# data[].attributes.body
In this article, the life of the mother was taken into consideration. It states, "some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too." The article brings up a point how we always make choices in our society, whether it's about prisoners, men, women, patients with illness ,etc. Everyone has their own opinion, but women don't have to be pressured and bullied into not getting an abortion when it is their decision to make. Abortion is a big deal in our society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abortion, edited by Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http%3A%2F%2Flink.galegroup.com%2Fapps%2Fdoc%2FEJ3010102429%2FOVIC%3Fu%3Dpl2683%26sid%3DOVIC%26xid%3D7ec0da4a. Accessed 14 Mar. 2019. Originally published as "So What If Abortion Ends Life?" http://www.Salon.com, 23 Jan. 2013.

# data[].attributes.body
Abortion is a medical/surgical procedure where a pregnancy is ended before a fetus can be born. States are making abortion laws where you cannot get an abortion after the first trimester. There are such things as pro-choice and pro-life groups. Pro-life is NOT for abortion, and Pro-Choice IS for abortion. Abortion is a major topic of discussion, and there are many strong opinions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opposing Viewpoints in Context - Results -

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
My Library: Pleasant Valley Middle School Library

# data[].attributes.body
If killing is a murder, so is Abortion.

# data[].attributes.body
Life begins at fertilization.

# data[].attributes.body
In this picture, sadly, the victim does not get a choice, and it really shows the importance of not getting an abortion.

# data[].attributes.body
Women are getting abortions for the wrong reasons.

# data[].attributes.body
This is how babies get dissected throughout an abortion, and it's extremely sad.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dismemberment abortions? Is it really true that unborn babies have their arms and legs ripped off in a grisly abortion procedure? Yes it is and one leading pro-life group is calling on Congress to ban them.

A letter from the National Right to Life Committee to members of Congress explains in full detail what dismemberment abortions are and even how the Supreme Court has addressed them previously:

Dear Member of Congress:

The National Right to Life Committee, the federation of state right-to-life organizations, urges you to co-sponsor the Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 1192).

This vital pro-life legislation, introduced by Rep. Chris Smith, would prohibit the performance of dismemberment abortion. H.R. 1192 is based on a model state bill proposed by National Right to Life, which has been enacted in Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia. More states are expected to consider the legislation in 2018.

H.R. 1192 defines "dismemberment abortion" as "knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments that, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child's body in order to cut or rip it off . . ."

This definition largely overlaps with what those in the abortion trade currently refer to as "dilation and evacuation" or "dilation and extraction" (D&E) abortions. The method is commonly used starting at about 14 weeks of pregnancy, and extending into the third trimester.

H.R. 1192 allows performance of a dismemberment abortion if necessary to save a mother's life. The bill also says that it does not limit abortions performed in cases of rape or incest, if performed by a method other than dismemberment abortion.

In his dissent in the 2000 case of Stenberg v. Carhart, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote regarding D&E abortion: "The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off."
Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. Follow @LifeNewsHQ
A medical illustration of a D&E dismemberment abortion is available here: www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/deabortiongraphic.

If you agree that an unborn child should not be subjected to the cruel violence of having her arms and legs torn off by brute force, with steel tools that grasp, tear, and crush, please co-sponsor the Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act. Thank you for your consideration of the importance placed by our organization on this landmark legislation.

Dr. Anthony Levatino is a pro-life physician from New Mexico but, before having a change of heart on the issue of abortion he was an OBGYN who also performed abortions. Levatino did as many as 1,200 abortions - some of them after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Then, after his daughter died in a tragic automobile accident, he re-evaluated his position on abortion and stopped doing abortions.

Previously, he talked with Congress about the dismemberment abortion procedures he performed.

Now the question is what will Congress do?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
dismemberment abortions rip arms and legs off unborn babies and they are totally legal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dismemberment Abortions Rip Arms and Legs Off Unborn Babies and They Are Totally Legal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dismemberment abortions? Is it really true that unborn babies have their arms and legs ripped off in a grisly abortion procedure? Yes it is and one leading pro-life group is calling on Congress to ban them.

# data[].attributes.body
In this credible source, it introduces many parts of an abortion. Illegal Abortion is thoroughly spoken about. Illegal abortion is completely unsafe, and should never take place. In some countries, where abortion is illegal, It is a leading cause of maternal death. An estimated guess of 68,000 women die worldwide each year from unsafe abortions as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Printable version of this fact sheet (PDF file, 44K)

What is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act?

The FACE Act makes it a federal crime to use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to prevent individuals from obtaining or providing reproductive health care services. FACE also authorizes reproductive health care providers, the state attorney general, and/or the federal government to bring civil lawsuits to get injunctions against these activities, or to get monetary damages.

Why was FACE passed?

During the 1980s and early1990s, clinic protests and blockades were on the rise. Violence against abortion providers was escalating across the country, culminating in the murder of Dr. Gunn in March of 1993 outside a Pensacola, FL clinic and the attempted murder of Dr. Tiller in August of 1993 outside his Wichita, KS clinic. These incidents created urgency in Congress to pass new federal legislation to address the violence committed against reproductive health care facilities and providers and the denial of access to women seeking their services.

When was FACE passed?

FACE was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by former President Clinton in May of 1994.

What does FACE prohibit?

FACE makes it illegal to intentionally use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with individuals obtaining or providing reproductive health care services. FACE also punishes anyone who intentionally damages or destroys a facility that provides reproductive health services. ¹

Who does FACE protect?

What is included in "reproductive health services"?

FACE covers more than just abortion services. "Reproductive health services" include medical, surgical, counseling, or referral services related to pregnancy or the termination of pregnancy provided in a hospital, clinic, physician's office, or other facility that provides reproductive health services.

Who is a "reproductive health care provider"?

Anybody or any facility that provides reproductive health services. Trained professionals who work in credentialed facilities are covered by FACE, as are staff necessary to the safe functioning of a facility, such as security guards, maintenance staff, and patient escorts. People who work in anti-choice reproductive health facilities, such as crisis pregnancy centers, are also covered by FACE. Protesters such as sidewalk counselors who try to give information to women outside of reproductive health care facilities are not covered. ²

What does the phrase "interfere with" mean?

Congress included specific definitions in the Act to clarify the meaning of the law. "Interfere with" means to restrict a person's freedom of movement.

What does the term "intimidate" mean?

Placing a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily injury to him or herself or another.

What is considered a "physical obstruction"?

Rendering the entrance or exit of a facility that provides reproductive health services impassable, or making access into and out of such a facility unreasonably difficult or hazardous.

What is considered a "threat"?

For FACE purposes, a definition which has been adopted by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Planned Parenthood v. ACLA is that a statement is a true threat if a reasonable person making the statement would foresee that it would be interpreted by the person to whom it is made as a serious expression to inflict harm or assault. ³ In assessing whether a statement is an unlawful threat, the context in which the statement was made must be considered, including the reaction of the listener.

