Abstract
In 2013, twenty-two states enacted seventy provisions restricting access to abortion. The legislation restricted access to abortions by instituting more regulations on providers and facilities, by prohibiting abortion prior to viability, by restricting funding available to patients and by requiring patients to wait a mandatory time period before having a procedure. Genetic counselors are trained to provide unbiased, comprehensive information in a non-directive style in order to allow patients to exercise their reproductive freedom. We developed a survey of 37 questions for genetic counselors to gauge the potential impact these provisions will have on their ability to be a patient advocate. A total of 286 individuals completed the survey; however, not all respondents answered all questions. Qualitative questions complemented quantitative survey entries, allowing respondents to input thoughts and examples. Results indicate genetic counselors in all regions share similar professional opinions about the provisions. More genetic counselors in the South and Midwest noticed changes impacting patients since the provisions have been enacted. These regional differences correlate with the location of states that have seem the greatest increase in antiabortion provisions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ACMG Board of Directors (2013). ACMG statement on access to reproductive options after prenatal diagnosis. Genetics in Medicine 15(11):900-900. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.139.
Borgmann, C. E. (2013). Roe v. wade's 40th anniversary: A moment of truth for the antiabortion-rights movement? Stanford Law & Policy Review, 24(1), 245.
Cates, W., Grimes, D., & Hogue, L. (1995). Topics for our times: Justice Blackmun and legal abortion- a besieged legacy to women's reproductive health. American Journal of Public Health, 85(9), 1204.
Cates, W., Jr., Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2003). The public health impact of legal abortion: 30 years later. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35, 25+.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Cohen, I. G., & Sayeed, S. (2011, Summer; 2014/1). Fetal pain, abortion, viability, and the constitution. 39, 235+.
Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women (2014). ACOG Committee Opinion No. 613: increasing access to abortion. Obstet Gynecol, 124(5):1060–5. doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000456326.88857.31.
Domonoske, C. (2016). Supreme court strikes down abortion restrictions in texas. Retrieved 2016, from NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/27/483686616/supreme-court-strikes-down-abortion-restrictions-in-texas
Eggertson, L. (2013). Texas restricts abortions. 185, E710.
Fernandez, M., & Eckholm, E. (2014). Abortion providers in texas press judge to block portions of new law. New York Times
Gold, R. B., & Nash, E. (2013). Targeted regulation of abortion providers. Guttmacher Policy Review, 16(2), 7–12 Retrieved from Guttmacher Website: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_TRAP.pdf.
Harper, C. C., Henderson, J. T., & Darney, P. D. (2005). Abortion in the United States. Annual Review of Public Health, 26(1), 501–512. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144351.
Johnson, B. (2013). Momentum for late-term abortion limits. The Education and Research Arm of the Susan B. Anthony List. Retrieved from website: Charolette Lozier Institute http://www.lozierinstitute.org/momentum-for-late-term-abortion-limits/.
Joyce, T. J., Henshaw, S. K., Dennis, A., Finer, L. B., & Blanchard, K. (2009). The impact of state mandatory counseling and waiting period Laws on abortion: A literature review. New York: Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved from Guttmacher Website http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/MandatoryCounseling.pdf.
Linton, P. (1993-1994). Planned parenthood v. casey: The flight from reason in the supreme court. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 13(1), 15–138.
Nash, E., Benson Gold, R., Rathbun, G. & Ansari-Thomas, Z. (2016) Laws affecting reproductive health and Rights: 2015 state policy review. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/laws-affecting-reproductive-health-and-rights-2015-state-policy-review.
Nash, E., Gold Benson, R., Rathbun, G. & Vierboom, Y. (2015) Laws affective reproductive health and rights: 2014 state policy review. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/laws-affecting-reproductive-health-and-rights-2014-state-policy-review. Retrieved: May 8, 2016.
NSGC Executive Office (2010, reaffirmed May 2014). Reproductive freedom. National Society of Genetic Counselors. http://www.nsgc.org/p/bl/et/blogaid=35. January 28, 2014.
Pazol, K., Creanga, A., Burley, K., Hayes, B., Jamieson, D., & Center for Disease Control and Prevention, MMWR Series. (2013). Abortion surveillance- United States. Atlanta: Center of Survillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992). 505 U.S. 833.
Reagan, L. J. (1998). When abortion was a crime: Women, medicine and law in the United States, 1867–1973. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Roberts, S. C. M., Turok, D. K., Belusa, E., Combellick, S., & Upadhyay, U. D. (2016). Utah’s 72-Hour Waiting Period for Abortion: Experiences Among a Clinic-Based Sample of Women. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 48(4), 179-187
Roe v. Wade (1973). 410 U.S. 113.
Schoen, J. (2013). Living through some giant change: The establishment of abortion services. American Journal of Public Health, 103(3), 416–425. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301173.
Sullenger, C. (2013). Death Throes of the Death Industry: A Record 87 Surgical Abortion Clinics Close in 2013. Retrieved February 1, 2014, from http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/death-throes-of-the-death-industry-a-record-87-surgical-abortion-clinics-close-in-2013/. Accessed 1 Feb 2014.
The Alan Guttermacher Institute (AGI) (2014a). An overview of abortion laws. Guttmacher institute: State Policies in Brief. Retrieved from Guttmacher Website: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/laws-policies (AGI a, 2014).
The Alan Guttermacher Institute (AGI) (2014b). An Overview of Abortion Laws. Guttmacher Institute: State Policies in Brief. Retrieved from Guttmacher Website: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf. (AGI b, 2014).
The Alan Guttermacher Institute (AGI) (2014c). State policies on later abortions. Guttmacher institute: State policies in brief. Retrieved from Guttmacher Website: https://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf (AGIc, 2014).
The Alan Guttermacher Institute (AGI) (2014d). Counseling and waiting periods for abortion. Guttmacher Institute: State Policies in Brief. Retrieved from Guttmacher Website: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_MWPA.pdf (AGI d, 2014).
The Alan Guttermcher Institute (AGI) (2014e). More state restrictions were enacted in 2011–2013 than in the entire previous decade. Guttmacher Institute. News in Context. Retrieved from: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/print/2014/01/02/index.html (AGI e, 2014).
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt , No. 15-274 slip op. at 1 (June 27, 2016)
Wilson, J. (2013). Before and after roe v. wade. CNN Health. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/health/roe-wade-abortion-timeline/.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Caitlin Cooney, Laura Hercher, and Komal Bajaj declare they have no conflict of interest.
Human Studies and Informed Consent
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
Animal Studies
No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 19 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cooney, C., Hercher, L. & Bajaj, K. Genetic Counselors’ Perception of the Effect on Practice of Laws Restricting Abortion. J Genet Counsel 26, 1059–1069 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0083-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0083-x