Classification of periviable pregnancy-ending interventions for maternal life endangerment as induced abortion

• Published in: Contraception (Stoneham) Vol. 123; p. 110011
• Main Authors: Flink-Bochacki, Rachel, McLeod, Corinne, Lipe, Hannah, Rapkin, Rachel B., Rubin, Stacey Leigh, Heuser, Cara C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.07.2023
• Subjects: Abortion terminology; Abortion, Induced - methods; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dilation and evacuation; Female; Humans; Labor induction abortion; Labor, Induced; Medication abortion; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Procedural abortion; Second-trimester abortion; Surveys and Questionnaires; Procedural abortion; Second-trimester abortion; Abortion terminology; Medication abortion; Labor induction abortion; Dilation and evacuation
• ISSN: 0010-7824; 1879-0518
• DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2023.110011

To explore how US obstetrician-gynecologists (OB/GYNs) classify periviable pregnancy-ending interventions for maternal life endangerment. From May to July 2021, we performed an explanatory sequential mixed methods study of US OB/GYNs, recruited through social media and professional listservs. We administered a cross-sectional survey requesting institutional classification of labor induction or surgical evacuation of a 22-week pregnancy affected by intrauterine infection, using chi-square tests and logistic regression to compare determinations by physician and institutional factors. We then conducted semistructured interviews in a diverse nested sample to explore decision-making, merging quantitative and qualitative data in a mixed methods analysis. We received 209 completed survey responses, with 101 (48.3%) current abortion providers and 48 (20.1%) never-providers, and completed 21 qualitative interviews. Fewer than half of respondents reported that pregnancy-ending intervention for 22-week intrauterine infection would be classified as induced abortion at their institution (induction: 21.1%, dilation & evacuation: 42.6%, p < 0.001). In addition to procedure method, decision-making factors for classification as abortion included personal experience with abortion (with more experienced participants more likely to identify care as abortion) and state and institutional abortion regulations (“I have to call it a medical [induction]… I’m not allowed to use the word abortion”). Most OB/GYNs do not classify periviable pregnancy-ending interventions for life-threatening maternal complications as induced abortion, especially when physicians and institutions have less abortion expertise. Differential classification of pregnancy-ending care may lead to undercounting of later abortion procedures, masking the impact of abortion restrictions. Under unclear legal definitions, legislative interference, and administrative overreach, subjectivity in classification creates inconsistency in care for pregnancy complications. Failure to classify life-saving care as abortion contributes to stigma and facilitates restrictions, with increased danger and less autonomy for pregnant people.