Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Imagining Coat‐Hangers and Pills

A Qualitative Exploration of Abortion Beliefs and Attitudes in Hostile Policy Contexts in the United States

Bibliographic Data

ID6444912
AuthorsRosalyn Schroeder (0000-0002-0206-7781, University of California, San Francisco, corresponding author), Lori R Freedman (0000-0002-7919-9520, University of California, San Francisco), Andréa Becker (0000-0002-7948-4276, University of California, San Francisco), Chris Ahlbach (0000-0001-7520-5324, University of California, San Francisco), M Antonia Biggs (0000-0002-3904-3177, University of California, San Francisco)
Year2025
Volume57
Issue1
Pages25-35
Publication date2025-01-09
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePerspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1538-6341 • E-ISSN: 1931-2393
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/psrh.12289
PMID39789658
OpenAlexW4406254540
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited58

Objective We explored awareness of and attitudes about the safety of various methods people use to attempt to end a pregnancy without medical assistance, which we refer to in this study collectively as self‐managed abortion (SMA). Methods In 2020, we invited individuals living in eight United States (US) states considered “hostile” to abortion rights or with a history of criminalizing abortions performed outside the formal healthcare system to participate in semi‐structured telephone interviews regarding their attitudes toward these practices. We analyzed coded transcripts for content and themes. Results We interviewed 54 individuals. Participants perceived methods of ending a pregnancy on one's own to have a high potential for complications, often evoking “coat hanger” abortions. Participants also frequently referenced methods such as physical trauma, herbs, teas, alcohol, or other drugs. Very few participants reported awareness of medication abortion pills. When asked about the safety of SMA in the context of self‐sourcing these medications, participants considered pills safer and more acceptable than other SMA methods, while still fearing incorrect use and complications. Others believed that SMA could offer greater reproductive autonomy, less stigma, and a safer physical and psychological experience than facility‐based abortion care. Conclusion In 2020, most participants perceived SMA as involving unsafe practices and did not include use of medication abortion pills. Future research should document how beliefs and attitudes have been influenced by the expansion in telemedicine provision of medication abortion, the implementation of new state abortion bans, and the promulgation of Shield Laws

Abortion · Context (archaeology · Environmental health · Family medicine · Family planning · Pill · Population · Pregnancy · Qualitative research · Unsafe abortion · Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse · Medicine · Nursing · Psychology · Reproductive Health and Contraception · Reproductive Health and Technologies

  • Attitudes regarding the safety of in-clinic and self-managed abortion methods among the US general public in early 2022

    Open Access•Rosalyn Schroeder, Lauren Ralph et al.•Culture Health & Sexuality•2025

  • When Abortion Was a Crime

    Leslie J Reagan•When Abortion Was a Crime•1997

  • Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States, 1973–2005

    Lynn M Paltrow, Jeanne Flavin•Journal of Health Politics Policy…•2013

  • Medicalization as a social good? Lay perceptions about self-managed abortion, legality, and criminality

    Open Access•Andréa Becker, M Antonia Biggs et al.•SSM - Qualitative Research in…•2024

  • Experiences seeking, sourcing, and using abortion pills at home in the United States through an online telemedicine service

    Open Access•Melissa Madera, Dana M Johnson et al.•SSM - Qualitative Research in…•2022

  • Hangers, Potions, and Pills

    Open Access•Stephanie Herold, Gretchen Sisson•Women s Health Issues•2019

  • Connecting Knowledge about Abortion and Sexual and Reproductive Health to Belief about Abortion Restrictions

    Open Access•Megan L Kavanaugh, Danielle Bessett et al.•Women s Health Issues•2013

  • State-Mandated (Mis)Information and Women's Endorsement of Common Abortion Myths

    Open Access•Nancy F Berglas, Heather Gould et al.•Women s Health Issues•2017

  • Abortion Stigma

    Open Access•Alison Norris, Danielle Bessett et al.•Women s Health Issues•2011

  • Towards a better understanding of abortion misinformation in the USA

    Alison J Patev, Kristina B Hood•Culture Health & Sexuality•2021

  • Exploring Attitudes About the Legality of Self-Managed Abortion in the US

    Open Access•Sarah Raifman, M Antonia Biggs et al.•Sexuality Research and Social…•2021

  • The Growing Importance of Self-Managed and Telemedicine Abortion in the United States

    Patty Skuster, Heidi Moseson•American Journal of Public Health•2022

  • Locating Autonomous Abortion Accompanied by Feminist Activists in the Spectrum of Self‐Managed Medication Abortion

    Open Access•Suzanne Veldhuis, Georgina Sánchez-Ramírez et al.•Studies in Family Planning•2022

  • Conceptualising abortion stigma

    Anuradha Kumar, Leila Hessini et al.•Culture Health & Sexuality•2009

  • Doctors of conscience

    Ortiz Ortega Adriana•Reproductive Health Matters•1996

  • Emotions and decision rightness over five years following an abortion

    Open Access•Corinne H Rocca, Goleen Samari et al.•Social Science & Medicine•2020

  • Information and power

    Open Access•Molly R Altman, Talita Oseguera et al.•Social Science & Medicine•2019

  • From Reproductive Rights to Reproductive Barbie

    Laurie Shrage•Feminist Studies•2002

  • Support for criminalization of self-managed abortion (SMA)

    Open Access•M Antonia Biggs, Andréa Becker et al.•Social Science & Medicine•2024

Unique citing works1
Citations per year1
Citation span2025 - 2025 (1)
Citation velocityrecent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 1

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae