Skip to main content

Views on Abortion: A Comparison of Female Genetic Counselors and Women from the General Population

Journal of Genetic Counseling volume 18, pages 28–41 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

While literature characterizing individual genetic counselors’ abortion attitudes is sparse, the National Society of Genetic Counselors takes a clear stance for reproductive autonomy. To determine genetic counselors’ views, this study compared (1) genetic counselors’ abortion attitudes to those of women from the general population and (2) genetic counselors’ professional abortion attitudes to their personal abortion attitudes. Genetic counselors were invited to complete an online survey. Response rate was 44.3% (709/1,601). Compared to women from the general population, female genetic counselors were significantly more likely to agree abortion should be an option in all cases (p < .001). Controlling for other possible confounders, regression analyses revealed that being a genetic counselor, religious service attendance and age were significantly predictive of abortion attitudes. Although the vast majority of genetic counselors agree that abortion should be available, they are significantly less likely to personally consider abortion under all circumstances presented (p < .001), and the percentage of genetic counselors who would consider terminating in the case of a severe birth defect is similar to studies of other women.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. More information about the GSS can be found at http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/

  2. Factor analysis is not shown but is available upon request. Rape is included as a medical reason because, based on previous studies and our factor analysis, most people’s view about the acceptability of abortion in cases of rape falls in line with their views about abortion in cases of birth defects and endangerment of the mother’s life. Interestingly, factor analysis using only data from genetic counselors revealed that rape was split nearly fifty-fifty between the two factors. Although this suggests that genetic counselors evaluate rape from both “medical” and “psychosocial” perspectives, grouping rape with the medical reasons was consistent with previous research and our comparison group. Additionally, including the rape variable in the psychosocial scale reduced the scale’s reliability while inclusion of rape in the medical reasons scale increased the scale’s reliability.

  3. This response rate is a conservative estimate given that the actual number of people receiving the emailed cover letter is probably less than 1,601 since email addresses change frequently and other technological complications (e.g., spam filters) can result in people not receiving the invitation to participate in the survey.

  4. The two variables used to predict the probability of response were participants’ race (dummy coded as 0 = non-white and 1 = white) and frequency of prayer (1 = several times a day; 6 = never). The Lambda for the Heckmann correction was also calculated using race and frequency of attendance with very little difference in the resulting models. We chose to use the Lambda calculated using frequency of prayer to reduce the collinearity between the Heckmann correction coefficient and frequency of attendance.

  5. This is calculated using the slope coefficient for being a genetic counselor, .392, found in Table 5. Being a genetic counselor actually increases one’s permissiveness on the scale of attitudes toward abortion .392 points. As it is a 3-point scale, dividing .392 by 3 gives .13, or 13%. In other words, there is a 13% difference in attitudes toward abortion between genetic counselors and non-genetic counselors on average.

References

  • Aiyer, A. N., Ruiz, G., Steinman, A., & Ho, G. Y. F. (1999). Influence of physician attitudes on willingness to perform abortion. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 93(4), 576–580. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(98)00467-0.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, D. V., Reichelt, P. A., & Shea, F. P. (1977). Two measures of nurses’ attitudes toward abortion as modified by experience. Medical Care, 15(10), 849–857. doi:10.1097/00005650-197710000-00007.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Awwad, R., McCarthy Veach, P., Bartels, D. M., & LeRoy, B. S. (2008). Culture and acculturation influences on Palestinian perceptions of prenatal genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 17(1), 101–116. doi:10.1007/s10897-007-9131-2.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, D. M., LeRoy, B. S., McCarthy, P., & Caplan, A. L. (1997). Nondirectiveness in genetic counseling: a survey of practitioners. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 72(2), 172–179. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19971017)72:2<172::AID-AJMG9>3.0.CO;2-X.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blendon, R. J., Benson, J. M., & Donelman, K. (1993). The public and the controversy over abortion. Journal of the American Medical Association, 270, 2871–2875. doi:10.1001/jama.270.23.2871.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bolzendahl, C., & Brooks, C. (2005). Polarization, secularization, or differences as usual? The denominational cleavage in U.S. social attitudes since the 1970s. The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 47–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bumpass, L. L. (1997). The measurement of public opinion on abortion: the effects of survey design. Family Planning Perspectives, 29(4), 177–180. doi:10.2307/2953382.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Combs, M. W., & Welch, S. (1982). Blacks, whites, and attitudes toward abortion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 510–520. doi:10.1086/268748.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curlin, F. A., Lawrence, R. E., Chin, M. H., & Lantos, J. D. (2007). Religion, conscience, and controversial clinical practices. The New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 593–600. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa065316.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. A., & Smith, T. W. (2007). General social surveys, 1972–2006 [machine-readable data file] Sponsored by National Science Foundation.—NORC ed.—Chicago: National Opinion Research Center; Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.