What are some examples of behavior FACE prohibits?

Any activity that blocks access to the entrance or obstructs the exit of a facility, including impairing cars from entering and leaving parking lots; impeding the progress of people trying to walk towards doors or through parking lots; or making getting in and out of the facility difficult or dangerous.

Trespassing, such as clinic invasions.

Acts of physical violence, such as shoving, directed towards clinic employees, escorts or patients.

Vandalizing a reproductive health care facility by gluing locks or pouring butyric acid.

Threats of violence. For example, in 1996 a woman was found guilty of a FACE violation for yelling through a bullhorn to a doctor, "Robert, remember Dr. Gunn. This could happen to you..." (referring to a doctor who was shot in 1993).⁴ In another case, a man was found to have threatened force under FACE when he parked a Ryder truck outside of a clinic shortly after the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City where a Ryder truck had carried the explosives.⁵

Stalking a clinic employee or a reproductive health provider.

Arson or threats of arson.

Bombings or bomb threats.

Does the prohibited behavior need to be repetitive to be in violation of FACE?

The Act does not require that the behavior occur more than once. If a singular event is heinous enough in the eyes of a U.S. Attorney, criminal prosecution is likely. However, if the prohibited act is not as severe, proof of repetition will assist in either a criminal or a civil case.

What behavior does FACE not prohibit?

FACE protects protesters' First Amendment right to free speech. Clinic protesters remain free to conduct peaceful protest, including singing hymns, praying, carrying signs, walking picket lines and distributing anti-abortion materials outside of clinics.

Is shouting outside of a clinic a FACE violation?

FACE allows shouting outside of clinics, as long as no threats are made. However, noise levels many not exceed those set by state or local law.

Is the use of photography or videotaping outside a clinic prohibited under FACE?

Taking somebody's picture, either still or moving, without their consent is not an act of force or a threat of force, therefore this is not a FACE violation. However, it may be actionable under state law.

Who can bring a criminal cause of action under FACE?

Only the federal government can file criminal charges under FACE.

What are the criminal penalties under FACE?

The criminal penalties vary according to the severity of the offense and the defendant's prior record of FACE violations. The Act does not provide for minimum sentences; the following are illustrative of the maximum sentences:

Who can bring a civil cause of action under FACE?

The federal government, state governments, and/or any person or facility that has been the victim of a prohibited action under FACE can bring a civil lawsuit against a violator of FACE.

What are the civil penalties under FACE?

A private plaintiff can obtain temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. Rather than collecting compensatory damages, the plaintiff may choose to recover $5,000 for each proven violation.

The federal government or attorney general of your state may also bring a civil suit in federal court on behalf of third parties injured by FACE violations. The court may impose civil fines on the defendants according to the following, note these are all the maximum fines:

first offense, nonviolent physical obstruction: $10,000

other first offenses: $15,000

subsequent offenses for nonviolent physical obstruction: $15,000

other subsequent offenses: $25,000

Does FACE provide for areas that the protesters cannot enter?

No, FACE does not explicitly define areas that the protesters are prohibited from entering. However, the Act does provide for injunctive relief in the event of a FACE violation, which could limit the areas in which protest occurs. In other words, to obtain a protest-free buffer zone around a clinic entrance, either the facility or the state or federal government must file a civil lawsuit against individual protesters and/or their sponsoring organizations, and prove that their actions violate FACE.

Is FACE constitutional?

Yes, each of the eight federal appeals courts that have heard a FACE case held that FACE is constitutional. ⁶ The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to review these cases, in essence affirming the Act's constitutionality. FACE does not infringe the free speech and free assembly rights of anti-abortion protesters. Rather, the law covers unprotected conduct, such as threats, assault, trespass and vandalism.

Has the passage and enforcement of FACE assisted in the decrease of clinic violence?

Yes. In 1994, 52% of clinics reported experiencing severe violence (classified as blockades, invasions, bombings, arsons, chemical attacks, stalking, physical violence, gunfire, bomb threats, death threats, and murder). That number declined to 20% in 1999 and 2000. ⁷ The general consensus is that the FACE Act is an important tool in responding to clinic violence and in deterring possible offenders.

What is the status of law enforcement response to clinic incidents?

Between the passage of FACE in 1994 and 2005, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has obtained the convictions of 71 individuals in 46 criminal prosecutions for violations of FACE. Also, DOJ has brought 17 civil lawsuits under FACE, which have resulted in injunctive relief, damages, and/or penalties. ⁸ Following the murder of Dr. Slepian in 1998, then U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno established the Department of Justice's National Task Force on Violence against Health Care Providers to address violence against providers and patients of reproductive health care providers. The task force is responsible for coordinating criminal investigations of anti-abortion activities on a national level. They work with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to address safety and security issues and to provide investigative support.

What are other legal devices that can be utilized by reproductive health care providers?

Although FACE is extremely useful, there are other tools available. Other federal statutes that may apply:

State statutes and local ordinances that may apply:

State FACE Acts. Some states have enacted their own versions of FACE. This allows states to press criminal charges under state law, and gives clinics more options for enforcement. State versions of FACE have been enacted in California, New York and Washington.Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota,Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, and Wisconsin also have statutes that deal with harassment at health care facilities.

State Buffer Zone Laws. Colorado, Massachusetts, and Montana have passed buffer zone legislation. In Colorado, within 100 feet of any health care facility entrance, patients cannot be approached within 8 feet without consent for the purpose of leafleting, displaying a sign, or engaging in conversation. In Massachusetts, an 18-foot buffer zone exists around clinic entrances. Within the buffer zone, protesters must stay at least 6 feet away from clinic workers and patients. In Montana, a 36-foot buffer zone exists, within which protesters must remain 8 feet away from patients and clinic workers.

State criminal laws such as assault, trespass, and arson. Several states also have statutes protecting health care facilities.

Residential picketing laws or injunctions that prevent picketing focused on a particular residence. Such measures may prevent demonstrations not only in front of a targeted residence, but also in front of surrounding residences. They may also limit the number of picketers and the time and duration of the demonstrations to take account of the character of the neighborhood and the privacy of the "target."

Loitering laws. These ordinances can be used if people are congregated in a public street for no apparent reason for an extended period of time.

Noise ordinances. The Supreme Court has approved of restrictions on noise ("singing, chanting, whistling, shouting, yelling, use of bullhorns, auto horns, sound amplification equipment...") when the noise can be heard inside a clinic during clinic hours.

Municipal Ordinances. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania has enacted a buffer zone ordinance containing two provisions: a 15-foot buffer zone around entrances to health care facilities, and an 8-foot personal bubble zone to prohibit protesters from approaching patients and health care workers.

References

1. 18 U.S.C.A § 248(a).

2. Raney v. Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc., 224 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2000).

