Comparison of Health, Development, Maternal Bonding, and Poverty Among Children Born After Denial of Abortion vs After Pregnancies Subsequent to an Abortion | Pediatrics | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.153.100.128. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
The American Psychological Association.  Report of the APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion; 2008.
2.
Biggs  MA, Upadhyay  UD, McCulloch  CE, Foster  DG.  Women’s mental health and well-being 5 years after receiving or being denied an abortion: a prospective, longitudinal cohort study.  JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(2):169-178. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.3478PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Charles  VE, Polis  CB, Sridhara  SK, Blum  RW.  Abortion and long-term mental health outcomes: a systematic review of the evidence.  Contraception. 2008;78(6):436-450. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2008.07.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.  Induced Abortion and Mental Health. London, England: Academy of Medical Royal Colleges; 2011.
5.
Major  B, Appelbaum  M, Beckman  L, Dutton  MA, Russo  NF, West  C.  Abortion and mental health: evaluating the evidence.  Am Psychol. 2009;64(9):863-890. doi:10.1037/a0017497PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Rocca  CH, Kimport  K, Roberts  SC, Gould  H, Neuhaus  J, Foster  DG.  Decision rightness and emotional responses to abortion in the United States: a longitudinal study.  PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0128832. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128832PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Blomberg  S.  Influence of maternal distress during pregnancy on fetal malformations.  Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1980;62(4):315-330. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.1980.tb00618.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Kost  K, Landry  DJ, Darroch  JE.  The effects of pregnancy planning status on birth outcomes and infant care.  Fam Plann Perspect. 1998;30(5):223-230. doi:10.2307/2991608PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Orr  ST, Miller  CA, James  SA, Babones  S.  Unintended pregnancy and preterm birth.  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2000;14(4):309-313. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3016.2000.00289.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Sable  MR, Spencer  JC, Stockbauer  JW, Schramm  WF, Howell  V, Herman  AA.  Pregnancy wantedness and adverse pregnancy outcomes: differences by race and Medicaid status.  Fam Plann Perspect. 1997;29(2):76-81. doi:10.2307/2953366PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Sable  MR, Wilkinson  DS.  Impact of perceived stress, major life events and pregnancy attitudes on low birth weight.  Fam Plann Perspect. 2000;32(6):288-294. doi:10.2307/2648197PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Hall  JA, Benton  L, Copas  A, Stephenson  J.  Pregnancy intention and pregnancy outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis.  Matern Child Health J. 2017;21(3):670-704. doi:10.1007/s10995-016-2237-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Than  LC, Honein  MA, Watkins  ML, Yoon  PW, Daniel  KL, Correa  A.  Intent to become pregnant as a predictor of exposures during pregnancy: is there a relation?  J Reprod Med. 2005;50(6):389-396.PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Sangi-Haghpeykar  H, Mehta  M, Posner  S, Poindexter  AN  III.  Paternal influences on the timing of prenatal care among Hispanics.  Matern Child Health J. 2005;9(2):159-163. doi:10.1007/s10995-005-3012-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Joyce  TJKR, Kaestner  R, Korenman  S.  The effect of pregnancy intention on child development.  Demography. 2000;37(1):83-94. doi:10.2307/2648098PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Korenman  S, Kaestner  R, Joyce  T.  Consequences for infants of parental disagreement in pregnancy intention.  Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2002;34(4):198-205. doi:10.2307/3097730PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Hulsey  TML, Laken  M, Miller  V, Ager  J.  The influence of attitudes about unintended pregnancy on use of prenatal and postpartum care.  J Perinatol. 2000;20(8, pt 1):513-519. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7200455PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Joyce  TJ, Grossman  M.  Pregnancy wantedness and the early initiation of prenatal care.  Demography. 1990;27(1):1-17. doi:10.2307/2061549PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Altfeld  S, Handler  A, Burton  D, Berman  L.  Wantedness of pregnancy and prenatal health behaviors.  Women Health. 1997;26(4):29-43. doi:10.1300/J013v26n04_03PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Pagnini  DL, Reichman  NE.  Psychosocial factors and the timing of prenatal care among women in New Jersey’s HealthStart program.  Fam Plann Perspect. 2000;32(2):56-64. doi:10.2307/2648213PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Matĕjcek  Z, Dytrych  Z, Schüller  V.  Children from unwanted pregnancies.  Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1978;57(1):67-90. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.1978.tb06875.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Taylor  JS, Cabral  HJ.  Are women with an unintended pregnancy less likely to breastfeed?  J Fam Pract. 2002;51(5):431-436.PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Marsiglio  W, Mott  FL.  Does wanting to become pregnant with a first child affect subsequent maternal behaviors and infant birth weight?  J Marriage Fam. 1988;50(4):1023-1036. doi:10.2307/352112Google ScholarCrossref
24.
Miller  WB, Sable  MR, Beckmeyer  JJ.  Preconception motivation and pregnancy wantedness: pathways to toddler attachment security.  J Marriage Fam. 2009;71(5):1174-1192. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00662.xGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Perry  DF, Ettinger  AK, Mendelson  T, Le  HN.  Prenatal depression predicts postpartum maternal attachment in low-income Latina mothers with infants.  Infant Behav Dev. 2011;34(2):339-350. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2011.02.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Crissey  SR.  Effect of pregnancy intention on child well-being and development: combining retrospective reports of attitude and contraceptive use.  Popul Res Policy Rev. 2005;24(6):593-615. doi:10.1007/s11113-005-5734-1Google ScholarCrossref
