“I’m supposed to be a helper”: Spiritual distress of abortion providers after Dobbs v. Jackson

Abstract

INTRO On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1970 landmark case protecting abortion rights in America, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The decision has the potential to affect the way that abortion providers practice their specialty by interacting with patients and making meaning from their work. Meaning making in one’s work has been shown to be integral in fostering spiritual well-being and preventing burnout in medicine. We sought to demonstrate the spectrum of spirituality of abortion providers and their subsequent spiritual distress in the aftermath of Dobbs. METHODS We conducted thirty-minute interviews on Zoom with 26 abortion providers from 17 states from November 2022 to February 2023. Demographics collected included age, racial identity, location of practice (by state), years in practice, fellowship training, and practice setting (community, academic, hybrid). States were then classified according to the Guttmacher Institute classifications of Most restrictive, Restrictive, Some restrictions/protections, Protective, and Very protective as of December 2022. Interviews consisted of questions such as "What are the major tenants of your spiritual beliefs (if none, how you make meaning)?” and “Tell me about any spiritual distress or alienation from your religious or spiritual community as a result of the Dobbs decision.” Interviews were analyzed using NVivo 14. RESULTS Providers were equally distributed amongst community (34.6%), academic (34.6%), and hybrid (30.8%) settings. Location of practice (state) was well-distributed across the restrictive-protective spectrum: 7.7% Most restrictive, 30.8% Restrictive, 15.4% Some restrictions/protections, 30.8% Protective, and 15.4% Very protective. The majority of participants identified a personal spirituality, while less than half were tied to an organized religion. Sixteen participants (61.5%) cited ethical principles of justice, non-maleficence, respect for human life, or autonomy as major tenets of their spirituality. Ten subjects (38.5%) felt spiritually called to provide abortion care, 11 others (42.3%) perceived abortion care as a spiritual obligation, and 12 participants (46.2%) noted the act of providing an abortion as a spiritual act, for provider and/or patient. Most participants experienced spiritual distress relating to the Dobbs decision. Those who did not experience spiritual distress (26%) noted location and the alignment of their work with spiritual values as protective factors. Of note, 92% of participants described their spirituality as helpful in coping with the fall of Roe v. Wade. Sources of strength included advocacy, agency (e.g., “I feel strength knowing that I’m still able to do this job”), legislative work, and community; 57.7% specifically cited the abortion provider community. CONCLUSION The decision to be an abortion provider is often motivated by one’s spiritual identity. Many abortion providers endorsed feelings of spiritual distress related to not being able to comply with their moral and/or spiritual obligation of providing abortions secondary to new restrictions. Location factored heavily into whether providers were experiencing this distress, suggesting that state restrictions on abortions have directly impacted the spiritual well-being of abortion providers. As many laws pertaining to abortion are influenced by religious beliefs, it is important to recognize that abortion providers themselves are overwhelming spiritual.