TRAP laws and the invisible labor of US abortion providers
- PMID: 27570376
- PMCID: PMC4999072
- DOI: 10.1080/09581596.2015.1077205
TRAP laws and the invisible labor of US abortion providers
Abstract
Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers (TRAP laws) are proliferating in the United States and have increased barriers to abortion access. In order to comply with these laws, abortion providers make significant changes to facilities and clinical practices. In this article, we draw attention to an often unacknowledged area of public health threat: how providers adapt to increasing regulation, and the resultant strains on the abortion provider workforce. Current US legal standards for abortion regulations have led to an increase in laws that target abortion providers. We describe recent research with abortion providers in North Carolina to illustrate how providers adapt to new regulations, and how compliance with regulation leads to increased workload and increased financial and emotional burdens on providers. We use the concept of invisible labor to highlight the critical work undertaken by abortion providers not only to comply with regulations, but also to minimize the burden that new laws impose on patients. This labor provides a crucial bridge in the preservation of abortion access. The impact of TRAP laws on abortion providers should be included in the consideration of the public health impact of abortion laws.
Keywords: Abortion; health policy; invisible labor; reproductive health.
Similar articles
-
The experiences and adaptations of abortion providers practicing under a new TRAP law: a qualitative study.Contraception. 2015 Jun;91(6):507-12. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.03.003. Epub 2015 Mar 6. Contraception. 2015. PMID: 25746295 Free PMC article.
-
Assessing the impact of TRAP laws on abortion and women's health in the USA: a systematic review.BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2018 Apr;44(2):128-134. doi: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2017-101866. Epub 2018 Mar 9. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2018. PMID: 29921636
-
Efforts underway to impose harsh regulations on abortion providers.State Reprod Health Monit. 1996 Sep;7(3):1-2. State Reprod Health Monit. 1996. PMID: 12347483
-
The economic impact of state restrictions on abortion: parental consent and notification laws and Medicaid funding restrictions.J Policy Anal Manage. 1993 Summer;12(3):498-511. J Policy Anal Manage. 1993. PMID: 10127357 Review.
-
Making abortions safe: a matter of good public health policy and practice.Bull World Health Organ. 2000;78(5):580-92. Bull World Health Organ. 2000. PMID: 10859852 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Supporting Staff in Southern Family Planning Clinics: Challenges and Opportunities.Matern Child Health J. 2022 Feb;26(2):319-327. doi: 10.1007/s10995-021-03339-5. Epub 2022 Jan 8. Matern Child Health J. 2022. PMID: 34997438 Free PMC article.
-
COVID-19 and Independent Abortion Providers: Findings from a Rapid-Response Survey.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2020 Dec;52(4):217-225. doi: 10.1363/psrh.12163. Epub 2020 Dec 9. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2020. PMID: 33289197 Free PMC article.
-
US Obstetrician-Gynecologists' Perceived Impacts of Post-Dobbs v Jackson State Abortion Bans.JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Jan 2;7(1):e2352109. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.52109. JAMA Netw Open. 2024. PMID: 38231510 Free PMC article.
-
Unintended pregnancy: a framework for prevention and options for midlife women in the US.Womens Midlife Health. 2017 Sep 15;3:8. doi: 10.1186/s40695-017-0027-5. eCollection 2017. Womens Midlife Health. 2017. PMID: 30766709 Free PMC article.
-
Abortion service delivery in clinics by state policy climate in 2017.Contracept X. 2020;2:100043. doi: 10.1016/j.conx.2020.100043. Epub 2020 Oct 16. Contracept X. 2020. PMID: 33083783 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Allen A. Autonomy’s magic wand: abortion and constitutional interpretation. Boston University Law Review. 1992;72(4):683–698. - PubMed
-
- Bartlett L, Berg C, Shulman H, Zane S, Green C, Whitehead S, Atrash H. Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2004;103(4):729–737. - PubMed
-
- Baum S, Grossman D, Potter J. Abortion patients’ out-of-pocket expenditures for consultation visit: financial burden of the two visit requirement in Texas. Presented at the 141st APHA Annual Meeting and Expo; Boston, MA. 2013.
-
- Benshoof J. Beyond Roe, after Casey: the present and future of a “fundamental” right. Women’s Health Issues. 1993a;3(3):162–170. - PubMed
-
- Benshoof J. Planned Parenthood v. Casey: the impact of the new undue burden standard on reproductive health care. JAMA. 1993b;269(17):2249–2257. - PubMed
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources