# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
14 states have a total abortion ban.

27 states have abortion bans based on gestational duration.

7 states ban abortion at or before 18 weeks' gestation.

20 states ban abortion at some point after 18 weeks.

9 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DO NOT RESTRICT ABORTION BASED ON GESTATIONAL DURATION.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
14 states have a total abortion ban. 27 states have abortion bans based on gestational duration. 7 states ban abortion at or before 18 weeks' gestation. 20 states ban abortion at some point after 18 weeks. 9 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DO NOT RESTRICT ABORTION BASED ON GESTATIONAL DURATION.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eight Ways State Policymakers Can Protect and Expand Abortion Rights and Access in 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, policymakers at the state level have an even more critical role to play in shoring up and expanding abortion access and rights. Abortion access has shifted dramatically around the country in the past six months, as states across the South, the Plains and the Midwest have banned abortion or restricted access to care. Meanwhile, states mostly along the West Coast and the Northeast have enacted 77 abortion protections, the highest number ever passed in one year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Sarah Nadeau Associate Director, Media Relations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Protecting and Increasing Abortion Access

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent restrictions to abortion access threaten to undo decades of progress, but federal and state policymakers can take steps to ensure access is not only protected, but also expanded, thereby improving women’s economic security.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Across the nation, states are preparing for the impending Supreme Court ruling on the case challenging the state of Mississippi ban on abortions past 15 weeks, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. The plaintiffs in the case have asked the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, cases which have set the federal standard for the types of laws that states may implement to regulate abortion access. On May 2, 2022, Politico published a  leaked draft of the Supreme Court's decision in  Dobbs v, Jackson Women's Health that would overturn  Roe v. Wade and  Planned Parenthood v. Casey and eliminate the federal standard regarding abortion access. The Supreme Court  acknowledged  the authenticity of the draft but stated, "it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case."

While it is estimated that roughly half of the states across the U.S. will move to either outright ban or greatly restrict abortion access, there is growing momentum in a handful of states to not only protect abortion access for their state residents, but also to expand access to people who live in states that ban or restrict abortion. The types of legislative actions vary considerably. Some states are focusing on clarifying and strengthening long-standing protections for abortion rights, while others seek to assure affordable access to abortion services for their residents and to protect clinicians who provide abortion services in their states.

This brief reviews the status of state actions to strengthen and guarantee abortion access to their residents, as well as to prepare for the likely increase in demand for abortion services in those states should the high court overturn the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade.

Protect the Right to Abortion

Should the Supreme Court overturn or weaken the Roe decision in its ruling on the Dobbs case, it will again be up to each state to establish laws protecting or restricting abortion in the absence of a federal standard. While much has been noted about the states that will likely ban or greatly restrict abortion access, some states are moving to enact laws that are protective of abortion rights for their residents. Some State Supreme Court decisions have established that the right to an abortion is included in the right to privacy or other provisions of the state constitution. However, just as the United States Supreme Court could overrule Roe, State Supreme Courts could also overrule these prior decisions regarding the right to an abortion in the state constitution.

In the face of a possible loss of the federal standard granted by Roe, policymakers in some states have recently added explicit language to state laws or the state constitution to protect the right to abortion care. For example, the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1982 recognized that the right to privacy protected under the state constitution is more expansive than the federal Constitution and encompasses a "fundamental right of a woman to control her body and destiny." In January 2022, the New Jersey legislature enacted and the governor signed a statutory protection for abortion. Similarly, in April 2022, Colorado also added statutory protections for reproductive health care that includes abortion care. In March 2022, Washington state enacted legislation that expands abortion protections to people of all genders and prohibits any penalties for people assisting pregnant individuals seeking an abortion or criminalizing any pregnancy outcomes. In May 2022, Connecticut passed a bill that builds upon their previous law protecting the right to abortion. This new bill protects not only abortion services, but also addresses the services related to pregnancy or contraception

In February 2022, the Vermont legislature passed a proposed amendment to the state constitution to "ensure that every Vermonter is afforded personal reproductive liberty." The amendment will become part of the constitution if the voters approve it in the November 2022 election. The California Governor and the leadership of the legislature are also proposing a state constitutional amendment, which if passed by at least a two-thirds vote in the Senate and Assembly, will be placed on the November 2022 ballot.

