Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2026
Toward a Crisis Pregnancy Center Client Typology: Abortion-Seekers' Expectations and Experiences Following Implementation of Texas' Early Abortion Ban.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chatillon Anna, Arey Whitney, Lerma Klaira, Alemán Gema, Draper Juliette, Beasley Anitra, White Kari
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study explores pregnant Texans' expectations of and experiences with crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) following implementation of Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which in September 2021 prohibited abortions in Texas after detection of embryonic cardiac activity.
METHODS: We analyzed in-depth interviews with English-speaking Texans over 18 years of age who were or had recently been seeking abortion, focused on their care-seeking experiences, including with CPCs. Between October 2021 and August 2022, we recruited participants via online ads in Texas and flyers in abortion-providing facilities in seven other states. Using thematic analysis, we identified themes in CPC experiences and developed a CPC client typology.
RESULTS: Of 120 participants, 36 described contact with CPCs; we categorize them into three client types, based on awareness of CPCs' anti-abortion position and expectations of CPC services. Fifteen were "deceived clients": unaware of CPCs' position, they contacted a CPC expecting abortion care or all-options counseling. Most remaining participants (n = 11) were "pragmatic clients": also unaware of CPCs' anti-abortion position, they expected only pregnancy information or support. A minority (n = 8) were "strategic clients"-aware of CPCs' anti-abortion position and therefore expecting only pregnancy information, they used CPC services strategically to determine eligibility for in-state abortion care or medication abortion.
CONCLUSIONS: In addition to contacting CPCs because they were deceived or pragmatic, pregnant Texans considering abortion after SB8 drew on CPC services strategically. In an abortion-restrictive setting, pregnant people may try to use CPCs for free services that they cannot get as easily from licensed medical providers.
METHODS: We analyzed in-depth interviews with English-speaking Texans over 18 years of age who were or had recently been seeking abortion, focused on their care-seeking experiences, including with CPCs. Between October 2021 and August 2022, we recruited participants via online ads in Texas and flyers in abortion-providing facilities in seven other states. Using thematic analysis, we identified themes in CPC experiences and developed a CPC client typology.
RESULTS: Of 120 participants, 36 described contact with CPCs; we categorize them into three client types, based on awareness of CPCs' anti-abortion position and expectations of CPC services. Fifteen were "deceived clients": unaware of CPCs' position, they contacted a CPC expecting abortion care or all-options counseling. Most remaining participants (n = 11) were "pragmatic clients": also unaware of CPCs' anti-abortion position, they expected only pregnancy information or support. A minority (n = 8) were "strategic clients"-aware of CPCs' anti-abortion position and therefore expecting only pregnancy information, they used CPC services strategically to determine eligibility for in-state abortion care or medication abortion.
CONCLUSIONS: In addition to contacting CPCs because they were deceived or pragmatic, pregnant Texans considering abortion after SB8 drew on CPC services strategically. In an abortion-restrictive setting, pregnant people may try to use CPCs for free services that they cannot get as easily from licensed medical providers.