abortion comparative essay

Foreign Affairs
CFR Education
Newsletters

Climate Change

Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland December 5, 2023 Renewing America

Defense & Security
Diplomacy & International Institutions
Energy & Environment
Human Rights
Politics & Government
Social Issues

Myanmar’s Troubled History

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland January 31, 2022

Europe & Eurasia
Global Commons
Middle East & North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa

How Tobacco Laws Could Help Close the Racial Gap on Cancer

Interactive by Olivia Angelino, Thomas J. Bollyky , Elle Ruggiero and Isabella Turilli February 1, 2023 Global Health Program

Backgrounders
Special Projects

United States

Book by Max Boot September 10, 2024

Centers & Programs
Books & Reports
Independent Task Force Program
Fellowships

Oil and Petroleum Products

Academic Webinar: The Geopolitics of Oil

Webinar with Carolyn Kissane and Irina A. Faskianos April 12, 2023

Students and Educators
State & Local Officials
Religion Leaders
Local Journalists

NATO's Future: Enlarged and More European?

Virtual Event with Emma M. Ashford, Michael R. Carpenter, Camille Grand, Thomas Wright, Liana Fix and Charles A. Kupchan June 25, 2024 Europe Program

Lectureship Series
Webinars & Conference Calls
Member Login

Abortion Law: Global Comparisons

Members of a pro-choice group protest in Belfast, Northern Ireland, in October 2019.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed the constitutional right to abortion for almost fifty years. How does regulation of abortion in the United States compare to that in the rest of the world?

Article by Women and Foreign Policy Program Staff

Last updated March 7, 2024 2:30 pm (EST)

The past fifty years have been characterized by an unmistakable trend toward the liberalization of abortion laws, particularly in the industrialized world. Each year, around seventy-three million abortions take place worldwide, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). This translates to about thirty-nine abortions per one thousand women globally, a rate that has stayed roughly the same since 1990. Notably, rates have diverged between countries with fewer restrictions and those with more: Between 1990–94 and 2015–19, the average abortion rate in countries with generally legal abortion (excluding China and India) declined by 43 percent. By contrast, in countries with severe restrictions on abortion, the average abortion rate increased by around 12 percent.

As nations around the globe have expanded the grounds on which people can access reproductive health services, the quality and safety of abortion care has improved, as has maternal survival. However, the safety of abortion procedures diverges widely between countries where abortion is generally legal and countries with high restrictions on abortion. Almost 90 percent of abortions in countries with liberal abortion laws are considered safe, compared with just 25 percent of abortions [PDF] in countries where abortion is banned. According to the WHO, approximately 5–13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide are due to complications from unsafe abortions, the vast majority of which occur in developing countries.

Women and Women's Rights

Maternal and Child Health

However, there remains strong opposition to abortion among some constituencies. And in recent years, a number of countries, particularly autocracies, have pushed back against the expansion of women’s and reproductive rights. Abortion opponents in the United States won a major victory in June 2022 with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , a Supreme Court ruling that struck down the 1973 decision Roe v. Wade , which guaranteed the constitutional right to abortion. Since Dobbs , twenty-one states have moved to ban or restrict abortion access.

What does abortion law look like around the world?

Although the legal status of abortion varies considerably by region, a large majority of countries permit abortion under at least some circumstances; globally, twenty-two countries ban abortion entirely. Most industrialized countries allow the procedure without restriction. Around one hundred countries have some restrictions, typically permitting abortion only in limited situations, including for socioeconomic reasons, risks to a woman’s physical or mental health, or the presence of fetal anomalies. However, legal language concerning exemptions for fetal impairment is often vague, resulting in uncertainty for medical professionals about whether performing certain abortions is legal.

Access to safe abortion has been established as a human right by numerous international frameworks , the UN Human Rights Committee, and regional human rights courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. At the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, 179 governments signed a program of action [PDF] that included a commitment to prevent unsafe abortion. And in 2015, the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development expanded to call for universal access to services for reproductive-health care. The WHO first recognized unsafe abortion as a public health problem in 1967, and in 2003 it developed technical and policy guidelines that include a recommendation that states pass abortion laws to protect women’s health. According to the UN Population Fund, addressing the unmet need for family planning would both considerably reduce maternal mortality and reduce abortion by up to 70 percent in the developing world.

How does the United States compare?

The world this week, a weekly digest of the latest from cfr on the biggest foreign policy stories of the week, featuring briefs, opinions, and explainers. every friday., daily news brief, a summary of global news developments with cfr analysis delivered to your inbox each morning. weekdays., think global health.

A curation of original analyses, data visualizations, and commentaries, examining the debates and efforts to improve health worldwide. Weekly.

The Supreme Court’s decision on June 24, 2022, to strike down Roe v. Wade , overturns almost fifty years of precedent that conferred a constitutional right to receive an abortion. In the 1973 Roe decision, the Court held that the Constitution guarantees the right to choose to have an abortion, though it permitted regulations after the first trimester of pregnancy. With Roe , the United States became one of the first countries to liberalize its abortion laws, along with several Western European nations. In 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed the right to an abortion but permitted additional restrictions, such as waiting periods and parental consent requirements.

For decades, states have introduced and implemented various laws regulating abortions. Some passed laws to protect abortion access, while others imposed more onerous regulations on abortion providers and sought to prohibit abortion at earlier points in pregnancy. Many states have passed increasingly strict abortion laws in recent years, sometimes banning the procedure after as few as six weeks of pregnancy. Some states with stringent abortion restrictions, such as Idaho, Oklahoma, and Texas, have implemented so-called vigilante laws allowing members of the public to sue abortion providers and anyone they suspect of providing or facilitating abortions. In the last year, more than sixty Planned Parenthood facilities and doctors’ offices have been forced to close or focus on services other than abortion. Some providers have moved to less-restrictive states, leaving many states with only a single abortion provider .

Roe’s reversal allows the thirteen states that have so-called trigger laws to either ban abortion automatically or by quick state action. While all of these state laws exempt abortions in cases of life-threatening pregnancies, many do not exempt pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion advocates have praised the Supreme Court’s decision, while Democratic lawmakers and abortion advocates have condemned it.

What have been recent trends?

The global trend in abortion law has been toward liberalization. In the last thirty years, more than sixty countries have changed their abortion laws, and all but four—the United States, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Poland— expanded the legal grounds on which women can access abortion services. Since 2020, Argentina and Thailand legalized abortions, with certain gestational limits; South Korea decriminalized abortion; and New Zealand eased its abortion restrictions. Most recently, amid a growing “ green wave ” in Latin America, Colombia made abortion legal on demand up to twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and Mexico decriminalized the procedure, removing its ban from the federal penal code. Although most countries have taken steps to expand grounds for abortion, some—including Honduras and the United States—are enacting policies to tighten restrictions.

Here’s a look at how abortion laws have changed in a handful of countries around the globe:

China . China liberalized its abortion law in the 1950s and promoted the practice under its one-child policy, which was enacted in 1979 in an effort to curb population growth by restricting families to one child. The policy, under which abortion services were made widely available, came with severe coercive measures —including fines, compulsory sterilization, and abortion—to deter unauthorized births. China raised this long-standing limit to a two-child policy in 2016, along with other incentives to encourage population growth amid a rapidly aging population. In 2021, it increased the limit to three children, and China’s State Council issued guidelines on women’s development that called to reduce “non–medically necessary abortions.”

Kenya . Postcolonial Kenya’s abortion law was rooted in the British penal code, which criminalized abortion. When Kenya adopted a new constitution in 2010, it expanded the grounds [PDF] on which women could obtain an abortion to include emergency cases, or those in which the health of the mother is at stake. In June 2019, a court extended the exceptions to include cases of rape . As other former European colonies reevaluate their abortion statutes, many are expanding the grounds for abortion. For instance, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Mali, and Niger—nations whose restrictive abortion laws were holdovers from the 1810 Napoleonic Code imposed by France—have made abortion legal in cases of rape, incest, or fetal impairment.

Ireland . In 2018, the Irish parliament legalized the termination of pregnancy before twelve weeks, as well as in cases in which the health of the mother is at stake. Previously, Ireland had one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, codified in a 1983 constitutional amendment that effectively banned the practice. The 2012 death of Savita Halappanavar after she was denied an emergency abortion reignited public debate and protest and prompted a countrywide referendum to overturn the amendment; the referendum passed with 66 percent of the vote. In 2019, abortion was legalized in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom (UK). The UK’s 1967 Abortion Act, which grants doctors in England, Scotland, and Wales the authority to perform abortions, was extended to Northern Ireland following a vote by the UK Parliament.

Zambia . Zambia is one of the few countries in Africa where abortion is permitted for economic and social reasons, but, despite having a liberal law, structural and cultural barriers make it difficult for Zambian women to obtain abortions. As of 2018, Zambia had one practicing medical doctor per twelve thousand inhabitants; and for the 55 percent of Zambians living in rural areas, health professionals are few and far between. The law stipulates that only a registered medical practitioner [PDF], and not a nurse or midwife, can perform an abortion, rendering safe access out of reach for most. Zambia is plagued by a high rate of abortion-related maternal mortality , with about 30 percent of maternal deaths caused by abortion complications.

Honduras. The Central American country has among the world’s strictest laws on abortion, which has been banned since 1985. In 2021, lawmakers enshrined the ban in the country’s constitution; now, any change to abortion law requires at least a three-quarters majority in the National Congress. UN experts estimate that between around fifty thousand and eighty thousand unsafe abortions take place in Honduras each year. Honduras’s neighbors El Salvador and Nicaragua also have prohibitions on abortion, and they are the only two countries to have imposed new restrictions on abortion since the 1994 Cairo Declaration, which recognized reproductive health as critical to development.

Poland . In 2020, Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal ruled that abortions in cases of fetal impairment are unconstitutional, making the country’s abortion law one of the strictest in Europe. Because the vast majority of abortions performed in Poland prior to the ruling were due to fetal abnormalities, the decision initiated a near-total ban. In response, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest the decision, though it remains in effect. Polish law still allows abortions in cases of rape, incest, and life-threatening pregnancies, though doctors have reportedly been reluctant to perform legal abortions since the ruling. Doctors face up to three years in prison if the government finds they performed an abortion hastily or without sufficient justification.

France . In 2024, France became the first country to enshrine abortion rights in its constitution. Abortion rights had been decriminalized in 1975 in a controversial act that legalized the procedure up to the tenth week of pregnancy. The gestational limit was extended to twelve weeks in 2001 and fourteen weeks in 2022. That same year, following the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the country sought to formally safeguard the law with a constitutional amendment. Having passed through the National Assembly and Senate, the amended Article 34 now guarantees a woman’s freedom to have an abortion. Polls show that more than 80 percent of respondents endorsed this amendment.

Editor’s note: This article is based on original reporting by Rachel B. Vogelstein and Rebecca Turkington that was previously published on CFR.org in 2019.

Noël James, Haydn Welch, and Antonio Barreras Lozano contributed to this article. Will Merrow created the graphics.

Explore More on Women and Women's Rights

Women and Women's Rights

Article by Women and Foreign Policy Program Staff March 7, 2024 Women and Foreign Policy Program

Artificial Intelligence Enters the Political Arena

Blog Post by Catherine Powell and Alexandra Dent May 24, 2023 Women Around the World

Glass Ceiling Index: Not Yet Shattered

Blog Post by Catherine Powell and Alexandra Dent April 17, 2023 Women Around the World

Comparison/Contrast Essays: Two Patterns

202.448-7036

First Pattern: Block-by-Block

By Rory H. Osbrink

Abortion is an example of a very controversial issue. The two opposing viewpoints surrounding abortion are like two sides of a coin. On one side, there is the pro-choice activist and on the other is the pro-life activist.

The argument is a balanced one; for every point supporting abortion there is a counter-point condemning abortion. This essay will delineate the controversy in one type of comparison/contrast essay form: the “”Argument versus Argument,”” or, “”Block-by-Block”” format. In this style of writing, first you present all the arguments surrounding one side of the issue, then you present all the arguments surrounding the other side of the issue. You are generally not expected to reach a conclusion, but simply to present the opposing sides of the argument.

Introduction: (the thesis is underlined) Explains the argument

The Abortion Issue: Compare and Contrast Block-by-Block Format

One of the most divisive issues in America is the controversy surrounding abortion. Currently, abortion is legal in America, and many people believe that it should remain legal. These people, pro-choice activists, believe that it is the women’s right to chose whether or not to give birth. However, there are many groups who are lobbying Congress to pass laws that would make abortion illegal. These people are called the pro-life activists.

Explains pro-choice

Abortion is a choice that should be decided by each individual, argues the pro-choice activist. Abortion is not murder since the fetus is not yet fully human, therefore, it is not in defiance against God. Regardless of the reason for the abortion, it should be the woman’s choice because it is her body. While adoption is an option some women chose, many women do not want to suffer the physical and emotional trauma of pregnancy and labor only to give up a child. Therefore, laws should remain in effect that protect a woman’s right to chose.

Explains pro-life

Abortion is an abomination, argues the pro-life activist. It makes no sense for a woman to murder a human being not even born. The bible says, “”Thou shalt not kill,”” and it does not discriminate between different stages of life. A fetus is the beginning of life. Therefore, abortion is murder, and is in direct defiance of God’s will. Regardless of the mother’s life situation (many women who abort are poor, young, or drug users), the value of a human life cannot be measured. Therefore, laws should be passed to outlaw abortion. After all, there are plenty of couples who are willing to adopt an unwanted child.

If we take away the woman’s right to chose, will we begin limiting her other rights also? Or, if we keep abortion legal, are we devaluing human life? There is no easy answer to these questions. Both sides present strong, logical arguments. Though it is a very personal decision, t he fate of abortion rights will have to be left for the Supreme Court to decide.

Second Pattern: Point-by-Point

This second example is also an essay about abortion. We have used the same information and line of reasoning in this essay, however, this one will be presented in the “”Point-by-Point”” style argument. The Point-by-Point style argument presents both sides of the argument at the same time. First, you would present one point on a specific topic, then you would follow that up with the opposing point on the same topic. Again, you are generally not expected to draw any conclusions, simply to fairly present both sides of the argument.

Introduction: (the thesis is underlined)

Explains the argument

The Abortion Issue: Compare and Contrast Point-by-Point Format

Point One: Pro-life and Pro-choice

Supporters of both pro-life and pro-choice refer to religion as support for their side of the argument. Pro-life supporters claim that abortion is murder, and is therefore against God’s will. However, pro-choice defenders argue that abortion is not murder since the fetus is not yet a fully formed human. Therefore, abortion would not be a defiance against God.

Point Two: Pro-life and Pro-choice

Another main point of the argument is over the woman’s personal rights, versus the rights of the unborn child. Pro-choice activists maintain that regardless of the individual circumstances, women should have the right to chose whether or not to abort. The pregnancy and labor will affect only the woman’s body, therefore it should be the woman’s decision. Pro-life supporters, on the other hand, believe that the unborn child has the right to life, and that abortion unlawfully takes away that right.

Tutorial & Instructional Programs

Gallaudet University

202-448-7036

At a Glance

Quick Facts
University Leadership
History & Traditions
Accreditation
Consumer Information
Our 10-Year Vision: The Gallaudet Promise
Annual Report of Achievements (ARA)
The Signing Ecosystem
Not Your Average University

Our Community

Library & Archives
Technology Support
Interpreting Requests
Ombuds Support
Health and Wellness Programs
Profile & Web Edits

Visit Gallaudet

Explore Our Campus
Virtual Tour
Maps & Directions
Shuttle Bus Schedule
Kellogg Conference Hotel
Welcome Center
National Deaf Life Museum
Apple Guide Maps

Engage Today

Work at Gallaudet / Clerc Center
Social Media Channels
University Wide Events
Sponsorship Requests
Data Requests
Media Inquiries
Gallaudet Today Magazine
Giving at Gallaudet
Financial Aid
Registrar’s Office
Residence Life & Housing
Safety & Security
Undergraduate Admissions
Graduate Admissions
University Communications
Clerc Center

Gallaudet University, chartered in 1864, is a private university for deaf and hard of hearing students.

Accessibility
Cookie Consent Notice
Privacy Policy
File a Report

800 Florida Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002

Abortion rights activists demonstrate outside the United States Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., June 25, 2022. Photo by...

Council on Foreign Relations Council on Foreign Relations

Leave your feedback

Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-the-u-s-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world-on-abortion-rights

How the U.S. compares with the rest of the world on abortion rights

The past 50 years have been characterized by an unmistakable trend toward the liberalization of abortion laws, particularly in the industrialized world.

Each year, around 73 million abortions take place worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. This translates to about 39 abortions per 1,000 women globally, a rate that has stayed roughly the same since 1990. Notably, rates have diverged between countries with fewer restrictions and those with more: Between 1990–94 and 2015–19, the average abortion rate in countries with generally legal abortion (excluding China and India) declined by 43 percent.

By contrast, in countries with severe restrictions on abortion, the average abortion rate increased by around 12 percent.

Rates are shown with and without China and India because the countries have a large effect on the average due to the size of their populations. Graph courtesy Council on Foreign Relations

As nations around the globe have expanded the grounds on which people can access reproductive health services, the quality and safety of abortion care have improved, as has maternal survival. However, the safety of abortion procedures diverges widely between countries where abortion is generally legal and countries with high restrictions on abortion.

WATCH: What to know about tech surveillance and abortion access

Almost 90 percent of abortions in countries with liberal abortion laws are considered safe, compared with just 25 percent of abortions in countries where abortion is banned. According to the WHO, approximately 5–13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide are due to complications from unsafe abortions, the vast majority of which occur in developing countries.

However, there remains strong opposition to abortion among some constituencies. And in recent years, a number of countries, particularly autocracies, have pushed back against the expansion of women’s and reproductive rights. Abortion opponents in the United States won a major victory in June 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed the constitutional right to abortion.

What does abortion law look like around the world?

Although the legal status of abortion varies considerably by region, a large majority of countries permit abortion under at least some circumstances; globally, two dozen countries ban abortion entirely. Most industrialized countries allow the procedure without restriction.

Around 100 countries have some restrictions, typically permitting abortion only in limited situations, including for socioeconomic reasons, risks to the physical or mental health of the woman, or the presence of fetal anomalies. However, legal language concerning exemptions for fetal impairment is often vague, resulting in uncertainty for medical professionals about whether performing certain abortions is legal.