27.
Axinn  WG, Barber  JS, Thornton  A.  The long-term impact of parents’ childbearing decisions on children’s self-esteem.  Demography. 1998;35(4):435-443. doi:10.2307/3004012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Nelson  JA, O’Brien  M.  Does an unplanned pregnancy have long-term implications for mother-child relationships?  J Fam Issues. 2012;33(4):506-526. doi:10.1177/0192513X11420820PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Gipson  JD, Koenig  MA, Hindin  MJ.  The effects of unintended pregnancy on infant, child, and parental health: a review of the literature.  Stud Fam Plann. 2008;39(1):18-38. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4465.2008.00148.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Joyce  T, Kaestner  R, Korenman  S.  The stability of pregnancy intentions and pregnancy-related maternal behaviors.  Matern Child Health J. 2000;4(3):171-178. doi:10.1023/A:1009571313297PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Trussell  J, Vaughan  B, Stanford  J.  Are all contraceptive failures unintended pregnancies? evidence from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.  Fam Plann Perspect. 1999;31(5):246-247, 260. doi:10.2307/2991573PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Westoff  CF, Ryder  NB.  The predictive validity of reproductive intentions.  Demography. 1977;14(4):431-453. doi:10.2307/2060589PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Rosenzweig  MR, Wolpin  KI.  Maternal expectations and ex post rationalizations: the usefulness of survey information on the wantedness of children.  J Hum Resour. 1993;28(2):205-229. doi:10.2307/146201Google ScholarCrossref
34.
Aiken  AR, Dillaway  C, Mevs-Korff  N.  A blessing I can’t afford: factors underlying the paradox of happiness about unintended pregnancy.  Soc Sci Med. 2015;132:149-155. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.038PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Dobkin  LMGH, Gould  H, Barar  RE, Ferrari  M, Weiss  EI, Foster  DG.  Implementing a prospective study of women seeking abortion in the United States: understanding and overcoming barriers to recruitment.  Womens Health Issues. 2014;24(1):e115-e123. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2013.10.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Upadhyay  UD, Weitz  TA, Jones  RK, Barar  RE, Foster  DG.  Denial of abortion because of provider gestational age limits in the United States.  Am J Public Health. 2014;104(9):1687-1694. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301378PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Jatlaoui  TC, Ewing  A, Mandel  MG,  et al.  Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2013.  MMWR Surveill Summ. 2016;65(12):1-44. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6512a1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
DeFranco  EA, Stamilio  DM, Boslaugh  SE, Gross  GA, Muglia  LJ.  A short interpregnancy interval is a risk factor for preterm birth and its recurrence.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(3):264.e1-264.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.06.042PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Brothers  KB, Glascoe  FP, Robertshaw  NS.  PEDS: developmental milestones—an accurate brief tool for surveillance and screening.  Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2008;47(3):271-279. doi:10.1177/0009922807309419PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Brockington  IF, Fraser  C, Wilson  D.  The Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire: a validation.  Arch Womens Ment Health. 2006;9(5):233-242. doi:10.1007/s00737-006-0132-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
US Department of Health and Human Services.  Annual update of the HHS poverty guidelines.  Fed Regist. 2012;77(17):4034-4035.Google Scholar
42.
Barrett  G, Smith  SC, Wellings  K.  Conceptualisation, development, and evaluation of a measure of unplanned pregnancy.  J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(5):426-433. doi:10.1136/jech.2003.014787PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Hall  JA, Barrett  G, Copas  A, Stephenson  J.  London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy: guidance for its use as an outcome measure.  Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2017;8:43-56. doi:10.2147/PROM.S122420PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Kogan  MD, Alexander  GR, Kotelchuck  M,  et al.  Trends in twin birth outcomes and prenatal care utilization in the United States, 1981-1997.  JAMA. 2000;284(3):335-341. doi:10.1001/jama.284.3.335PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Foster  DG, Biggs  MA, Ralph  L, Gerdts  C, Roberts  S, Glymour  MM.  Socioeconomic outcomes of women who receive and women who are denied wanted abortions in the United States.  Am J Public Health. 2018;108(3):407-413. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.304247PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Goto  A, Yasumura  S, Yabe  J, Reich  MR.  Addressing Japan’s fertility decline: influences of unintended pregnancy on child rearing.  Reprod Health Matters. 2006;14(27):191-200. doi:10.1016/S0968-8080(06)27233-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Ispa  JM, Sable  MR, Porter  N, Csizmadia  A.  Pregnancy acceptance, parenting stress, and toddler attachment in low-income black families.  J Marriage Fam. 2007;69(1):1-13. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00339.xGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Kokubu  M, Okano  T, Sugiyama  T.  Postnatal depression, maternal bonding failure, and negative attitudes towards pregnancy: a longitudinal study of pregnant women in Japan.  Arch Womens Ment Health. 2012;15(3):211-216. doi:10.1007/s00737-012-0279-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Muñoz  M, Poo  AM, Baeza  B, Bustos  ML.  Mother-newborn relational risk—study of prevalence and associated variables  [in Spanish].  Rev Chil Pediatr. 2015;86(1):25-31.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Morton  LM, Cahill  J, Hartge  P.  Reporting participation in epidemiologic studies: a survey of practice.  Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(3):197-203. doi:10.1093/aje/kwj036PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Kost  K, Lindberg  L.  Pregnancy intentions, maternal behaviors, and infant health: investigating relationships with new measures and propensity score analysis.  Demography. 2015;52(1):83-111. doi:10.1007/s13524-014-0359-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
November 2018