If the Court rules to overturn Roe in the Dobbs ruling, it is anticipated that new legal challenges to abortion bans will be filed in and decided by state courts. For example, Michigan enacted an abortion ban in 1931, decades before the Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade. In anticipation of the Dobbs ruling, Governor Whitmer (D) has filed a lawsuit to ask the Michigan Supreme Court to resolve whether Michigan's Constitution protects the right to abortion. The Governor's position is that there is a state constitutional right to an abortion under the due process clause and equal protection clause of the Michigan Constitution.

Insurance Coverage and Clinic Support

Recent research finds that the median costs of a first trimester abortion is around $600, not including costs that could be incurred to travel out of state or take time off from work. This amount of money is unaffordable to many people, particularly those that are low-income. The  Federal Reserve Board  found over 35% of U.S. adults do not have enough in savings or cash equivalent to pay for a $400 emergency expense, meaning many individuals may need to delay having an abortion until they can raise the necessary funds or use credit card debt or a loan from friends or family. Recognizing the importance of affordability, some states are seeking to protect abortion access by taking measures to make sure it is affordable to insured patients at a minimum.

California, which already requires health plans regulated by the state to include abortion coverage if they cover pregnancy related care, passed a new law this year that prohibits health insurance plans from imposing any cost-sharing for abortion services. In addition, California uses state revenues to pay for the full costs of abortion services for its Medicaid enrollees who seek abortion. Similarly, Maryland passed a new law requiring most insurance providers to cover the cost of an abortion with no cost-sharing and created a pilot program designed to cover the nominal premium cost associated with abortion coverage for young adults enrolled in ACA Marketplace plans who have a $0 expected contribution after premium subsidies (other than the small additional charge related to abortion coverage). Three other states - Illinois, New York, and Oregon - passed laws before 2022 requiring health plans regulated by the state to include abortion coverage without cost-sharing.

Outside of insurance coverage, the Oregon legislature passed the Reproductive Health Equity Fund that allocates $15 million to Seeding Justice, a nonprofit grassroots funding organization that will distribute the funds to help individuals who need abortion care and organizations that provide abortion care.

With the backing of the New York Attorney General, legislative leaders have introduced legislation to establish a state program that would provide financial resources to clinicians who provide abortion care, nonprofit organizations helping to increase access to care, and individuals seeking abortion care. California is considering a package of bills related to abortion access including one bill focused on providing funding to people from out- of- state seeking abortion services in California. (See Box 1)

Expanding the Pool of Clinicians Offering Abortion Services

Some states seeking to protect abortion rights are also preparing to accommodate increased demand for abortion care from people coming from out-of-state. One approach states have used to address this is to expand the pool of clinicians qualified to provide abortion care. In 2013, California passed a law allowing trained advance practice clinicians, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants, to provide abortion care with physician supervision, after it was demonstrated that these clinicians provided care that was on a par with care offered by physicians. This legislative session, California is currently considering bills that would authorize nurse practitioners with specified training and education requirements to provide abortion care independent of physician supervision, under specified conditions.

Maryland recently passed legislation permitting nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, licensed certified midwives, and physician assistants to perform abortions starting July 1, 2022. This law also creates an abortion care clinical training program with $3.5 million annual allocation to fund abortion care training and two community-based provider sites with the goal of expanding the number of health care professionals with abortion care training and increasing the racial and ethnic diversity among health care professional with training. This bill was initially vetoed by the Republican Governor but was subsequently overridden by the legislature. However, because Maryland's Governor then blocked the funding for this bill the start of the training program will be delayed until July 2023. The legislature does not have the authority to mandate spending in the upcoming fiscal year but may disburse funds in future years if the governor blocks an appropriation. Washington State and Delaware also codified the right of physician assistants, and advanced registered nurse practitioners and other health care providers to perform abortions, acting within the provider's scope of practice. Similarly, Connecticut has enacted a law allowing advance practiced registered nurses, nurse-midwives, and physician assistants to perform aspiration procedures. In addition, the same law codifies a 2001 attorney general decision allowing advanced practice registered nurses, nurse-midwives and physician assistants to prescribe and dispense medication abortion pills.

Legal Protections for Clinicians, People Seeking Abortions, and Pregnant People

The Supreme Court's imminent ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization has also brought new attention to medication abortion pills. In recent years, a growing body of research has evaluated the safety of providing mifepristone to people seeking abortion when supervised through clinicians using telehealth.

The COVID-19 pandemic made this option more salient, considering the need to limit in-person contact. In December 2021, the FDA lifted a long-standing requirement for clinicians to dispense the drug directly to the patient, by modifying the prior Risk Evaluation Mitigation System (REMS) requirement and opened the door to expanded use of mifepristone via telehealth. Telehealth abortion not only has the potential to expand access to people living in communities with few clinicians who provide abortions, but also could make abortion available to people living in states that will restrict or ban abortion should Roe be overturned.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia do not have restrictions that would limit the ability of medication abortion to be provided via telehealth. In these states, eligible people can have the medication mailed directly to them after a telehealth visit with a clinician and do not need an in-person visit. It is not clear, however, if these clinicians would be subject to criminal or civil liability in the states that ban abortion or telehealth abortion should they dispense medication abortion pills to people living in states that either ban telehealth for medication abortion or ban all abortions. Consequently, states seeking to protect abortion access are looking for ways to protect clinicians residing in their state from other states' legal liability.

California is seeking to become a protected sanctuary for all people seeking abortion care, regardless of where they live. In 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom issued the California Proclamation on Reproductive Freedom. In September 2021, with the support of the legislature and the governor, reproductive freedom and sexual and reproductive health care allies, partners and policy makers convened the California Future of Abortion (CA FAB) Council. Shortly after, the CA FAB Council released a report identifying 45 policy recommendations to address barriers to abortion care, enact civil and criminal protections for patients and clinicians, and support investments in and expansion of the workforce. This session the California legislature is considering 13 bills based on the recommendations put forth by the CA FAB Council. Two of the key bills are:

Senate Bill 1142 would create a state administered fund to assist patients who face financial barriers to obtaining an abortion as well as support a statewide education and outreach campaign to inform the public on how to access abortion services. The fund could assist out-of-state residents access abortion and organizations meet the demand of people needing care.

Assembly Bill 2134 would establish the California Reproductive Health Equity Program within the Department of Health Access and Information to ensure abortion and contraception services are affordable.

Connecticut has enacted a law to protect people in the state, including out of state visitors who come for an abortion, from legal actions from other states. The Connecticut law blocks state agencies from assisting in interstate investigations or prosecutions that would hold someone civilly or criminally liable for providing, seeking or receiving reproductive health services, including abortion care. Health plans and providers cannot disclose any communication regarding reproductive health services without written consent by the patient. The Connecticut law also limits the Governor's discretionary authority to extradite individuals accused of crimes in another state for actions that are that are legal in Connecticut. In other words, a clinician that lives in Connecticut who provides abortion services for patients from or in a state that bans abortion cannot be extradited from Connecticut upon request of the other state, unless the act committed is also punishable under Connecticut's laws. The law also allows someone who is sued for civil liabilities in another state for the provision or assistance in receipt of provision of abortions services to seek restitution attorney fees and costs through Connecticut courts. This provision is targeted at protecting residents from potential liability from people who live in states that have enacted laws like the Texas SB8 law which allows individuals to sue anyone who aids or abets individuals who get an abortion outside of the state's requirements.