3. The Supreme Court denied an appeal in Planned Parenthood v. ACLA.

4. U.S. v. Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 1996).

5. U.S. v. Hart, 212 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2000).

6. Norton v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2002); U.S. v. Hart, 212 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2000); U.S. v. Gregg, 226 F.3d 253 (3rd Cir. 2000); U.S. v. Wilson, 154 F.3d 658 (7th Cir.1998); U.S. v. Weslin, 156 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 1998); Hoffman v. Hunt, 126 F.3d 575 (4th Cir. 1997); Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517 (11th Cir. 1996); Terry v. Reno, 101 F.3d 1412 (D.C. Cir. 1996). US v. Bird, 401 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 2005).

7. 2000 National Clinic Violence Report, Feminist Majority Foundation.

8. National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers, Department of Justice, Report on Federal Efforts to Prevent and Prosecute Clinic Violence 1998-2000.

For More Information

Copyright© 2006, National Abortion Federation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NAF has worked since 1977 to ensure that women, health care professionals, and policymakers have access to factual information about abortion. NAF has created a series of carefully researched fact sheets that cover topics related to abortion and abortion care.

# data[].attributes.body
A women was paid to not get an abortion, and in the end she is happy she didn't

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pro-Life Group Pays Women $3,000 To Not Get Abortions

# data[].attributes.body
It is just as evil to kill a pre-born baby who has been conceived of rape and incest as it would be to kill a toddler who has been through the same. Life begins at fertilization, nothing after birth makes you any more human than the moment before. Most physicians recommend an abortion before prescribing chemotherapy, but it is not to save the mother life, but to save themselves from litigation. Whether you kill 40 people a day, or simply one murder of an infant, you are a murder.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abortion Should Be Banned, Regardless of the Circumstances

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abortion, edited by Tamara Thompson, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http%3A%2F%2Flink.galegroup.com%2Fapps%2Fdoc%2FEJ3010946223%2FOVIC%3Fu%3Dpl2683%26sid%3DOVIC%26xid%3D83d7ca10. Accessed 27 Feb. 2019. Originally published as "Are There Rare Cases When an Abortion Is Justified?", 31 Mar. 2009.

# data[].attributes.body
In this source, Abortion is thoroughly talked about. It says three main restrictions on why abortion was banned in some places. First, Abortion was a hazard and abortionists were killing women. Next, Abortion was, and still is, considered a sin. Last, abortion was banned so they could save fetal lives. The article continues to talk about how it is banned in multiple places, and historical facts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Search of Decriminalization

Abstract

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. It shows that the plethora of convoluted laws and restrictions surrounding abortion do not make any legal or public health sense. What makes abortion safe is simple and irrefutable-when it is available on the woman's request and is universally affordable and accessible. From this perspective, few existing laws are fit for purpose. However, the road to law reform is long and difficult. In order to achieve the right to safe abortion, advocates will need to study the political, health system, legal, juridical, and socio-cultural realities surrounding existing law and policy in their countries, and decide what kind of law they want (if any). The biggest challenge is to determine what is possible to achieve, build a critical mass of support, and work together with legal experts, parliamentarians, health professionals, and women themselves to change the law-so that everyone with an unwanted pregnancy who seeks an abortion can have it, as early as possible and as late as necessary.

Toward a definition of decriminalization of abortion

In simple terms, the decriminalization of abortion means removing specific criminal sanctions against abortion from the law, and changing the law and related policies and regulations to achieve the following:

not punishing anyone for providing safe abortion,

not punishing anyone for having an abortion,

not involving the police in investigating or prosecuting safe abortion provision or practice,

not involving the courts in deciding whether to allow an abortion, and

treating abortion like every other form of health care-that is, using best practice in service delivery, the training of providers, and the development and application of evidence-based guidelines, and applying existing law to deal with any dangerous or negligent practices.

Some history

Abortion was legally restricted in almost every country by the end of the nineteenth century. The most important sources of such laws were the imperial countries of Europe-Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, and Italy-who imposed their own laws forbidding abortion on their colonies.

According to the United Nations Population Division's comprehensive website on abortion laws, legal systems under which abortion is legally restricted fall into three main categories, developed mostly during the period of colonialism from the sixteenth century onward:

common law: the UK and most of its former colonies-Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, India, Ireland, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, the United States, and the Anglophone countries of Africa, the Caribbean, and Oceania;

civil law: most of the rest of Europe, including Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain, and their former colonies, Turkey and Japan, most of Latin America, non-Anglophone sub-Saharan Africa, and the former Soviet republics of Central and Western Asia. In addition, the laws of several North African and Middle Eastern countries have been influenced by French civil law; and

Islamic law: the countries of North Africa and Western Asia and others with predominantly Muslim populations, and having an influence on personal law, for example, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan.¹

Historically, restrictions on abortion were introduced for three main reasons:

1. Abortion was dangerous and abortionists were killing a lot of women. Hence, the laws had a public health intention to protect women-who nevertheless sought abortions and risked their lives in doing so, as they still do today if they have no other choice.

2. Abortion was considered a sin or a form of transgression of morality, and the laws were intended to punish and act as a deterrent.

3. Abortion was restricted to protect fetal life in some or all circumstances.

Since abortion methods have become safe, laws against abortion make sense only for punitive and deterrent purposes, or to protect fetal life over that of women's lives. While some prosecutions for unsafe abortions that cause injury or death still take place, far more often existing laws are being used against those having and providing safe abortions outside the law today. Ironically, it is restrictive abortion laws-leftovers from another age-that are responsible for the deaths and millions of injuries to women who cannot afford to pay for a safe illegal abortion.

This paper provides a panoramic view of current laws and policies on abortion in order to show that, from a global perspective, few of these laws makes any legal or public health sense. The fact is that the more restrictive the law, the more it is flouted, within and across borders. Whatever has led to the current impasse in law reform for women's benefit-whether it is called stigma, misogyny, religion, morality, or political cowardice-few, if any, existing laws on abortion are fit for purpose.

Efforts to reform abortion law and practice since 1900

The first country to reform its abortion law was the Soviet Union, spurred by feminist Alexandra Kollantai, through a decree on women's health care in October 1920.² Since then, progressive abortion law reform (the kind that benefits women) has been justified on public health and human rights grounds, to promote smaller families for population and environmental reasons, and because women's education and improved socioeconomic status have created alternatives to childbearing. Perhaps most importantly, controlling fertility has become both technically feasible and acceptable in almost all cultures today. Yet despite 100 years of campaigning for safe abortion, the use of contraception has been completely decriminalized while abortion has not.

ground 2 - rape or sexual abuse

ground 3 - serious fetal anomaly

ground 4 - risk to physical and sometimes mental health

ground 5 - social and economic reasons

With each additional ground, moving from ground 1 to 6, the findings show that the number of deaths falls. Countries with almost no deaths from unsafe abortion are those that allow abortion on request without restriction.