Comparison of Health, Development, Maternal Bonding, and Poverty Among Children Born After Denial of Abortion vs After Pregnancies Subsequent to an Abortion

Author Affiliations
  • 1Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, Oakland
  • 2Department of Community Health Sciences, Fielding School of Public Health, UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles), Los Angeles
JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(11):1053-1060. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.1785
Key Points

Question  How do the health and well-being of children born after denial of abortion compare with those born subsequently to women who received an abortion?

Findings  In this quasi-experimental study of 146 children born after denial of abortion and 182 children from subsequent pregnancies in women who received an abortion, higher proportions of children born after denial of abortion experienced poor maternal bonding and lived in subjective poverty. There were no significant differences in perinatal outcomes, child physical health, or child development.

Meaning  Denying women desired abortions may be associated with poorer maternal bonding and greater poverty than enabling women to postpone childbearing.

Abstract

Importance  Evidence indicates that there are potential health, development, and maternal bonding consequences for children born from unwanted pregnancies.

Objective  To examine the association of women receiving or being denied a wanted abortion with their children’s health and well-being.

Design, Setting, and Participants  A 5-year longitudinal observational study with a quasi-experimental design conducted between January 18, 2008, and January 25, 2016, examined women who received abortions just under the gestational age limit of 30 abortion facilities across the United States and women who were denied abortion just beyond the gestational age limit in these facilities. Analyses compared the children of 146 women who were denied an abortion (index children) with children born to 182 women who received an abortion and had a subsequent child within 5 years (subsequent children). Interview-to-interview retention averaged 94.5% (6895 of 7293) across the 11 semi-annual interviews.

Exposures  Being born after denial of abortion vs after a new pregnancy subsequent to an abortion.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Perinatal outcomes and child health, child development, maternal bonding, socioeconomics, and household structure.

Results  This study included 328 women who had children during the study period (mean [SD] age at study recruitment, 23.7 [4.9] years). There were no differences by study group in consent to participate in the study, completion of first interview, or continuation in the study. Among the 328 children in the study (146 index children and 182 subsequent children), there were 163 girls and 165 boys. Perinatal and child health outcomes were not different between subsequent and index children, and there was no clear pattern of delayed child development. However, mixed-effects models adjusting for clustered recruitment and multiple observations per child revealed that poor maternal bonding was more common for index children compared with subsequent children (9% vs 3%; adjusted odds ratio, 5.14; 95% CI, 1.48-17.85). Index children lived in households with lower incomes relative to the federal poverty level than did subsequent children (101% vs 132% of federal poverty level; adjusted regression coefficient, –0.31; 95% CI, –0.52 to –0.10), and were more likely to live in households without enough money to pay for basic living expenses (72% vs 55%; adjusted odds ratio, 5.16; 95% CI, 2.34-11.40).

Conclusions and Relevance  These findings suggest that access to abortion enables women to choose to have children at a time when they have more financial and emotional resources to devote to their children.

×