As part of its recently passed legislation, Washington State prohibits the state from imposing any penalties against people assisting pregnant individuals seeking an abortion or criminalizing any pregnancy outcomes. In a similar vein, California lawmakers are considering a bill that would prohibit the state from compelling a person to provide information about an individual who has sought an abortion, if the information is being requested based on another state's laws that bans abortions and imposed civil or criminal penalties. New Jersey is also considering a bill to block the enforcement of other state laws banning abortion against New Jersey residents.

Many Will Still Lack Access to Abortion Services

While policymaker efforts in states that support abortion access would expand availability to both residents and nonresidents alike, not all people who live in states that ban abortions will be able to get to neighboring states to obtain an abortion. Some will not have enough money to travel, or pay for childcare, and many do not have the flexibility to take time off from work. For these people, the abortion bans in their states will mean they have no way to access abortion services and be faced with the difficult options of seeking abortion services outside of recognized clinical care or being forced to carry their pregnancy to term.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State Actions to Protect and Expand Access to Abortion Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This brief reviews the status of state actions to strengthen and guarantee abortion access to their residents, as well as to prepare for the likely increase in demand for abortion services in those states should the high court overturn the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
. 2009 Spring;2(2):122-126.

Abstract

Every year, worldwide, about 42 million women with unintended pregnancies choose abortion, and nearly half of these procedures, 20 million, are unsafe. Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications. Unsafe abortion is thus a pressing issue. Both of the primary methods for preventing unsafe abortion-less restrictive abortion laws and greater contraceptive use-face social, religious, and political obstacles, particularly in developing nations, where most unsafe abortions (97%) occur. Even where these obstacles are overcome, women and health care providers need to be educated about contraception and the availability of legal and safe abortion, and women need better access to safe abortion and postabortion services. Otherwise, desperate women, facing the financial burdens and social stigma of unintended pregnancy and believing they have no other option, will continue to risk their lives by undergoing unsafe abortions.

Key words: Unsafe abortions, Maternal mortality, Postabortion care

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), every 8 minutes a woman in a developing nation will die of complications arising from an unsafe abortion. An unsafe abortion is defined as "a procedure for terminating an unintended pregnancy carried out either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both."¹ The fifth United Nations Millennium Development Goal recommends a 75% reduction in maternal mortality by 2015. WHO deems unsafe abortion one of the easiest preventable causes of maternal mortality and a staggering public health issue.

Scope of the Problem

Obtaining accurate data for abortions is challenging, and especially so for unsafe abortion. Two-thirds of nations do not have the capacity to collect data, and data collection varies from country to country in both quantity and quality.² Because unsafe abortion is often done clandestinely by untrained individuals or by the pregnant women themselves, much of it goes undocumented; figures are therefore estimates. Data suggest that even as the overall abortion rate has declined, the proportion of unsafe abortion is on the rise, especially in developing nations. From 1995 to 2003, the overall number of abortions declined, but the unsafe abortion rate was steady (from 15 to 14 abortions per 1000 women, respectively), constituting an increase from 44% to 48%.³

In Western nations, only 3% of abortions are unsafe, whereas in developing nations 55% are unsafe. The highest incidences of abortions that are unsafe occur in Latin America, Africa, and South East Asia ( Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Unsafe abortion: global and regional estimates of incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2003. Reproduced with the permission from the World Health Organization.¹