This is proof that that the best way to consign unsafe abortion to history is by removing all legal restrictions and providing universal access to safe abortion. But the question remains, how do we get from where things are now to where they could (and should) be?

Attempts to move from almost total criminalization to partial (let alone total) decriminalization of abortion have been slow and fraught with difficulties. Why? Because the best way to control women's lives is through (the risk of) pregnancy. The traditional belief that women should accept "all the children God gives," the recent glorification of the fetus as having more value than the woman it is dependent on, and male-dominated culture are all used extremely effectively to justify criminal restrictions. Nevertheless, the need for abortion is one of the defining experiences of having a uterus.

Globally, 25% of pregnancies ended in induced abortion in 2010-2014, including in countries with high rates of contraceptive prevalence.⁶ Increasingly, thanks to years of effective campaigning, more and more women are defending the need for abortion, as well as the right to a safe abortion-and access to it if and when they need it. Moreover, a growing number of governments, in both the Global North and more recently the Global South, have begun to acknowledge that preventing unsafe abortions is part of their commitment to reducing avoidable maternal deaths and their obligations under international human rights law.

While some people still wish that this could be achieved through a higher prevalence of contraceptive use or post-abortion care alone, the facts are against it. Those facts include both the occurrence of contraceptive failure among those who do use a method and the failure to use contraception, both of which are common events and sexual behaviors.

The role of international human rights bodies in calling for law reform

A new layer of involvement in advocacy for safe abortion, based on an analysis of how existing laws affect women and girls and whether they meet international human rights standards, has emerged in recent years. United Nations human rights bodies-including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Committee on Economic, Social and Political Rights, the Working Group on discrimination against women in law and practice, and the Special Rapporteurs on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the rights of women in Africa, and torture-have played an increasingly visible role in calling for progressive abortion law reform.⁷

Regional bodies such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) have been very active in this regard as well. The ACHPR called in January 2016 for the decriminalization of abortion across Africa, in line with the Maputo Protocol, and renewed that call in January 2017, making waves across the region.⁸

Legalize or decriminalize: What's in a word?

Interestingly, no human rights body has gone so far as to call for abortion to be permitted at the request of the woman, yet many have called for abortion to be decriminalized. This raises the question of what is understood in different quarters by the term "decriminalization."

For many years, the abortion rights movement internationally has called for "safe, legal abortion." More recently, calls for the "decriminalization of abortion" have also emerged. Do these mean the same thing? In simplistic terms, they might be differentiated like this: legalizing abortion means keeping abortion in the law in some form by identifying the grounds on which it is allowed, while decriminalizing abortion means removing criminal sanctions against abortion altogether.

In that sense, abortion is legal on one or more grounds (mostly as exceptions to the law) in all but a few countries today, while Canada stands out as the only country to date that, through a Supreme Court decision in 1988, effectively decriminalized abortion altogether.⁹ No other country, no matter how liberal its law reform, has been willing to take abortion completely out of the law that delimits it.

However, this distinction is often not what is meant. Instead, the two terms are used interchangeably-that is, abortion may be legalized or decriminalized on some or all grounds. No one is likely to be able to change this lack of differentiation in terminology. Nevertheless, it is crucial when recommending abortion law reform to be clear what exactly is and is not intended. I will come back to this later in the paper, after exploring the complexity of the changes being called for, no matter which of the two terms is used.

The law on abortion in countries today

Criminal restrictions on the practice of abortion are contained in statute law-in other words, laws passed by legislatures, sometimes as part of criminal or penal codes, which consolidate a group of criminal statutes. In the UK, for example, abortion was criminalized in sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act of 1861, with one aspect further defined in the Infant Life Preservation Act of 1929, and then allowed on certain grounds and conditions in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland) in the 1967 Abortion Act, which was then amended further in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990. In the 1967 Abortion Act, legal grounds for abortion are set out as exceptions to the criminal law, yet the 1861 act is still in force and still being used to prosecute illegal abortions today.¹⁰

At the end of the twentieth century, abortion was legally permitted to save the life of the woman in 98% of the world's countries.¹³ The proportion of countries allowing abortion on other grounds was as follows: to preserve the woman's physical health (63%); to preserve the woman's mental health (62%); in case of rape, sexual abuse, or incest (43%); fetal anomaly or impairment (39%); economic or social reasons (33%); and on request (27%).

These percentages, published in 2002, are out of date, but they have not changed dramatically. In late 2017, research updating the world's laws on abortion and adding new information about related policies, conducted under the aegis of the Department of Reproductive Health and Research/Human Reproductive Programme at WHO, will be incorporated into the United Nations Population Division's website.¹⁶

Regulating abortion

There is much more to this story, however. In addition to statute law, other ways to liberalize, restrict, or regulate access to abortion, which also have legal standing, include the following:

national constitutions in at least 20 countries, such as the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution (1983) in Ireland;

supreme court decisions, such as in the United States (1973, 2016), Canada (1988), Colombia (2006), and Brazil (2012), as well as higher court decisions, such as in India (2016, 2017) allowing individual women abortions beyond the 20-week upper limit;

customary or religious law, such as interpretations of Muslim law that allow abortion up to 120 days in Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates but do not allow abortion at all in other majority Muslim countries;

regulations that require confidentiality on the part of health professionals on the one hand, but on the other hand require health professionals to report a criminal act they may learn of, for example, while providing treatment for complications of unsafe abortion;

medical ethical codes, which, for example, allow or disallow conscientious objection; and

clinical and other regulatory standards and guidelines governing the provision of abortion, such as reporting guidelines, disciplinary procedures, parental or spousal consent, and restrictions on which health professionals may provide abortions and where, who may approve an abortion, and which methods may be used-as adjuncts to (though not always formally part of) the law.