Abortion laws vary by state in the United States and Mexico. Some countries that permit abortion to save the person’s life, to preserve health, or on social or economic grounds also permit it in cases of rape, incest, or fetal impairment. Graph courtesy Council on Foreign Relations

Access to safe abortion has been established as a human right by numerous international frameworks , the U.N. Human Rights Committee, and regional human rights courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

At the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, 179 governments signed a program of action that included a commitment to prevent unsafe abortion. The WHO first recognized unsafe abortion as a public health problem in 1967, and in 2003 it developed technical and policy guidelines that include a recommendation that states pass abortion laws to protect women’s health. According to the U.N. Population Fund, addressing the unmet need for family planning would both considerably reduce maternal mortality and reduce abortion by up to 70 percent in the developing world.

How does the United States compare?

The Supreme Court’s decision on June 24, 2022, to strike down Roe v. Wade, overturns almost 50 years of precedent that conferred a constitutional right to receive an abortion. In the 1973 Roe decision, the Court held that the Constitution guarantees the right to choose to have an abortion, though it permitted regulations after the first trimester of pregnancy.

With Roe, the United States became one of the first countries to liberalize its abortion laws, along with several Western European nations. In 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed the right to an abortion but permitted additional restrictions, such as waiting periods and parental consent requirements.

READ MORE: Biden supports filibuster exception to protect abortion access

For decades, states have introduced and implemented various laws regulating abortions. Some states passed laws to protect abortion access, while others imposed more onerous regulations on abortion providers and sought to prohibit abortion at earlier points in pregnancy. This led to the closure of more than 160 clinics and left a handful of states with only a single abortion provider .

In recent years, many states have passed increasingly strict abortion laws, such as in Oklahoma, where the governor signed legislation to ban all abortions after six weeks, except in cases of life-threatening pregnancies. The law resembles one passed in Texas in 2021; both also allow private citizens to sue anyone they suspect of providing or facilitating an abortion.

Roe’s reversal allows the thirteen states that have so-called trigger laws to either ban abortion automatically or within 30 days. While all of these state laws exempt abortions in cases of life-threatening pregnancies, many do not exempt pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion advocates have praised the Supreme Court’s decision, while Democratic lawmakers and abortion advocates have condemned it.

What have been recent trends?

The global trend in abortion law has been toward liberalization. Since 2000, 38 countries have changed their abortion laws, and all but one—Nicaragua— expanded the legal grounds on which women can access abortion services. Since 2020, Argentina and Thailand legalized abortions, with certain gestational limits; Mexico decriminalized abortion, as did South Korea; and New Zealand eased its abortion restrictions.

Most recently, Colombia made abortion legal on demand up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, the latest sign of a growing “ green wave ” in Latin America. Although most countries have taken steps to expand grounds for abortion, some—including Honduras and the United States—are enacting policies to tighten restrictions.

Following a June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, some states started only allowing abortion to save the person’s life. Following a September 2021 Mexican Supreme Court ruling, some states started permitting abortion on request, and all states are required to eventually do so. Graph courtesy Council on Foreign Relations

Here’s a look at how abortion laws have changed in a handful of countries around the globe:

China liberalized its abortion law in the 1950s and promoted the practice under its one-child policy, which was enacted in 1979 in an effort to curb population growth by restricting families to one child. The policy, under which abortion services were made widely available, came with severe coercive measures —including fines, compulsory sterilization, and abortion—to deter unauthorized births. China raised this long-standing limit to a two-child policy in 2016, along with other incentives to encourage population growth amid a rapidly aging population. In 2021, it increased the limit to three children, and China’s State Council issued guidelines on women’s development that called to reduce “non–medically necessary abortions.”

Postcolonial Kenya’s abortion law was rooted in the British penal code, which criminalized abortion. When Kenya adopted a new constitution in 2010, it expanded the grounds on which women could obtain an abortion to include emergency cases, or those in which the health of the mother is at stake. In June 2019, a court extended the exceptions to include cases of rape . As other former European colonies reevaluate their abortion statutes, many are expanding the grounds for abortion. For instance, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Mali, and Niger—nations whose restrictive abortion laws were holdovers from the 1810 Napoleonic Code imposed by France—have made abortion legal in cases of rape, incest, or fetal impairment.

In 2018, the Irish parliament legalized the termination of pregnancy before twelve weeks, as well as in cases in which the health of the mother is at stake. Previously, Ireland had one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, codified in a 1983 constitutional amendment that effectively banned the practice. The 2012 death of Savita Halappanavar after she was denied an emergency abortion reignited public debate and protest and prompted a countrywide referendum to overturn the amendment; the referendum passed with 66 percent of the vote. In 2019, abortion was legalized in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom (UK). The UK’s 1967 Abortion Act, which grants doctors in England, Scotland, and Wales the authority to perform abortions, was extended to Northern Ireland following a vote by the UK Parliament.

Zambia is one of the few countries in Africa where abortion is permitted for economic and social reasons, but, despite having a liberal law, structural and cultural barriers make it difficult for Zambian women to obtain abortions. As of 2018, Zambia had one practicing medical doctor per 12,000 inhabitants; and for the 55 percent of Zambians living in rural areas, health professionals are few and far between. The law stipulates that only a registered medical practitioner , and not a nurse or midwife, can perform an abortion, rendering safe access out of reach for most. Zambia is plagued by a high rate of abortion-related maternal mortality , with about 30 percent of maternal deaths caused by abortion complications.

The Central American country has among the world’s strictest laws on abortion, which has been banned since 1985. In 2021, lawmakers enshrined the ban in the country’s constitution; now, any change to abortion law requires at least a three-quarters majority in the National Congress. U.N. experts estimate that between around 50,000 and 80,000 unsafe abortions take place in Honduras each year. Honduras’s neighbors El Salvador and Nicaragua also have prohibitions on abortion, and they are the only two countries to have imposed new restrictions on abortion since the 1994 Cairo Declaration, which recognized reproductive health as critical to development.

In 2020, Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal ruled that abortions in cases of fetal impairment are unconstitutional, making the country’s abortion law one of the strictest in Europe. Because the vast majority of abortions performed in Poland prior to the ruling were due to fetal abnormalities, the decision initiated a near-total ban. In response, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest the decision, though it remains in effect. Polish law still allows abortions in cases of rape, incest, and life-threatening pregnancies, though doctors have reportedly been reluctant to perform legal abortions since the ruling. Doctors face up to three years in prison if the government finds they performed an abortion hastily or without sufficient justification.

READ MORE: Polish women mark Women’s Day protesting abortion ban

Editor’s note: This article is based on original reporting by Rachel B. Vogelstein and Rebecca Turkington that was previously published on CFR.org in 2019.

Haydn Welch and Antonio Barreras Lozano contributed to this article. Will Merrow created the graphics.

This article originally ran on the Council on Foreign Relations website.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

Democrats pressure Biden to take executive action on abortion rights

Nation Jun 29

Back to Faculty Bibliography

Joseph William Singer, Conflict of Abortion Laws , 16 Ne. U.L. Rev. (forthcoming 2024).

Abstract: When a resident of an anti-abortion state goes to a prochoice state to get an abortion, which law applies to that person? To the abortion provider? To anyone who helps them obtain the abortion? Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overruled Roe v. Wade, states have passed conflicting laws regarding abortion, and courts will need to determine whether anti-abortion states can apply their laws to persons or events outside their territory either through civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution. This article canvasses the major disputes likely to arise over conflicts of abortion law and the arguments on both sides in those cases. It addresses both common law analysis and the constitutional constraints on application of state law under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Due Process Clause, and it comes to some conclusions both about what laws should apply in different fact settings and how the choice of law analysis should proceed.Since Dobbs focused on the “history and tradition” behind rights under the Due Process Clause, and because the constitutional test for “legislative jurisdiction” that regulates when a state can apply its law to a controversy is partly based on the Due Process Clause, we start with the prevalent approaches to conflicts of law available to judges at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 and when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, focusing on the “comity” approach championed by Justice Joseph Story. We consider also the First Restatement’s vested rights approach in vogue between the end of the nineteenth century and the middle of the twentieth century. We then move to modern choice of law analysis to determine which law applies when a person leaves their state to obtain an abortion. We will consider the Second Restatement’s “most significant relationship” test, the “comparative impairment” approach, the “better law” and “forum law” approaches, as well as the emerging Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws rules being drafted right now by the American Law Institute.One set of cases involves conduct that is wholly situated within the borders of the anti-abortion state. That state has full authority under the Constitution to regulate its internal affairs and to apply its laws to people who distribute or use anti-abortion medication there or who otherwise assist residents in violating its laws prohibiting or limiting access to abortion. Anti-abortion states have full authority to regulate conduct within their borders. However, the First Amendment protects people who provide information about the availability of abortion services in other states where it is legal, and the constitutional right to travel should protect those who transport someone out of state to get an abortion in a prochoice state or who subsidize the cost of such out-of-state travel.A second set of cases concerns cross-border torts where conduct in a prochoice state has effects in an anti-abortion state. Courts traditionally apply the law of the place of injury to those cases if it was foreseeable that the conduct would cause the injury there. But there are traditional exceptions to the place of injury rule that should apply in the abortion context when the place of conduct defines the conduct as a fundamental right and immunizes the actor from liability or places a duty or an affirmative privilege on the abortion provider to provide the care. Courts should depart from the place of injury rule in those circumstances when conduct is wholly confined to the immunizing (prochoice) state, and that means that an anti-abortion state cannot legitimately punish an abortion provider in a prochoice state who provides care there in reliance on rules of medical ethics that require the care to be provided. Nothing would violate rule of law norms more severely than placing a person under a simultaneous duty to provide care and a duty not to provide that care. On the other hand, anti-abortion states have full authority to regulate out-of-state conduct that does spill over the border into the anti-abortion state, such as shipping abortion medication to a recipient there. Difficult issues of foreseeability and proximate cause arise when an abortion provider prescribes abortion medication in a prochoice state but knows or suspects that the patient will be taking the medication back to the anti-abortion state to ingest. In some fact settings, the foreseeability issue is significant enough that it may rise to a constitutional limitation on the powers of the anti-abortion state to apply its law to out-of-state conduct or to assert personal jurisdiction over the abortion provider. In other cases, the place of injury has the constitutional authority to apply its law to out-of-state conduct that the actor knows will cause unlawful harm across the border but it may or may not have personal jurisdiction over the nonresident provider.A third set of cases involve bounty claims, tort survival lawsuits, or wrongful death suits that an anti-abortion state might seek to create by giving claims to one of its residents against the resident who left the state to get the abortion. Such cases may be viewed as “common domicile” cases by the anti-abortion state since both plaintiff and defendant reside in the anti-abortion state. That may tempt the anti-abortion state to apply its laws to an abortion that takes place in another state even though both conduct and injury occurred in a state that privileges the conduct and immunizes the defendant from liability. However, the law of the place of conduct and injury should apply in those cases since the prochoice law is a “conduct-regulating rule,” and choice of law analysis, traditional rules, and constitutional constraints on legislative jurisdiction all require deference to the law of the prochoice state in such cases. Courts sometimes apply the law of the common domicile when the law at the place of conduct and injury is not geared to regulating conduct there, but the opposite is true for laws directed at conduct, and this article will show why prochoice laws that define abortions as a fundamental right are conduct-regulating rules. The same is true for the question of criminal prosecution. An anti-abortion state has no legitimate authority to punish a resident who leaves the state to get an abortion in a state where abortion is protected as a fundamental right.

European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview

An overview of abortion laws and policies in all 47 european countries..

The Center for Reproductive Rights monitors and analyzes European abortion laws and advocates for reform of laws to ensure that they reflect international human rights standards and best medical practice.

For more than 80 years, the overwhelming trend has been for European countries to liberalize their abortion laws and legalize access to abortion. Today, almost all European countries allow abortion on request or on broad social grounds, and only a very small minority maintain highly restrictive laws.

However, a range of medically unnecessary procedural and regulatory requirements remain enshrined in some countries’ laws, including mandatory waiting periods or mandatory counseling prior to abortion, the criminalization of abortion performed outside the scope of the law, and burdensome third-party authorization requirements. In recent years, a number of European countries have begun to enact important reforms or to remove harmful procedural and regulatory barriers that can impede access to legal abortion.

European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview —updated in September 2023 to reflect changes in Malta, Finland and Spain—provides an overview of abortion laws and policies in all 47 European countries. With a range of visual tools for analyzing the laws, the report also provides a snapshot of the legal and policy barriers that continue to impede access to abortion in many European countries.

View the full report here: European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview

Tags: European abortion laws , Abortion in Europe , European abortion laws: a comparative overview

Washington post op-ed counters claims that u.s. abortion restrictions are aligned with european laws.

Leah Hoctor, the Center's senior regional director for Europe, calls claims by Senator Lindsey Graham and others "simply untrue."

Explore the Center’s updated report outlining abortion laws and policies—and remaining barriers to access—in all 47 European countries.

European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview

Sign up for email updates.

The most up-to-date news on reproductive rights, delivered straight to you.

Privacy Overview

Cookie	Duration	Description
_ga	2 years	This cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to calculate visitor, session, campaign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookies store information anonymously and assign a randomly generated number to identify unique visitors.
_gat_UA-6619340-1	1 minute	No description
_gid	1 day	This cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the wbsite is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages viisted in an anonymous form.
_parsely_session	30 minutes	This cookie is used to track the behavior of a user within the current session.
HotJar: _hjAbsoluteSessionInProgress	30 minutes	No description
HotJar: _hjFirstSeen	30 minutes	No description
HotJar: _hjid	1 year	This cookie is set by Hotjar. This cookie is set when the customer first lands on a page with the Hotjar script. It is used to persist the random user ID, unique to that site on the browser. This ensures that behavior in subsequent visits to the same site will be attributed to the same user ID.
HotJar: _hjIncludedInPageviewSample	2 minutes	No description
HotJar: _hjIncludedInSessionSample	2 minutes	No description
HotJar: _hjTLDTest	session	No description
SSCVER	1 year 24 days	The domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for online advertising by creating user profile based on their preferences.

Cookie	Duration	Description
_fbp	3 months	This cookie is set by Facebook to deliver advertisement when they are on Facebook or a digital platform powered by Facebook advertising after visiting this website.
fr	3 months	The cookie is set by Facebook to show relevant advertisments to the users and measure and improve the advertisements. The cookie also tracks the behavior of the user across the web on sites that have Facebook pixel or Facebook social plugin.
IDE	1 year 24 days	Used by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile.
IMRID	1 year 24 days	The domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for storing the start and end of the user session for nielsen statistics. It helps in consumer profiling for online advertising.
personalization_id	2 years	This cookie is set by twitter.com. It is used integrate the sharing features of this social media. It also stores information about how the user uses the website for tracking and targeting.
TDID	1 year	The cookie is set by CloudFare service to store a unique ID to identify a returning users device which then is used for targeted advertising.
test_cookie	15 minutes	This cookie is set by doubleclick.net. The purpose of the cookie is to determine if the user's browser supports cookies.

Cookie	Duration	Description
adEdition	1 day	No description
akaas_MSNBC	10 days	No description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	1 year	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	1 year	No description
geoEdition	1 day	No description
next-i18next	1 year	No description

Questioning the Comparative Relevance of US Abortion Jurisprudence

By Payal Shah

In the U.S., June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo is a critical decision to stall regression on abortion rights. From a global perspective, however, June Medical, along with the Court’s contemporaneous decision upholding the U.S. government’s Anti-Prostitution Loyalty Oath (APLO) in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International , reflect another truth—the growing idiosyncrasy, insufficiency, and impropriety of comparative reference to U.S. abortion jurisprudence.

U.S. abortion jurisprudence has been cited by courts across the world in recognizing reproductive rights. This is in part because the U.S. was among the first countries to state that a women’s right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy is a protected constitutional right.

However, in the almost 50 years since Roe , the U.S. constitutional framework on abortion has not evolved in a comprehensive manner; instead has been shaped reactively, in response to laws passed by anti-abortion legislatures. Yet, constitutional courts continue to “ritualistically” employ Roe as the “hallmark of progressive law.”

The June Medical and Alliance for Open Society decisions ultimately maintain the national status quo on abortion rights—including the possibility of reversal of Roe v. Wade— and also facilitate the silencing of sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR) movements abroad. In doing so, these decisions call into question the contemporary comparative relevance of U.S. abortion jurisprudence.

US Abortion Law Is Out of Step with Global Norms

U.S. abortion law and policy have diverged from a clear global trajectory towards abortion law liberalization. In the last 25 years, while the U.S. has slowly hollowed out the right to abortion by denying public funding and allowing procedural incursions, nearly 50 countries have liberalized their laws and several others have even removed abortion wholesale from criminal codes. U.N. human rights law has consistently affirmed the right to abortion information and services and recognized states’ positive obligations to ensure all individuals can access abortion without barriers such as restrictive laws, medically unnecessary procedural requirements, or practical obstacles like stigma and cost.

COVID-19 provides a current illustration of the U.S.’ idiosyncratic approach; while countries around the world were recognizing abortion as essential healthcare and expanding medication abortion access, several U.S. states took action to effectively prohibit abortion access. This position was condemned by U.N. experts as “the latest example illustrating a pattern of restrictions and retrogressions in access to legal abortion care across the country.”

US Agenda to Undermine SRHR Abroad

U.S. actions to restrict SRHR and promote non-evidence-based policies globally further exemplify its failure as a beacon in this field. Recently, the U.S. government has repeatedly abdicated leadership roles on human rights and public health, including through withdrawal from the U.N. Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization. On SRHR, the U.S. has not only defunded UNFPA, but also pursued an agenda to erase these rights from international commitments and human rights resolutions.

The U.S. also has escalated attacks on SRHR across borders, including through an unprecedented expansion of the “ Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance ” policy (a.k.a. “the Global Gag Rule”), which prohibits foreign nongovernmental organizations receiving U.S. global health funding from providing, referring, counseling, or advocating for abortion care.

It is telling that on the same day that the June Medical decision was issued, the Supreme Court also upheld the APLO, which allows the U.S. to silence non-U.S. civil society, including foreign affiliates of U.S.-based organizations, by requiring that any foreign organization that receives President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) funding adopt a policy “explicitly opposing prostitution.”

Both policies have caused significant harm and contradict evidence on effective sexual and reproductive health responses.

Emergence of Alternative Standard-Bearers on SRHR

Domestically, U.S. abortion jurisprudence has long been criticized even by its own supporters as insufficient.

