Top

Published in:

01-02-2009 | Original Research

Views on Abortion: A Comparison of Female Genetic Counselors and Women from the General Population

Authors: Amelia R. Woltanski, Ryan T. Cragun, Melanie F. Myers, Deborah L. Cragun

Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling | Issue 1/2009

Abstract

While literature characterizing individual genetic counselors’ abortion attitudes is sparse, the National Society of Genetic Counselors takes a clear stance for reproductive autonomy. To determine genetic counselors’ views, this study compared (1) genetic counselors’ abortion attitudes to those of women from the general population and (2) genetic counselors’ professional abortion attitudes to their personal abortion attitudes. Genetic counselors were invited to complete an online survey. Response rate was 44.3% (709/1,601). Compared to women from the general population, female genetic counselors were significantly more likely to agree abortion should be an option in all cases (p < .001). Controlling for other possible confounders, regression analyses revealed that being a genetic counselor, religious service attendance and age were significantly predictive of abortion attitudes. Although the vast majority of genetic counselors agree that abortion should be available, they are significantly less likely to personally consider abortion under all circumstances presented (p < .001), and the percentage of genetic counselors who would consider terminating in the case of a severe birth defect is similar to studies of other women.

More information about the GSS can be found at http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/

Factor analysis is not shown but is available upon request. Rape is included as a medical reason because, based on previous studies and our factor analysis, most people’s view about the acceptability of abortion in cases of rape falls in line with their views about abortion in cases of birth defects and endangerment of the mother’s life. Interestingly, factor analysis using only data from genetic counselors revealed that rape was split nearly fifty-fifty between the two factors. Although this suggests that genetic counselors evaluate rape from both “medical” and “psychosocial” perspectives, grouping rape with the medical reasons was consistent with previous research and our comparison group. Additionally, including the rape variable in the psychosocial scale reduced the scale’s reliability while inclusion of rape in the medical reasons scale increased the scale’s reliability.

This response rate is a conservative estimate given that the actual number of people receiving the emailed cover letter is probably less than 1,601 since email addresses change frequently and other technological complications (e.g., spam filters) can result in people not receiving the invitation to participate in the survey.

The two variables used to predict the probability of response were participants’ race (dummy coded as 0 = non-white and 1 = white) and frequency of prayer (1 = several times a day; 6 = never). The Lambda for the Heckmann correction was also calculated using race and frequency of attendance with very little difference in the resulting models. We chose to use the Lambda calculated using frequency of prayer to reduce the collinearity between the Heckmann correction coefficient and frequency of attendance.

This is calculated using the slope coefficient for being a genetic counselor, .392, found in Table 5. Being a genetic counselor actually increases one’s permissiveness on the scale of attitudes toward abortion .392 points. As it is a 3-point scale, dividing .392 by 3 gives .13, or 13%. In other words, there is a 13% difference in attitudes toward abortion between genetic counselors and non-genetic counselors on average.

Aiyer, A. N., Ruiz, G., Steinman, A., & Ho, G. Y. F. (1999). Influence of physician attitudes on willingness to perform abortion. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 93(4), 576–580. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(98)00467-0.PubMedCrossRef

Allen, D. V., Reichelt, P. A., & Shea, F. P. (1977). Two measures of nurses’ attitudes toward abortion as modified by experience. Medical Care, 15(10), 849–857. doi:10.1097/00005650-197710000-00007.PubMedCrossRef

Awwad, R., McCarthy Veach, P., Bartels, D. M., & LeRoy, B. S. (2008). Culture and acculturation influences on Palestinian perceptions of prenatal genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 17(1), 101–116. doi:10.1007/s10897-007-9131-2.PubMedCrossRef

Bartels, D. M., LeRoy, B. S., McCarthy, P., & Caplan, A. L. (1997). Nondirectiveness in genetic counseling: a survey of practitioners. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 72(2), 172–179. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19971017)72:2<172::AID-AJMG9>3.0.CO;2-X. PubMedCrossRef

Blendon, R. J., Benson, J. M., & Donelman, K. (1993). The public and the controversy over abortion. Journal of the American Medical Association, 270, 2871–2875. doi:10.1001/jama.270.23.2871.PubMedCrossRef

Bolzendahl, C., & Brooks, C. (2005). Polarization, secularization, or differences as usual? The denominational cleavage in U.S. social attitudes since the 1970s. The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 47–78.