Methods

Even safe abortion in developing nations carries risks that depend on the health facility, the skill of the provider, and the gestational age of the fetus. With unsafe abortion, the additional risks of maternal morbidity and mortality depend on what method of abortion is used, as well as on women's readiness to seek postabortion care, the quality of the facility they reach, and the qualifications (and tolerance) of the health provider. Methods of unsafe abortion include drinking toxic fluids such as turpentine, bleach, or drinkable concoctions mixed with livestock manure. Other methods involve inflicting direct injury to the vagina or elsewhere-for example, inserting herbal preparations into the vagina or cervix; placing a foreign body such as a twig, coat hanger, or chicken bone into the uterus; or placing inappropriate medication into the vagina or rectum. Unskilled providers also improperly perform dilation and curettage in unhygienic settings, causing uterine perforations and infections. Methods of external injury are also used, such as jumping from the top of stairs or a roof, or inflicting blunt trauma to the abdomen.¹,⁴

Health Consequences

Worldwide, some 5 million women are hospitalized each year for treatment of abortion-related complications such as hemorrhage and sepsis, and abortion-related deaths leave 220,000 children motherless.⁴,⁵ The main causes of death from unsafe abortion are hemorrhage, infection, sepsis, genital trauma, and necrotic bowel.¹ Data on nonfatal long-term health complications are poor, but those documented include poor wound healing, infertility, consequences of internal organ injury (urinary and stool incontinence from vesicovaginal or rectovaginal fistulas), and bowel resections. Other unmeasurable consequences of unsafe abortion include loss of productivity and psychologic damage.

The burden of unsafe abortion lies not only with the women and families, but also with the public health system. Every woman admitted for emergency postabortion care may require blood products, antibiotics, oxytocics, anesthesia, operating rooms, and surgical specialists. The financial and logistic impact of emergency care can overwhelm a health system and can prevent attention to be administered to other patients.

Relationship With Abortion Law

Abortion laws have a spectrum of restrictiveness. Nations may allow abortions based on saving the mother's life, preserving physical and mental health, and socioeconomic grounds, or may be completely unrestrictive ( Figure 2). Data indicate an association between unsafe abortion and restrictive abortion laws. The median rate of unsafe abortions in the 82 countries with the most restrictive abortion laws is up to 23 of 1000 women compared with 2 of 1000 in nations that allow abortions.⁴ Abortion-related deaths are more frequent in countries with more restrictive abortion laws (34 deaths per 100,000 childbirths) than in countries with less restrictive laws (1 or fewer per 100,000 childbirths).¹

Figure 2.

World abortion laws. Reproduced with permission from the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The same correlation appears when a given country tightens or relaxes its abortion law. In Romania, for example, where abortion was available upon request until 1966, the abortion mortality ratio was 20 per 100,000 live births in 1960. New legal restrictions were imposed in 1966, and by 1989 the ratio reached 148 deaths per 100,000 live births. The restrictions were reversed in 1989, and within a year the ratio dropped to 68 of 100,000 live births; by 2002 it was as low as 9 deaths per 100,000 births ( Figure 3). Similarly, in South Africa, after abortion became legal and available on request in 1997, abortion-related infection decreased by 52%, and the abortion mortality ratio from 1998 to 2001 dropped by 91% from its 1994 level.⁶

Figure 3.

Live births and proportion of maternal deaths due to abortion. Reprinted from The Lancet, Vol. 368, Grimes DA et al, "Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic," pp. 1908-1919, Copyright 2006, with permission from Elsevier.⁴

Less restrictive abortion laws do not appear to entail more abortions overall. The world's lowest abortion rates are in Europe, where abortion is legal and widely available but contraceptive use is high; in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, the rate is below 10 per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 years. In contrast, in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, where abortion laws are the most restrictive and contraceptive use is lower, the rates range from the mid-20s to 39 per 1000 women.³

Less restrictive abortion laws also do not guarantee safe abortions for those in need; better education and access to health care are also required. In India, unsafe illegal abortions persist despite India's passage of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act in the early 1970s. The act appeared to remove legal hindrances to terminating pregnancies in the underfunded (national) health care system, but women still turn to unqualified local providers for abortion. Clearly, the implications of the law never reached the population that most needed to rely on it.⁷ This example is also seen in Cambodia, where abortion is legally available on request and women often attempt to abort themselves before turning to hospital.⁸