The U.S. abortion framework is rooted in privacy, understood in the U.S. as a negative right that does not require states to take positive measures such as public funding to ensure access.

Further, as noted by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , the failure to ground abortion rights in gender equality has resulted in a fractured framework where decisions around abortion, pregnancy, and women’s sexuality are seen distinctly, rather than as part of a broader context in which women’s gender-based differences are disregarded and minimized. The U.S. reproductive justice movement, founded and led by Black women drawing on the human rights framework, has extensively critiqued this approach as insufficient without adequate state and social structures to provide individuals with the practical ability to access these rights.

Conceptualizing privacy as only a negative right contravenes comparative developments and human rights law. Numerous judgments have emerged that reimagine the legal framework on abortion and articulate states’ positive obligations to ensure safe abortion, strike down restrictive abortion laws that reflect discriminatory gender stereotypes , and even jettison the underlying criminalization of abortion .

One example is the Supreme Court of Nepal’s decision in Lakshmi v. Government of Nepal , which links abortion rights to gender equality and recognizes positive obligations to ensure abortion in practice, including funding and decriminalization. Abortion-related decisions from several other countries also provide critical comparative touchpoints that engage human rights standards. U.N. human rights bodies have similarly outlined states’ positive obligations concerning safe abortion, including in two recent Human Rights Committee decisions in Mellet v. Ireland and Whelan v. Ireland , which mandate that states ensure abortion is equally accessible regardless of socioeconomic status.

Even within the U.S., national reproductive justice leaders celebrating the June Medical decision also flooded social media with the cautionary hashtag #believeinmore. This call to action should resonate amongst judges and advocates globally and prompt scrutiny as to whether and how to reference U.S. abortion jurisprudence in court documents and beyond.

The Supreme Court’s SRHR decisions this term call into question the validity and propriety of comparative reference to the U.S. as a standard-bearer on reproductive rights.

For judges, lawyers, and policymakers seeking to advance a human rights-based approach to abortion, the proven limitations of the U.S. abortion jurisprudence underscore that “believing in more” means looking beyond the U.S. for inspiration.

Payal K. Shah is a Fellow with the University of Toronto Faculty of Law’s International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program and an independent consultant.

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff

The Petrie-Flom Center staff often posts updates, announcements, and guests posts on behalf of others.

Sign up for our newsletter

Thesis: The Dynamic Landscape of Abortion Law in the United States

Editor's note:

Victoria Higginbotham defended her thesis titled “The Dynamic Landscape of Abortion Law in the United States” in May 2018 in front of committee members Jane Maienschein, Carolina Abboud, and Alexis Abboud, earning her a Bachelor’s degree from Barrett, the Honors College. https://repository.asu.edu/items/48020

The Dynamic Landscape of Abortion Law in the United States explores the ways abortion laws have changed in the United States over the course of US history. Abortion laws in the US have historically been fluid, changing in ways both big and small. Those changes can occur after advances in science, changes in understanding, or changes in public opinion. And there have been various periods in the history of the US where tolerance abortion waxed or waned, and common law reflected those attitudes.

Roe v. Wade was a pivotal moment in the history of abortion law that accomplished much in the way of broadening women's access to abortions. But Roe v. Wade was not the beginning or the end of the fight for abortion rights in the US. There were legal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade and illegal abortions after. Roe v. Wade granted that women had a constitutional right to have an abortion but the ruling left the boundaries of that right somewhat undefined and most courtroom battles over abortion laws are fought over where a woman's right to an abortion ends and a States right to regulate and protect fetal life begin.

Much change has occurred in abortion laws over the past 50 years, this thesis tracks those changes principally through Supreme Court Cases, such as United States v. Milan Vuitch, Roe v. Wade, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood among others. The landscape of abortion law in the US continues to shift today, as recently as 2017 with Plowman v. FMCH cases were being heard in courts that wrought subtle yet important changes in abortion law.

How to cite

Last modified, share this page.

Research article
Open access
Published: 20 December 2018

Global Abortion Policies Database: a descriptive analysis of the legal categories of lawful abortion

Antonella F. Lavelanet ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2159-2570 1 ,
Stephanie Schlitt 2 ,
Brooke Ronald Johnson Jr 1 &
Bela Ganatra 1

BMC International Health and Human Rights volume 18 , Article number: 44 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

17k Accesses

39 Citations

15 Altmetric

Metrics details

Texts and interpretations on the lawfulness of abortion and associated administrative requirements can be vague and confusing. It can also be difficult for a woman or provider to know exactly where to look for and how to interpret laws on abortion. To increase transparency, the Global Abortion Policies Database (GAPD), launched in 2017, facilitates the strengthening of knowledge and understanding of the complexities and nuances around lawful abortion as explicitly stated in laws and policies.

We report on data available in the GAPD as of May 2018. We reviewed the content and wording of laws, policies, standards and guidelines, judgments and other official statements for all countries where data is available in the GAPD. We analyzed data for 158 countries, where abortion is lawful on the woman’s request with no requirement for justification and/or for at least one legal ground, including additional indications that are nonequivalent to a single common legal ground. We classified laws on the basis of the explicit wording of the text. The GAPD treats legal categories as the circumstances under which abortion is lawful, that is, allowed or not contrary to law, or explicitly permitted or specified by law.

32% of countries allow or permit abortion at the woman’s request with no requirement for justification. Approximately 82% of countries allow or permit abortion to save the woman’s life. 64% of countries specify health, physical health and/or mental (or psychological) health. 51% allow or permit abortion based on a fetal condition, 46% of countries allow or permit abortion where the pregnancy is the result of rape, and 10% specify an economic or social ground. Laws may also specify several additional indications that are nonequivalent to a single legal ground.

Conclusions

The GAPD reflects details that exist within countries’ laws and highlights the nuance within legal categories of abortion; no assumptions are made as to how laws are interpreted or applied in practice. By examining the text of the law, additional complexities related to the legal categories of abortion become more apparent.

Peer Review reports

Abortion is one of the few health procedures that is legally regulated in most countries, but this was not always the case. There were few restrictions on abortion prior to the nineteenth century; women could access abortion prior to quickening, the time at which a woman can feel fetal movement [ 1 ]. However, with growing concern related to surgical and medical infection risks, abortion came to be seen as a dangerous and life-threatening surgery, prompting greater regulation, including the inclusion of abortion in penal legislation. In addition to health justifications, restrictions were also based on religious ideology, regulating fertility, fetal protection including for eugenic purposes, and in some cases, desires by physicians to limit competitor practice [ 1 , 2 ]. These restrictions were progressively incorporated into countries around the world, threatening the lives and eroding the rights of women around the world [ 3 , 4 ].

In the twentieth century, some countries began to recognize the equal status of women [ 1 ], while other countries began to appreciate the dangers of unsafe abortion [ 3 , 5 ] leading to the liberalization of abortion laws and/or the enactment of new abortion laws [ 6 ]. Where abortion is allowed or permitted, three broad categories exist: 1) abortion on request with no requirement for justification; 2) based on common legal grounds and related indications (hereinafter referred to as legal grounds); or 3) based on additional indications that are nonequivalent to a single legal ground but could be interpreted under multiple grounds. Common legal grounds include abortion to save the woman’s life, to preserve the woman’s health, in cases of rape, incest, fetal impairment, and for economic or social reasons [ 7 ]. Abortion regulation may occur in legal texts beyond the penal code, including reproductive health acts, general health acts, and medical ethics codes.

Although expanded categories of lawful abortion potentially yield greater access to abortion, the way in which abortion is expressed in legal texts can be vague and confusing. When looking merely at the legal texts, women and providers may find it difficult to know when abortion is lawful and how to interpret information related to legal requirements to ensure compliance with the law. Additionally, abortion may be regulated as a health procedure; abortion may be criminalized in all cases; there may be uncertain prohibition where laws prohibit unlawful abortion but do not specify what constitutes a lawful abortion; or exceptions for permitted abortion access may be specified in the law. Such regulations may exist in a variety of documents including penal codes, ministerial decrees, abortion-specific acts, and court cases to name a few. The expanding range of regulatory documents can sometimes lead to conflicting directives in various sources or even within the same source [ 7 , 8 ] leading to even greater confusion for women and providers related to the circumstances under which abortion is lawful.

Several databases currently exist which provide information related to country specific abortion laws and may facilitate better understanding of the legal regulation of abortion [ 7 , 9 , 10 ]. These databases often classify countries as falling on a hierarchical spectrum of access to abortion based on the number and type of grounds under which abortion is permitted. To increase transparency, the Global Abortion Policies Database (GAPD) was launched in 2017 [ 11 ] and facilitates the strengthening of knowledge by demonstrating the complexities and nuances of legal texts. The GAPD also contains information related to authorization and service-delivery requirements, conscientious objection, penalties, national SRH indicators, and UN Treaty Monitoring Body concluding observations on abortion. The GAPD does not offer information related to the meaning of legal texts or how legal texts are interpreted or applied in society. The meaning of any legal text is informed by its context: the wider set of laws concerning access requirements and women’s reproductive health more generally, and the culture in which these texts are operationalized. However, the GAPD does provide a starting point from which to understand legal categories, including on request with no requirement for justification, legal grounds, and additional nonequivalent indications as set out in national laws.

In this paper, our main objective is to use data extracted from the GAPD, to report on the number of countries that allow or permit abortion within each legal category and describe the complexities and nuances of these laws, which have not been addressed by other databases or have been obscured by more simplistic classification schemes.

We use data available in the GAPD as of May 2018. Footnote 1 The GAPD contains data that was extracted onto a policy questionnaire, based on closed questions and a finite set of legal grounds. Unique or complex policy nuances that do not exactly match one of the common legal grounds are separately captured in the GAPD as other . Footnote 2 The methodologic details related to the classifying and coding used for the GAPD have been previously described [ 12 ]. In this paper, we diverge from the way in which legal grounds are displayed on the GAPD to better describe the complexities related to legal categories of abortion; we do not present data related to additional access requirements.

The GAPD treats legal categories as the circumstances under which abortion is lawful, that is, allowed or not contrary to law, or explicitly permitted or specified by law (legal grounds). We reviewed the content and wording of laws, policies, standards and guidelines, judgments and other official statements (referred to hereinafter as ‘law’ and ‘laws’) for all countries where abortion is lawful on the woman’s request with no requirement for justification and/or for at least one legal ground, including additional indications that are nonequivalent to a single legal ground. Countries where abortion is prohibited in all circumstances (Andorra, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Holy See, Madagascar, Malta, Nicaragua, Palau, Philippines, Republic of Congo, San Marino, Senegal, and Suriname) and countries where laws prohibit unlawful abortion but do not specify lawful abortion (Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Gambia, Jamaica, Sierra Leone, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Tonga) are also excluded.

We only report on data that is available in the GAPD. Countries which have no data available in GAPD include Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Niue, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Seven countries (Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, China, Mexico, Nigeria, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) that may regulate abortion at the subnational level are not included in the analysis as the GAPD may not have subnational level data or the data may vary significantly across the jurisdictions. Thus, we analyzed data for 158 countries.

The coding and classification of laws is based on the explicit text of the law. We do not make assumptions about the interpretation of laws. Each ground is treated independently; countries where abortion is permitted on request with no requirement for justification are not coded in the database as countries that permit any other legal ground unless those grounds are explicitly stated. The information in the database is limited by accessibility of source documentation and the ability to translate source documents.

On request with no requirement for justification

Abortion at the woman’s request with no requirement for justification is allowed or permitted in 50 countries (32% = 50/158); just over half of these are in Europe (54% = 27/50). In Asia, there are 14 countries where abortion on request is lawful, followed by six in Africa, three in Latin America and the Caribbean, and one in North America; there are no countries in Oceania where abortion is lawful on the woman’s request with no requirement for justification. All but one country (Viet Nam) impose gestational age limits on women accessing abortion on request. Footnote 3 In all other countries, abortion on request is typically available up to 12 weeks of gestation; the range is 8 to 24 weeks.

Legal grounds and related indications

Where abortion is not available on request or once the gestational limit associated with a woman’s request has been reached, abortion may be lawful based on legal grounds or related indications.

Life threat

Approximately 82% (129/158) of countries allow or permit abortion to save the woman’s ‘life’ (See Table 1 ). The threat to life is described in various ways.

Some laws reference the threats/risks the pregnant woman confronts as circumstances in which:

‘continuation of pregnancy endangers the life.’

Others qualify the level of the threat/risk the pregnant woman confronts when:

‘there is a substantial threat to the woman’s life in continuing the pregnancy.’

Yet others compare the risks the woman confronts:

‘if the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated” or where “ abortion is the only way to save the woman’s life. ’

Seven of the 129 countries Footnote 4 (5%) utilize a medical or surgical operations clause to permit abortion to save the woman’s life, which exempts from criminal responsibility those who perform ‘in good faith and with reasonable care and skill a surgical operation upon an unborn child for the preservation of the mother’s life, if the performance of the operation is reasonable, having regard to the patient’s state at the time and to all the circumstances of the case.’

In 24 of the 129 countries (19%) where abortion is lawful based on a life threat, Footnote 5 this indication is the only permissible circumstance in which a woman may lawfully obtain an abortion. Most countries do not impose gestational age limits related to the life ground; however, gestational limits are present in 31 countries across the regions (See Table 1 ).

Health threat

The laws of most countries with a health-related ground refer to one or a combination of the following terms: ‘health’, ‘physical health’ and/or ‘mental (or psychological) health.’ Some laws specify limited lists of health conditions (See Fig. 1 ).

Relationship between health, physical health and/or mental health ground and related indications

Of 158 countries analyzed, 101 (64%) specify health in some form. Health alone is specified in 49 (31% = 49/158) countries; 36 (23% = 36/158) additional countries provide greater detail in their laws, specifying the lawfulness of abortion based on both ‘physical health’ and ‘mental health.’ In 10 countries, Footnote 6 laws specify ‘health,’ ‘physical health’ and ‘mental health.’ In Japan and Mongolia, ‘health’ and ‘physical’ health are specified, while in Finland and Iraq, ‘health’ and ‘mental health’ are specified. In Monaco and Zimbabwe, abortion may only be lawful based on a ‘physical health’ ground.

In addition to specifying ‘health’, ‘physical health’ and/or ‘mental (or psychological) health,’ 9 countries Footnote 7 narrow the lawfulness of abortion to certain specified health conditions, including HIV infection, severe depression or where a woman’s psychological equilibrium may be compromised by continuation of the pregnancy.

Most countries do not impose a gestational limit for any health indication, but in the 38 countries (38% = 38/101) where the law specifies an associated gestational limit, most fall between 19 and 24 weeks (See Table 2 ).

Limited lists of health conditions

Six countries (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, and Turkey) have limited lists of specific health conditions; several types of diseases may be included on such lists. In one country, for example, the category “infectious and parasitic diseases” includes all active forms of tuberculosis, severe viral hepatitis, syphilis, Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome and rubella. The category “mental disorders” includes chronic alcoholism with personality change, transient psychotic conditions resulting from organic diseases, drug addiction and substance abuse, and mental retardation.

Fetal conditions

Laws allow or permit access to abortion based on fetal conditions; in some cases, countries provide a limited list of conditions or specify a single fetal condition for which abortion is lawful. (See Fig. 2 ).

Relationship between a ground based on fetal condition and related indications

In 80 of the 158 (51%) countries analyzed, abortion is allowed or permitted based on a fetal condition, with no restriction as to the type of fetal condition (See Table 3 ). In 35 of these 80 countries, gestational limits restrict a woman’s access to abortion based on a fetal condition. These gestational ages range from 8 to 35 weeks; the median is 22 weeks.

Limited lists of or single specified fetal condition

In six countries, an abortion is lawful if the fetus has a congenital or hereditary disease (Bulgaria and Lithuania), or where the fetus’s condition is lethal (Bolivia and Colombia) or ‘incompatible with extrauterine life’ (Chile and Uruguay). In Brazil, an anencephalic fetus is the only lawful fetal condition.

Fetal condition - presumption of another ground

In Thailand, if the woman suffers ‘severe stress’ due to the finding that the fetus is afflicted with a ‘severe disability, or has or has a high risk of having severe genetic disease,’ abortion is lawful under the mental health ground. A medical practitioner, other than the one who will perform the termination of pregnancy must authorize the abortion based on this ground in writing.

Many countries allow or permit abortion in cases where the pregnancy is the result of rape or gender-based/sexual violence; however, laws vary in how this ground is defined (See Fig. 3 ).

Relationship between rape ground and related indications

Abortion is lawful in 72 of the 158 countries analyzed (46%) if pregnancy is the result of ‘rape.’ In 61% (44/72) of countries where rape is a permitted legal ground, an accompanying gestational limit is imposed. The range between the lowest and highest limits varies across regions (See Table 4 ).

Rape - presumption of another ground

In Barbados and India, abortion is lawful under the mental health ground where pregnancy results from rape. In both countries there is a presumption that pregnancy resulting from rape is or can be injurious to the woman’s mental health, without the need for a health professional’s assessment.

Rape - as a consideration in conjunction with a different ground

One country, New Zealand, specifically states in its law that rape is not in and of itself a legal ground but may be considered if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the pregnancy is the result of sexual violation, where continuation of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the woman or girl’s life, physical or mental health.

Gender-based/sexual violence

In 14 countries where abortion is permitted on the ground of rape, abortion is also allowed or permitted if the pregnancy is the result of another specific act of sexual violence including human trafficking, forced marriage, sexual assault, or unwanted implantation of a fertilized ovum.

In the laws of six countries, rape is not an explicit indication for abortion, however, similar indications exist. The laws in four countries (Angola, Bulgaria, Italy and Portugal) permit consideration of the circumstances in which the pregnancy occurred, such as if the pregnancy was the “result of a crime against freedom and sexual self-determination” or resulted “from an act of violence.” In Zambia and Bolivia, specific acts of gender-based violence, such as defilement or forced marriage are included in the law.

Of 45/72 (63%) countries that have a rape ground, abortion is also lawful if the pregnancy is the result of ‘incest’. Two countries (Bulgaria and New Zealand) do not explicitly specify a rape ground in their laws but do allow or permit abortion where the pregnancy is the result of incest. Gestational limits restrict a woman’s access to abortion based on incest in 26 of the 45 countries where abortion is lawful. These gestational ages range from 8 to 28 weeks; the median is 20 weeks.

Intellectual or cognitive disability

In 20 of the 158 countries, intellectual or cognitive disability of the woman is specified as a legal ground. In 13 of these 20 countries, gestational limits restrict the application of this indication. The range is between 12 and 28 weeks, the median is 21 weeks.

Economic or social ground

Economic and/or social grounds are specified in laws either as an independent ground or as a consideration in conjunction with a different ground. Alternatively, some countries’ laws have limited lists of or a single specific economic or social condition (See Fig. 4 ).

Relationship between economic or social ground and related indications

Of 158 countries analyzed, 16 countries (10%) allow or permit abortion based on an economic or social ground. In 13 of the 16 countries where abortion is permitted on an economic and social ground, gestational limits restrict the application of this indication. The range is between 12 and 22 weeks, the median is 21 weeks.

Economic or social ground -as a consideration in conjunction with a different ground

Six countries permit consideration of economic and social reasons in conjunction with another ground. In Barbados, Belize, and Zambia, a pregnant woman’s actual or foreseeable social environment may be considered in determining whether a risk to her life or health exists. Similarly, a woman’s living conditions or economic circumstances may be taken into account in Germany and Guyana where abortion is considered justified to avert injury to her health. In The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, an abortion is lawful if a woman has seriously deteriorated marital and family relations or a difficult housing condition and these circumstances may be detrimental to her health.

Limited lists of or single specified economic and social conditions

In 16 countries, specific social indications or a limited list of social indications are specified within their laws. For example, in Israel, abortion is lawful where the pregnancy is the result of extramarital relations. In Guyana and Slovakia, abortion is permitted in cases of contraceptive failure. In Kazakhstan, the law includes a list of social circumstances, such as the death of a woman’s husband, the woman and her husband are recognized as officially unemployed, refugee status for the woman, and if the woman has four or more children, to name a few.

Non-equivalent indications

Abortion may also be lawful based on indications that are not equivalent to a single legal ground.

Claim of distress

In four countries, the law allows or permits abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy to women who suffer from distress or similar impact from continuation of the pregnancy. In the Netherlands, a woman’s request for abortion must be based on her opinion that she is in an emergency situation which can only be alleviated by an abortion. In Switzerland, abortion is lawful if a woman provides a written request claiming that she is in distress. In Belgium and Hungary, the woman must be distressed or in a crisis situation, as assessed by her attending doctor.

Age qualification

In 22 countries, abortion is lawful for minors, or those below or above a specified age. In these countries, abortion is typically permitted for girls between 13 and 18 years of age, and women over 40 years. In 14 of the 22 countries, the law allows or permits abortion at one end of this age spectrum, either for those before 18 or after 40 years of age. In 6 countries, minority is accompanied by additional stipulations. For example, in Liberia, a girl under 16 is entitled to an abortion where the pregnancy is the result of illicit intercourse. In Denmark and Ethiopia, a minor whose immaturity renders her unfit to raise a child may have an abortion. In Liechtenstein, a girl under 15 is entitled to an abortion, if she is not married to the person who impregnated her at the time of conception or afterwards. In Benin and Central African Republic, where the pregnancy would constitute a handicap for the minor’s development or lead to a state of grave distress, abortion is lawful.

Various therapeutic indications

In 17 countries, the law allows or permits abortion in circumstances that may be categorized as potentially falling under several common grounds, including life, health, fetal condition, economic and social reasons, and rape. These countries’ laws allow or permit abortion where such procedures are for a “‘therapeutic purpose’ or ‘proven medical necessity,”’ to ‘avert the danger of serious harm to physical integrity’ or to prevent ‘serious and irreversible harm to the body.’ Some of these laws allow or permit abortion where a spouse suffers from a mental disease.

Two additional countries (Bahamas and Grenada) have a surgical operations clause but make no reference to preservation of the ‘mother’s’ life, while one country (Mozambique) permits health committees to examine cases not stipulated in the law on a case-by-case basis to protect pregnant women’s’ sexual and reproductive rights.

Menstrual regulation

In Bangladesh, ‘menstrual regulation’ is medically or surgically available to women as a method of uterine evacuation used to regulate the menstrual cycle when menstruation has been absent for a short duration.

While the GAPD does not provide information on how laws are interpreted or applied in practice, this analysis demonstrates that there are wide variations in how countries specify legal categories, including abortion on a woman’s request with no requirement for justification, legal grounds, and additional, but non-equivalent indications. Unpacking each category and revealing the nuances that exist within legal texts acts a starting point to the discourse around when abortion is allowed or permitted.

Determining what is included within a legal category

The circumstances under which abortion is lawful may be unclear to women and service providers attempting to navigate vague or complex laws . The World Health Organization (WHO) describes health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” [ 13 ]. While all WHO Member States accept this definition of health, many countries’ laws do not refer to either the WHO definition or reference explicitly all the component parts of health. The results demonstrate that sometimes health is specified in a variety of ways in legal texts. Where laws contain a specific list of health indications for which an abortion can be performed, questions may arise as to whether service providers will interpret these lists restrictively or whether they will consider them as illustrations, which do not preclude clinical judgment [ 14 ]. Where mental health is not specified, it may not necessarily mean that women with mental health conditions are now lawfully entitled to abortion, given that service providers exercise sole discretion as to whether these conditions will be considered under a more broadly framed ‘health’ indication. Similarly, in cases such as New Zealand, where rape may be considered if the woman is faced with a serious danger in terms of a threat to her life or her physical or mental health, questions arise as to how that effect is assessed.

However, there may be value in the law being vague as it relates to health and other grounds, as access may be available more broadly, in line with the WHO definition. Similarly, countries’ laws that contain vague language, such as ‘therapeutic purposes’, ‘very serious medical reasons’, or ‘necessary treatment to the woman’ may permit health-care providers to apply these indications consistent with their obligation to the health and well-being of their patients. Thus, these indications may apply when there is a threat to the woman’s life or health, in cases where a fetal condition is present, or where a woman faces economic or social circumstances requiring necessary treatment.

Physicians may also apply such grounds against the knowledge that women may seek clandestine abortion, which depending on the context, can pose risks to life and health [ 14 ]. In one country (Bangladesh), despite a restrictive penal code, which offers only a life ground for abortion, menstrual regulation is a lawful way to “to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions” [ 15 ]. Specifically, menstrual regulation is available “as a backup family planning method” to women with a last menstrual period of 10 weeks or less who may be “at risk of pregnancy, whether or not [they are] actually pregnant” [ 15 ]. Providers may also appreciate the risks associated with a continued pregnancy, including the fact that 75% of global maternal deaths are a result of direct obstetric causes [ 16 ], or that mortality associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that of abortion [ 17 ].

However, without specified legal categories or clear language, and where severe penalties may exist, health-care providers may interpret legal grounds narrowly, restricting access to safe abortion beyond what the law requires. For example, according to a study in Argentina, interpretation related to the scope of the health ground, as well as whether the rape ground applies to all women or only those with mental disabilities, has hindered access to abortion [ 18 ]. Even where a ground is explicitly stated in the law and supported by providers, this same study reveals that only 50% of providers are willing to perform an abortion [ 18 ]. These interpretations may be motivated by culture and gender stereotypes [ 18 ]. While almost all countries allow or permit abortion on the basis of some life-related ground ( N = 133), variations in interpretation or lack of appreciation of the severity of the risk can have devastating consequences [ 19 ].

Additionally, fear of liability may lead health-care providers to limit access well before a gestational limit has been reached for a permitted legal ground [ 20 ]. Interpretation may also impact available methods; for example, service providers may feel they cannot provide medical abortions in countries where the only legal basis for abortion is a medical or surgical operations clause. Thus, greater concerns about abortion access and safety arise when there is lack of clarity related to the law, as providers must balance the risk of potential criminal liability or other self-interests against the needs and desires of the woman.

The legal categories for abortion cannot be neatly packaged into discrete classes based on common legal grounds. It is only by examining the text of the law that nuances are exposed. Subsuming these specific circumstances under common legal grounds provides a false sense of certainty about the legal status and availability of abortion services within a country. For example, in Belgium, Hungary, Netherlands, and Switzerland, countries that have been previously classified as permitting abortion on request, are found on review of the text to permit abortion within the context of a claim of distress where a written or verbal statement is required by the woman describing her situation as one of crisis or emergency or distress.

Legitimizing or delegitimizing women’s claims to abortion

Laws that specify individual legal grounds reflect the perceived legitimacy of some of the reasons women may have for wanting an abortion. Our analysis demonstrates that in most countries’ laws, abortion based on the legal ground of life threat is the most common, followed by health threat, fetal condition and rape, suggesting a hierarchy in the acceptability of women’s reasons. It could be argued that entitlement to abortion is based on a cumulative effect – the more grounds that exist, the greater the likelihood that women in different circumstances may qualify under one of these grounds. However, this raises questions related to fairness and equity regarding why countries single out specific conditions for entitlement to abortion, especially when women more often seek abortion based on socio-economic issues, age, health, family life, and marital status [ 21 ], rather than based on a life threat or rape ground.

This issue is further compounded by associated gestational limits; the wide variation in gestational limits demonstrates that they are not based on evidence. In the case of a fetal impairment indication, for instance, it may be difficult for a woman to comply with a gestational limit of 8 weeks when this time limit is several weeks before usual diagnostic tests are undertaken. Gestational limits narrow a woman’s options as the pregnancy progresses making legal grounds with higher gestational limits appear as more significant than those with lower limits.

Moreover, laws that impose time limits on the length of pregnancy for which abortion can be performed can force some women to seek clandestine abortion or to seek services in other countries, which is costly, delays access (thus increasing health risk) and creates social inequities [ 22 ]. It is for this reason that reducing unsafe abortion and abortion-related morbidity and mortality are less related to the total aggregate of grounds available and more related to access based on broad socioeconomic grounds or at the woman’s request [ 21 ].

This paper focuses on only one aspect of legal abortion; access must be considered within the broader context of sexual and reproductive healthcare. For example, additional barriers may be linked to legal categories and are often inscribed in the law; such barriers include mandatory waiting periods, requirements for third-party authorizations, conscientious objection, and reporting requirements in cases of rape. Laws related to contraception, financing of abortion, and access to medical information also impact how laws and policies are translated into practice. Additionally, national laws exist within a greater international context. The GAPD includes all UN Treaty Monitoring Body concluding observations and Special Procedures reports that have addressed abortion since the year 2000; human rights and UN treaty bodies have reiterated state’s obligations in terms of regulation of abortion and that the “right to sexual and reproductive health is an integral part of the right to health” [ 23 ].

The GAPD aims to increase transparency of information and accountability of countries for the protection of individuals’ health and human rights in the context of abortion. The database expands on existing knowledge related to the legal categories of abortion by capturing unique or complex policy nuances, a starting point by which to better consider legal entitlements to abortion.

This paper highlights the wide variation that exists in legal texts across countries related to the legal categories of abortion demonstrating several indications that have previously been obscured behind more simplistic classification schemes. Illuminating the complexities that exist reveals additional burdens on women and health-care providers to interpret legal categories related to abortion. Moreover, women seek abortion services based on one or more reasons which do not neatly fit into distinct legal classifications, and providers are relied upon to determine a woman’s eligibility based on their interpretation of these laws, creating an illusion of transparency that does not necessarily reflect the actual scope and potential limits of the law. With so much variance in legal texts, questions arise as to how women and healthcare workers appreciate these nuances both within and among different legal categories. Further research is needed to investigate the interpretation and implementation of these laws in practice, including how abortion legal categories co-exist among other laws related to reproductive health and how they are applied across various social, cultural, political, and economic contexts.

Information in the GAPD changes as new sources are received and verified.

‘Other’ includes countries with caveats, stipulations or countries where additional qualifications linked to a woman’s request are required; these countries are not represented as having abortion on request in the GAPD. Results for these countries are presented as an access ground based on a specific legal indication.

In Tajikistan, an order of the Minister of Health containing National Standards for safe abortion and post abortion care exist and may contain information related to gestational limits, but is not reflected here as this source could not be translated.

Africa: Malawi and Uganda; Oceania: Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

Africa: Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, Malawi, South Sudan, Uganda; Asia: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Lebanon, Myanmar, Oman, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen; Europe: Ireland; Latin America and Caribbean: Guatemala, Paraguay, and Venezuela; Oceania: Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, and Solomon Islands.

Argentina, Bolivia, Chad, Columbia, Ecuador, Hungary, Iceland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay.

Bulgaria, Cuba, Czech Republic, Guyana, Moldova, Mozambique, Timor Leste, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan.

Abbreviations

Global Abortion Policies Database

World Health Organization

David H. Abortion in Europe, 1920-91: a public health perspective. Stud Fam Plan. 1992;23:1–22.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Reagan LJ. When abortion was a crime: women, medicine, and law in the United States, 1867–1973. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1997.

Google Scholar

Hessini L. Abortion and Islam: policies and practice in the Middle East and North Africa. Reprod Health Matters. 2007;15:75–84.

Article Google Scholar

Sonbol A. Women, the family and divorce laws in Islamic history. New York: Syracuse: University Press; 1996.

Resolution WHA20.41. Health aspects of population dynamics. In: Twentieth world health assembly, Geneva, 1967. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1967 (WHA20/1967/REC/1).

Boland R, Katzive L. The worldwide trend toward liberalization of abortion laws. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2008;34:110–20.

United Nations Population Division. Abortion policies: A global review. 2002. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/abortion/abortion-policies-2002.shtml major dimensions of abortion policies. Accessed 15 May 2018.

Cleeve A, Oguttu M, Ganatra B, Atuhairwe S, Larsson E, Makenzius M, et al. Time to act—comprehensive abortion care in East Africa. Lancet Global Health. 2016;4:e601–2.

Center for Reproductive Rights. The world’s abortion laws 2018. http://worldabortionlaws.com/ . Accessed 15 May 2018.

Harvard School of Public Health. Abortion laws of the world. https://cyber.harvard.edu/population/abortion/abortionlaws.htm . Accessed 15 May 2018.

Johnson BR, Mishra V, Lavelanet AF, Khosla R, Ganatra B. A global database of abortion laws, policies, health standards, and guidelines. Bull World Health Organ. 2017;95:542–4.

Johnson BR, Lavelanet AF, Schlitt S. Global abortion policies database: a new approach to strengthening knowledge on laws, policies, and human rights standards. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2018;18:35.

Constitution of the World Health Organization. 47th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009.

Ipas. Interpreting and Implementing Existing Abortion Laws in Africa https://www.sexrightsafrica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/African-abortion-laws-compendium-from-the-African-Union-December-2013.pdf . Accessed 15 May 2018.

Ipas Bangladesh. Woman-centered MR and Postabortion care services reference manual. Dot Net Ltd; 2013.

Say L, Chou D, Gemmill AT, OMoller AB, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2:e323–33.

Raymond EG, Grimes D. The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:215–9.

Ramos S, Romero M, Ramón Michel A. Health care providers’ opinions on abortion: a study for the implementation of the legal abortion public policy in the province of Santa Fe, Argentina. Reprod Health. 2014;11:72.

Health Service Executive Final report. Investigation of Incident 50278 from time of patient’s self referral to hospital on the 21st of October 2012 to the patient’s death on the 28th of October, 2012. 2013. http://www.lenus.ie/hse/handle/10147/293964 . Accessed 15 May 2018.

Canes-Wrone B, Dorf M. Measuring the chilling effect. New York: New York University Law Review. 2015.

Berer M. National laws and unsafe abortion: the parameters of change. reproductive health matters. 2005;12(Suppl 24):1–8.

World Health Organization. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems. second ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 22 (2016) on the Right to Sexual and Reprod Health (under article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), 10, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/GC/22 May 2, 2016.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Rajat Khosla for his participation in early conceptualization discussions related to this manuscript. The authors also thank Joanna Erdman for her thorough review and suggestions for manuscript revision.

This work was funded by the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO). Collection of the data, analysis, and composition of this manuscript was performed by WHO staff members and a WHO consultant. AL’s, BG’s, BRJ’s, and SS’s salary is supported by the HRP Trust Fund.

Availability of data and materials

The data generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the publicly available Global Abortion Policies Database [ srhr.org/abortion-policies /].

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Reproductive Health and Research and UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, CH-1211, 27, Geneva, Switzerland

Antonella F. Lavelanet, Brooke Ronald Johnson Jr & Bela Ganatra

UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, CH-1211, 27, Geneva, Switzerland

Stephanie Schlitt

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AFL, BRJ, BG, and SS conceptualized this manuscript. AFL completed the first draft, AFL and SS collected and analyzed the data, and all authors contributed to subsequent revisions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonella F. Lavelanet .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

BRJ and AFL are staff members in the World Health Organization Department of Reproductive Health and Research and the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), involved in the management of the Global Abortion Policies Database. SS is an HRP consultant who provides technical support for GAPD updates. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, the World Health Organization.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution IGO License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/legalcode ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any reproduction of this article there should not be any suggestion that WHO or this article endorse any specific organisation or products. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lavelanet, A.F., Schlitt, S., Johnson, B.R. et al. Global Abortion Policies Database: a descriptive analysis of the legal categories of lawful abortion. BMC Int Health Hum Rights 18 , 44 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-018-0183-1

Download citation

Received : 07 June 2018

Accepted : 21 November 2018

Published : 20 December 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-018-0183-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Lawful abortion
Abortion legal categories
Abortion laws
Abortion on request
Legal grounds
Indications for abortion

BMC International Health and Human Rights

ISSN: 1472-698X

General enquiries: [email protected]

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

LISTEN & FOLLOW
Apple Podcasts
Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

The Rhetoric That Shaped The Abortion Debate

Women take part in a 1977 demonstration in New York City demanding safe and legal abortions for all women. Peter Keegan/Stringer/Hulton Archive/Getty Images hide caption

Women take part in a 1977 demonstration in New York City demanding safe and legal abortions for all women.

Before Roe v. Wade: Voices that Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court's Ruling By Linda Greenhouse and Reva B. Siegel Hardcover, 352 pages Kaplan Publishing List Price: $26

Before the Supreme Court struck down many state laws restricting abortion in the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade , the Justices read briefs from both abortion-rights supporters and opponents.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Linda Greenhouse has collected the best of these briefs -- as well as important documents leading up to the decision -- in a new book, Before Roe v. Wade: Voices that Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court's Ruling.

In an interview on Fresh Air, Greenhouse explains the arguments in favor of decriminalizing abortion -- and the rhetoric used by both sides of the debate that continues to resonate more than 35 years after Roe.