Bumpass, L. L. (1997). The measurement of public opinion on abortion: the effects of survey design. Family Planning Perspectives, 29(4), 177–180. doi:10.2307/2953382.PubMedCrossRef

Combs, M. W., & Welch, S. (1982). Blacks, whites, and attitudes toward abortion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 510–520. doi:10.1086/268748.PubMedCrossRef

Curlin, F. A., Lawrence, R. E., Chin, M. H., & Lantos, J. D. (2007). Religion, conscience, and controversial clinical practices. The New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 593–600. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa065316.PubMedCrossRef

Davis, J. A., & Smith, T. W. (2007). General social surveys, 1972–2006 [machine-readable data file] Sponsored by National Science Foundation.—NORC ed.—Chicago: National Opinion Research Center; Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.

Esposito, C. L., & Basow, S. A. (1995). College students’ attitudes toward abortion: the role of knowledge and demographic variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(22), 1996–2017. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01828.x.CrossRef

Evans, J. H. (2002). Polarization in abortion attitudes in U.S. religious traditions, 1972–1998. Sociological Forum, 17(3), 397–422. doi:10.1023/A:1019627006778.CrossRef

Finley, S., Varner, P., Vinson, P., & Finley, W. (1977). Participants’ reaction to amniocentesis and prenatal genetic studies. Journal of the American Medical Association, 238, 2277–2379. doi:10.1001/jama.238.22.2377.CrossRef

Forrester, M. B., Merz, R. D., & Yoon, P. W. (1998). Impact of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination on the prevalence of select birth defects in Hawaii. American Journal of Epidemiology, 148, 1206–1211.PubMed

Funk, R. B., & Willits, F. K. (1987). College attendance and attitude change: a panel study, 1970–81. Sociology of Education, 60, 224–231. doi:10.2307/2112558.CrossRef

Glover, N. M., & Glover, S. J. (1996). Ethical and legal issues regarding selective abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome. Mental Retardation, 34, 207–214.PubMed

Hall, E. J., & Ferree, M. M. (1986). Race differences in abortion attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 193–207. doi:10.1086/268974.PubMedCrossRef

Harris, R. J., & Mills, E. W. (1985). Religion, values and attitudes toward abortion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 24(2), 137–154. doi:10.2307/1386338.CrossRef

Hastings, P. K., & Hoge, D. R. (1981). Religious trends among college students, 1948–79. Social Forces, 60(2), 517–531. doi:10.2307/2578448.CrossRef

Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161. doi:10.2307/1912352.CrossRef

Iannaccone, L., Stark, R., & Finke, R. (1998). Rationality and the “religious mind”. Economic Inquiry, 36(3), 1465–1495.CrossRef

Jelen, T. G., & Wilcox, C. (2003). Causes and consequences of public attitudes toward abortion: a review and research agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 489–500.

Johnson, D. C. (1997). Formal education vs. religious belief: soliciting new evidence with multinomial logit modeling. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 231–246. doi:10.2307/1387555.CrossRef

Klamen, D., Grossman, L., & Kopacz, D. (1996). Attitudes about abortion among second-year medical students. Medical Teacher, 18(4), 345–346. doi:10.3109/01421599609034191.PubMedCrossRef

Learman, L. A., Drey, E. A., Gates, E. A., Kang, M., Washington, A. E., & Kuppermann, M. (2005). Abortion attitudes of pregnant women in prenatal care. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 192, 1939–1947. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.02.042.PubMedCrossRef

Lee, J. J. (2002). Religion and college attendance: change among students. The Review of Higher Education, 25(4), 369–384. doi:10.1353/rhe.2002.0020.CrossRef

Legge Jr., J. S. (1983). The determinants of attitudes toward abortion in the American electorate. The Western Political Quarterly, 36(3), 479–490. doi:10.2307/448404.PubMedCrossRef

Michie, S., Bron, F., Bobrow, M., & Marteau, T. M. (1997). Nondirectiveness in genetic counseling: an empirical study. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 60(1), 40–47.