  • Esposito, C. L., & Basow, S. A. (1995). College students’ attitudes toward abortion: the role of knowledge and demographic variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(22), 1996–2017. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01828.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. H. (2002). Polarization in abortion attitudes in U.S. religious traditions, 1972–1998. Sociological Forum, 17(3), 397–422. doi:10.1023/A:1019627006778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finley, S., Varner, P., Vinson, P., & Finley, W. (1977). Participants’ reaction to amniocentesis and prenatal genetic studies. Journal of the American Medical Association, 238, 2277–2379. doi:10.1001/jama.238.22.2377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, M. B., Merz, R. D., & Yoon, P. W. (1998). Impact of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination on the prevalence of select birth defects in Hawaii. American Journal of Epidemiology, 148, 1206–1211.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Funk, R. B., & Willits, F. K. (1987). College attendance and attitude change: a panel study, 1970–81. Sociology of Education, 60, 224–231. doi:10.2307/2112558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, N. M., & Glover, S. J. (1996). Ethical and legal issues regarding selective abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome. Mental Retardation, 34, 207–214.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, E. J., & Ferree, M. M. (1986). Race differences in abortion attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 193–207. doi:10.1086/268974.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. J., & Mills, E. W. (1985). Religion, values and attitudes toward abortion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 24(2), 137–154. doi:10.2307/1386338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastings, P. K., & Hoge, D. R. (1981). Religious trends among college students, 1948–79. Social Forces, 60(2), 517–531. doi:10.2307/2578448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161. doi:10.2307/1912352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iannaccone, L., Stark, R., & Finke, R. (1998). Rationality and the “religious mind”. Economic Inquiry, 36(3), 1465–1495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelen, T. G., & Wilcox, C. (2003). Causes and consequences of public attitudes toward abortion: a review and research agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 489–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. C. (1997). Formal education vs. religious belief: soliciting new evidence with multinomial logit modeling. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 231–246. doi:10.2307/1387555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klamen, D., Grossman, L., & Kopacz, D. (1996). Attitudes about abortion among second-year medical students. Medical Teacher, 18(4), 345–346. doi:10.3109/01421599609034191.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Learman, L. A., Drey, E. A., Gates, E. A., Kang, M., Washington, A. E., & Kuppermann, M. (2005). Abortion attitudes of pregnant women in prenatal care. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 192, 1939–1947. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.02.042.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. J. (2002). Religion and college attendance: change among students. The Review of Higher Education, 25(4), 369–384. doi:10.1353/rhe.2002.0020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legge Jr., J. S. (1983). The determinants of attitudes toward abortion in the American electorate. The Western Political Quarterly, 36(3), 479–490. doi:10.2307/448404.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michie, S., Bron, F., Bobrow, M., & Marteau, T. M. (1997). Nondirectiveness in genetic counseling: an empirical study. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 60(1), 40–47.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, N. H., Miller, D. J., & Koenigs, L. M. P. (1998). Attitudes of the physician membership of the Society for Adolescent Medicine toward medical abortions for adolescents. Pediatrics, 101(5), E4. doi:10.1542/peds.101.5.e4.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc Professional Status Survey. (2006). Accessible at www.nsgc.org

  • Rice, N., & Doherty, R. (1982). Reflections on prenatal diagnosis: the consumer’s views. Social Work in Health Care, 8(1), 47–57. doi:10.1300/J010v08n01_05.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. D., Stough, L. M., & Parrish, L. H. (2002). The role of genetic counseling in the elective termination of pregnancies involving fetuses with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 48–55.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J., Tennes, K., & Robinson, A. (1975). Amniocentesis: its impact on mothers and infants. A one year follow-up study. Clinical Genetics, 8, 97–105.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strickler, J., & Danigelis, N. L. (2002). Changing frameworks in attitudes toward abortion. Sociological Forum, 17(2), 187–201. doi:10.1023/A:1016033012225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velie, E. M., & Shaw, G. M. (1996). Impact of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination on prevalence and risk estimates of neural tube defects in California, 1989–1991. American Journal of Epidemiology, 144, 473–479.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent, V. A., Edwards, J. G., Young, S. R., & Nachtigal, M. (1991). Pregnancy termination because of chromosomal abnormalities: a study of 26,950 amniocenteses in the southeast. Southern Medical Journal, 84, 1210–1213. doi:10.1097/00007611-199110000-00012.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weil, J. (2003). Psychosocial genetic counseling in the post-nondirective era: a point of view. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 12(3), 199–211. doi:10.1023/A:1023234802124.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weil, J., Ormond, K., Peters, J., Peters, K., Biesecker, B. B., & LeRoy, B. (2006). The relationship of nondirectiveness to genetic counseling: report of a workshop at the 2003 NSGC Annual Education Conference. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(2), 85–93. doi:10.1007/s10897-005-9008-1.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertz, D. C. (1996). Genetic counselors’ distinctive ethos: a survey of the ethical views of genetics professionals. 15th Annual Education Conference, Symposium conducted at annual meeting of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, San Francisco, California.

  • Wertz, D. C. (1998). Eugenics is alive and well: a survey of genetic professionals around the world. Science in Context, 11(3–4), 493–510.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, C. (1992). Race, religion, region and abortion attitudes. SA. Sociological Analysis, 53(1), 97–105. doi:10.2307/3711632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, P., Harris, R., Church, S., Fiddler, M., & Rhind, J. (1996). Prenatal genetic services for Down’s syndrome: access and provision in 1990–1991. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 103, 676–683.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, G., & Jung, C. (1995). Nondirectiveness and genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 4(1), 3–25. doi:10.1007/BF01423845.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodrum, E., & Davison, B. L. (1992). Reexamination of religious influences on abortion attitudes. Review of Religious Research, 33(3), 229–243. doi:10.2307/3511088.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to all the genetic counselors who took the time to participate in this survey. This project was completed as part of the requirements of the University of Cincinnati Genetic Counseling Program. Thanks go to that program as well as the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center for the support, time, and space necessary to complete a Master’s thesis. We also owe a debt of gratitude to David J. Maume and the Kunz Center in the Department of Sociology at the University of Cincinnati for hosting the survey and providing technical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sanford Children’s Specialty Clinic, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD, 57117-5039, USA

    Amelia R. Woltanski

  2. Department of Sociology, University of Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA

    Ryan T. Cragun

  3. College of Allied Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Melanie F. Myers

  4. Department of Biology, University of Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA

    Deborah L. Cragun

Authors
  1. Amelia R. Woltanski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ryan T. Cragun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melanie F. Myers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deborah L. Cragun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amelia R. Woltanski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Woltanski, A.R., Cragun, R.T., Myers, M.F. et al. Views on Abortion: A Comparison of Female Genetic Counselors and Women from the General Population. J Genet Counsel 18, 28–41 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-008-9177-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-008-9177-9

Keywords

  • Genetic counseling
  • Religion
  • Abortion
  • Belief
  • Attitude
  • Nondirectiveness
  • Ethics