After researching the book, Greenhouse says, she came away with a more nuanced understanding of how the abortion debate has affected so many other issues.

"What the research did indicate to me is how multifaceted the issue is and how the word [abortion] came over time to stand for so much more than the termination of a pregnancy," she says. "It really came to stand for a debate about the place of women in the world."

Linda Greenhouse is a senior fellow at Yale Law School. She covered the Supreme Court for The New York Times for three decades. courtesy of the author hide caption

Linda Greenhouse is a senior fellow at Yale Law School. She covered the Supreme Court for The New York Times for three decades.

Interview Highlights

On why the medical community's lobbying groups shifted to support the decriminalization of abortion

"The medical impetus to start reforming the old abortion laws actually came, not from the American Medical Association but from the American Public Health Association -- from the public health profession. There is a public health doctor, Mary Calderon, who was medical director of Planned Parenthood and also very active in professional public health circles. She wrote some influential articles depicting abortion as a serious public health issue -- that is to say, illegal abortion, back-alley abortion, as a serious public health issue -- and basically started calling on the medical profession to take a new look at this old issue. Abortion could now be a very safe medical procedure when done properly and under the right conditions. And so the facts on the ground had changed: Women were having secret abortions in large numbers; there was a good deal of medical bad consequences and suffering because of this, and it was really the public health doctors who sounded the call."

On the use of the phrase 'the right to choose'

"Jimmye Kimmey was a young woman who was executive director of an organization called the Association for the Study of Abortion (ASA), which was one of the early reform groups and was migrating in the early 1970s from a position of reforming the existing abortion laws to the outright repeal of existing abortion laws, and she wrote a memorandum framing the issue of how the pro-repeal position should be described: 'Right to life is short, catchy, composed of monosyllabic words -- an important consideration in English. We need something comparable. Right to choose would seem to do the job. And ... choice has to do with action, and it's action that we're concerned with.' "

On the significance of J.C. Willke, who wrote Handbook on Abortion

"He is a key figure in the right-to-life movement. He and his wife self-published this little book called Handbook on Abortion in 1971 in the form of questions and answers about abortions from the right-to-life point of view. And it got distributed like wildfire. It now exists in many, many editions. People can go on Google and Amazon and find it easily. It's been translated in many languages, and it really became a Bible of the right-to-life movement. And we were grateful to Dr. Willke for giving us permission to republish it. The reason we wanted to have a substantial excerpt from it is because people on the pro-choice side, I'm quite certain, have never seen it. And it's a very striking document and his voice was and continues to be an important voice on that side."

On feminism's role in shaping the abortion debate

"The feminist community at that time, in the mid-'60s, was much more interested in empowering women to take a full place in the economy, in the world-place. Things like child care. Things like equal pay. Things like getting rid of sex-specific help-wanted ads. Woman wanted, man wanted -- that type of thing. And there wasn't much talk about abortion reform in feminist circles until quite late in the '60s, when Betty Friedan, in a very influential speech, drew the connection between the ability of women to participate fully in the economy and the ability of women to control their reproductive lives. That began a reframing in feminist terms of the issue of abortion reform as part of women's empowerment and of women assuming a new role in society."

Before Roe v. Wade

Buy featured book.

Your purchase helps support NPR programming. How?

Independent Bookstores

Excerpt: 'Before Roe v. Wade'

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key facts about the abortion debate in America

A woman receives medication to terminate her pregnancy at a reproductive health clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on June 23, 2022, the day before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade – the decision that had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years – has shifted the legal battle over abortion to the states, with some prohibiting the procedure and others moving to safeguard it.

As the nation’s post-Roe chapter begins, here are key facts about Americans’ views on abortion, based on two Pew Research Center polls: one conducted from June 25-July 4 , just after this year’s high court ruling, and one conducted in March , before an earlier leaked draft of the opinion became public.

This analysis primarily draws from two Pew Research Center surveys, one surveying 10,441 U.S. adults conducted March 7-13, 2022, and another surveying 6,174 U.S. adults conducted June 27-July 4, 2022. Here are the questions used for the March survey , along with responses, and the questions used for the survey from June and July , along with responses.

Everyone who took part in these surveys is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

A majority of the U.S. public disapproves of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe. About six-in-ten adults (57%) disapprove of the court’s decision that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion and that abortion laws can be set by states, including 43% who strongly disapprove, according to the summer survey. About four-in-ten (41%) approve, including 25% who strongly approve.

A bar chart showing that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade draws more strong disapproval among Democrats than strong approval among Republicans

About eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (82%) disapprove of the court’s decision, including nearly two-thirds (66%) who strongly disapprove. Most Republicans and GOP leaners (70%) approve , including 48% who strongly approve.

Most women (62%) disapprove of the decision to end the federal right to an abortion. More than twice as many women strongly disapprove of the court’s decision (47%) as strongly approve of it (21%). Opinion among men is more divided: 52% disapprove (37% strongly), while 47% approve (28% strongly).

About six-in-ten Americans (62%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to the summer survey – little changed since the March survey conducted just before the ruling. That includes 29% of Americans who say it should be legal in all cases and 33% who say it should be legal in most cases. About a third of U.S. adults (36%) say abortion should be illegal in all (8%) or most (28%) cases.

A line graph showing public views of abortion from 1995-2022

Generally, Americans’ views of whether abortion should be legal remained relatively unchanged in the past few years , though support fluctuated somewhat in previous decades.

Relatively few Americans take an absolutist view on the legality of abortion – either supporting or opposing it at all times, regardless of circumstances. The March survey found that support or opposition to abortion varies substantially depending on such circumstances as when an abortion takes place during a pregnancy, whether the pregnancy is life-threatening or whether a baby would have severe health problems.

While Republicans’ and Democrats’ views on the legality of abortion have long differed, the 46 percentage point partisan gap today is considerably larger than it was in the recent past, according to the survey conducted after the court’s ruling. The wider gap has been largely driven by Democrats: Today, 84% of Democrats say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up from 72% in 2016 and 63% in 2007. Republicans’ views have shown far less change over time: Currently, 38% of Republicans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, nearly identical to the 39% who said this in 2007.

A line graph showing that the partisan gap in views of whether abortion should be legal remains wide

However, the partisan divisions over whether abortion should generally be legal tell only part of the story. According to the March survey, sizable shares of Democrats favor restrictions on abortion under certain circumstances, while majorities of Republicans favor abortion being legal in some situations , such as in cases of rape or when the pregnancy is life-threatening.

There are wide religious divides in views of whether abortion should be legal , the summer survey found. An overwhelming share of religiously unaffiliated adults (83%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do six-in-ten Catholics. Protestants are divided in their views: 48% say it should be legal in all or most cases, while 50% say it should be illegal in all or most cases. Majorities of Black Protestants (71%) and White non-evangelical Protestants (61%) take the position that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while about three-quarters of White evangelicals (73%) say it should be illegal in all (20%) or most cases (53%).

A bar chart showing that there are deep religious divisions in views of abortion

In the March survey, 72% of White evangelicals said that the statement “human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights” reflected their views extremely or very well . That’s much greater than the share of White non-evangelical Protestants (32%), Black Protestants (38%) and Catholics (44%) who said the same. Overall, 38% of Americans said that statement matched their views extremely or very well.

Catholics, meanwhile, are divided along religious and political lines in their attitudes about abortion, according to the same survey. Catholics who attend Mass regularly are among the country’s strongest opponents of abortion being legal, and they are also more likely than those who attend less frequently to believe that life begins at conception and that a fetus has rights. Catholic Republicans, meanwhile, are far more conservative on a range of abortion questions than are Catholic Democrats.

Women (66%) are more likely than men (57%) to say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to the survey conducted after the court’s ruling.

More than half of U.S. adults – including 60% of women and 51% of men – said in March that women should have a greater say than men in setting abortion policy . Just 3% of U.S. adults said men should have more influence over abortion policy than women, with the remainder (39%) saying women and men should have equal say.

The March survey also found that by some measures, women report being closer to the abortion issue than men . For example, women were more likely than men to say they had given “a lot” of thought to issues around abortion prior to taking the survey (40% vs. 30%). They were also considerably more likely than men to say they personally knew someone (such as a close friend, family member or themselves) who had had an abortion (66% vs. 51%) – a gender gap that was evident across age groups, political parties and religious groups.

Relatively few Americans view the morality of abortion in stark terms , the March survey found. Overall, just 7% of all U.S. adults say having an abortion is morally acceptable in all cases, and 13% say it is morally wrong in all cases. A third say that having an abortion is morally wrong in most cases, while about a quarter (24%) say it is morally acceptable in most cases. An additional 21% do not consider having an abortion a moral issue.

A table showing that there are wide religious and partisan differences in views of the morality of abortion

Among Republicans, most (68%) say that having an abortion is morally wrong either in most (48%) or all cases (20%). Only about three-in-ten Democrats (29%) hold a similar view. Instead, about four-in-ten Democrats say having an abortion is morally acceptable in most (32%) or all (11%) cases, while an additional 28% say it is not a moral issue.

White evangelical Protestants overwhelmingly say having an abortion is morally wrong in most (51%) or all cases (30%). A slim majority of Catholics (53%) also view having an abortion as morally wrong, but many also say it is morally acceptable in most (24%) or all cases (4%), or that it is not a moral issue (17%). Among religiously unaffiliated Americans, about three-quarters see having an abortion as morally acceptable (45%) or not a moral issue (32%).

Religion & Abortion

Carrie Blazina is a former digital producer at Pew Research Center .

Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in europe, public opinion on abortion, americans overwhelmingly say access to ivf is a good thing, broad public support for legal abortion persists 2 years after dobbs, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

There Are More Than Two Sides to the Abortion Debate

Readers share their perspectives.

Police use metal barricades to keep protesters, demonstrators and activists apart in front of the U.S. Supreme Court

Earlier this week I curated some nuanced commentary on abortion and solicited your thoughts on the same subject. What follows includes perspectives from several different sides of the debate. I hope each one informs your thinking, even if only about how some other people think.

We begin with a personal reflection.

Cheryl was 16 when New York State passed a statute legalizing abortion and 19 when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. At the time she was opposed to the change, because “it just felt wrong.” Less than a year later, her mother got pregnant and announced she was getting an abortion.

She recalled:

My parents were still married to each other, and we were financially stable. Nonetheless, my mother’s announcement immediately made me a supporter of the legal right to abortion. My mother never loved me. My father was physically abusive and both parents were emotionally and psychologically abusive on a virtually daily basis. My home life was hellish. When my mother told me about the intended abortion, my first thought was, “Thank God that they won’t be given another life to destroy.” I don’t deny that there are reasons to oppose abortion. As a feminist and a lawyer, I can now articulate several reasons for my support of legal abortion: a woman’s right to privacy and autonomy and to the equal protection of the laws are near the top of the list. (I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg that equal protection is a better legal rationale for the right to abortion than privacy.) But my emotional reaction from 1971 still resonates with me. Most people who comment on the issue, on both sides, do not understand what it is to go through childhood unloved. It is horrific beyond my powers of description. To me, there is nothing more immoral than forcing that kind of life on any child. Anti-abortion activists often like to ask supporters of abortion rights: “Well, what if your mother had decided to abort you?” All I can say is that I have spent a great portion of my life wishing that my mother had done exactly that.

Steven had related thoughts:

I have respect for the idea that there should be some restrictions on abortion. But the most fundamental, and I believe flawed, unstated assumptions of the anti-choice are that A) they are acting on behalf of the fetus, and more importantly B) they know what the fetus would want. I would rather not have been born than to have been born to a mother who did not want me. All children should be wanted children—for the sake of all concerned. You can say that different fetuses would “want” different things—though it’s hard to say a clump of cells “wants” anything. How would we know? The argument lands, as it does generally, with the question of who should be making that decision. Who best speaks in the fetus’s interests? Who is better positioned morally or practically than the expectant mother?

Geoff self-describes as “pro-life” and guilty of some hypocrisy. He writes:

I’m pro-life because I have a hard time with the dehumanization that comes with the extremes of abortion on demand … Should it be okay to get an abortion when you find your child has Down syndrome? What of another abnormality? Or just that you didn’t want a girl? Any argument that these are legitimate reasons is disturbing. But so many of the pro-life just don’t seem to care about life unless it’s a fetus they can force a woman to carry. The hypocrisy is real. While you can argue that someone on death row made a choice that got them to that point, whereas a fetus had no say, I find it still hard to swallow that you can claim one life must be protected and the other must be taken. Life should be life. At least in the Catholic Church this is more consistent. I myself am guilty of a degree of hypocrisy. My wife and I used IVF to have our twins. There were other embryos created and not inserted. They were eventually destroyed. So did I support killing a life? Maybe? I didn’t want to donate them for someone else to give birth to—it felt wrong to think my twins may have brothers or sisters in the world they would never know about. Yet does that mean I was more willing to kill my embryos than to have them adopted? Sure seems like it. So I made a morality deal with myself and moved the goal post—the embryos were not yet in a womb and were so early in development that they couldn’t be considered fully human life. They were still potential life.

Colleen, a mother of three, describes why she ended her fourth pregnancy:

I was young when I first engaged this debate. Raised Catholic, anti-choice, and so committed to my position that I broke my parents’ hearts by giving birth during my junior year of college. At that time, my sense of my own rights in the matter was almost irrelevant. I was enslaved by my body. One husband and two babies later I heard a remarkable Jesuit theologian (I wish I could remember his name) speak on the matter and he, a Catholic priest, framed it most directly. We prioritize one life over another all the time. Most obviously, we justify the taking of life in war with all kinds of arguments that often turn out to be untrue. We also do so as we decide who merits access to health care or income support or other life-sustaining things. So the question of abortion then boils down to: Who gets to decide? Who gets to decide that the life of a human in gestation is actually more valuable than the life of the woman who serves as host—or vice versa? Who gets to decide when the load a woman is being asked to carry is more than she can bear? The state? Looking back over history, he argued that he certainly had more faith in the person most involved to make the best decision than in any formalized structure—church or state—created by men. Every form of birth control available failed me at one point or another, so when yet a 4th pregnancy threatened to interrupt the education I had finally been able to resume, I said “Enough.” And as I cried and struggled to come to that position, the question that haunted me was “Doesn’t MY life count?” And I decided it did.

Florence articulates what it would take to make her anti-abortion:

What people seem to miss is that depriving a woman of bodily autonomy is slavery. A person who does not control his/her own body is—what? A slave. At its simplest, this is the issue. I will be anti-abortion when men and women are equal in all facets of life—wages, chores, child-rearing responsibilities, registering for the draft, to name a few obvious ones. When there is birth control that is effective, where women do not bear most of the responsibility. We need to raise boys who are respectful to girls, who do not think that they are entitled to coerce a girl into having sex that she doesn’t really want or is unprepared for. We need for sex education to be provided in schools so young couples know what they are getting into when they have sex. Especially the repercussions of pregnancy. We need to raise girls who are confident and secure, who don’t believe they need a male to “complete” them. Who have enough agency to say “no” and to know why. We have to make abortion unnecessary … We have so far to go. If abortion is ruled illegal, or otherwise curtailed, we will never know if the solutions to women’s second-class status will work. We will be set back to the 50s or worse. I don’t want to go back. Women have fought from the beginning of time to own their bodies and their lives. To deprive us of all of the amazing strides forward will affect all future generations.

Similarly, Ben agrees that in our current environment, abortion is often the only way women can retain equal citizenship and participation in society, but also agrees with pro-lifers who critique the status quo, writing that he doesn’t want a world where a daughter’s equality depends on her right “to perform an act of violence on their potential descendents.” Here’s how he resolves his conflictedness:

Conservatives arguing for a more family-centered society, in which abortion is unnecessary to protect the equal rights of women, are like liberals who argue for defunding the police and relying on addiction, counselling, and other services, in that they argue for removing what offends them without clear, credible plans to replace the functions it serves. I sincerely hope we can move towards a world in which armed police are less necessary. But before we can remove the guardrails of the police, we need to make the rest of the changes so that the world works without them. Once liberal cities that have shown interest in defunding the police can prove that they can fund alternatives, and that those alternatives work, then I will throw my support behind defunding the police. Similarly, once conservative politicians demonstrate a credible commitment to an alternative vision of society in which women are supported, families are not taken for granted, and careers and short-term productivity are not the golden calves they are today, I will be willing to support further restrictions on abortion. But until I trust that they are interested in solving the underlying problem (not merely eliminating an aspect they find offensive), I will defend abortion, as terrible as it is, within reasonable legal limits.

Two readers objected to foregrounding gender equality. One emailed anonymously, writing in part:

A fetus either is or isn’t a person. The reason I’m pro-life is that I’ve never heard a coherent defense of the proposition that a fetus is not a person, and I’m not sure one can be made. I’ve read plenty of progressive commentary, and when it bothers to make an argument for abortion “rights” at all, it talks about “the importance of women’s healthcare” or something as if that were the issue.

Christopher expanded on that last argument:

Of the many competing ethical concerns, the one that trumps them all is the status of the fetus. It is the only organism that gets destroyed by the procedure. Whether that is permissible trumps all other concerns. Otherwise important ethical claims related to a woman’s bodily autonomy, less relevant social disparities caused by the differences in men’s and women’s reproductive functions, and even less relevant differences in partisan commitments to welfare that would make abortion less appealing––all of that is secondary. The relentless strategy by the pro-choice to sidestep this question and pretend that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy is the primary ethical concern is, to me, somewhere between shibboleth and mass delusion. We should spend more time, even if it’s unproductive, arguing about the status of the fetus, because that is the question, and we should spend less time indulging this assault-on-women’s-rights narrative pushed by the Left.

Jean is critical of the pro-life movement:

Long-acting reversible contraceptives, robust, science-based sex education for teens, and a stronger social safety net would all go a remarkable way toward decreasing the number of abortions sought. Yet all the emphasis seems to be on simply making abortion illegal. For many, overturning Roe v. Wade is not about reducing abortions so much as signalling that abortion is wrong. If so-called pro-lifers were as concerned about abortion as they seem to be, they would spend more time, effort, and money supporting efforts to reduce the need for abortion—not simply trying to make it illegal without addressing why women seek it out. Imagine, in other words, a world where women hardly needed to rely on abortion for their well-being and ability to thrive. Imagine a world where almost any woman who got pregnant had planned to do so, or was capable of caring for that child. What is the anti-abortion movement doing to promote that world?