Miller, N. H., Miller, D. J., & Koenigs, L. M. P. (1998). Attitudes of the physician membership of the Society for Adolescent Medicine toward medical abortions for adolescents. Pediatrics, 101(5), E4. doi:10.1542/peds.101.5.e4.PubMedCrossRef

National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc Professional Status Survey. (2006). Accessible at www.nsgc.org

Rice, N., & Doherty, R. (1982). Reflections on prenatal diagnosis: the consumer’s views. Social Work in Health Care, 8(1), 47–57. doi:10.1300/J010v08n01_05.PubMedCrossRef

Roberts, C. D., Stough, L. M., & Parrish, L. H. (2002). The role of genetic counseling in the elective termination of pregnancies involving fetuses with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 48–55.PubMedCrossRef

Robinson, J., Tennes, K., & Robinson, A. (1975). Amniocentesis: its impact on mothers and infants. A one year follow-up study. Clinical Genetics, 8, 97–105.PubMedCrossRef

Strickler, J., & Danigelis, N. L. (2002). Changing frameworks in attitudes toward abortion. Sociological Forum, 17(2), 187–201. doi:10.1023/A:1016033012225.CrossRef

Velie, E. M., & Shaw, G. M. (1996). Impact of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination on prevalence and risk estimates of neural tube defects in California, 1989–1991. American Journal of Epidemiology, 144, 473–479.PubMed

Vincent, V. A., Edwards, J. G., Young, S. R., & Nachtigal, M. (1991). Pregnancy termination because of chromosomal abnormalities: a study of 26,950 amniocenteses in the southeast. Southern Medical Journal, 84, 1210–1213. doi:10.1097/00007611-199110000-00012.PubMedCrossRef

Weil, J. (2003). Psychosocial genetic counseling in the post-nondirective era: a point of view. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 12(3), 199–211. doi:10.1023/A:1023234802124.PubMedCrossRef

Weil, J., Ormond, K., Peters, J., Peters, K., Biesecker, B. B., & LeRoy, B. (2006). The relationship of nondirectiveness to genetic counseling: report of a workshop at the 2003 NSGC Annual Education Conference. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(2), 85–93. doi:10.1007/s10897-005-9008-1.PubMedCrossRef

Wertz, D. C. (1996). Genetic counselors’ distinctive ethos: a survey of the ethical views of genetics professionals. 15th Annual Education Conference, Symposium conducted at annual meeting of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, San Francisco, California.

Wertz, D. C. (1998). Eugenics is alive and well: a survey of genetic professionals around the world. Science in Context, 11(3–4), 493–510.PubMed

Wilcox, C. (1992). Race, religion, region and abortion attitudes. SA. Sociological Analysis, 53(1), 97–105. doi:10.2307/3711632.CrossRef

Williamson, P., Harris, R., Church, S., Fiddler, M., & Rhind, J. (1996). Prenatal genetic services for Down’s syndrome: access and provision in 1990–1991. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 103, 676–683.PubMed

Wolff, G., & Jung, C. (1995). Nondirectiveness and genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 4(1), 3–25. doi:10.1007/BF01423845.PubMedCrossRef

Woodrum, E., & Davison, B. L. (1992). Reexamination of religious influences on abortion attitudes. Review of Religious Research, 33(3), 229–243. doi:10.2307/3511088.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Views on Abortion: A Comparison of Female Genetic Counselors and Women from the General Population
Authors: Amelia R. Woltanski
Ryan T. Cragun
Melanie F. Myers
Deborah L. Cragun
Publication date: 01-02-2009
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling / Issue 1/2009
Print ISSN: 1059-7700
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3599
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-008-9177-9

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Views on Abortion: A Comparison of Female Genetic Counselors and Women from the General Population

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2009

The Impact of Social Roles on the Experience of Men in BRCA1/2 Families: Implications for Counseling

Before the Call

Is There a Significant Trend in Prevalence of Consanguineous Marriage in Tehran? A Review of Three Generations

Tools for Assessing Readability and Quality of Health-Related Web Sites

Are Patient Rights to Information and Self-Determination in Diagnostic Genetic Testing Upheld? A Comparison Of Patients’ and Providers’ Perceptions

Cowden Syndrome: A Critical Review of the Clinical Literature