Lack of Contraception Access and Use

More than one-third of all pregnancies are unintended, and 1 in 5 ends in abortion. In developing countries, two-thirds of unintended pregnancies occur among women who were not using any method of contraception.⁹ Greater contraceptive access and use alone can thus drastically reduce safe and unsafe abortion by reducing unintended pregnancies. In the Russian Federation, abortion rates sharply declined with the advent of modern contraceptive technologies.¹⁰

Obstacles to increased contraceptive access and use include religious objections, lack of awareness of the availability of contraceptive methods, concerns about possible health risks and side effects, and the mistaken belief that one cannot or will not become pregnant. Contraceptive use must also be regular to be effective: the average woman must use some form of effective contraception for at least 16 years to limit her family to 4 children, and for 20 years to limit it to 2 children.¹¹

What Needs to Be Done?

Although daunting, the predicament is not without solutions. Preventing unintended pregnancy should be a priority for all nations. Educating women regarding their reproductive health should be incorporated in schools. In nations that are not opposed to contraceptive use, increasing contraceptive services is necessary; this includes providing accurate information choices and proper use of contraceptive methods. Governments and nongovernmental organizations need to find effective ways to overcome cultural and social misconceptions that restrict women from receiving necessary health care.

In nations where abortion is legal, providing women better access to health centers that perform abortions is imperative. Practitioners need to become better trained in safer abortion methods and be able to transfer patients to a medical facility that is capable of providing emergency care when a complication arises. WHO strongly advises that all health facilities that treat women with incomplete abortions have the appropriate equipment and trained staff needed to ensure that care is consistently available and provided at a reasonable cost. In addition, postabortion family planning counseling needs to be an integral part of the service.

Evidence demonstrates that liberalizing abortion laws to allow services to be provided openly by skilled practitioners can reduce the rate of abortion-related morbidity and mortality. However, sociopolitical and religious obstacles have and will continue to play a role in passing abortion laws. The roles of research, grassroots organizations, health providers, activists, and media are vital in highlighting the importance of relaxing abortion laws. The emotional, physiologic, and financial cost on women and families, as well as the burden on the economic health system, should no longer be ignored.

Main Points.

The World Health Organization deems unsafe abortion one of the easiest preventable causes of maternal mortality.

Data suggest that even as the overall abortion rate has declined, the proportion of unsafe abortion is on the rise.

Methods of unsafe abortion include drinking toxic fluids; inflicting direct injury to the vagina, cervix, or rectum; or inflicting external injury to the abdomen. Complications also arise from unskilled providers causing uterine perforation and infections.

Worldwide, 5 million women are hospitalized each year for treatment of abortion-related complications, and abortion-related deaths leave 220,000 children motherless.

Data indicate an association between unsafe abortion and restrictive abortion laws.

Preventing unintended pregnancy, providing better access to health care, and liberalizing abortion laws to allow services to be openly provided can reduce the rate of abortion-related morbidity and mortality.

References

1. World Health Organization. Unsafe abortion, authors. Global and Regional Estimates of the Incidence of Unsafe Abortion and Associated Mortality in 2003. 5th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafeabortion_2003/ua_estimates03.pdf. [Google Scholar]

2. Graham WJ, Ahmed S, Stanton C, et al. Measuring maternal mortality: an overview of opportunities and options for developing countries. BMC Med. 2008;6:12. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-6-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Malhotra A, Nyblade L, Parasuraman S, et al., editors. Realizing Reproductive Choice and Rights: Abortion and Contraception in India. Washington, DC: International Center for Research on Women; 2003. http://www.icrw.org/docs/RCA_India_Report_0303.pdf. [Google Scholar]