Reed Boland has found that the distinction between laws and regulations governing abortion is not always clear and that some countries, usually those where abortion laws are highly restrictive, have issued no regulations at all. In the most complex cases, there are multiple texts over many years which may contain conflicting provisions and obscure and outdated language. The upshot may be that no one is sure when abortion is actually allowed and when it isn't, which may serve to stop it being provided safely and openly at all.¹⁷

Uganda is a case in point. According to a recently published paper by Amanda Cleeve et al., Uganda's Constitution and Penal Code conflict with each other, leading to ambiguous interpretations and lack of awareness of the fact that abortion is legal to protect women's health and life. Moreover, while Uganda has a national reproductive health policy, it is not supported in law and is not being implemented. In 2015, in order to clarify this situation, the minister of health and other stakeholders developed Standards and Evidence-based Guidelines on the Prevention of Unsafe Abortion. These included details of who can provide abortions, and where and how, and assigned health service responsibilities, such as level of care and post-abortion care. However, the guidelines were withdrawn in January 2016 due to religious and political opposition.¹⁸

Sometimes, other laws unrelated to abortion create barriers. In Morocco, the abortion law was established in 1920 when Morocco was a French protectorate. In May 2015, following a public debate arising from reports of women's deaths from unsafe abortion, a reform process to expand legal protections was initiated by a directive of the king. According to the Moroccan Family Planning Association, despite a consensus that abortion should be permitted within the first three months if the woman's physical and mental health is in danger, and in cases of rape, incest, or congenital malformation, unmarried women would be excluded because it is illegal to have sex outside marriage.²²

Restricting abortion without changing the law

Decent laws and policies can be sabotaged and access to abortion can be restricted without amending the law itself, but instead through policies pressuring women to have more children, public denunciation of abortion by political and religious leaders, or restricting access to services. Bureaucratic obstacles may be placed in women's paths, such as requiring unnecessary medical tests, counselling even if women feel no need for it, having to get one or more doctors' signatures, having to wait between making an appointment and having an abortion, or having to obtain consent from a partner, parent(s) or guardian, or even a judge.

In Turkey, for example, in 1983, in response to population growth, the government passed a law allowing fertility regulation, termination of pregnancy on request up to 10 weeks after conception, and sterilization. A married woman seeking an abortion was required only to obtain her husband's permission or submit a formal statement of assumption of all responsibility prior to the procedure.²⁶ In recent years, however, President Erdogan has taken a pronatalist stance and urged Turkish couples to have at least three children. Since 2012, he has been calling abortion murder, expressing opposition to the provision of abortion services and threatening to restrict the law. Women protested against these threats in such large numbers in 2012 that to date there have been no changes to the law itself. But administrative changes were made in order to make the procedure for booking an appointment for an abortion-which is still primarily provided by gynecologists in hospitals-more difficult.

These changes have made it nearly impossible to obtain an abortion in a state hospital; indeed, 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 gynecology, only 7.8% provided abortions without restriction as to reason, 78% provided abortions only if there was a medical necessity, and 11.8% did not provide abortions at all. Of the 58 teaching and research hospitals with departments of obstetrics and gynecology, only 17.3% provided abortion services without restriction as to reason, 71.1% only if there was a medical necessity, and 11.4% not at all. Overall, 53 of 81 provinces in Turkey did not have a state hospital that provided abortions without restriction as to reason, although this is permitted under the law.²⁷

Thus, the availability of safe abortion depends not only on permissive legislation but also on a permissive environment, political support, and the ability and willingness of health services and health professionals to make abortion available. In contrast to Turkey, Ethiopia is an example of the success of that support.

Law reform for the better-slowly but surely

In 2005, Ethiopia liberalized its abortion law. Previously, abortion was allowed only to save the life of the woman or protect her physical health. The current law allows abortion in cases of rape, incest, or fetal impairment, as well as if the life or physical health of the woman is in danger, if she has a physical or mental disability, or if she is a minor who is physically or mentally unprepared for childbirth.²⁸ This is a liberal law for sub-Saharan Africa, but for a long time, little was known about the extent of its implementation. In 2006, the government published national standards and guidelines on safe abortion that permitted the use of misoprostol, with or without mifepristone, in accordance with WHO guidance. A nationwide study in 2008 by the Guttmacher Institute estimated that within a few years, 27% of abortions were legal, though most abortions were still unsafe.

A 2011 study by Jemila Abdi and Mulugeta Gebremariam found that Ethiopian health care providers' reasons for not providing abortions were mainly personal or due to lack of permission from an employer or the unavailability of services at their facility. Only 27% felt comfortable working at a site where abortion was provided. Reasons for not being comfortable were mainly religious, but also included personal values and a lack of training. Although 29% thought it should be a woman's choice to have an abortion, 55% disagreed. The study also uncovered a lack of medical equipment and trained personnel, and bureaucratic problems at clinical sites.²⁹

Even so, major efforts were and are still being made to improve access at the primary level by constructing more health centers and training more mid-level providers. Between 2008 and 2014, the proportion of abortions provided in health facilities almost doubled. In 2014, almost three-fourths of facilities that could potentially provide abortions or post-abortion care did so, including 67% of the 2,600 public health centers nationwide, 80% of the 1,300 private or nongovernmental facilities, and 98% of the 120 public hospitals. The proportion of all abortion-related services provided by mid-level health workers increased from 48% in 2008 to 83% in 2014. While a substantial number of abortions continue to occur outside of health facilities, the proportion is falling, showing that change is possible but also that it takes time.³⁰

Self-use of medical abortion in the absence of law and policy reform

In other Latin American countries, abortion laws have remained highly restrictive in spite of campaigns for women's sexual and reproductive rights and human rights for more than 30 years. As a result, and thanks to the advent of new technology, women have begun to take matters into their own hands. An uncounted number of women, probably in the millions, has been obtaining and using misoprostol to self-induce abortion (widely available for gastric ulcers) from a range of sources-pharmacies, websites, black market-since its abortifacient effectiveness was first discovered in the late 1980s. This practice, begun in Brazil, has spread to many other countries and regions. In response, legal restrictions and regulations on access to medical abortion pills have been imposed by countries such as Brazil and Egypt in an effort to stop the unstoppable.

Moreover, in the past decade, feminist groups have set up safe abortion information hotlines in at least 20 countries, and health professionals are providing information and access to abortion pills via telemedicine, including Women Help Women, Women on Web, safe2choose, the Tabbot Foundation in Australia, and TelAbortion in the United States.³³

In Uruguay, which has hospital-based outpatient abortion care, Lilian Abracinskas, executive director of Mujer y Salud en Uruguay, said in a recent interview, " In Uruguay, we don't have doctors who do abortions. Abortion with pills is the only way and it isn't possible to choose another method, such as manual vacuum aspiration. Health professionals are willing to be involved before and after, but not in the abortion."³⁴ Thus, abortion service delivery has been reduced to providing information, prescribing pills, and conducting a follow-up appointment if the woman has concerns. It can be that simple (although it does restrict access to aspiration and surgical methods).

Abortion law as a political football and a weapon against women

In Russia, the law has gone back and forth between permissive and restrictive with every change of political head of state. Stalin made abortion illegal when he took over from Lenin, and then after 1945, abortion was again permitted on broad grounds across the Soviet Union and in its satellite countries in Eastern Europe and West Asia, while under Vladimir Putin a long list of restrictions has been imposed, greatly reducing the number of grounds on which abortion is permitted. In January 2016, a bill aiming to "rule out the uncontrolled use of pharmaceutical drugs destined for termination of pregnancy" was tabled in parliament. It would have banned retail sales and limited the list of organizations permitted to buy medical abortion pills wholesale. It would also have banned abortions in private clinics and removed payment for them from state insurance policies. And it would not have allowed abortions to be covered by state health care unless the pregnancy threatened the woman's life. The bill was withdrawn after strong public protest that was coordinated by the Russian Association for Population and Development; however, attempts at further restriction are likely to continue.³⁷

But this is not stopping women from having abortions.