Destiny has one relevant answer. She writes:

I run a pro-life feminist group and we often say that our goal is not to make abortion illegal, but rather unnecessary and unthinkable by supporting women and humanizing the unborn child so well.

Robert suggests a different focus:

Any well-reasoned discussion of abortion policy must include contraception because abortion is about unwanted children brought on by poorly reasoned choices about sex. Such choices will always be more emotional than rational. Leaving out contraception makes it an unrealistic, airy discussion of moral philosophy. In particular, we need to consider government-funded programs of long-acting reversible contraception which enable reasoned choices outside the emotional circumstances of having sexual intercourse.

Last but not least, if anyone can unite the pro-life and pro-choice movements, it’s Errol, whose thoughts would rankle majorities in both factions as well as a majority of Americans. He writes:

The decision to keep the child should not be left up solely to the woman. Yes, it is her body that the child grows in, however once that child is birthed it is now two people’s responsibility. That’s entirely unfair to the father when he desired the abortion but the mother couldn’t find it in her heart to do it. If a woman wants to abort and the man wants to keep it, she should abort. However I feel the same way if a man wants to abort. The next 18+ years of your life are on the line. I view that as a trade-off that warrants the male’s input. Abortion is a conversation that needs to be had by two people, because those two will be directly tied to the result for a majority of their life. No one else should be involved with that decision, but it should not be solely hers, either.

Thanks to all who contributed answers to this week’s question, whether or not they were among the ones published. What subjects would you like to see fellow readers address in future installments? Email [email protected].

By submitting an email, you’ve agreed to let us use it—in part or in full—in this newsletter and on our website. Published feedback includes a writer’s full name, city, and state, unless otherwise requested in your initial note.

About the Author

A research on abortion: ethics, legislation and socio-medical outcomes. Case study: Romania

Andreea mihaela niţă.

1 Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Craiova, Romania

Cristina Ilie Goga

This article presents a research study on abortion from a theoretical and empirical point of view. The theoretical part is based on the method of social documents analysis, and presents a complex perspective on abortion, highlighting items of medical, ethical, moral, religious, social, economic and legal elements. The empirical part presents the results of a sociological survey, based on the opinion survey method through the application of the enquiry technique, conducted in Romania, on a sample of 1260 women. The purpose of the survey is to identify Romanians perception on the decision to voluntary interrupt pregnancy, and to determine the core reasons in carrying out an abortion.

The analysis of abortion by means of medical and social documents

Abortion means a pregnancy interruption “before the fetus is viable” [ 1 ] or “before the fetus is able to live independently in the extrauterine environment, usually before the 20 th week of pregnancy” [ 2 ]. “Clinical miscarriage is both a common and distressing complication of early pregnancy with many etiological factors like genetic factors, immune factors, infection factors but also psychological factors” [ 3 ]. Induced abortion is a practice found in all countries, but the decision to interrupt the pregnancy involves a multitude of aspects of medical, ethical, moral, religious, social, economic, and legal order.

In a more simplistic manner, Winston Nagan has classified opinions which have as central element “abortion”, in two major categories: the opinion that the priority element is represented by fetus and his entitlement to life and the second opinion, which focuses around women’s rights [ 4 ].

From the medical point of view, since ancient times there have been four moments, generally accepted, which determine the embryo’s life: ( i ) conception; ( ii ) period of formation; ( iii ) detection moment of fetal movement; ( iv ) time of birth [ 5 ]. Contemporary medicine found the following moments in the evolution of intrauterine fetal: “ 1 . At 18 days of pregnancy, the fetal heartbeat can be perceived and it starts running the circulatory system; 2 . At 5 weeks, they become more clear: the nose, cheeks and fingers of the fetus; 3 . At 6 weeks, they start to function: the nervous system, stomach, kidneys and liver of the fetus, and its skeleton is clearly distinguished; 4 . At 7 weeks (50 days), brain waves are felt. The fetus has all the internal and external organs definitively outlined. 5 . At 10 weeks (70 days), the unborn child has all the features clearly defined as a child after birth (9 months); 6 . At 12 weeks (92 days, 3 months), the fetus has all organs definitely shaped, managing to move, lacking only the breath” [ 6 ]. Even if most of the laws that allow abortion consider the period up to 12 weeks acceptable for such an intervention, according to the above-mentioned steps, there can be defined different moments, which can represent the beginning of life. Nowadays, “abortion is one of the most common gynecological experiences and perhaps the majority of women will undergo an abortion in their lifetimes” [ 7 ]. “Safe abortions carry few health risks, but « every year, close to 20 million women risk their lives and health by undergoing unsafe abortions » and 25% will face a complication with permanent consequences” [ 8 , 9 ].

From the ethical point of view, most of the times, the interruption of pregnancy is on the border between woman’s right over her own body and the child’s (fetus) entitlement to life. Judith Jarvis Thomson supported the supremacy of woman’s right over her own body as a premise of freedom, arguing that we cannot force a person to bear in her womb and give birth to an unwanted child, if for different circumstances, she does not want to do this [ 10 ]. To support his position, the author uses an imaginary experiment, that of a violinist to which we are connected for nine months, in order to save his life. However, Thomson debates the problem of the differentiation between the fetus and the human being, by carrying out a debate on the timing which makes this difference (period of conception, 10 weeks of pregnancy, etc.) and highlighting that for people who support abortion, the fetus is not an alive human being [ 10 ].

Carol Gilligan noted that women undergo a true “moral dilemma”, a “moral conflict” with regards to voluntary interruption of pregnancy, such a decision often takes into account the human relationships, the possibility of not hurting the others, the responsibility towards others [ 11 ]. Gilligan applied qualitative interviews to a number of 29 women from different social classes, which were put in a position to decide whether or not to commit abortion. The interview focused on the woman’s choice, on alternative options, on individuals and existing conflicts. The conclusion was that the central moral issue was the conflict between the self (the pregnant woman) and others who may be hurt as a result of the potential pregnancy [ 12 ].

From the religious point of view, abortion is unacceptable for all religions and a small number of abortions can be seen in deeply religious societies and families. Christianity considers the beginning of human life from conception, and abortion is considered to be a form of homicide [ 13 ]. For Christians, “at the same time, abortion is giving up their faith”, riot and murder, which means that by an abortion we attack Jesus Christ himself and God [ 14 ]. Islam does not approve abortion, relying on the sacral life belief as specified in Chapter 6, Verse 151 of the Koran: “Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred (inviolable)” [ 15 ]. Buddhism considers abortion as a negative act, but nevertheless supports for medical reasons [ 16 ]. Judaism disapproves abortion, Tanah considering it to be a mortal sin. Hinduism considers abortion as a crime and also the greatest sin [ 17 ].

From the socio-economic point of view, the decision to carry out an abortion is many times determined by the relations within the social, family or financial frame. Moreover, studies have been conducted, which have linked the legalization of abortions and the decrease of the crime rate: “legalized abortion may lead to reduced crime either through reductions in cohort sizes or through lower per capita offending rates for affected cohorts” [ 18 ].

Legal regulation on abortion establishes conditions of the abortion in every state. In Europe and America, only in the XVIIth century abortion was incriminated and was considered an insignificant misdemeanor or a felony, depending on when was happening. Due to the large number of illegal abortions and deaths, two centuries later, many states have changed legislation within the meaning of legalizing voluntary interruption of pregnancy [ 6 ]. In contemporary society, international organizations like the United Nations or the European Union consider sexual and reproductive rights as fundamental rights [ 19 , 20 ], and promotes the acceptance of abortion as part of those rights. However, not all states have developed permissive legislation in the field of voluntary interruption of pregnancy.

Currently, at national level were established four categories of legislation on pregnancy interruption area:

( i ) Prohibitive legislations , ones that do not allow abortion, most often outlining exceptions in abortion in cases where the pregnant woman’s life is endangered. In some countries, there is a prohibition of abortion in all circumstances, however, resorting to an abortion in the case of an imminent threat to the mother’s life. Same regulation is also found in some countries where abortion is allowed in cases like rape, incest, fetal problems, etc. In this category are 66 states, with 25.5% of world population [ 21 ].

( ii ) Restrictive legislation that allow abortion in cases of health preservation . Loosely, the term “health” should be interpreted according to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition as: “health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” [ 22 ]. This type of legislation is adopted in 59 states populated by 13.8% of the world population [ 21 ].

( iii ) Legislation allowing abortion on a socio-economic motivation . This category includes items such as the woman’s age or ability to care for a child, fetal problems, cases of rape or incest, etc. In this category are 13 countries, where we have 21.3% of the world population [ 21 ].

( iv ) Legislation which do not impose restrictions on abortion . In the case of this legislation, abortion is permitted for any reason up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, with some exceptions (Romania – 14 weeks, Slovenia – 10 weeks, Sweden – 18 weeks), the interruption of pregnancy after this period has some restrictions. This type of legislation is adopted in 61 countries with 39.5% of the world population [21].

The Centre for Reproductive Rights has carried out from 1998 a map of the world’s states, based on the legislation typology of each country (Figure (Figure1 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is RJME-61-1-283-fig1.jpg

The analysis of states according to the legislation regarding abortion. Source: Centre for Reproductive Rights. The World’s Abortion Laws, 2018 [ 23 ]

An unplanned pregnancy, socio-economic context or various medical problems [ 24 ], lead many times to the decision of interrupting pregnancy, regardless the legislative restrictions. In the study “Unsafe abortion: global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2008” issued in 2011 by the WHO , it was determined that within the states with restrictive legislation on abortion, we may also encounter a large number of illegal abortions. The illegal abortions may also be resulting in an increased risk of woman’s health and life considering that most of the times inappropriate techniques are being used, the hygienic conditions are precarious and the medical treatments are incorrectly administered [ 25 ]. Although abortions done according to medical guidelines carry very low risk of complications, 1–3 unsafe abortions contribute substantially to maternal morbidity and death worldwide [ 26 ].

WHO has estimated for the year 2008, the fact that worldwide women between the ages of 15 and 44 years carried out 21.6 million “unsafe” abortions, which involved a high degree of risk and were distributed as follows: 0.4 million in the developed regions and a number of 21.2 million in the states in course of development [ 25 ].

Case study: Romania

Legal perspective on abortion

In Romania, abortion was brought under regulation by the first Criminal Code of the United Principalities, from 1864.

The Criminal Code from 1864, provided the abortion infringement in Article 246, on which was regulated as follows: “Any person, who, using means such as food, drinks, pills or any other means, which will consciously help a pregnant woman to commit abortion, will be punished to a minimum reclusion (three years).

The woman who by herself shall use the means of abortion, or would accept to use means of abortion which were shown or given to her for this purpose, will be punished with imprisonment from six months to two years, if the result would be an abortion. In a situation where abortion was carried out on an illegitimate baby by his mother, the punishment will be imprisonment from six months to one year.

Doctors, surgeons, health officers, pharmacists (apothecary) and midwives who will indicate, will give or will facilitate these means, shall be punished with reclusion of at least four years, if the abortion took place. If abortion will cause the death of the mother, the punishment will be much austere of four years” (Art. 246) [ 27 ].

The Criminal Code from 1864, reissued in 1912, amended in part the Article 246 for the purposes of eliminating the abortion of an illegitimate baby case. Furthermore, it was no longer specified the minimum of four years of reclusion, in case of abortion carried out with the help of the medical staff, leaving the punishment to the discretion of the Court (Art. 246) [ 28 ].

The Criminal Code from 1936 regulated abortion in the Articles 482–485. Abortion was defined as an interruption of the normal course of pregnancy, being punished as follows:

“ 1 . When the crime is committed without the consent of the pregnant woman, the punishment was reformatory imprisonment from 2 to 5 years. If it caused the pregnant woman any health injury or a serious infirmity, the punishment was reformatory imprisonment from 3 to 6 years, and if it has caused her death, reformatory imprisonment from 7 to 10 years;

2 . When the crime was committed by the unmarried pregnant woman by herself, or when she agreed that someone else should provoke the abortion, the punishment is reformatory imprisonment from 3 to 6 months, and if the woman is married, the punishment is reformatory imprisonment from 6 months to one year. Same penalty applies also to the person who commits the crime with the woman’s consent. If abortion was committed for the purpose of obtaining a benefit, the punishment increases with another 2 years of reformatory imprisonment.

If it caused the pregnant woman any health injuries or a severe disablement, the punishment will be reformatory imprisonment from one to 3 years, and if it has caused her death, the punishment is reformatory imprisonment from 3 to 5 years” (Art. 482) [ 29 ].

The criminal legislation from 1936 specifies that it is not considered as an abortion the interruption from the normal course of pregnancy, if it was carried out by a doctor “when woman’s life was in imminent danger or when the pregnancy aggravates a woman’s disease, putting her life in danger, which could not be removed by other means and it is obvious that the intervention wasn’t performed with another purpose than that of saving the woman’s life” and “when one of the parents has reached a permanent alienation and it is certain that the child will bear serious mental flaws” (Art. 484, Par. 1 and Par. 2) [ 29 ].

In the event of an imminent danger, the doctor was obliged to notify prosecutor’s office in writing, within 48 hours after the intervention, on the performance of the abortion. “In the other cases, the doctor was able to intervene only with the authorization of the prosecutor’s office, given on the basis of a medical certificate from hospital or a notice given as a result of a consultation between the doctor who will intervene and at least a professor doctor in the disease which caused the intervention. General’s Office Prosecutor, in all cases provided by this Article, shall be obliged to maintain the confidentiality of all communications or authorizations, up to the intercession of any possible complaints” (Art. 484) [ 29 ].

The legislation of 1936 provided a reformatory injunction from one to three years for the abortions committed by doctors, sanitary agents, pharmacists, apothecary or midwives (Art. 485) [ 29 ].

Abortion on demand has been legalized for the first time in Romania in the year 1957 by the Decree No. 463, under the condition that it had to be carried out in a hospital and to be carried out in the first quarter of the pregnancy [ 30 ]. In the year 1966, demographic policy of Romania has dramatically changed by introducing the Decree No. 770 from September 29 th , which prohibited abortion. Thus, the voluntary interruption of pregnancy became a crime, with certain exceptions, namely: endangering the mother’s life, physical or mental serious disability; serious or heritable illness, mother’s age over 45 years, if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest or if the woman gave birth to at least four children who were still in her care (Art. 2) [ 31 ].

In the Criminal Code from 1968, the abortion crime was governed by Articles 185–188.

The Article 185, “the illegal induced abortion”, stipulated that “the interruption of pregnancy by any means, outside the conditions permitted by law, with the consent of the pregnant woman will be punished with imprisonment from one to 3 years”. The act referred to above, without the prior consent from the pregnant woman, was punished with prison from two to five years. If the abortion carried out with the consent of the pregnant woman caused any serious body injury, the punishment was imprisonment from two to five years, and when it caused the death of the woman, the prison sentence was from five to 10 years. When abortion was carried out without the prior consent of the woman, if it caused her a serious physical injury, the punishment was imprisonment from three to six years, and if it caused the woman’s death, the punishment was imprisonment from seven to 12 years (Art. 185) [ 32 ].

“When abortion was carried out in order to obtain a material benefit, the maximum punishment was increased by two years, and if the abortion was made by a doctor, in addition to the prison punishment could also be applied the prohibition to no longer practice the profession of doctor”.

Article 186, “abortion caused by the woman”, stipulated that “the interruption of the pregnancy course, committed by the pregnant woman, was punished with imprisonment from 6 months to 2 years”, quoting the fact that by the same punishment was also sanctioned “the pregnant woman’s act to consent in interrupting the pregnancy course made out by another person” (Art. 186) [ 26 ].

The Regulations of the Criminal Code in 1968, also provided the crime of “ownership of tools or materials that can cause abortion”, the conditions of this holding being met when these types of instruments were held outside the hospital’s specialized institutions, the infringement shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to one year (Art. 187) [ 32 ].

Furthermore, the doctors who performed an abortion in the event of extreme urgency, without prior legal authorization and if they did not announce the competent authority within the legal deadline, they were punished by imprisonment from one month to three months (Art. 188) [ 32 ].

In the year 1985, it has been issued the Decree No. 411 of December 26 th , by which the conditions imposed by the Decree No. 770 of 1966 have been hardened, meaning that it has increased the number of children, that a woman could have in order to request an abortion, from four to five children [ 33 ].

The Articles 185–188 of the Criminal Code and the Decree No. 770/1966 on the interruption of the pregnancy course have been abrogated by Decree-Law No. 1 from December 26 th , 1989, which was published in the Official Gazette No. 4 of December 27 th , 1989 (Par. 8 and Par. 12) [ 34 ].

The Criminal Code from 1968, reissued in 1997, maintained Article 185 about “the illegal induced abortion”, but drastically modified. Thus, in this case of the Criminal Code, we identify abortion as “the interruption of pregnancy course, by any means, committed in any of the following circumstances: ( a ) outside medical institutions or authorized medical practices for this purpose; ( b ) by a person who does not have the capacity of specialized doctor; ( c ) if age pregnancy has exceeded 14 weeks”, the punishment laid down was the imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years” (Art. 185, Par. 1) [ 35 ]. For the abortion committed without the prior consent of the pregnant woman, the punishment consisted in strict prison conditions from two to seven years and with the prohibition of certain rights (Art. 185, Par. 2) [ 35 ].

For the situation of causing serious physical injury to the pregnant woman, the punishment was strict prison from three to 10 years and the removal of certain rights, and if it had as a result the death of the pregnant woman, the punishment was strict prison from five to 15 years and the prohibition of certain rights (Art. 185, Par. 3) [ 35 ].

The attempt was punished for the crimes specified in the various cases of abortion.

Consideration should also be given in the Criminal Code reissued in 1997 for not punishing the interruption of the pregnancy course carried out by the doctor, if this interruption “was necessary to save the life, health or the physical integrity of the pregnant woman from a grave and imminent danger and that it could not be removed otherwise; in the case of a over fourteen weeks pregnancy, when the interruption of the pregnancy course should take place from therapeutic reasons” and even in a situation of a woman’s lack of consent, when it has not been given the opportunity to express her will, and abortion “was imposed by therapeutic reasons” (Art. 185, Par. 4) [ 35 ].

Criminal Code from 2004 covers abortion in Article 190, defined in the same way as in the prior Criminal Code, with the difference that it affects the limits of the punishment. So, in the event of pregnancy interruption, in accordance with the conditions specified in Paragraph 1, “the penalty provided was prison time from 6 months to one year or days-fine” (Art. 190, Par. 1) [ 36 ].