8. Long C, Ren N. Abortion in Cambodia. Country report; Paper presented at: Advancing the Role of Midlevel Providers in Menstrual Regulation and Elective Abortion Care conference; December 2-6, 2001; Pilanesberg National Park, South Africa. [Google Scholar]

9. Singh S, Darroch JE, Vlassoff M, Nadeau J. Adding It Up: The Benefits of Investing in Sexual and Reproductive Health Care. New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute and United Nations Population Fund; 2003. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/addingitup.pdf. [Google Scholar]

10. Westoff C. Recent Trends in Abortion and Contraception in 12 Countries. Calverton, MD: MEASURE DHS; 2005. (DHS Analytical Studies No. 8). http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/AS8/AS8.pdf. [Google Scholar]

11. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, authors. Facts on Induced Abortion Worldwide. New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute; 2008. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.pdf. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Reviews in Obstetrics and Gynecology are provided here courtesy of MedReviews, LLC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unsafe Abortion: Unnecessary Maternal Mortality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year, worldwide, about 42 million women with unintended pregnancies choose abortion, and nearly half of these procedures, 20 million, are unsafe. Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Mabel Felix, Laurie Sobel, and Alina Salganicoff Published: Jun 06, 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Review of Exceptions in State Abortion Bans: Implications for the Provision of Abortion Services | KFF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This issue brief examines the varying exceptions (for life, health, rape/incest, and fatal fetal anomalies) in state abortion bans and restrictions and the complications that arise when pregnant people attempt to access abortion care under these exceptions.

# data[].attributes.headline
a total banning of abortions can put women in very dangerous postions

# data[].attributes.subject
a total banning of abortions can put women in very dangerous postions

# data[].attributes.headline
because the ban is up to state choice red dominated states allow women and children to suffer the consequences on the ban 

# data[].attributes.subject
because the ban is up to state choice red dominated states allow women and children to suffer the consequences on the ban 

# data[].attributes.headline
many states didn't allow a total ban, but they did make exceptions on how long you can wait before abortions would be illegal 

# data[].attributes.subject
many states didn't allow a total ban, but they did make exceptions on how long you can wait before abortions would be illegal 

# data[].attributes.body
if we amend the constitution and start to protect abortion rights again, then women wouldn't need to find other unsafe options for an abortion.

# data[].attributes.headline
if medicaid covers the cost and takes care of it, women who would be considered a minority would be able to get the help they need

# data[].attributes.subject
if medicaid covers the cost and takes care of it, women who would be considered a minority would be able to get the help they need

# data[].attributes.headline
many doctors cannot give help in this topic for women, legally they cannot. if we Expand on how many doctors who will/can perform the tasks needed then many women would be going through safer ways to an abortion 

# data[].attributes.subject
many doctors cannot give help in this topic for women, legally they cannot. if we Expand on how many doctors who will/can perform the tasks needed then many women would be going through safer ways to an abortion 

# data[].attributes.headline
if there is no safe way for a woman to have an abortion then they will continue to do it in an unsafe way that can harm the mother 

# data[].attributes.subject
if there is no safe way for a woman to have an abortion then they will continue to do it in an unsafe way that can harm the mother 

# data[].attributes.headline
women who need access to abortions that live in states where its illegal are put in dangerous situations when they are faced with doctors who wont operate on them even when the fetus wont live

# data[].attributes.subject
women who need access to abortions that live in states where its illegal are put in dangerous situations when they are faced with doctors who wont operate on them even when the fetus wont live

# data[].attributes.headline
all states should have legal access to abortions, however I do believe that after a certain amount of time you shouldnt be able to have one

# data[].attributes.subject
all states should have legal access to abortions, however I do believe that after a certain amount of time you shouldnt be able to have one

# data[].attributes.headline
there is doctors who wont operate on a woman even in rough circumstances, because they legally cannot help or they can get in trouble

# data[].attributes.subject
there is doctors who wont operate on a woman even in rough circumstances, because they legally cannot help or they can get in trouble