Keeping laws and policies that benefit women in clear sight

Cuba was the first country in Latin America and the Caribbean to reform its abortion law in favor of women, with a law that remains unique. Since 1965, abortion has been available on request up to the tenth week of pregnancy through the national health system. The Penal Code, adopted in 1979, says that an abortion is considered illegal only if it is without the consent of the pregnant woman, is unsafe, or is provided for profit.⁴¹

In Japan, the law allowing abortion, enacted in 1948, was initially based on eugenics but was a liberal law in practice. Under this law, abortion became the primary mode of birth control in the country. The law was reformed in 1996 to omit all references to eugenics. Abortion is now permitted to protect health, which includes socioeconomic reasons, and in cases of sexual offenses. Abortion was and remains the main form of fertility control. The great majority of abortions fall under the health protection indication. Nearly all abortions are in the first trimester.⁴²

In recent years in some countries, laws to legalize abortion are found in public health statutes, court decisions, and policies and regulations on sexual and reproductive health care, rather than as part of the criminal law. Uruguay's 2012 law is an example of public health legislation that sets out procedures and health care standards for the provision of abortion services.⁴³

Sweden's law is among the most liberal, though abortion is not entirely decriminalized. The Swedish law was amended in 1938, 1946, 1963, 1975, 1995, 2007, and 2008. Abortion is available on request up to 18 weeks. After that, permission from the National Board of Health and Welfare is required and may not be granted if the fetus is viable. Appeal is not permitted. Regulations govern who provides abortions and where. Any person not authorized to practice medicine who performs an abortion on another person can be fined or imprisoned for up to a year. Abortion is subsidized by the government; 95% of abortions take place before 12 weeks, and almost none after 18 weeks. Most are medical abortions.⁴⁶

In Australia, each state and the Capital Territory have a different law, ranging from very liberal to very restrictive; several are in the process of change.⁴⁷ In the United States in 1973, the Supreme Court held that criminalizing abortion violated a woman's right to privacy and said that abortion should be a decision between a woman and her doctor. However, the court also held that US states have an interest in ensuring the safety and well-being of pregnant women, as well as the potential of human life. This opened a door to restrictions that become greater as pregnancy progresses, opening a Pandora's box for states to impose restrictions that are tying up state and federal courts to this day:

first trimester: a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions;

second trimester: a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant woman; and

third trimester: the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the woman's right to privacy, and the state may prohibit abortions unless abortion is necessary to save her life or health.⁴⁸

Legalization or decriminalization: Closing the circle

Although recent calls for the decriminalization of abortion by human rights bodies, politicians, and some feminist groups aim to decriminalize only certain grounds and conditions related to abortion, these are far better than nothing. Thus, in Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, and Peru, where abortion is severely legally restricted, calls to "decriminalize abortion" include only three to four grounds-to protect the life and health of the woman, in cases of severe or fatal fetal anomalies, and as a result of rape or sexual abuse. While the great majority of abortions are not for these reasons, they are the only grounds that stand a chance of achieving majority approval through law reform in settings where "everything" is simply not in the cards.

At bottom, the extent of decriminalization aimed for is a choice between the ideal and the practicable, and reflects the extent to which abortion is seen as a bona fide form of health care-not just by advocates for the right to safe abortion but also by politicians, health professionals, the media, and the public. The fact that abortion is still legally restricted in almost all countries is not just a historical legacy but indicative of the continuing ambivalence and negativity about abortion in most societies, no matter how old or where the law originally came from.

Some abortion rights supporters seem to have an underlying fear that without leaving something in the criminal law, "bad things" may start to happen. Canada proves this is not the case. Granted, not everywhere is Canada. But there are general criminal laws that allow the punishment of wrongdoing-such as forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, giving her medical abortion pills without her knowledge, or causing injury or death through a dangerous procedure. These are laws against grievous bodily harm, assault, or manslaughter, which can be applied without the need for a criminal statute on abortion.

Changing the law to benefit women

Successfully changing the law on abortion is the work of years. Advocates do not get a lot of chances to change the law and need to decide what they want to end up with before campaigning for it, with the confidence that whatever they propose has a chance of being implemented. Another chance may not come again soon.

Allies are crucial. Most important are parliamentarians, health professionals, legal experts, women's groups and organizations, human rights groups, family planning supporters-and above all, women themselves. Achieving a critical mass of support among all these groups is key to successful law reform, as is defeating the opposition, which can have an influence beyond its numbers.

Those unable to contemplate no law at all must confront the fact that each legal ground for abortion may be interpreted liberally or narrowly, and thereby implemented differently in different settings, or may not be implemented at all. The challenge is to define which abortions should remain criminal and what the punishment should be. Even if only some grounds would be considered acceptable, the question of who decides and on what basis remains when reforming existing law.

Wording becomes critical to supporting good practice. For example, grounds which are based on risk are particularly tricky. The definition of "risk" is itself complex, and the extent of risk may be hedged with uncertainty. Risk to the woman's life, health, or mental health and risk of serious fetal anomaly have been subjected to challenge and disagreement among professionals. As Christian Fiala, head of the Gynmed Ambulatorium in Austria, has noted, "There is only one way to be sure a woman's life is at risk, that is-after she dies."⁵⁴

Reed Boland explores the importance of wording in depth with regard to the health ground for abortion:

The wording of [the health] indication varies greatly from country to country, particularly given the range of languages and legal traditions involved. Sometimes ... there must be a risk to health. Great Britain's law, for example ... allows abortion where "continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman ..." Sometimes ... there must be a danger to health. Burkina Faso's Penal Code permits abortions when "continuation of the pregnancy ... endangers the health of the woman ..." And in some countries there must only be medical or health reasons. In Vanuatu, there must be "good medical reasons", in Djibouti "therapeutic reasons", and in Pakistan a requirement of "necessary treatment". These concepts are not necessarily the same. ⁵⁵

Legislating on second-trimester abortions presents particular difficulties. Many laws say little or nothing about second-trimester abortions, which has a proscriptive effect. Second-trimester abortions constitute an estimated 10-15% of abortions globally, but as many as 25% in India and South Africa due to poor access to services. When they are unsafe, they account for a large proportion of hospital admissions for treatment of complications and are responsible for a disproportionate number of deaths. Hence, the law should protect second-trimester abortions assiduously. Yet social disapproval of these abortions can run high, and laws tend to be increasingly restrictive as pregnancy progresses, even laws that are liberal with regard to the first trimester. The mistaken belief that second-trimester abortions can be legislated away persists, despite the facts.⁵⁶

Restrictive abortion laws are being broken on a daily basis by millions of women and numerous abortion providers. Even in countries where the law is less restrictive, research shows that the letter of the law is being stretched in all sorts of ways to accommodate women's needs. Yet opposition and a stubborn unwillingness to act continue to hamper efforts to meet women's need for abortion without restrictions.

