Dangertalk: Voices of abortion providers

of dangertalk paper
- We identify self-censored narratives of providers, and call them “dangertalk”.
- “Dangertalk” narratives feel threatening to a movement one supports.
- Giving voice to dangertalk narratives may transform current abortion discourse.
- We present a conceptual model for the role of dangertalk in abortion discourse.

Researchers have described the difficulties of doing abortion work, including the psychosocial costs to individual providers. Some have discussed the self-censorship in which providers engage in to protect themselves and the pro-choice movement. However, few have examined the costs of this self-censorship to public discourse and social movements in the US. Using qualitative data collected during abortion providers' discussions of their work, we explore the tensions between their narratives and pro-choice discourse, and examine the types of stories that are routinely silenced - narratives we name “dangertalk”. Using these data, we theorize about the ways in which giving voice to these tensions might transform current abortion discourse by disrupting false dichotomies and better reflecting the complex realities of abortion. We present a conceptual model for dangertalk in abortion discourse, connecting it to functions of dangertalk in social movements more broadly.