Mandatory Waiting Periods Before Abortion and Sterilization: Theory and Practice

References

• Bruch E, Feinberg F. Decision-making processes in social context. Annu Rev Sociol. 2017;43(1):207–227. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053622
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLean SAM. Abortion law: is consensual reform possible? in: McLean SAM, editor. Medical Law and Ethics. Abingdon: Routledge; 2018:249–266.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A. The psychology of preferences. Sci Am. 1982;246(1):160–173. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0182-160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashton J. Patterns of discussion and decision-making amongst abortion patients. J Biosoc Sci. 1980;12(3):247–259. doi:10.1017/s0021932000012797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans JSBT, Curtis-Holmes J. Rapid responding increases belief bias: evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Think Reason. 2005;11(4):382–389. doi:10.1080/13546780542000005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowlands S. The decision to opt for abortion. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2008;34(3):175–180. doi:10.1783/147118908784734765
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee E, Clements S, Ingham R, et al. A Matter of Choice? Explaining National Variation in Teenage Abortion and Motherhood. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Ekstrand M, Tydén T, Darj E, et al. An illusion of power: qualitative perspectives on abortion decision-making among teenage women in Sweden. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2009;41(3):173–180. doi:10.1363/4117309
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entwistle VA, Cribb A, Watt IS. Shared decision-making: enhancing the clinical relevance. JRSM. 2012;105(10):416–421. doi:10.1258/2Fjrsm.2012.120039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Shared Decision Making. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2020. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/nice-guidelines/shared-decision-making. Accessed June 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Yahanda AT, Mozersky J. What’s the role of time in shared decision making? AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(5):E416–422. doi:10.1001/amajethics.2020.416
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freeman EW. Abortion: subjective attitudes and feelings. Fam Plann Perspect. 1978;10(3):150–155. doi:10.2307/2134301
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kero A. Psychosocial factors in women requesting abortion. In: Rowlands S, editor. Abortion Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014:34–41.
   Google Scholar
• Cahir C, Thomas K. Asymmetric effects of positive and negative affect on decision making. Psychol Rep. 2010;106(1):193–204. doi:10.2466/PR0.106.1.193-204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isen AM, Geva N. The influence of positive affect on acceptable level of risk: the person with a large canoe has a large worry. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1987;39(2):145–154. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(87)90034-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner JS, Tiedens LZ. Portrait of the angry decision maker: how appraisal tendencies shape anger’s influence on cognition. J Behavioral Decision Making. 2006;19(2):115–137. doi:10.1002/bdm.515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner JS, Keltner D. Fear, anger, and risk. J Personality Soc Psychol. 2001;81(1):146–159. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.1.146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RCOG. Understanding How Risk is Discussed in Healthcare. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Connolly T, Zeelenberg M. Regret in decision-making. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2002;11(6):212–216. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pieters R, Zeelenberg M. On bad decisions and deciding badly: when intention–behavior inconsistency is regrettable. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2005;97(1):18–30. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reb J, Connolly T. The effects of action, normality, and decision carefulness on anticipated regret: evidence for a broad mediating role of decision justifiability. Cogn Emot. 2010;24(8):1405–1420. doi:10.1080/02699930903512168