Conclusions

It should be clear that the plethora of convoluted laws and restrictions on abortion do not make any legal or public health sense. What makes abortion safe is simple and irrefutable-when it is available on the woman's request and universally affordable and accessible. From this perspective, few existing laws are fit for purpose but merely repeat every possible permutation of the self-same restrictions.

The aim of this paper was not to provide answers or roadmaps, because in every country prevailing conditions must be taken into account. The aim was to motivate transformative thinking about whether any criminal law on abortion is necessary. Treating abortion as essential health care is a major step forward, and where the national setting insists on some sort of law, advocates could draft the simplest, most supportive law possible, placing first-trimester abortion care at the primary and community level, ensuring second-trimester services, involving mid-level providers, increasing women's awareness of services and the law, aiming for universal access, integrating WHO-approved methods, and addressing social attitudes to reduce opposition. Space did not permit me to raise the issues of cost and public versus private services, but they are two major aspects that deserve priority consideration.

If it were up to me, all criminal sanctions against abortion would be revoked, making abortion available at the request of the only person who counts-the one who is pregnant. And as with all pregnancy care, abortion would be free at the point of care and universally accessible from very early on in pregnancy.

Canada has proved that no criminal law is feasible and acceptable. Sweden has proved that abortions after 18 weeks can effectively disappear with very good services, and WHO has shown that first-trimester abortions can be provided safely and effectively at the primary and community level by trained mid-level providers and provision of medical abortion pills by trained pharmacy workers. Finally, web- and phone-based telemedicine services are showing that clinic-based services are not required to provide medical abortion pills safely and effectively.

But to achieve these goals, or something close to them, it takes a strong and active national coalition, a critical mass of support, and-with luck and knowing what the goalposts are-less than 100 years of campaigning to make change happen on the ground.

Acknowledgments

This paper began as a presentation on the decriminalization of abortion at the FIAPAC Conference in Lisbon on October 13, 2016. I would like to thank the following individuals for information presented there that enriched this paper: Angela Dawson (information on Australia), Hamida Nkata (information on Tanzania), S. Sinan Ozalp (information on Turkey), Emily McLean (information on Ethiopia), Amanda Cleeve (information on Uganda), Joyce Arthur (information on Canada), and Amanda Huber (information on Laos). Much of the recent country-based information here was gleaned during my editing of the International Campaign for Women's Right to Safe Abortion newsletter.⁵⁷ Many thanks to Sally Sheldon and Kinga Jelinska for helpful comments on a previous draft. Any errors are my own.

References

4. Kassebaum N. J., Bertozzi-Villa A., Coggeshall M. S., et al. "Global, regional, and national levels and causes of maternal mortality during 1990-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013" Lancet. 2014;384(9947):980-1004. [[ PMC free article] [ PubMed] Google Scholar]

16. Johnson B. R., Ganatra B., Khosla R. Addis Ababa: Dec, 2016. conference presentation. [ Google Scholar]

19. Keogh S., Kimaro G., Muganyizi P., et al. "Incidence of induced abortion and post-abortion care in Tanzania" PLoS One. 2015 Sep 11; [[Tanzanian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. The national road map strategic plan to accelerate reduction of maternal, newborn and child deaths in Tanzania (2008-15) 2008 Apr; [ PMC free article] [ Google Scholar] PubMed] Google Scholar]

20. Keogh S., Kimaro G., Muganyizi P., et al. "Incidence of induced abortion and post-abortion care in Tanzania" PLoS One. 2015 Sep 11; [[ PMC free article] [ PubMed] Google Scholar]

28. Moore A. M., Gebrehiwot Y., Fetters T., et al. "The estimated incidence of induced abortion in Ethiopia, 2014: Changes in the provision of services since 2008" International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2016;42(3):111-120. [[ PMC free article] [ PubMed] Google Scholar]

52. "Statement by Honourable Commissioner Lucy Asuagbor during launch of ACHPR campaign for the decriminalization of abortion in Africa" 2016 2003 Jan 18; http://www.achpr.org/news/2016/01/d207 press release. Available at. Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa.

54. 2012. Christian Fiala, email from a closed listserve conversation.

Articles from Health and Human Rights are provided here courtesy of Harvard University Press & François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: In Search of Decriminalization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
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. It shows that the plethora of convoluted laws and restrictions surrounding abortion do not make any legal ...

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, it is telling the pros and cons of abortion. Some pros are listed in the next few sentences. During an abortion, the fetus is feeling the pain. Also, when someone gets an abortion, they are reducing the number of adoptable babies. If a women becomes pregnant, they should be responsible for their actions. Abortions can also lead to future medical risks for the mother.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The debate over whether abortion should be a legal option has long divided people around the world. Split into two groups, pro-choice and pro-life, the two sides frequently clash in protests.

Proponents of legal abortion believe abortion is a safe medical procedure that protects lives, while abortion bans endanger pregnant people not seeking abortions, and deny bodily autonomy, creating wide-ranging repercussions.

Opponents of legal abortion believe abortion is murder because life begins at conception, that abortion creates a culture in which life is disposable, and that increased access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education would make abortion unnecessary. Read more background...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

Abortion is a safe medical procedure that protects lives.

The death rate for legal abortions is 0.7 deaths for every 100,000 abortions. By contrast, there are one to two deaths per 100,000 plastic surgery procedures, three deaths for every 100,000 colonoscopies, and three to six deaths per 100,000 tonsillectomies. Childbirth has nine deaths per 100,000 deliveries.

Pregnancy-related maternal deaths could increase 20% in US states with abortion bans. Amanda Stevenson, Sociology Professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, explained, "People with resources are more likely to make it out of state or find out about medication abortions. People who can't are more likely to have health issues, to live in poverty and have less access to resources." People of color are especially likely to be in the latter category and, thus, negatively impacted by abortion bans.

The predicted 20% maternal death rate does not include those who will die from "back alley" or illegal abortions because legal options were not available.

Globally 45% of abortions are unsafe, 97% of which take place in developing countries. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), "Evidence shows that restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions; however, it does affect whether the abortions that women and girls attain are safe and dignified. The proportion of unsafe abortions are significantly higher in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws than in countries with less restrictive laws."
Read More

Pro 2

Abortion bans endanger healthcare for those not seeking abortions.

Medical treatment for nonviable pregnancies is often exactly the same as an abortion.

Ectopic pregnancies occur when a fertilized egg implants somewhere other than the uterine cavity. About one in 50 pregnancies are ectopic, and they are nonviable. Bleeding from ectopic pregnancies caused 10% of all pregnancy-related deaths, and ectopic pregnancies were the leading cause of maternal death in the first trimester.

