University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, CA, USA
University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, CA, USA.
J Health Soc Behav. 2016 Dec;57(4):503-516. doi: 10.1177/0022146516669970. Epub 2016 Nov 17.
Roe v. Wade was heralded as an end to unequal access to abortion care in the United States. However, today, despite being common and safe, abortion is performed only selectively in hospitals and private practices. Drawing on 61 interviews with obstetrician-gynecologists in these settings, we examine how they determine which abortions to perform. We find that they distinguish between more and less legitimate abortions, producing a narrative of stratified legitimacy that privileges abortions for intended pregnancies, when the fetus is unhealthy, and when women perform normative gendered sexuality, including distress about the abortion, guilt about failure to contracept, and desire for motherhood. This stratified legitimacy can perpetuate socially-inflected inequality of access and normative gendered sexuality. Additionally, we argue that the practice by physicians of distinguishing among abortions can legitimate legislative practices that regulate and restrict some kinds of abortion, further constraining abortion access.
罗诉韦德案曾被誉为美国终结堕胎护理机会不平等的开端。然而，时至今日，尽管堕胎在技术上已经普及且安全，但却仅选择性地在医院和私人诊所进行。本研究通过对这两种环境下的 61 名妇产科医生进行访谈，考察了他们如何决定进行哪些堕胎手术。我们发现，他们区分了更合法和不太合法的堕胎，形成了一种有层次的合法性叙事，这种叙事优先考虑因预期怀孕、胎儿不健康以及女性表现出规范的性别性行为而进行的堕胎，包括对堕胎的担忧、对避孕失败的内疚以及对母性的渴望。这种有层次的合法性可能会使社会影响下的获得机会不平等和规范的性别性别性行为永久存在。此外，我们认为，医生对堕胎进行区分的做法，可以使立法实践合法化，从而监管和限制某些类型的堕胎，进一步限制堕胎的可及性。