Nowadays, in Romania, abortion is governed by the criminal law of 2009, which entered into force in 2014, by the section called “aggression against an unborn child”. It should be specified that current criminal law does not punish the woman responsible for carrying out abortion, but only the person who is involved in carrying out the abortion. There is no punishment for the pregnant woman who injures her fetus during pregnancy.

In Article 201, we can find the details on the pregnancy interruption infringement. Thus, the pregnancy interruption can be performed in one of the following circumstances: “outside of medical institutions or medical practices authorized for this purpose; by a person who does not have the capacity of specialist doctor in Obstetrics and Gynecology and the right of free medical practice in this specialty; if gestational age has exceeded 14 weeks”, the punishment is the imprisonment for six months to three years, or fine and the prohibition to exercise certain rights (Art. 201, Par. 1) [ 37 ].

Article 201, Paragraph 2 specifies that “the interruption of the pregnancy committed under any circumstances, without the prior consent of the pregnant woman, can be punished with imprisonment from 2 to 7 years and with the prohibition to exercise some rights” (Art. 201, Par. 1) [ 37 ].

If by facts referred to above (Art. 201, Par. 1 and Par. 2) [ 37 ] “it has caused the pregnant woman’s physical injury, the punishment is the imprisonment from 3 to 10 years and the prohibition to exercise some rights, and if it has had as a result the pregnant woman’s death, the punishment is the imprisonment from 6 to 12 years and the prohibition to exercise some rights” (Art. 201, Par. 3) [ 37 ]. When the facts have been committed by a doctor, “in addition to the imprisonment punishment, it will also be applied the prohibition to exercise the profession of doctor (Art. 201, Par. 4) [ 37 ].

Criminal legislation specifies that “the interruption of pregnancy does not constitute an infringement with the purpose of a treatment carried out by a specialist doctor in Obstetrics and Gynecology, until the pregnancy age of twenty-four weeks is reached, or the subsequent pregnancy interruption, for the purpose of treatment, is in the interests of the mother or the fetus” (Art. 201, Par. 6) [ 37 ]. However, it can all be found in the phrases “therapeutic purposes” and “the interest of the mother and of the unborn child”, which predisposes the text of law to an interpretation, finally the doctors are the only ones in the position to decide what should be done in such cases, assuming direct responsibility [ 38 ].

Article 202 of the Criminal Code defines the crime of harming an unborn child, pointing out the punishments for the various types of injuries that can occur during pregnancy or in the childbirth period and which can be caused by the mother or by the persons who assist the birth, with the specification that the mother who harms her fetus during pregnancy is not punished and does not constitute an infringement if the injury has been committed during pregnancy or during childbirth period if the facts have been “committed by a doctor or by an authorized person to assist the birth or to follow the pregnancy, if they have been committed in the course of the medical act, complying with the specific provisions of his profession and have been made in the interest of the pregnant woman or fetus, as a result of the exercise of an inherent risk in the medical act” (Art. 202, Par. 6) [ 37 ].

The fact situation in Romania

During the period 1948–1955, called “the small baby boom” [ 39 ], Romania registered an average fertility rate of 3.23 children for a woman. Between 1955 and 1962, the fertility rate has been less than three children for a woman, and in 1962, fertility has reached an average of two children for a woman. This phenomenon occurred because of the Decree No. 463/1957 on liberalization of abortion. After the liberalization from 1957, the abortion rate has increased from 220 abortions per 100 born-alive children in the year 1960, to 400 abortions per 100 born-alive children, in the year 1965 [ 40 ].

The application of provisions of Decrees No. 770 of 1966 and No. 411 of 1985 has led to an increase of the birth rate in the first three years (an average of 3.7 children in 1967, and 3.6 children in 1968), followed by a regression until 1989, when it was recorded an average of 2.2 children, but also a maternal death rate caused by illegal abortions, raising up to 85 deaths of 100 000 births in the year of 1965, and 170 deaths in 1983. It was estimated that more than 80% of maternal deaths between 1980–1989 was caused by legal constraints [ 30 ].

After the Romanian Revolution in December 1989 and after the communism fall, with the abrogation of Articles 185–188 of the Criminal Code and of the Decree No. 770/1966, by the Decree of Law No. 1 of December 26 th , 1989, abortion has become legal in Romania and so, in the following years, it has reached the highest rate of abortion in Europe. Subsequently, the number of abortion has dropped gradually, with increasing use of birth control [ 41 ].

Statistical data issued by the Ministry of Health and by the National Institute of Statistics (INS) in Romania show corresponding figures to a legally carried out abortion. The abortion number is much higher, if it would take into account the number of illegal abortion, especially those carried out before 1989, and those carried out in private clinics, after the year 1990. Summing the declared abortions in the period 1958–2014, it is to be noted the number of them, 22 037 747 exceeds the current Romanian population. A detailed statistical research of abortion rate, in terms of years we have exposed in Table Table1 1 .

The number of abortions declared in Romania in the period 1958–2016


1958	112 100	1970	292 410	1982	468 041	1994	530 191	2006	150 246
1959	578 000	1971	330 000	1983	–	1995	502 840	2007	137 226
1960	774 000	1972	381 000	1984	303 123	1996	456 221	2008	137 226
1961	865 000	1973	376 000	1985	302 838	1997	347 126	2009	115 457
1962	967 000	1974	335 000	1986	183 959	1998	271 496	2010	101 915
1963	1 037 000	1975	359 417	1987	182 442	1999	259 888	2011	101 915
1964	1 100 000	1976	383 000	1988	185 416	2000	257 865	2012	88 135
1965	1 115 000	1977	379 000	1989	193 084	2001	254 855	2013	86 432
1966	973 000	1978	394 000	1990	992 265	2002	247 608	2014	78 371
1967	206 000	1979	404 000	1991	866 934	2003	224 807	2015	70 447
1968	220 000	1980	413 093	1992	691 863	2004	191 038	2016	63 085
1969	258 000	1981	–	1993	585 761	2005	163 459

Source: Pro Vita Association (Bucharest, Romania), National Institute of Statistics (INS – Romania), EUROSTAT [ 42 , 43 , 44 ]

Data issued by the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) in June 2016, for the period 1989–2014, in matters of reproductive behavior, indicates a fertility rate for Romania with a continuous decrease, in proportion to the decrease of the number of births, but also a lower number of abortion rate reported to 100 deliveries (Table (Table2 2 ).

Reproductive behavior in Romania in 1989–2014


Total fertility rate (births per woman)	2.2	1.8	1.6	1.5	1.4	1.4	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.2	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.4	1.3	1.0	1.36	1.40	1.44
Live births (1000s)	369.5	314.7	275.3	260.4	250.0	246.7	236.6	231.3	236.9	237.3	234.6	234.5	220.4	210.5	212.5	216.3	221.0	219.5	214.7	221.9	222.4	212.2	196.2	201.1	182.3	183.7
Abortion rate (legally induced abortions per 100 live births)	–	315.3	314.9	265.7	234.3	214.9	212.5	197.2	146.5	114.4	110.8	110.0	115.6	117.6	105.8	88.3	73.9	68.5	63.9	57.6	52.2	48.0	52.7	43.7	47.2	42.7

Source: United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), Transformative Monitoring for Enhanced Equity (TransMonEE) Data. Country profiles: Romania, 1989–2015 [ 45 ].

By analyzing data issued for the period 1990–2015 by the International Organization of Health , UNICEF , United Nations Fund for Population Activity (UNFPA), The World Bank and the United Nations Population Division, it is noticed that maternal mortality rate has currently dropped as compared with 1990 (Table (Table3 3 ).

Maternal mortality estimation in Romania in 1990–2015


2015	31 [22–44]	56	179	1.1
2010	30 [26–35]	61	202	1.2
2005	33 [28–38]	71	217	1.1
2000	51 [44–58]	110	222	1.5
1995	77 [66–88]	180	241	2.1
1990	124 [108–141]	390	318	5.2

Source: World Health Organization (WHO), Global Health Observatory Data. Maternal mortality country profiles: Romania, 2015 [ 46 ].

Opinion survey: women’s opinion on abortion

Argument for choosing the research theme

Although the problematic on abortion in Romania has been extensively investigated and debated, it has not been carried out in an ample sociological study, covering Romanian women’s perception on abortion. We have assumed making a study at national level, in order to identify the opinion on abortion, on the motivation to carry out an abortion, and to identify the correlation between religious convictions and the attitude toward abortion.

Examining the literature field of study

In the conceptual register of the research, we have highlighted items, such as the specialized literature, legislation, statistical documents.

Formulation of hypotheses and objectives

The first hypothesis was that Romanian women accept abortion, having an open attitude towards this act. Thus, the first objective of the research was to identify Romanian women’s attitude towards abortion.

The second hypothesis, from which we started, was that high religious beliefs generate a lower tolerance towards abortion. Thus, the second objective of our research has been to identify the correlation between the religious beliefs and the attitude towards abortion.

The third hypothesis of the survey was that, the main motivation in carrying out an abortion is the fact that a woman does not want a baby, and the main motivation for keeping the pregnancy is that the person wants a baby. In this context, the third objective of the research was to identify main motivation in carrying out an abortion and in maintaining a pregnancy.

Another hypothesis was that modern Romanian legislation on the abortion is considered fair. Based on this hypothesis, we have assumed the fourth objective, which is to identify the degree of satisfaction towards the current regulatory provisions governing the abortion.

Research methodology

The research method is that of a sociological survey by the application of the questionnaire technique. We used the sampling by age and residence looking at representative numbers of population from more developed as well as underdeveloped areas.

Determination of the sample to be studied

Because abortion is a typical women’s experience, we have chosen to make the quantitative research only among women. We have constructed the sample by selecting a number of 1260 women between the ages of 15 and 44 years (the most frequently encountered age among women who give birth to a child). We also used the quota sampling techniques, taking into account the following variables: age group and the residence (urban/rural), so that the persons included in the sample could retain characteristic of the general population.

By the sample of 1260 women, we have made a percentage of investigation of 0.03% of the total population.

The Questionnaires number applied was distributed as follows (Table (Table4 4 ).

The sampling rates based on the age, and the region of residence


Women in North-West	Urban	37 898	58 839	50 527	54 944	53 962	60 321	316 491
Women in North-West	Rural	36 033	37 667	36 515	41 837	43 597	42 877	238 526
Sample in North-West	Urban	11	18	15	17	16	18	95
Sample in North-West	Rural	11	11	11	13	13	13	72
Women in the Center	Urban	32 661	46 697	46 713	54 031	52 590	59 084	291 776
Women in the Center	Rural	29 052	31 767	29 562	34 402	35 334	35 502	195 619
Sample in the Center	Urban	10	14	14	16	16	18	88
Sample in the Center	Rural	9	9	9	10	11	11	59
Women in North-East	Urban	38 243	50 228	45 924	51 818	49 959	63 157	299 329
Women in North-East	Rural	63 466	51 814	47 524	60 495	67 009	65 717	356 025
Sample in North-East	Urban	11	15	14	16	15	19	90
Sample in North-East	Rural	19	16	14	18	20	20	107
Women in South-East	Urban	31 556	40 879	43 317	53 461	53 756	67 135	290 104
Women in South-East	Rural	34 494	32 446	29 987	37 828	41 068	42 836	218 659
Sample in South-East	Urban	10	12	13	16	16	20	87
Sample in South-East	Rural	10	10	9	11	12	13	65
Women in South Muntenia	Urban	30 480	38 066	40 049	47 820	49 272	64 739	270 426
Women in South Muntenia	Rural	52 771	55 286	49 106	60 496	67 660	74 401	359 720
Sample in South Muntenia	Urban	9	11	12	14	15	19	80
Sample in South Muntenia	Rural	16	17	15	18	20	22	108
Women in Bucharest–Ilfov	Urban	41 314	83 927	90 607	102 972	86 833	98 630	504 283
Women in Bucharest–Ilfov	Rural	5385	7448	7952	9997	9400	10 096	50 278
Sample in Bucharest–Ilfov	Urban	12	25	27	31	26	30	151
Sample in Bucharest–Ilfov	Rural	2	2	2	3	3	3	15
Women in South-West Oltenia	Urban	26 342	31 155	33 493	39 064	39 615	50 516	220 185
Women in South-West Oltenia	Rural	31 223	29 355	26 191	32 946	36 832	40 351	196 898
Sample in South-West Oltenia	Urban	8	9	10	12	12	15	66
Sample in South-West Oltenia	Rural	9	9	8	10	11	12	59
Women in West	Urban	30 258	45 687	39 583	44 808	44 834	54 155	259 325
Women in West	Rural	19 205	20 761	19 351	22 788	24 333	26 792	133 230
Sample in West	Urban	9	14	12	13	14	16	78
Sample in West	Rural	6	6	6	7	7	8	40
Total women		540 381	662 022	636 401	749 707	756 054	856 309	4 200 874
Total sample		162	198	191	225	227	257	1260

Source: Sample built, based on the population data issued by the National Institute of Statistics (INS – Romania) based on population census conducted in 2011 [ 47 ].

Data collection

Data collection was carried out by questionnaires administered by 32 field operators between May 1 st –May 31 st , 2018.

The analysis of the research results

In the next section, we will present the main results of the quantitative research carried out at national level.

Almost three-quarters of women included in the sample agree with carrying out an abortion in certain circumstances (70%) and only 24% have chosen to support the answer “ No, never ”. In modern contemporary society, abortion is the first solution of women for which a pregnancy is not desired. Even if advanced medical techniques are a lot safer, an abortion still carries a health risk. However, 6% of respondents agree with carrying out abortion regardless of circumstances (Table (Table5 5 ).

Opinion on the possibility of carrying out an abortion



Yes, under certain circumstances	70%
No, never	24%
Yes, regardless the situation	6%
Total	100%

Although abortions carried out after 14 weeks are illegal, except for medical reasons, more than half of the surveyed women stated they would agree with abortion in certain circumstances. At the opposite pole, 31% have mentioned they would never agree on abortions after 14 weeks. Five percent were totally accepting the idea of abortion made to a pregnancy that has exceeded 14 weeks (Table (Table6 6 ).

Opinion on the possibility of carrying out an abortion after the period of 14 weeks of pregnancy



Yes, under certain circumstances	64%
No, never	31%
Yes, regardless the situation	5%
Total	100%

For 53% of respondents, abortion is considered a crime as well as the right of a women. On the other hand, 28% of the women considered abortion as a crime and 16% associate abortion with a woman’s right (Table (Table7 7 ).

Opinion on abortion: at the border between crime and a woman’s right



A crime and a woman’s right	53%
A crime	28%
A woman’s right	16%
I don’t know	2%
I don’t answer	1%
Total	100%

Opinions on what women abort at the time of the voluntary pregnancy interruption are split in two: 59% consider that it depends on the time of the abortion, and more specifically on the pregnancy development stage, 24% consider that regardless of the period in which it is carried out, women abort a child, and 14% have opted a fetus (Table (Table8 8 ).

Abortion of a child vs. abortion of a fetus



Both, depending on the moment when the abortion takes place	59%
A child	24%
A fetus	14%
I don’t answer	3%
Total	100%

Among respondents who consider that women abort a child or a fetus related to the time of abortion, 37.5% have considered that the difference between a baby and a fetus appears after 14 weeks of pregnancy (the period legally accepted for abortion). Thirty-three percent of them have mentioned that the distinction should be performed at the first few heartbeats; 18.1% think it is about when the child has all the features definitively outlined and can move by himself; 2.8% consider that the difference appears when the first encephalopathy traces are being felt and the child has formed all internal and external organs. A percentage of 1.7% of respondents consider that this difference occurs at the beginning of the central nervous system, and 1.4% when the unborn child has all the features that we can clearly see to a newborn child (Table (Table9 9 ).

The opinion on the moment that makes the difference between a fetus and a child



Over 14 weeks (the period legally accepted for abortion)	37.5%
From the very first heart beat (18 days)	33.3%
When the child has all organs contoured and can move by himself (12 weeks)	18.1%
When the first encephalon traces are being felt and the child has formed all internal and external organs (seven weeks)	2.8%
At the beginning of the central nervous system, liver, kidneys, stomach (six weeks)	1.7%
When the unborn child has all the characteristics that we can clearly observe to a child after birth	1.4%
When you can clearly distinguish his features (nose, cheeks, eyes) (five weeks)	1.2%
Other	1%
I don’t know	3%
Total	100%

We noticed that highly religious people make a clear association between abortion and crime. They also consider that at the time of pregnancy interruption it is aborted a child and not a fetus. However, unexpectedly, we noticed that 27% of the women, who declare themselves to be very religious, have also stated that they see abortion as a crime but also as a woman’s right. Thirty-one percent of the women, who also claimed profound religious beliefs, consider that abortion may be associated with the abortion of a child but also of a fetus, this depending on the time of abortion (Tables (Tables10 10 and and11 11 ).

The correlation between the level of religious beliefs and the perspective on abortion seen as a crime or a right



		A woman’s right	A crime	Both depending on the moment when it took place	Not know	No
Are you a religious person?	A very religious and practicant person	1%	11%	12%	–	–	24%
	A very religious but non practicant person	4%	7%	15%	–	1%	27%
	A relatively religious and practicant person	5%	6%	13%	–	–	24%
	Relatively religious but non practicant person	6%	4%	13%	2%	–	25%
Total		16%	28%	53%	2%	1%	100%

The correlation between the level of religious beliefs and the perspective on abortion procedure conducted on a fetus or a child



		A fetus	A child	Both depending on the time of abortion	Not know
Are you a religious person?	A very religious and practicant person	2%	8%	14%	–	24%
	A very religious but non practicant person	3%	7%	17%	–	27%
	A relatively religious and practicant person	4%	5%	16%	3%	28%
	Relatively religious but non practicant person	5%	4%	12%	3%	24%
Total		14%	24%	59%	6%	100%

More than half of the respondents have opted for the main reason for abortion the appearance of medical problems to the child. Baby’s health represents the main concern of future mothers, and of each parent, and the birth of a child with serious health issues, is a factor which frightens any future parent, being many times, at least theoretically, one good reason for opting for abortion. At the opposite side, 12% of respondents would not choose abortion under any circumstances. Other reasons for which women would opt for an abortion are: if the woman would have a medical problem (22%) or would not want the child (10%) (Table (Table12 12 ).

