Interpretations of Legal Exceptions and Pregnancy Risk Assessments Among Patients and Support People in Georgia [ID 3714]

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to explore how people see the exceptions in Georgia’s House Bill (HB) 481 (a fetal cardiac activity abortion ban), perceive their pregnancy risk, and make determinations around acceptable risk and high risk under Georgia’s law. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with patients from Georgia attempting to access abortion care after HB481 was enacted, as well as support people. Interviews focused on participants’ understanding of “high-risk” pregnancy, interpretation of the medical exceptions in Georgia’s law, and approach to making pregnancy risk assessments for themselves and loved ones. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed the interviews, and are presenting a subset of themes. We consulted regularly with our community advisory board throughout this research. RESULTS: We conducted 27 interviews with patients and 8 with support people. Participants described expansive understandings of what a high-risk pregnancy means to them, beyond the narrow definitions in Georgia’s law. Their risk assessments around whether to continue a pregnancy included mental health, life experiences (poverty, race, gender), and the effect of pregnancy on families, finances, and lifestyle. Participants described how not being able to access care would or has affected their lives, and how HB481 affected their decision making. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Our results indicate that exceptions do not cover the spectrum of experiences that people consider high risk when making pregnancy decisions. Given that legislators often assert that exceptions allow people with “high-risk pregnancies” to access care, evidence demonstrating how Georgia’s law fails to capture the heterogeneity of high-risk pregnancy and leaves many people behind has potential implications in policy discussions.