One out of every ten pregnancies ends in miscarriage. The drugs used for medication abortions are the only treatment recommended for early miscarriages. For later or complicated miscarriages, the same surgical procedure used for abortions is recommended.

While some abortion bans include specific exceptions for nonviable pregnancies and miscarriages, other bans are too vague to be practicable. Healthcare providers may refuse to perform a procedure that could be interpreted as an "on-demand" abortion for fear of liability or prosecution.

Further, bans are a slippery slope to contraceptive and other healthcare restrictions. For example, some already wrongly view Plan B (the morning after pill) as an abortifacient and are thinking of including it in abortion bans.
Read More

Pro 3

Abortion bans deny bodily autonomy, creating wide-ranging repercussions.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated, "eliminating the rights of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades.... In many cases, abortions are of teenage women, particularly low-income and often Black, who aren't in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability often to continue their education to later participate in the workforce."

After being denied an abortion, household poverty increased and lasted four or more years, resulting in an inability to cover basic expenses including food, housing and transportation. A denied abortion was associated with a lowered credit score, increased debt, and an increase in negative public records including evictions and bankruptcies. The households were also more reliant on government assistance. Transgender and nonbinary people denied abortions may face even worse outcomes.

And the consequences can be much more dire. "If a woman of childbearing age dies, it has enormous economic consequences.... It's someone who society has invested in and who has many productive economic years ahead of them," according to David Slusky, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Kansas. Often, death also removes a wage-earner and caregiver from the household.

60% of women seeking abortions already had other children. Being denied an abortion worsened the well-being of their older children, including not meeting childhood development markers.

The Turnaway Study concluded, "Abortion does not harm women," and "Women who receive a wanted abortion are more financially stable, set more ambitious goals, raise children under more stable conditions, and are more likely to have a wanted child later."
Read More

Con 1

Life begins at conception, making abortion murder.

Conception is the moment a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell, which begins the process of cell division that creates a human.

Tara Sander Lee, Senior Fellow and Director of Life Sciences at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, stated, "life begins from the moment of conception when the sperm fertilizes the egg, because there is the creation of a new, totally distinct, integrated organism or a human being, which is going to be biologically distinct from all other life forms on this planet." The first cell is biologically distinct because it has its own DNA that is different from either biological parent and all other humans.

Ending a life is murder legally and ethically, even a life that is only a few growing cells at the time of death.

Pope Francis explained, "Abortion is murder. Those who carry out abortions kill.... At the third week after conception, often even before the mother is aware (of being pregnant), all the organs are already (starting to develop). It is a human life. Period. And this human life has to be respected. It is very clear.... Scientifically, it is a human life."

That people may face difficulties without abortion as an option does not excuse or justify murder. A reader of The Atlantic, who gave only the initial K., clarified the moral dilemma: "I wish that I could be pro-choice because the awful circumstances so many women face-that I can't even imagine facing-seem so much more real to me than the rights of a fetus who doesn't even always look human. But abortion is the intentional killing of a human being and we look back with horror at anyone in history who decided a group of people did not actually count as people. We cannot solve the problem of injustice against women with more injustice. We need solutions that support women without killing fetuses."
Read More

Con 2

Legal abortion promotes a culture in which life is disposable.

Echoing a 2014 remark by Pope Francis that connected abortion to " throwaway culture," Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, stated, "abortion represents a failure to recognize the sanctity of human life and promotes a culture in which human life in its most vulnerable moment is perceived as disposable. Such a proposal targets poor women as needing an expedient solution to a complex problem."

Tobin previously declared legal abortion a "brutalization of the American heart" on par with the "dehumanization of the undocumented" immigrants.

Alveda King, former Georgia state representative and niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., also connected abortion to other societal ills: "Abortion and racism are both symptoms of a fundamental human error. The error is thinking that when someone stands in the way of our wants, we can justify getting that person out of our lives. Abortion and racism stem from the same poisonous root, selfishness. We create the deceptions that the other person is less important, less worthy, less human. We are all fully human. When we face this truth, there is no justification for treating those who look different than us as lesser beings. If we simply treat other people the way we'd like to be treated, racism, abortion, and other forms of inhumanity will be things of the past."

As King notes, some fetuses are treated as less than human. This ideology combined with legal abortion could create a slippery slope to designer babies, gender selection, termination of disabled but healthy fetuses, and other trait-selection-based abortions. The slippery slope can then extend to the mentally disabled and elderly in general.

"[A]bortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation," according to US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. "Technological advances have only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion, as abortion can now be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics, such as a particular sex or disability."
Read More

Con 3

Increased access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education would make abortion unnecessary.

Experts largely contribute the decline in abortions in the United States and elsewhere to the improved safety and availability of LARC (long-acting reversible contraception) including IUDs and contraceptive implants that can last up to 10 years.

Access to health insurance to pay for contraceptives also contributed to a drop in abortions. With the passage of Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), more people were insured with access to free or low-cost contraceptives and reproductive care.

Linda Rosenstock, Public Health Professor of Health Policy and Management at UCLA, summarized the simplicity of the connection: "In the United States each year, about half of pregnancies are unintended and about 40% of those lead to abortion. Access to birth control leads to fewer abortions."

Further, teens are having sex later in life than their parents. 38.4% of American high schoolers reported they have had sex (down from 54% in 1991) and only 27.4% reported they were currently sexually active (37.5% in 1991).

Because teen birth control use has not increased significantly, experts attribute the decline in part to better sex education. A 2021 study found that students who received comprehensive sexual education initiated sex later than students who did not participate in sex ed. The later teens have sex, the less chance there is for them to become pregnant unintentionally, which leads to fewer abortions.
Read More

Did You Know?

1. Throughout much of Western history, abortion was not considered a criminal act as long as it was performed before "quickening" (the first detectable movement of the fetus, which can occur between 13-25 weeks of pregnancy).

2. In 1821, Connecticut became the first US state to criminalize abortion.

3. The death rate for legal abortions is 0.7 deaths for every 100,000 abortions. By contrast, there are one to two deaths per 100,000 plastic surgery procedures, three deaths for every 100,000 colonoscopies, and three to six deaths per 100,000 tonsillectomies. Childbirth has nine deaths per 100,000 deliveries.

4. Abortion rates in the United States have fallen at what the CDC called a "slow yet steady pace" since a peak in 1981. That year there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44. The rate fell to 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 2019.

5. 60% of women seeking abortions already had other children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abortion - Top Arguments For and Against - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Pro Choice side says women should have control of their bodies. Pro Lifers say abortion is murder. Explore both sides of the debate.

# data[].attributes.body
Pope Francis talks about how Abortions shouldn't happen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pope Francis Compares Abortion To Hiring A Hit Man To Solve A Problem | TIME