Abortion as a Public Health Risk in COVID-19 Antiabortion Legislation

Area of Science:

• Public Health
• Sociology
• Political Science

Background:

• During early COVID-19, 12 states restricted abortion access, citing hospital capacity and PPE concerns.
• These restrictions often classified abortion as an "elective" or "nonessential" procedure.
• However, abortions are typically performed in clinics, using less PPE than childbirth.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the discursive construction of abortion, patients, and fetuses within state legislation enacted during the early COVID-19 pandemic.
• To analyze the rhetorical strategies and justifications used in anti-abortion legislation.
• To understand the implications for abortion access in a post-Roe v. Wade landscape.

Main Methods:

• The study analyzed 13 legislative documents from states that banned or restricted abortion access in early 2020.
• A qualitative approach using iterative thematic coding and memo writing was employed.
• The analysis focused on the language used to describe abortion, patients, and fetuses.

Main Results:

• Twenty-three percent of legislation explicitly banned abortion; the rest implied bans using terms like "elective" or "nonessential."
• Common anti-abortion tactics included trivializing abortion, employing risk discourses, and constructing notions of motherhood and fetal personhood.
• Legislation delegitimized abortion providers and clinics, portraying them as public health risks and sites of contagion.

Conclusions:

• The findings demonstrate the vulnerability of abortion access and its connection to broader conservative policy agendas.
• The legislative language suggests a strategic effort towards a potential federal abortion ban.
• These insights are crucial for understanding abortion policy in the post-Roe era and for advocating increased access.