Potential reasons for carrying out an abortion



If the child would have a medical problem (genetic or developmental abnormalities of fetus)	55%
If I would have a medical problem	22%
In any of these situations, I would abort	12%
If the child would not be desired	10%
I don’t know	1%
Total	100%

Most of the women want to give birth to a child, 56% of the respondents, representing also the reason that would determine them to keep the child. Morality (26%), faith (10%) or legal restrictions (4%), are the three other reasons for which women would not interrupt a pregnancy. Only 2% of the respondents have mentioned other reasons such as health or age.

A percentage of 23% of the surveyed people said that they have done an abortion so far, and 77% did not opted for a surgical intervention either because there was no need, or because they have kept the pregnancy (Table (Table13 13 ).

Rate of abortion among women in the sample



No	77%
Yes	23%
Total	100%

Most respondents, 87% specified that they have carried out an abortion during the first 14 weeks – legally accepted limit for abortion: 43.6% have made abortion in the first four weeks, 39.1% between weeks 4–8, and 4.3% between weeks 8–14. It should be noted that 8.7% could not appreciate the pregnancy period in which they carried out abortion, by opting to answer with the option “ I don’t know ”, and a percentage of 4.3% refused to answer to this question.

Performing an abortion is based on many reasons, but the fact that the women have not wanted a child is the main reason mentioned by 47.8% of people surveyed, who have done minimum an abortion so far. Among the reasons for the interruption of pregnancy, it is also included: women with medical problems (13.3%), not the right time to be a mother (10.7%), age motivation (8.7%), due to medical problems of the child (4.3%), the lack of money (4.3%), family pressure (4.3%), partner/spouse did not wanted. A percentage of 3.3% of women had different reasons for abortion, as follows: age difference too large between children, career, marital status, etc. Asked later whether they regretted the abortion, a rate of 69.6% of women who said they had at least one abortion regret it (34.8% opted for “ Yes ”, and 34.8% said “ Yes, partially ”). 26.1% of surveyed women do not regret the choice to interrupted the pregnancy, and 4.3% chose to not answer this question. We noted that, for women who have already experienced abortion, the causes were more diverse than the grounds on which the previous question was asked: “What are the reasons that determined you to have an abortion?” (Table (Table14 14 ).

The reasons that led the women in the sample to have an abortion



I did not desired the child	47.8%
Because of my medical problems	13.3%
It was not the right time	10.7%
I was too young	8.7%
Because the child had health problems (genetic or developmental abnormalities of fetus)	4.3%
Because I did not have financial resources (I couldn’t afford raising a child)	4.3%
Because of the pressure of my family	4.3%
The partner/husband did not wanted	4.3%
Other reasons	3.3%
Total	100%

The majority of the respondents (37.5%) considered that “nervous depression” is the main consequence of abortion, followed by “insomnia and nightmares” (24.6%), “disorders in alimentation” and “affective disorders” (each for 7.7% of respondents), “deterioration of interpersonal relationships” and “the feeling of guilt”(for 6.3% of the respondents), “sexual disorders” and “panic attacks” (for 6.3% of the respondents) (Table (Table15 15 ).

Opinion on the consequences of abortion



Nervous depression	37.5%
Insomnia and nightmares	24.6%
Disorders in alimentation	7.7%
Affective disorders	7.7%
Deterioration of interpersonal relationships	6.3%
The feeling of guilt	6.3%
Sexual disorders	3.3%
Panic attacks	3.3%
Other reasons	3.3%
Total	100%

Over half of the respondents believe that abortion should be legal in certain circumstances, as currently provided by law, 39% say it should be always legal, and only 6% opted for the illegal option (Table (Table16 16 ).

Opinion on the legal regulation of abortion



Legal in certain terms	53%
Always legal	39%
Illegal	6%
I don’t know	2%
Total	100%

Although the current legislation does not punish pregnant women who interrupt pregnancy or intentionally injured their fetus, survey results indicate that 61% of women surveyed believe that the national law should punish the woman and only 28% agree with the current legislation (Table (Table17 17 ).

Opinion on the possibility of punishing the woman who interrupts the course of pregnancy or injures the fetus



Yes	61%
No	28%
I don’t know	7%
I don’t answer	4%
Total	100%

For the majority of the respondents (40.6%), the penalty provided by the current legislation, the imprisonment between six months and three years or a fine and deprivation of certain rights for the illegal abortion is considered fair, for a percentage of 39.6% the punishment is too small for 9.5% of the respondents is too high. Imprisonment between two and seven years and deprivation of certain rights for an abortion performed without the consent of the pregnant woman is considered too small for 65% of interviewees. Fourteen percent of them think it is fair and only 19% of respondents consider that Romanian legislation is too severe with people who commit such an act considering the punishment as too much. The imprisonment from three to 10 years and deprivation of certain rights for the facts described above, if an injury was caused to the woman, is considered to be too small for more than half of those included in the survey, 64% and almost 22% for nearly a quarter of them. Only 9% of the respondents mentioned that this legislative measure is too severe for such actions (Table (Table18 18 ).

Opinion on the regulation of abortion of the Romanian Criminal Code (Art. 201)



Reasonable	40.6%	14%	22%
Too small	39.6%	65%	64%
Too big	9.5%	19%	9%
I don’t know	6.6%	2%	3%
I don’t answer	3.7%	–	2%
Total	100%	100%	100%

Conclusions

After analyzing the results of the sociological research regarding abortion undertaken at national level, we see that 76% of the Romanian women accept abortion, indicating that the majority accepts only certain circumstances (a certain period after conception, for medical reasons, etc.). A percentage of 64% of the respondents indicated that they accept the idea of abortion after 14 weeks of pregnancy (for solid reasons or regardless the reason). This study shows that over 50% of Romanian women see abortion as a right of women but also a woman’s crime and believe that in the moment of interruption of a pregnancy, a fetus is aborted. Mostly, the association of abortion with crime and with the idea that a child is aborted is frequently found within very religious people. The main motivation for Romanian women in taking the decision not to perform an abortion is that they would want the child, and the main reason to perform an abortion is the child’s medical problems. However, it is noted that, in real situations, in which women have already done at least one abortion, most women resort to abortion because they did not want the child towards the hypothetical situation in which women felt that the main reason of abortion is a medical problem. Regarding the satisfaction with the current national legislation of the abortion, the situation is rather surprising. A significant percentage (61%) of respondents felt as necessary to punish the woman who performs an illegal abortion, although the legislation does not provide a punishment. On the other hand, satisfaction level to the penalties provided by law for various violations of the legal conditions for conducting abortion is low, on average only 25.5% of respondents are being satisfied with these, the majority (average 56.2%) considering the penalties as unsatisfactory. Understood as a social phenomenon, intensified by human vulnerabilities, of which the most obvious is accepting the comfort [ 48 ], abortion today is no longer, in Romanian society, from a legal or religious perspective, a problem. Perceptions on the legislative sanction, moral and religious will perpetual vary depending on beliefs, environment, education, etc. The only and the biggest social problem of Romania is truly represented by the steadily falling birth rate.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Share full article

Supported by

The Morning Newsletter

How Abortion Views Are Different

With the Supreme Court set to hear a major abortion case, we look at the state of public opinion.

By David Leonhardt

For nearly 50 years, public opinion has had only a limited effect on abortion policy. The Roe v. Wade decision, which the Supreme Court issued in 1973, established a constitutional right to abortion in many situations and struck down restrictions in dozens of states.

But now that the court has agreed to hear a case that could lead to the overturning of Roe , voters and legislators may soon again be determining abortion laws, state by state. This morning’s newsletter offers a guide to public opinion on the subject.

Americans’ views on abortion are sufficiently complex that both sides in the debate are able to point to survey data that suggests majority opinion is on their side — and then to argue that the data friendly to their own side is the “right” data. These competing claims can be confusing. But when you dig into the data, you discover there are some clear patterns and objective truths.

Here are five.

1. A pro-Roe majority …

Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans — 60 percent to 70 percent, in recent polls by both Gallup and Pew — say they do not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. Similarly, close to 60 percent of Americans say they favor abortion access in either all or most circumstances, according to Pew.

These are the numbers that abortion rights advocates often emphasize.

2. … and a pro-restriction majority

The most confounding aspect of public opinion is a contradiction between Americans’ views on Roe itself and their views on specific abortion policies: Even as most people say they support the ruling, most also say they favor restrictions that Roe does not permit .

Roe, for example, allows only limited restrictions on abortion during the second trimester, mostly involving a mother’s health. But less than 30 percent of Americans say that abortion should “generally be legal” in the second trimester, according to Gallup. Many people also oppose abortion in specific circumstances — because a fetus has Down syndrome, for example — even during the first trimester.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Log in using your username and password

Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
Latest content
Current issue
JME Commentaries
BMJ Journals

Abortion is one of the most controversial issues in today's world. People tend to turn to the law when trying to decide what is the best possible solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Here the author's views on abortion are discussed from a lawyer's and a woman's point of view. By taking into consideration the rights of the fetus an “antagonistic relationship” between the woman and her unborn child may occur. Therefore, women should have more autonomy in the issue. The article concludes with examples of cases in the United States and Ireland where the rights of the fetus are considered more important than those of the mother because of existing laws. This article suggests that a more inclusive ethics of abortion is required rather than a new ethics of abortion when “translating fetal life into law”.

1967 Abortion Act

https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.27.suppl_2.ii10

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Barbara Hewson is a Barrister at Littman Chambers, 12 Gray's Inn Square, London WC1R 5JP.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

IMAGES

Abortion in Singapore: a Legal Perspective
⇉Abortion: Pro-choice Essay Essay Example
Who Are the Real Abortion Radicals? A Comparative Perspective
Abortion Essay Writing Guide with Examples
≫ Legalization of Abortion Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
⇉Abortion Research Paper Essay Example

VIDEO

Quiz on "Comparative Essay"
Answers of Quiz on Comparative Essay

COMMENTS

Abortion Law: Global Comparisons
Wade, the country sought to formally safeguard the law with a constitutional amendment. Having passed through the National Assembly and Senate, the amended Article 34 now guarantees a woman's ...
Comparison/Contrast Essays: Two Patterns
The argument is a balanced one; for every point supporting abortion there is a counter-point condemning abortion. This essay will delineate the controversy in one type of comparison/contrast essay form: the ""Argument versus Argument,"" or, ""Block-by-Block"" format. In this style of writing, first you present all the arguments ...
PDF A Functionalist Approach to Comparative Abortion Law
Comparative Abortion Law Rachel Rebouché This chapter critiques the present comparative methodology in abortion law and explores the possibilities of a new comparative approach. The current method relies on high-profile but dated constitutional abortion decisions from the United States and Germany. Courts continue to rely on these cases
Abortion Law and Policy Around the World
The aim of this paper is to provide a panoramic view of laws and policies on abortion around the world, giving a range of country-based examples. ... some state hospitals have stopped providing abortions altogether. Although comparative data are not available, a 2016 study found that of 431 state hospitals with departments of obstetrics and ...
How U.S. Abortion Law Compares With Other Nations
"Through the lens of comparative national law, Mississippi's abortion regime is more permissive than in most countries," wrote 141 international legal scholars in a brief to the Supreme ...
How the U.S. compares with the rest of the world on abortion rights
Here's a look at how abortion laws have changed in a handful of countries around the globe: China. China liberalized its abortion law in the 1950s and promoted the practice under its one-child ...
Conflict of Abortion Laws
Jackson Women's Health Organization overruled Roe v. Wade, states have passed conflicting laws regarding abortion, and courts will need to determine whether anti-abortion states can apply their laws to persons or events outside their territory either through civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution. This article canvasses the major disputes ...
European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview
European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview—updated in September 2023 to reflect changes in Malta, Finland and Spain—provides an overview of abortion laws and policies in all 47 European countries. With a range of visual tools for analyzing the laws, the report also provides a snapshot of the legal and policy barriers that continue to ...
Abortion Rights as Human Rights
Abstract. This essay maps how human rights have helped advance abortion rights, and it explores the relationship between human rights discourses and abortion access in jurisdictions with under-resourced health systems. The first part describes the incorporation of abortion rights in international human rights documents and in the opinions and ...
Questioning the Comparative Relevance of US Abortion Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court's SRHR decisions this term call into question the validity and propriety of comparative reference to the U.S. as a standard-bearer on reproductive rights. For judges, lawyers, and policymakers seeking to advance a human rights-based approach to abortion, the proven limitations of the U.S. abortion jurisprudence underscore ...
Abortion Care in the United States
Abortion services are a vital component of reproductive health care. Since the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in Dobbs v.Jackson Women's Health Organization, access to abortion services has been increasingly restricted in the United States. Jung and colleagues review current practice and evidence on medication abortion, procedural abortion, and associated reproductive health care, as well as ...
Thesis: The Dynamic Landscape of Abortion Law in the United States
Much change has occurred in abortion laws over the past 50 years, this thesis tracks those changes principally through Supreme Court Cases, such as United States v. Milan Vuitch, Roe v. Wade, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood among others. The landscape of abortion law in the US continues to shift today, as recently as 2017 with Plowman v.
Global Abortion Policies Database: a descriptive analysis of the legal
Background Texts and interpretations on the lawfulness of abortion and associated administrative requirements can be vague and confusing. It can also be difficult for a woman or provider to know exactly where to look for and how to interpret laws on abortion. To increase transparency, the Global Abortion Policies Database (GAPD), launched in 2017, facilitates the strengthening of knowledge and ...
The Rhetoric That Shaped The Abortion Debate
The Rhetoric That Shaped The Abortion Debate Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Linda Greenhouse examines the public discourse that led to the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. She details the ...
Women's Choices in Comparative Perspective
scholars have, on the other hand, focused on comparative studies of abortion laws and politics, as well as implementation.6 This article combines the findings of these bodies of literature. A key measure of abortion rights is a country's laws on abortion: whether it is available on demand, with certain restrictions as to time period (number of ...
Impact of abortion law reforms on women's health services and outcomes
Banaem LM, Majlessi F. A comparative study of low 5-minute Apgar scores (< 8) in newborns of wanted versus unwanted pregnancies in southern Tehran, Iran (2006-2007) ... Blystad A, Moland KM. Comparative cases of abortion laws and access to safe abortion services in sub-Saharan Africa. Trop Med Int Health. 2017; 22:351. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12826.
Legal abortion widely supported globally, especially in Europe
In Europe, there is widespread agreement that abortion should be legal. In nearly every European country surveyed, at least 75% of adults hold this view, including roughly 25% or more who say it should be legal in all cases. Swedes are especially supportive: 95% say it should be legal, including 66% who say it should be legal in all cases.
Key facts about abortion views in the U.S.
Women (66%) are more likely than men (57%) to say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to the survey conducted after the court's ruling. More than half of U.S. adults - including 60% of women and 51% of men - said in March that women should have a greater say than men in setting abortion policy.
There Are More Than Two Sides to the Abortion Debate
Yes, it is her body that the child grows in, however once that child is birthed it is now two people's responsibility. That's entirely unfair to the father when he desired the abortion but the ...
A research on abortion: ethics, legislation and socio-medical outcomes
The analysis of abortion by means of medical and social documents. Abortion means a pregnancy interruption "before the fetus is viable" [] or "before the fetus is able to live independently in the extrauterine environment, usually before the 20 th week of pregnancy" [].]. "Clinical miscarriage is both a common and distressing complication of early pregnancy with many etiological ...
Arguments about Abortion: Personhood, Morality, and Law
An extended analysis of the moral and legal status of abortion, the book offers an account of abortion which keeps philosophical disagreement about 'personhood' at the centre of the debate. Structured in three parts the book considers the relevance of prenatal personhood for the moral and legal evaluation of abortion; traces the key ...
How Abortion Views Are Different
By David Leonhardt. May 19, 2021. For nearly 50 years, public opinion has had only a limited effect on abortion policy. The Roe v. Wade decision, which the Supreme Court issued in 1973 ...
Reproductive autonomy and the ethics of abortion
Abortion is one of the most controversial issues in today's world. People tend to turn to the law when trying to decide what is the best possible solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Here the author's views on abortion are discussed from a lawyer's and a woman's point of view. By taking into consideration the rights of the fetus an "antagonistic relationship" between the woman and her unborn ...

What does abortion law look like around the world?

How does the United States compare?

What have been recent trends?

Explore More on Women and Women's Rights

Top Stories on CFR

Comparison/Contrast Essays: Two Patterns

First Pattern: Block-by-Block

Second Pattern: Point-by-Point

At a Glance

Our Community

Visit Gallaudet

Engage Today

How the U.S. compares with the rest of the world on abortion rights

What does abortion law look like around the world?

How does the United States compare?

What have been recent trends?

Educate your inbox

Democrats pressure Biden to take executive action on abortion rights

Joseph William Singer, Conflict of Abortion Laws , 16 Ne. U.L. Rev. (forthcoming 2024).

European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview

Related Posts

Sign up for email updates.

Privacy Overview

Questioning the Comparative Relevance of US Abortion Jurisprudence

US Abortion Law Is Out of Step with Global Norms

US Agenda to Undermine SRHR Abroad

Emergence of Alternative Standard-Bearers on SRHR

Share this:

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Sign up for our newsletter

Thesis: The Dynamic Landscape of Abortion Law in the United States

How to cite

Global Abortion Policies Database: a descriptive analysis of the legal categories of lawful abortion

Conclusions

On request with no requirement for justification

Legal grounds and related indications

Life threat

Health threat

Limited lists of health conditions

Fetal conditions

Limited lists of or single specified fetal condition

Fetal condition - presumption of another ground

Rape - presumption of another ground

Rape - as a consideration in conjunction with a different ground

Gender-based/sexual violence

Intellectual or cognitive disability

Economic or social ground

Economic or social ground -as a consideration in conjunction with a different ground

Limited lists of or single specified economic and social conditions

Non-equivalent indications

Claim of distress

Age qualification

Various therapeutic indications

Menstrual regulation

Determining what is included within a legal category

Legitimizing or delegitimizing women’s claims to abortion

Abbreviations

Acknowledgements

Availability of data and materials

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Publisher’s Note

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

BMC International Health and Human Rights

The Rhetoric That Shaped The Abortion Debate

Before Roe v. Wade: Voices that Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court's Ruling By Linda Greenhouse and Reva B. Siegel Hardcover, 352 pages Kaplan Publishing List Price: $26

Interview Highlights

Related NPR Stories

Before Roe v. Wade

Excerpt: 'Before Roe v. Wade'

Regions & Countries

Key facts about the abortion debate in America

Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election

Research Topics