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richard R, van der Pligt J, de Vries N. Anticipated regret and time perspective: changing sexual risk-taking behavior. J Behavioral Decision Making. 1996;9(3):185–199. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199609)9:3<185::AID-BDM228>3.0.CO;2-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Carroll RE, Dryden J, Hamilton-Barclay T, et al. Anticipated regret and organ donor registration - a pilot study. Health Psychol. 2011;30(5):661–664. doi:10.1037/a0024182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker AB, Buunk BP, Manstead ASR. The moderating role of self-efficacy beliefs in the relationship between anticipated feelings of regret and condom use. J Applied Social Psychol. 1997;27(22):2001–2014. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01637.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman G, Albarracín D. Norm theory and the action-effect: the role of social norms in regret following action and inaction. J Experiment Soc Psychol. 2017;69:111–120. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.07.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roese NJ, Olson JM. Outcome controllability and counterfactual thinking. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1995;21(6):620–628. doi:10.1177/0146167295216008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Miller DT. Norm theory: comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychol Review. 1986;93(2):136–153. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• McLean SAM. Autonomy, Consent and the Law. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Chan SW, Tulloch E, Cooper ES, et al. Montgomery and informed consent: where are we now? BMJ. 2017;357:j2224. doi:10.1136/bmj.j2224
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster DG, Gould H, Taylor J, et al. Attitudes and decision making among women seeking abortions in one U.S. clinic. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2012;44(2):117–124. doi:10.1363/4411712
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kjelsvik M, Sekse RJT, Moi AL, et al. Women’s experiences when unsure about whether or not to have an abortion in the first trimester. Health Care Women Int. 2018;39(7):784–807. doi:10.1080/07399332.2018.1465945
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayans I, Vaca M. The paternalistic argument against abortion. Hypatia. 2018;33(1):22–39. doi:10.1111/hypa.12385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Shaughnessy A. A race against the ‘body clock’: abortion and the temporal politics of the ‘waiting period’: reproductive Sociology Research Group; 2019 Available from: http://www.reprosoc.com/blog/2019/11/20/a-race-against-the-body-clock-abortion-and-the-temporal-politics-of-the-waiting-period. Accessed December 30, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen DS, Joffe C. Obstacle Course: The Everyday Struggle to Get an Abortion in America. Oakland: University of California Press; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Klick J. Mandatory waiting periods for abortions and female mental health. Health Matrix. 2006;16(1):183–208.
   Google Scholar
• Rocca CH, Samari G, Foster DG, et al. Emotions and decision rightness over five years following an abortion: an examination of decision difficulty and abortion. Soc Sci Med. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112704
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pizzarossa LB. Legal barriers to access abortion services through a human rights lens: the Uruguayan experience. Reprod Health Matters. 2018;26(52):151–158. doi:10.1080/09688080.2017.1422664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makleff S, Labandera A, Chiribao F, et al. Experience obtaining legal abortion in Uruguay: knowledge, attitudes, and stigma among abortion clients. BMC Women’s Health. 2019;19(1):155. doi:10.1186/s12905-019-0855-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Global Abortion Policies Database. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Available from: https://abortion-policies.srhr.org. Accessed June 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas TA. Back to the future of regulating abortion in the first term. Wisconsin J Law Gender Soc. 2014;29(1):47–86.
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous. Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Harv Law Rev. 2016;130:397–406.
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous. Counseling and Waiting Periods for Abortion. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2020. Available from: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/counseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion. Accessed February 14, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Lindo JM, Pineda-Torres M. New evidence on the effects of mandatory waiting periods for abortion. Working Papers. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Rouland RS, Ely GE, Caron A. Abortion patient experiences of the forty-eight-hour waiting period policy in Tennessee. J Appalachian Studies. 2019;25(1):87–104. doi:10.5406/jappastud.25.1.0087
   Google Scholar
• Vandewalker I. Abortion and informed consent: how biased counseling laws mandate violations of medical ethics. Michigan J Gender Law. 2012;19(1):1–70.
