

Kerns said she provides abortions at a clinic called Trust Women in Wichita, Kansas, which has rapidly expanded the number of patients they see to absorb the need from other states.

"I routinely hear about patients who are traveling five hours, nine hours, sometimes over 12 hours, some people are flying into Wichita to access services. And these are only the people who we see," she said. "We don't see the people who maybe tried to make some attempts to travel and were unable to garner the resources, the financial resources, time off of work, assistance with childcare, all of the pieces that have to come into play for them to be able to access services outside of their state."

Medication abortion is more common than ever

Medication abortion has been increasing steadily for years, and that trend continued in 2023, Maddow-Zimet said. Approximately 642,700 medication abortions took place last year, an increase from 53% of all abortions in 2020 to 63% in 2023, according to the report.

Recent changes that have made mifepristone , one of the two drugs used in medication abortion in the United States, more accessible may be driving this increase, Kerns said. The FDA has allowed the medication to be prescribed during telehealth appointments and delivered by mail  since 2021 . And earlier this year, CVS and Walgreens, two of the nation's largest pharmacy chains, announced they will soon carry mifepristone in their stores.

Though medication abortion has become an integral part of abortion care in the United States, Maddow-Zimet stressed the increased access isn't sufficient to meet all patients' needs.

"It may be the only option for many people given restrictions and availability of care, but it's important to keep in mind it's not necessarily everybody's preferred method," he said. "It may be for some people, but some people prefer or need to have procedural abortions, and it's really critical that people still have that option available."

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments next week in a case that could increase restrictions on mifepristone. Maddow-Zimet said these restrictions could lead to increased demand for procedural abortions and put further strain on clinics.

"Any additional policy change, just ends up sowing more chaos and confusion both for clinics and for patients, and really ends up creating really big obstacles to care," he said. "It's hard to predict always exactly what those obstacles will be, but we know that they will cause harm."

Miscarriages linked to health risks in later pregnancies

New Curtin University research has revealed a link between miscarriage and the increased risk of developing complications of gestational diabetes and high blood pressure-related disorders in later pregnancies.

Researchers from the Curtin School of Population Health analysed 52 studies involving more than 4 million pregnancies across 22 countries to investigate the health impacts of miscarriage, abortion and recurrent pregnancy loss (more than two miscarriages in succession) on subsequent pregnancies.

The study found different health risks for each group.

People who had experienced a miscarriage were 44 per cent more likely to develop gestational diabetes during later pregnancies but only 6 per cent more likely to develop high blood pressure in subsequent pregnancies.

Conversely, people who had experienced recurrent pregnancy loss showed no increased risk of gestational diabetes but were 37 per cent more likely to develop pre-eclampsia, a potentially dangerous complication characterised by high blood pressure, in later pregnancies.

There was no evidence linking abortion to diabetic or hypertensive related issues, either during or outside of pregnancy.

Lead study author Dr Jennifer Dunne said establishing the links between pregnancy loss, diabetes and high blood pressure could have a far reaching impact.

"Miscarriages occur in 15-25 per cent of all pregnancies -- which is around 23 million per year, globally," Dr Dunne said.

"Gestational diabetes and high blood pressure disorders in pregnancy can cause a variety of significant health problems; understanding the relationship between pregnancy loss and later pregnancy complications could reveal new ways to mitigate risks or possibly prevent these conditions from progressing.

"Further research into the biological links between pregnancy loss and later health issues might reveal new targets for developing treatments."

Dr Dunne said the study added to what was already known about pregnancy complications and health later in life, even beyond pregnancy.

"Knowing miscarriage can lead to these pregnancy complications later on is important, as these conditions during pregnancy have previously been linked to a higher risk of people developing heart disease later in life," Dr Dunne said.

"By shedding light on the long-term health effects of miscarriages and repeated pregnancy losses, this study paves the way for improved healthcare strategies, research, and support for those affected -- hopefully enhancing the outcomes for parents and babies in future pregnancies."

• Pregnancy and Childbirth
• Hypertension
• Teen Health
• Diseases and Conditions
• Heart Disease
• Chronic Illness
• Health Policy
• Miscarriage
• Premature birth
• Environmental impact assessment
• Health science
• Public health
• Epidemiology

Story Source:

Materials provided by Curtin University . Original written by Samuel Jeremic. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Jennifer Dunne, Damien Foo, Berihun A. Dachew, Bereket Duko, Amanuel T. Gebremedhin, Sylvester D. Nyadanu, Gavin Pereira, Gizachew A. Tessema. Diabetic and hypertensive disorders following early pregnancy loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis . eClinicalMedicine , 2024; 102560 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102560

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Illuminating Oxygen's Journey in the Brain
• DNA Study IDs Descendants of George Washington
• Heart Disease Risk: More Than One Drink a Day
• Unlocking Supernova Stardust Secrets
• Why Do Some Memories Become Longterm?
• Cell Division Quality Control 'Stopwatch'
• What Controls Sun's Differential Rotation?
• Robot, Can You Say 'Cheese'?
• Researchers Turn Back the Clock On Cancer Cells
• Making Long-Term Memories: Nerve-Cell Damage

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

• Alzheimer's disease & dementia
• Arthritis & Rheumatism
• Attention deficit disorders
• Autism spectrum disorders
• Biomedical technology
• Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Gastroenterology
• Gerontology & Geriatrics
• Health informatics
• Inflammatory disorders
• Medical economics
• Medical research
• Medications
• Neuroscience
• Obstetrics & gynaecology
• Oncology & Cancer
• Ophthalmology
• Overweight & Obesity
• Parkinson's & Movement disorders
• Psychology & Psychiatry
• Radiology & Imaging
• Sleep disorders
• Sports medicine & Kinesiology
• Vaccination
• Breast cancer
• Cardiovascular disease
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Colon cancer
• Coronary artery disease
• Heart attack
• Heart disease
• High blood pressure
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Multiple sclerosis
• Myocardial infarction
• Ovarian cancer
• Post traumatic stress disorder
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Schizophrenia
• Skin cancer
• Type 2 diabetes
• Full List »

share this!

March 26, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

reputable news agency

US Supreme Court skeptical of restrictions on abortion pill

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared poised to reject restrictions imposed by a lower court on an abortion pill widely used in the United States to terminate pregnancies.

Dozens of demonstrators gathered outside as the top court heard its first significant abortion case since the justices overturned the constitutional right to the procedure nearly two years ago.

A majority on the conservative-dominated court appeared skeptical during 90 minutes of arguments about the legal standing of the anti-abortion groups and physicians who brought the case against the medication, mifepristone.

Abortion opponents are seeking to restrict nationwide access to the pill, claiming it is unsafe and that anti-abortion doctors are being forced to violate their conscience by intervening on patients who suffer complications after using it.

"These are life-threatening situations in which the choice for a doctor is either to scrub out and try to find someone else, or to treat the woman who's hemorrhaging," said Erin Hawley, a senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom arguing for the anti-abortion groups.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the administration of President Joe Biden, countered that such a scenario was "remote" and abortion opponents are unable to "identify a specific doctor who faces imminent harm."

"They have said that they fear that there might be some emergency room doctor somewhere, someday, who might be presented with some woman who is suffering an incredibly rare complication, and that the doctor might have to provide treatment," Prelogar said.

A conservative US district court judge in Texas, an appointee of Donald Trump, issued a ruling last year that would have banned mifepristone, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000.

An appeals court overturned the outright ban because the statute of limitations on challenging the FDA's approval had expired, but restricted access to the drug.

The appeals court reduced the period during which mifepristone can be used from 10 weeks of pregnancy to seven weeks, blocked it from being delivered by mail, and required the pill to be prescribed and administered by a doctor.

'FDA's gold standard review'

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, said she was worried about a "significant mismatch in this case between the claimed injury and the remedy that's being sought."

"What (the anti-abortion doctors) are asking for here is that in order to prevent them from possibly ever having to do these kinds of procedures, everyone else should be prevented from getting access to this medication," Jackson said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative, expressed similar concerns.

"We say over and over again—provide a remedy sufficient to address the plaintiff's asserted injuries and go no further," Gorsuch said. "We have before us a handful of individuals who have asserted a conscience objection."

Jessica Ellsworth, a lawyer for mifepristone manufacturer Danco Laboratories, said she had "significant concerns" about courts replacing the scientific judgment of experts and the "FDA's gold standard review process."

Only two justices—conservatives Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—appeared sympathetic to the anti-abortion groups which brought the suit challenging the FDA's approval of mifepristone.

"You think the FDA is infallible?" Alito asked Ellsworth.

Both justices also raised the Comstock Act, an obscure 1873 law that banned the shipment by mail of "lewd" materials or anything that could be used for "producing abortion."

Medication abortion accounted for 63 percent of the abortions in the country last year, up from 53 percent in 2020, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Some 20 states have banned or restricted abortion since the Supreme Court in June 2022 overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that enshrined the constitutional right to abortion for half a century.

Polls show a majority of Americans support continued access to safe abortion, even as conservative groups push to limit the procedure or ban it outright.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the abortion pill case by the end of June—four months before the presidential election in which abortion is almost certain to be a major topic.

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Researchers produce grafts that replicate the human ear

Mar 30, 2024

An infamous 'inflammasome'—a rogue protein complex—appears to underlie a rare and disabling autoimmune disorder

Mar 29, 2024

Researchers discover skin biomarkers in infants that predict early development of food allergies

Veterans help provide greater insight into Klinefelter and Jacobs syndromes

High-resolution images reveal similarities in protein structures between Alzheimer's disease and Down syndrome

How blocking a neural receptor responsible for addiction could reduce alcohol use

Study finds few hospitals promoting potentially predatory medical payment products

COVID-19 research: Study reveals new details about potentially deadly inflammation

Enhanced melanoma vaccine offers improved survival for men

How music choices can affect productivity

Related stories.

US Supreme Court weighs restrictions on abortion pill

Mar 26, 2024

Use of abortion pill grows in US, despite threat of new restrictions

Mar 19, 2024

US Supreme Court agrees to rule on abortion pill restrictions

Dec 13, 2023

US court imposes restrictions on abortion pill, ruling on hold

Aug 16, 2023

US Supreme Court to weigh in on abortion pill access

Apr 21, 2023

Abortion pill at the center of a US court battle

Recommended for you.

Steady rise in US suicides among adolescents, teens

Women with obesity do not need to gain weight during pregnancy, new study suggests

Mar 28, 2024

Amount of protein consumed by pregnant women modulates the facial appearance of offspring, study finds

Positive associations found between premenstrual disorders and perinatal depression

Miscarriages linked to health risks in later pregnancies

Prolonged use of certain hormone drugs linked to increased brain tumor risk

Mar 27, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Medical Xpress in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter