To view the Abstract of Catch 22, Click Here
Overview
- Study title: “Catch 22: The Perception of the Abortion Pill”
- One-on-one interviewing was used with a group of 37 participants in Orlando, Chicago, Seattle, and Memphis.
- Participants varied in racial background and were divided into three age groups: 18-22, 23-27, and 28-34, with 4-5 participants from each group per city.
- All respondents were screened with a pre-interview survey to capture those with true “middle” ground positions, with none of them being overtly pro-abortion or pro-life.
- All respondents demonstrated some familiarity with the AP during recruiting.
- Of the women interviewed, ⅓ had experienced chemical abortion.
Study:
Background
Objectives:
- Define what strategic messages can be developed to reduce the number of women who choose abortion and, in particular, chemical abortion, by understanding how they view them as options.
- Define perceptions of the abortion pill.
Findings
Almost all respondents felt, at first, that the chemical-abortion-pill-process is “less invasive” than a surgical abortion and involves less physical and emotional trauma to women. Interestingly, the women who had first-hand experience with chemical abortion believed the opposite– that the process was, in actuality, more mentally and physically traumatic.
Very few were concerned about side effects or damage to their bodies resulting from a chemical abortion. All respondents expected the abortion pill to only be like a “heavy period,” but most were not certain how uncomfortable the results might be and for how long. Instead, they focused on the sense of increased privacy, less judgment, and hope in an alternative to a “scary” surgical procedure that chemical abortion offered. Few favored surgical abortion, citing not having to worry whether the process was “successful” as a potential benefit.
Overall, respondents were under-informed about the realities of a chemical abortion, including, but not limited to: the drugs used in the process to terminate a pregnancy and how said drugs worked, the number of pills used in a chemical abortion, and what the process would entail physically and emotionally.
Respondents offer both positive and negative opinions on abortion
This finding validates past research and proves that, despite extensive marketing and funding by the abortion industry and mass media, women, at their core, still find abortion morally conflicting.
Throughout interviews, respondents reiterated common, pro-abortion talking points, such as “the right to choose and make decisions over their own body” as justification. As seen in Vitae`s previous research studies, the idea of “control” is so appealing that anything that counters that argument further enforces women`s loyalty to the abortion industry.
Respondents focus heavily on exception cases to justify their belief in abortion, such as rape and incest. In contrast, at the emotional level, respondents present a wide variety of responses opposing abortion, especially related to the emotional, psychological, and physical harms associated with abortion, the humanity of the preborn child, and the idea that abortion should not be used as birth control. For these reasons, respondents welcome regulations that would limit abortion.
Respondents can differentiate between Plan B and the abortion pill, though education is needed
In previous studies, women of reproductive age likened the abortion pill, which ends a pregnancy and the life of a preborn baby, to the morning-after pill, which prevents implantation of a pregnancy; however, in this study, we see a shift. Modern women can now distinguish between the two drugs; however, the main differentiating factor, in their minds, is timing (when each pill can be taken).
Respondents felt confident in their belief that Plan B prevented a pregnancy, while the abortion pill ended an already existing pregnancy. It is important to note, however, that no women interviewed could cite the pharmaceutical name of either drug(s), and none could provide an explanation of how either pill(s) worked.
Chemical abortion is strongly favored over surgical abortion
Since 2020, chemical abortion has surpassed surgical abortion procedures. Still, as exemplified in our study, women of reproductive age are still generally under-informed about what a chemical abortion entails, which has resulted in the overwhelming belief that the process is “easier” than surgical abortion.
In previous Vitae studies, research revealed that women choose abortion when the fear of shame (from external forces) outweighs their internal guilt about ending their pregnancy. The abortion pill and its increasing accessibility have only further enabled women to believe they can quickly, quietly, and privately end their pregnancy before anyone ever finds out, allowing them to escape the shame and judgment they fear.
Unsurprisingly, the only women who believed chemical abortion was “easier” than surgical abortion were those who had not experienced a chemical abortion first-hand. Of the respondents who had endured a chemical abortion, including those who did not regret their decision, all described the process as emotionally and physically taxing. They also expressed feeling underprepared for the amount of pain they endured, the amount of blood they saw, and the emotional difficulty they went through during and after the abortion.
Women promote restriction but not outright banning of chemical abortion.
Respondents provide extensive thoughts, feelings, and opinions about the accessibility of chemical abortion pills and that abortion on demand, with no restrictions, would be a negative thing. The women we interviewed expressed concern with abortion pills being used as “birth control” in repeat scenarios, a fear of overuse and/or misuse by abusers on unsuspecting women, and mothers accessing chemical abortion without physician oversight, resulting in harm. However, respondents simultaneously expressed that they were even more concerned with abortion pills being inaccessible altogether and argued for “choice” over universal bans on chemical abortion.
Respondents, in general, are unaware of Abortion Pill Reversal
The majority of women interviewed had never heard of Abortion Pill Reversal (APR). We were able to capture their immediate, visceral reaction to learning that chemical abortions can be reversed. Their responses focused on the hope that might be given through this option, through the opportunity for a woman to change her mind, and the overarching idea that regret after an abortion can, indeed, be real.
When explained and asked about the availability of the reversal drug (Progesterone) being made easily accessible to women who regret their abortion decision, most initially believed APR should be an accessible option for women; however, they had concerns about the safety and efficacy of APR. Expressed concerns included: a) the safety of women undergoing reversal treatment due to the exposure to “various chemicals” b) the concern for fetal anomalies after halting an abortion, and c) the need for the reversal regimen to be approved by the FDA, and d) the need for a woman to commit to her decision to have, and complete, the abortion she began.
Recommendations:
Clear up confusion
Highlight what most women in the study acknowledged: that chemical abortion is substantially different from Plan B (while still recognizing that Plan B can, and often does, cause an early abortion [many of the respondents do not understand this]), especially in timing but also in the multi-step process, the increased health risks, the labor-inducing use of the second medication (Misoprostol), and the fact that a woman undergoing a chemical abortion will endure emotional trauma from an at-home abortion.
Focus on the side effects and poor healthcare associated with chemical abortion
Seek opportunities in messaging that counter the idea that chemical abortion is an easy-to-endure process with the truth–that it is both physically and emotionally taxing, traumatic, and unnatural to women. Educate on the two-part, dangerous chemical abortion process which often results in a variety of negative health outcomes with the most common being extremely painful cramping and hemorrhaging.
Address unrestricted access to abortion pills with caution
Reiterate their expressed concerns with unrestricted access to abortion in repeat scenarios and in cases of misuse (I.e., a partner/abuser using it on an unknowing mother, access without physician-oversight, and women using chemical abortion pills too late in pregnancy).
Keep in mind, though, that while women are generally concerned with unrestricted access to abortion, there is even greater concern with abortion pills being inaccessible altogether. Advertising efforts based on this finding should, again, focus on the potential for misuse of increased access to abortion pills. Marketing should center messaging centered on the dangerous outcome/stories of unrestricted, or less- restricted, mail-order abortion.
A Second Chance
The unfamiliarity with APR poses an excellent opportunity to market the positive aspects of Abortion Pill Reversal. Overwhelmingly, women do not know about this process. In Vitae`s messaging, it would be particularly important to highlight the ideas of a “second chance” at hope and life, the opportunity for a woman to change her mind, as well as the idea that regret after an abortion can, indeed, be real. The excellent safety record of APR (for mothers and babies) should also be highlighted.