   Google Scholar
• VLRC. Law of Abortion: Final Report. Melbourne: Victorian Law Reform Commission; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Williams J, Plater D, Brunacci A, et al. Abortion: A Review of South Australian Law and Practice. Adelaide: South Australian Law Reform Institute; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Lupfer M, Silber BG. How patients view mandatory waiting periods for abortion. Fam Plann Perspect. 1981;13(2):75–79. doi:10.2307/2134696
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Texas Policy Evaluation Project. Impact of Abortion Restrictions in Texas Austin. University of Texas, Ibis Reproductive Health, University of Alabama; 2013. Available from: https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/txpep/_files/pdf/TxPEP-ResearchBrief-ImpactofAbortionRestrictions.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders JN, Conway H, Jacobson J, et al. The longest wait: examining the impact of Utah’s 72-hour waiting period for abortion. Women’s Health Issues. 2016;26(5):483–487. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2016.06.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karasek D, Roberts SCM, Weitz TA. Abortion patients’ experience and perceptions of waiting periods: survey evidence before Arizona’s two-visit 24-hour mandatory waiting period law. Women’s Health Issues. 2016;26(1):60–66. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2015.10.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White K, Turan JM, Grossman D. Travel for abortion services in Alabama and delays in obtaining care. Women’s Health Issues. 2017;27(5):523–529. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2017.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts SC, Turok DK, Belusa E, et al. Utah’s 72-hour waiting period for abortion: experiences among a clinic-based sample of women. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2016;48(4):179–187. doi:10.1363/48e8216
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones RK, Jerman J. Time to Appointment and Delays in Accessing Care Among U.S. Abortion Patients. New York: Guttmacher Institute;2016. Available from: https://www.guttmacher.org/report/delays-in-accessing-care-among-us-abortion-patients. Accessed June 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Zane S, Creanga AA, Berg CJ, et al. Abortion-related mortality in the United States: 1998–2010. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(2):258–265. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000945
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bitler M, Zavodny M. The effect of abortion restrictions on the timing of abortions. J Health Economics. 2001;20(6):1011–1032. doi:10.1016/s0167-6296(01)00106-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoctor L, Lamačková A. Mandatory waiting periods and biased abortion counseling in Central and Eastern Europe. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2017;139(2):253–258. doi:10.1002/ijgo.12288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joyce T, Henshaw SK, Skatrud JD. The impact of Mississippi’s mandatory delay law on abortions and births. JAMA. 1997;278(8):653–658. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03550080063040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joyce T, Kaestner R. The impact of Mississippi’s mandatory delay law on the timing of abortion. Fam Plann Perspect. 2000;32(1):4–13. doi:10.2307/2648143
   Google Scholar
• Joyce T, Kaestner R. The impact of mandatory waiting periods and parental consent laws on the timing of abortion and State of occurrence among adolescents in Mississippi and South Carolina. J Policy Anal Manage. 2001;20(2):263–282. doi:10.1002/pam.2025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Althaus FA, Henshaw SK. The effects of mandatory delay laws on abortion patients and providers. Fam Plann Perspect. 1994;26(5):228–31& 33. doi:10.2307/2135944
   Google Scholar
• Roberts SCM, Turok DK, Belusa E, et al. Do 72-hour waiting periods and two-visit requirements for abortion affect women’s certainty? A prospective cohort study. Women’s Health Issues. 2017;27(4):400–406. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2017.02.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook RJ. Stigmatized meanings of criminal abortion law. In: Cook RJ, Erdman JN, Dickens BM, editors. Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 2014:347–369.
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous. ICCL Says 3-Day Abortion Waiting Period Not Rights-Compliant. Dublin: Irish Council for Civil Liberties; 2018. Available from: https://www.iccl.ie/equality/3-day-abortion-waiting-period-not-rights-compliant/. Accessed June 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Foley O, Janiak E, Dutton C. Women’s decision making for postpartum sterilization: does the Medicaid waiting period add value? Contraception. 2018;98(4):312–316. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2018.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowlands S, Amy J-J. Involuntary sterilisation: we still need to guard against it. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2018;44(4):239–241. doi:10.1136/bmjsrh-2018-200119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soares LC, Brollo JLA. Family planning in Brazil: why not tubal sterilisation during childbirth? J Med Ethics. 2013;39(11):710–712. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101142
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• León FR. Peru: Providers’ Compliance with Quality of Care Norms. New York: Population Council; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Serra AM. (Forced) Sterilization in Peru: power and narrative configurations. Rev Antropol Iberoamericana. 2017;12(1):31–52. doi:10.11156/aibr.120103e
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zampas C, Barot S, Bukovska B. Body and Soul: Forced Sterilization and Other Assaults on Roma Reproductive Freedom in Slovakia. New York: Center for Reproductive Rights/Poradna; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Rowlands S, Wale J. Sterilisations at delivery or after childbirth: addressing continuing abuses in the consent process. Glob Public Health. 2019;14(8):1153–1166. doi:10.1080/17441692.2019.1583265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amy J-J, Rowlands S. Legalised non-consensual sterilisation - Eugenics put into practice before 1945, and the aftermath. Part 1: USA, Japan, Canada and Mexico. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2018;23(2):121–129. doi:10.1080/13625187.2018.1450973
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrero S, Zite N, Creinin MD. Federally funded sterilization: time to rethink policy? AJPH. 2012;102(10):1822–1825. doi:10.2105/2FAJPH.2012.300850
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moaddab A, McCullough LB, Chervanak FA, et al. Health care justice and its implications for current policy of a mandatory waiting period for elective tubal sterilization. AJOG. 2015;212(6):736–739. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batra P, Rodriguez K, Cheney AM. Using deliberative and qualitative methods to recommend revisions to the Medicaid sterilization waiting period. Women’s Health Issues. 2020;30(4):260–267. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2020.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter JE, White K, Hopkins K, et al. Frustrated demand for sterilization among low-income Latinas in El Paso, Texas. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2012;44(4):228–235. doi:10.1363/4422812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Côté I, Lapierre S. Abortion and domestic violence: women’s decision-making process. Affilia. 2014;29(3):285–297. doi:10.1177/2F0886109913519791
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ACOG. Sterilization of Women: Ethical Issues and Considerations. Committee Opinion No. 695. Washington DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson DJ, Kaufman SC, Costello C, et al. A comparison of women’s regret after vasectomy versus tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(6):1073–1079. doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(02)01981-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smallman R, Roese NJ. Counterfactual thinking facilitates behavioral intentions. J Experiment Soc Psychol. 2009;45(4):845–852. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greasley K. Abortion and regret. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(12):705–711. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaRoche KJ, Foster AM. Exploring Canadian women’s multiple abortion experiences: implications for reducing stigma and improving patient-centred care. Women’s Health Issues. 2018;28(4):327–332. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2018.04.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weitz TA, Kimport K. A need to expand our thinking about “repeat” abortions. Contraception. 2012;85(4):408–412. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2011.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roese NJ. Counterfactual thinking. Psychol Bull. 1997;121(1):133–148. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.133
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilovich T, Medvec VH. The experience of regret: what, when, and why. Psychol Review. 1995;102(2):379–395. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.379
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olund E. Repealing a ‘legacy of shame’: press coverage of emotional geographies of secrecy and shame in Ireland’s abortion debate. In: Browne K, Calkin S, editors. After Repeal: Rethinking Abortion Politics. London: Zed Books; 2020:174–188.
   Google Scholar
• Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Montomery K. How Doctors Think: Clinical Judgment and the Practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Wiebe ER, Sandhu S. Access to abortion: what women want from abortion services. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008;30(4):327–331. doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32801-8
   Google Scholar
• Steinberg JR, Tschann JM, Furgerson D, et al. Psychosocial factors and pre-abortion psychological health: the significance of stigma. Soc Sci Med. 2016;150:67–75. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.12.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster DG, Jackson RA, Cosby K, et al. Predictors of delay in each step leading to an abortion. Contraception. 2008;77(4):289–293. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2007.10.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepherd L, Turner HD. The over-medicalization and corrupted medicalization of abortion and its effect on women living in poverty. J Law Med Ethics. 2018;46(3):672–679. doi:10.1177/1073110518804222
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donnelly M, Murray C. Abortion care in Ireland: developing legal and ethical frameworks for conscientious provision. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2020;148(1):127–132. doi:10.1002/ijgo.13025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• General comment No. 22 (2016) on the right to sexual and reproductive health (article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights): United Nations, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Clinical Effectiveness Unit. Male and Female Sterilisation. London: Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Thranov I, Kjersgaard AG, Rasmussen OV, et al. Regret among 547 Danish sterilized women. Scand J Soc Med. 1988;16(1):41–48. doi:10.1177/140349488801600107
   Google Scholar
• McQueen P. Autonomy, age and sterilisation requests. J Med Ethics. 2017;43(5):310–313. doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Béguin F, Dupont G. IVG: Le délai de réflexion supprimé. Le Monde; March 19, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Reddy LM, Nolan A. Bill Digest: Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Bill. Vol. 2018. Dublin: Houses of the Oireachtas; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Carnegie A, Roth R. From the grassroots to the Oireachtas. Health & Human Rights J. 2019;21(2):109–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar