women's abortion essay

Find anything you save across the site in your account

How the Right to Legal Abortion Changed the Arc of All Women’s Lives

By Katha Pollitt

Prochoice demonstrators during the March for Women's Lives rally organized by NOW Washington DC April 5 1992.

I’ve never had an abortion. In this, I am like most American women. A frequently quoted statistic from a recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, which reports that one in four women will have an abortion before the age of forty-five, may strike you as high, but it means that a large majority of women never need to end a pregnancy. (Indeed, the abortion rate has been declining for decades, although it’s disputed how much of that decrease is due to better birth control, and wider use of it, and how much to restrictions that have made abortions much harder to get.) Now that the Supreme Court seems likely to overturn Roe v. Wade sometime in the next few years—Alabama has passed a near-total ban on abortion, and Ohio, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Missouri have passed “heartbeat” bills that, in effect, ban abortion later than six weeks of pregnancy, and any of these laws, or similar ones, could prove the catalyst—I wonder if women who have never needed to undergo the procedure, and perhaps believe that they never will, realize the many ways that the legal right to abortion has undergirded their lives.

Legal abortion means that the law recognizes a woman as a person. It says that she belongs to herself. Most obviously, it means that a woman has a safe recourse if she becomes pregnant as a result of being raped. (Believe it or not, in some states, the law allows a rapist to sue for custody or visitation rights.) It means that doctors no longer need to deny treatment to pregnant women with certain serious conditions—cancer, heart disease, kidney disease—until after they’ve given birth, by which time their health may have deteriorated irretrievably. And it means that non-Catholic hospitals can treat a woman promptly if she is having a miscarriage. (If she goes to a Catholic hospital, she may have to wait until the embryo or fetus dies. In one hospital, in Ireland, such a delay led to the death of a woman named Savita Halappanavar, who contracted septicemia. Her case spurred a movement to repeal that country’s constitutional amendment banning abortion.)

The legalization of abortion, though, has had broader and more subtle effects than limiting damage in these grave but relatively uncommon scenarios. The revolutionary advances made in the social status of American women during the nineteen-seventies are generally attributed to the availability of oral contraception, which came on the market in 1960. But, according to a 2017 study by the economist Caitlin Knowles Myers, “The Power of Abortion Policy: Re-Examining the Effects of Young Women’s Access to Reproductive Control,” published in the Journal of Political Economy , the effects of the Pill were offset by the fact that more teens and women were having sex, and so birth-control failure affected more people. Complicating the conventional wisdom that oral contraception made sex risk-free for all, the Pill was also not easy for many women to get. Restrictive laws in some states barred it for unmarried women and for women under the age of twenty-one. The Roe decision, in 1973, afforded thousands upon thousands of teen-agers a chance to avoid early marriage and motherhood. Myers writes, “Policies governing access to the pill had little if any effect on the average probabilities of marrying and giving birth at a young age. In contrast, policy environments in which abortion was legal and readily accessible by young women are estimated to have caused a 34 percent reduction in first births, a 19 percent reduction in first marriages, and a 63 percent reduction in ‘shotgun marriages’ prior to age 19.”

Access to legal abortion, whether as a backup to birth control or not, meant that women, like men, could have a sexual life without risking their future. A woman could plan her life without having to consider that it could be derailed by a single sperm. She could dream bigger dreams. Under the old rules, inculcated from girlhood, if a woman got pregnant at a young age, she married her boyfriend; and, expecting early marriage and kids, she wouldn’t have invested too heavily in her education in any case, and she would have chosen work that she could drop in and out of as family demands required.

In 1970, the average age of first-time American mothers was younger than twenty-two. Today, more women postpone marriage until they are ready for it. (Early marriages are notoriously unstable, so, if you’re glad that the divorce rate is down, you can, in part, thank Roe.) Women can also postpone childbearing until they are prepared for it, which takes some serious doing in a country that lacks paid parental leave and affordable childcare, and where discrimination against pregnant women and mothers is still widespread. For all the hand-wringing about lower birth rates, most women— eighty-six per cent of them —still become mothers. They just do it later, and have fewer children.

Most women don’t enter fields that require years of graduate-school education, but all women have benefitted from having larger numbers of women in those fields. It was female lawyers, for example, who brought cases that opened up good blue-collar jobs to women. Without more women obtaining law degrees, would men still be shaping all our legislation? Without the large numbers of women who have entered the medical professions, would psychiatrists still be telling women that they suffered from penis envy and were masochistic by nature? Would women still routinely undergo unnecessary hysterectomies? Without increased numbers of women in academia, and without the new field of women’s studies, would children still be taught, as I was, that, a hundred years ago this month, Woodrow Wilson “gave” women the vote? There has been a revolution in every field, and the women in those fields have led it.

It is frequently pointed out that the states passing abortion restrictions and bans are states where women’s status remains particularly low. Take Alabama. According to one study , by almost every index—pay, workforce participation, percentage of single mothers living in poverty, mortality due to conditions such as heart disease and stroke—the state scores among the worst for women. Children don’t fare much better: according to U.S. News rankings , Alabama is the worst state for education. It also has one of the nation’s highest rates of infant mortality (only half the counties have even one ob-gyn), and it has refused to expand Medicaid, either through the Affordable Care Act or on its own. Only four women sit in Alabama’s thirty-five-member State Senate, and none of them voted for the ban. Maybe that’s why an amendment to the bill proposed by State Senator Linda Coleman-Madison was voted down. It would have provided prenatal care and medical care for a woman and child in cases where the new law prevents the woman from obtaining an abortion. Interestingly, the law allows in-vitro fertilization, a procedure that often results in the discarding of fertilized eggs. As Clyde Chambliss, the bill’s chief sponsor in the state senate, put it, “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.” In other words, life only begins at conception if there’s a woman’s body to control.

Indifference to women and children isn’t an oversight. This is why calls for better sex education and wider access to birth control are non-starters, even though they have helped lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies, which is the cause of abortion. The point isn’t to prevent unwanted pregnancy. (States with strong anti-abortion laws have some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the country; Alabama is among them.) The point is to roll back modernity for women.

So, if women who have never had an abortion, and don’t expect to, think that the new restrictions and bans won’t affect them, they are wrong. The new laws will fall most heavily on poor women, disproportionately on women of color, who have the highest abortion rates and will be hard-pressed to travel to distant clinics.

But without legal, accessible abortion, the assumptions that have shaped all women’s lives in the past few decades—including that they, not a torn condom or a missed pill or a rapist, will decide what happens to their bodies and their futures—will change. Women and their daughters will have a harder time, and there will be plenty of people who will say that they were foolish to think that it could be otherwise.

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The Messiness of Reproduction and the Dishonesty of Anti-Abortion Propaganda

By Jia Tolentino

A Supreme Court Reporter Defines the Threat to Abortion Rights

By Isaac Chotiner

By Louis Menand

What can economic research tell us about the effect of abortion access on women’s lives?

Subscribe to the center for economic security and opportunity newsletter, caitlin knowles myers and caitlin knowles myers john g. mccullough professor of economics; co-director, middlebury initiative for data and digital methods - middlebury college @caitlin_k_myers morgan welch morgan welch senior research assistant & project coordinator - center on children and families, economic studies, brookings institution.

November 30, 2021

21 min read

On September 20, 2021, a group of 154 distinguished economists and researchers filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in advance of the Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization . For a full review of the evidence that shows how causal inference tools have been used to measure the effects of abortion access in the U.S., read the brief here .

Introduction

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization considers the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law that prohibits women from accessing abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. This case is widely expected to determine the fate of Roe v. Wade as Mississippi is directly challenging the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe , which protects abortion access before fetal viability (typically between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy). On December 1, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson . In asking the Court to overturn Roe , the state of Mississippi offers reassurances that “there is simply no causal link between the availability of abortion and the capacity of women to act in society” 1 and hence no reason to believe that abortion access has shaped “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation” 2 as the Court had previously held.

While the debate over abortion often centers on largely intractable subjective questions of ethics and morality, in this instance the Court is being asked to consider an objective question about the causal effects of abortion access on the lives of women and their families. The field of economics affords insights into these objective questions through the application of sophisticated methodological approaches that can be used to isolate and measure the causal effects of abortion access on reproductive, social, and economic outcomes for women and their families.

Separating Correlation from Causation: The “Credibility Revolution” in Economics

To measure the causal effect of abortion on women’s lives, one must differentiate its effects from those of other forces, such as economic opportunity, social mores, the availability of contraception. Powerful statistical methodologies in the causal inference toolbox have made it possible for economists to do just that, moving beyond the maxim “correlation isn’t necessarily causation” and applying the scientific method to figure out when it is.

This year’s decision by the Economic Sciences Prize Committee recognized the contributions 3 of economists David Card, Joshua Angrist, and Guido Imbens, awarding them the Nobel Prize for their pathbreaking work developing and applying the tools of causal inference in a movement dubbed “the credibility revolution” (Angrist and Pischke, 2010). The gold standard for establishing such credibility is a well-executed randomized controlled trial – an experiment conducted in the lab or field in which treatment is randomly assigned. When economists can feasibly and ethically implement such experiments, they do. However, in the social world, this opportunity is often not available. For instance, one cannot feasibly or ethically randomly assign abortion access to some individuals but not others. Faced with this obstacle, economists turn to “natural” or “quasi” experimental methods, ones in which they are able to credibly argue that treatment is as good as randomly assigned.

The Effects of Abortion Access on Women’s Reproductive, Economic, and Social Lives

Evidence of the effects of abortion legalization.

The history of abortion legalization in the United States affords both a canonical and salient example of a natural experiment. While Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in most of the country in 1973, five states—Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, and Washington—and the District of Columbia repealed their abortion bans several years in advance of Roe . Using a methodology known as “difference-in-difference estimation,” researchers compared changes in outcomes in these “repeal states” when they lifted abortion bans to changes in outcomes in the rest of the country. They also compared changes in outcomes in the rest of the country in 1973 when Roe legalized abortion to changes in outcomes in the repeal states where abortion already was legal. This difference-in-differences methodology allows the states where abortion access is not changing to serve as a counterfactual or “control” group that accounts for other forces that were impacting fertility and women’s lives in the Roe era.

Among the first to employ this approach was a team of economists (Levine, Staiger, Kane, and Zimmerman, 1999) who estimated that the legalization of abortion in repeal states led to a 4% to 11% decline in births in those states relative to the rest of the country. Levine and his co-authors found that these fertility effects were particularly large for teens and women of color, who experienced birth rate reductions that were nearly three times greater than the overall population as a result of abortion legalization. Multiple research teams have replicated the essential finding that abortion legalization substantially impacted American fertility while extending the analysis to consider other outcomes. 4 For example, Myers (2017) found that abortion legalization reduced the number of women who became teen mothers by 34% and the number who became teen brides by 20%, and again observed effects that were even larger for Black teens. Farin, Hoehn-Velasco, and Pesko (2021) found that abortion legalization reduced maternal mortality among Black women by 30-40%, with little impact on white women, offering the explanation that where abortion was illegal, Black women were less likely to be able to access safe abortions by traveling to other states or countries or by obtaining a clandestine abortion from a trusted health care provider.

The ripple effects of abortion access on the lives of women and their families

This research, which clearly demonstrates the causal relationship between abortion access and first-order demographic and health outcomes, laid the foundation for researchers to measure further ripple effects through the lives of women and their families. Multiple teams of authors have extended the difference-in-differences research designs to study educational and labor market outcomes, finding that abortion legalization increased women’s education, labor force participation, occupational prestige, and earnings and that all these effects were particularly large for Black women (Angrist and Evans, 1996; Kalist, 2004; Lindo, Pineda-Torres, Pritchard, and Tajali, 2020; Jones, 2021).

Additionally, research shows that abortion access has not only had profound effects on women’s economic and social lives but has also impacted the circumstances into which children are born. Researchers using difference-in-differences research designs have found that abortion legalization reduced the number of children who were unwanted (Bitler and Zavodny, 2002a, reduced cases of child neglect and abuse (Bitler and Zavodny, 2002b; 2004), reduced the number of children who lived in poverty (Gruber, Levine, and Staiger, 1999), and improved long-run outcomes of an entire generation of children by increasing the likelihood of attending college and reducing the likelihood of living in poverty and receiving public assistance (Ananat, Gruber, Levine, and Staiger, 2009).

Access to abortion continues to be important to women’s lives

The research cited above relies on variation in abortion access from the 1970s, and much has changed in terms of both reproductive technologies and women’s lives. Recent research shows, however, that even with the social, economic, and legal shifts that have occurred over the last few decades and even with expanded access to contraception, abortion access remains relevant to women’s reproductive lives. Today, nearly half of pregnancies are unintended (Finer and Zolna, 2016). About 6% of young women (ages 15-34) experience an unintended pregnancy each year (Finer, Lindberg, and Desai, 2018), and about 1.4% of women of childbearing age obtain an abortion each year (Jones, Witwer, and Jerman, 2019). At these rates, approximately one in four women will receive an abortion in their reproductive lifetimes. The fact is clear: women continue to rely on abortion access to determine their reproductive lives.

But what about their economic and social lives? While women have made great progress in terms of their educational attainment, career trajectories, and role in society, mothers face a variety of challenges and penalties that are not adequately addressed by public policy. Following the birth of a child, it’s well documented that working mothers face a “motherhood wage penalty,” which entails lower wages than women who did not have a child (Waldfogel, 1998; Anderson, Binder, and Krause, 2002; Kelven et al., 2019). Maternity leave may combat this penalty as it allows women to return to their jobs following the birth of a child – encouraging them to remain attached to the labor force (Rossin-Slater, 2017). However, as of this writing, the U.S. only offers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave through the FMLA, which extends coverage to less than 60% of all workers. 5 And even if a mother is able to return to work, childcare in the U.S. is costly and often inaccessible for many. Families with infants can be expected to pay around $11,000 a year for childcare and subsidies are only available for 1 in 6 children that are eligible under the federal program. 6 Without a federal paid leave policy and access to affordable childcare, the U.S. lacks the infrastructure to adequately support mothers, and especially working mothers – making the prospect of motherhood financially unworkable for some.

This is relevant when considering that the women who seek abortions tend to be low-income mothers experiencing disruptive life events. In the most recent survey of abortion patients conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, 97% are adults, 49% are living below the poverty line, 59% already have children, and 55% are experiencing a disruptive life event such as losing a job, breaking up with a partner, or falling behind on rent (Jones and Jerman, 2017a and 2017b). It is not a stretch to imagine that access to abortion could be pivotal to these women’s financial lives, and recent evidence from “The Turnaway Study” 7 provides empirical support for this supposition. In this study, an interdisciplinary team of researchers follows two groups of women who were typically seeking abortions in the second trimester: one group that arrived at abortion clinics and learned they were just over the gestational age threshold for abortions and were “turned away” and a second that was just under the threshold and were provided an abortion. Miller, Wherry, and Foster (2020) match individuals in both groups to their Experian credit reports and observe that in the months leading up to the moment they sought an abortion, financial outcomes for both groups were trending similarly. At the moment one group is turned away from a wanted abortion, however, they began to experience substantial financial distress, exhibiting a 78% increase in past-due debt and an 81% increase in public records related to bankruptcies, evictions, and court judgments.

If Roe were overturned, the number of women experiencing substantial obstacles to obtaining an abortion would dramatically increase.

If Roe were overturned, the number of women experiencing substantial obstacles to obtaining an abortion would dramatically increase. Twelve states have enacted “trigger bans” designed to outlaw abortion in the immediate aftermath of a Roe reversal, while an additional 10 are considered highly likely to quickly enact new bans. 8 These bans would shutter abortion facilities across a wide swath of the American south and midwest, dramatically increasing travel distances and the logistical costs of obtaining an abortion. Economics research predicts what is likely to happen next. Multiple teams of economists have exploited natural experiments arising from mandatory waiting periods (Joyce and Kaestner, 2001; Lindo and Pineda-Torres, 2021; Myers, 2021) and provider closures (Quast, Gonzalez, and Ziemba, 2017; Fischer, Royer, and White, 2018; Lindo, Myers, Schlosser, and Cunningham, 2020; Venator and Fletcher, 2021; Myers, 2021). All have found that increases in travel distances prevent large numbers of women seeking abortions from reaching a provider and that most of these women give birth as a result. For instance, Lindo and co-authors (2020) exploit a natural experiment arising from the sudden closure of half of Texas’s abortion clinics in 2013 and find that an increase in travel distance from 0 to 100 miles results in a 25.8% decrease in abortions. Myers, Jones, and Upadhyay (2019) use these results to envision a post- Roe United States, forecasting that if Roe is overturned and the expected states begin to ban abortions, approximately 1/3 of women living in affected regions would be unable to reach an abortion provider, amounting to roughly 100,000 women in the first year alone.

Restricting, or outright eliminating, abortion access by overturning Roe v. Wade would diminish women’s personal and economic lives, as well as the lives of their families.

Whether one’s stance on abortion access is driven by deeply held views on women’s bodily autonomy or when life begins, the decades of research using rigorous methods is clear: there is a causal link between access to abortion and whether, when, and under what circumstances women become mothers, with ripple effects throughout their lives. Access affects their education, earnings, careers, and the subsequent life outcomes for their children. In the state’s argument, Mississippi rejects the causal link between access to abortion and societal outcomes established by economists and states that the availability of abortion isn’t relevant to women’s full participation in society. Economists provide clear evidence that overturning Roe would prevent large numbers of women experiencing unintended pregnancies—many of whom are low-income and financially vulnerable mothers—from obtaining desired abortions. Restricting, or outright eliminating, that access by overturning Roe v. Wade would diminish women’s personal and economic lives, as well as the lives of their families.

Caitlin Knowles Myers did not receive financial support from any firm or person for this article. She has received financial compensation from Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Center for Reproductive Rights for serving as an expert witness in litigation involving abortion regulations. She has not and will not receive financial compensation for her role in the amicus brief described here. Other than the aforementioned, she has not received financial support from any firm or person with a financial or political interest in this article. Caitlin Knowles Myers is not currently an officer, director, or board member of any organization with a financial or political interest in this article.

Abboud, Ali, 2019. “The Impact of Early Fertility Shocks on Women’s Fertility and Labor Market Outcomes.” Available from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3512913

Anderson, Deborah J., Binder, Melissa, and Kate Krause, 2002. “The motherhood wage penalty: Which mothers pay it and why?” The American Economic Review 92(2). Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/000282802320191606

Ananat, Elizabeth Oltmans, Gruber, Jonathan, Levine, Phillip and Douglas Staiger, 2009. “Abortion and Selection.” The Review of Economic Statistics 91(1). Retrieved from https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/91/1/124/57736/Abortion-and-Selection?redirectedFrom=fulltext .

Angrist, Joshua D., and Alan B. Krueger, 1999. “Does Compulsory School Attendance Affect Schooling and Earnings?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(4). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/2937954 .

Angrist, Joshua D., and William N. Evans, 1996. “Schooling and Labor Market Consequences of the 1970 State Abortion Reforms.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 5406. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w5406 .

Angrist, Joshua D., and Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2010. “The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 24(2). Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.24.2.3

Bailey, Martha J., Hoynes, Hilary W., Rossin-Slater, Maya and Reed Walker, 2020. “Is the Social Safety Net a Long-Term Investment? Large-Scale Evidence from the Food Stamps Program” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 26942 , Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w26942

Bitler, Marianne, and Madeline Zavodny, 2002a. “Did Abortion Legalization Reduce the Number of Unwanted Children? Evidence from Adoptions.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34 (1): 25-33. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3030229?origin=JSTOR-pdf

Bitler, Marianne, and Madeline Zavodny, 2002b. “Child Abuse and Abortion Availability.” American Economic Review , 92 (2): 363-367. Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/000282802320191624

Bitler, Marianne, and Madeline Zavodny, 2004. “Child Maltreatment, Abortion Availability, and Economic Conditions.” Review of Economics of the Household 2: 119-141. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1023/B:REHO.0000031610.36468.0e

Farin, Sherajum Monira, Hoehn-Velasco, Lauren, and Michael Pesko, 2021. “The Impact of Legal Abortion on Maternal Health: Looking to the Past to Inform the Present.” Retrieved from SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3913899

Finer, Lawrence B., and Mia R. Zolna, 2016. “Declines in Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011” New England Journal of Medicine 374. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26962904/

Finer, Lawrence B., Lindberg, Laura, D., and Sheila Desai. “A prospective measure of unintended pregnancy in the United States.” Contraception 98(6). Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29879398/

Fischer, Stefanie, Royer, Heather, and Corey White, 2017. “The Impacts of Reduced Access to Abortion and Family Planning Services on Abortion, Births, and Contraceptive Purchases.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 23634 . Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w23634

Gruber, Jonathan, Levine, Phillip, and Douglas Staiger, 1999. “Abortion Legalization and Child Living Circumstances: Who Is the ‘Marginal Child’?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556007

Guldi, Melanie, 2008. “Fertility effects of abortion and birth control pill access for minors.” Demography 45 . Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0026

Hoynes, Hilary, Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore, and Douglas Almond, 2016. “Long-Run Impacts of Childhood Access to the Safety Net.” American Economic Review 106(4). Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20130375

Jones, Kelly, 2021. “At a Crossroads: The Impact of Abortion Access on Future Economic Outcomes.” American University Working Paper . Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17606/0Q51-0R11 .

Jones, Rachel K., Witwer, Elizabeth, Jerman, Jenna, September 18, 2018. “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2017.” Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/ default/files/report_pdf/abortion-inciden ce-service-availability-us-2017.

Jones Rachel K., and Janna Jerman, 2017a. ”Population group abortion rates and lifetime incidence of abortion: United States, 2008–2014.” American Journal of Public Health 107 (12). Retrieved from https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304042

Jones, Rachel K. and Jenna Jerman, 2017b. “Characteristics and Circumstances of U.S. Women Who Obtain Very Early and Second-Trimester Abortions.” PLoS One . Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28121999/

Joyce, Ted, and Robert Kaestner, 2001. “The Impact of Mandatory Waiting Periods and Parental Consent Laws on the Timing of Abortion and State of Occurrence among Adolescents in Mississippi and South Carolina.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20(2) . Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3325799 .

Kalist, David E., 2004. “Abortion and Female Labor Force Participation: Evidence Prior to Roe v. Wade.” Journal of Labor Research 25 (3) .

Keiser, David, and Joseph Shapiro, 2019. “Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the Demand for Water Quality.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 134 (1).

Kleven, Henrik, Landais, Camille, Posch, Johanna, Steinhauer, Andreas, and Josef Zweimuleler, 2019. “Child Penalties Across Countries: Evidence and Explanations.” AEA Papers and Proceedings 109. Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20191078/

Levine, Phillip, Staiger, Douglas, Kane, Thomas, and David Zimmerman, 1999. “Roe v. Wade and American Fertility.” American Journal Of Public Health 89(2) . Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508542/

Lindo, Jason M., Myers, Caitlin Knowles, Schlosser, Andrea, and Scott Cunningham, 2020. “How Far Is Too Far? New Evidence on Abortion Clinic Closures, Access, and Abortions” Journal of Human Resources 55. Retrieved from http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/55/4/1137.refs

Lindo, Jason M., Pineda-Torres, Mayra, Pritchard, David, and Hedieh Tajali, 2020. “Legal Access to Reproductive Control Technology, Women’s Education, and Earnings Approaching Retirement.” AEA Papers and Proceedings 110. Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20201108

Lindo, Jason M., and Mayra Pineda-Torres, 2021. “New Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Waiting Periods for Abortion.” J ournal of Health Econ omics. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34607119/

Miguel, Edward, Satyanath, Shanker, and Ernest Sergenti, 2004. “Economic Shocks and Civil Conflict: An Instrumental Variables Approach.” Journal of Political Economy 112(4). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/421174

Miller, Sarah, Wherry, Laura R., and Diana Greene Foster, 2020. “The Economic Consequences of Being Denied an Abortion.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 26662 . Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w26662 .

Myers, Caitlin Knowles, 2017. “The Power of Abortion Policy: Reexamining the Effects of Young Women’s Access to Reproductive Control” Journal of Political Economy 125(6) . Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1086/694293 .

Myers, Caitlin Knowles, Jones, Rachel, and Ushma Upadhyay, 2019. “Predicted changes in abortion access and incidence in a post-Roe world.” Contraception 100(5). Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31376381/

Myers, Caitlin Knowles, 2021. “Cooling off or Burdened? The Effects of Mandatory Waiting Periods on Abortions and Births.” IZA Institute of Labor Economics No. 14434. Retrieved from https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/14434/cooling-off-or-burdened-the-effects-of-mandatory-waiting-periods-on-abortions-and-births

Quast, Troy, Gonzalez, Fidel, and Robert Ziemba, 2017. “Abortion Facility Closings and Abortion Rates in Texas.” Inquiry: A Journal of Medical Care Organization, Provision and Financing 54 . Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0046958017700944

Rossin-Slater, Maya, 2017. “Maternity and Family Leave Policy.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 23069. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w23069

Venator, Joanna, and Jason Fletcher, 2020. “Undue Burden Beyond Texas: An Analysis of Abortion Clinic Closures, Births, and Abortions in Wisconsin.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 40(3). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22263

Waldfogel, Jane, 1998. “The family gap for young women in the United States and Britain: Can maternity leave make a difference?” Journal of Labor Economics 16(3).

Thomas E. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Brief in Support of Petitioners, No. 19-1392.
Thomas E. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Brief for Petitioners, No. 19-139, Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
The Nobel Prize. 2021. “Press release: The Prize in Economic Sciences 202.” Retrieved from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2021/press-release/
See Angrist and Evans (1996), Gruber et al. (1999), Ananat et al. (2009), Guldi (2008), Myers (2017), Abboud (2019), Jones (2021).
Brown, Scott, Herr, Jane, Roy, Radha , and Jacob Alex Klerman, July 2020. “Employee and Worksite Perspectives of the FMLA Who Is Eligible?” U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/evaluation/pdf/WHD_FMLA2018PB1WhoIsEligible_StudyBrief_Aug2020.pdf
Whitehurst, Grover J., April 19, 2018. “What is the market price of daycare and preschool?” Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-is-the-market-price-of-daycare-and-preschool/; Chien, Nina, 2021. “Factsheet: Estimates of Child Care Eligibility & Receipt for Fiscal Year 2018.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/20 21-08/cy-2018-child-care-subsidy-eligibility.pdf
Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (NSIRH). “The Turnaway Study.” Retrieved from https://www.ansirh.org/research/ongoing/turnaway-study.
Center for Reproductive Rights, 2021. “What If Roe Fell?” Retrieved from https://maps.reproductiverights.org/what-if-roe-fell

Economic Studies

Center for Economic Security and Opportunity

John J. DiIulio, Jr.

April 15, 2024

April 4, 2024

Benjamin H. Harris, Liam Marshall

April 2, 2024

The independent source for health policy research, polling, and news.

Key Facts on Abortion in the United States

Usha Ranji , Karen Diep , and Alina Salganicoff Published: Nov 21, 2023

Note: This brief was updated on January 4, 2024 to correct the description of the data collected by the federal CDC Abortion Surveillance System. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned the constitutional right to abortion as well as the federal standards of abortion access, established by prior decisions in the cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey . Prior to the Dobbs ruling, the federal standard was that abortions were permitted up to fetal viability. That federal standard has been eliminated, allowing states to set policies regarding the legality of abortions and establish limits. Access to and availability of abortions varies widely between states , with some states banning almost all abortions and some states protecting abortion access.

This issue brief answers some key questions about abortion in the United States and presents data collected before and new data that was published shortly after the overturn of Roe v. Wade .

What is abortion?

How safe are abortions, how often do abortions occur, who gets abortions, at what point in pregnancy do abortions occur, where do people get abortion care, how much do abortions cost, does private insurance or medicaid cover abortions, what are public opinions about abortion.

Abortion is the medical termination of a pregnancy. It is a common medical service that many women obtain at some point in their life. There are different types of abortion methods, which the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM ) places in four categories:

Medication Abortion – Medication abortion, also known as medical abortion or abortion with pills, is a pregnancy termination protocol that involves taking oral medications. There are two widely accepted protocols for medication abortion. In the U.S., the most common protocol involves taking two different drugs, Mifepristone and Misoprostol. Typically, an individual using medication abortion takes Mifepristone first, followed by misoprostol 24-48 hours later. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved this protocol of medication abortion for use up to the first 70 days (10 weeks) of pregnancy, and its use has been rising for years. Another medication abortion protocol uses misoprostol alone . Patients can take 800 µg (4 pills) of misoprostol sublingually or vaginally every three hours for a total of 12 pills. The regimen is also recommended for up to 70 days (10 weeks) of pregnancy, but it is not currently approved by the FDA and is more commonly used in other countries.

Guttmacher Institute estimates that in 2020, medication was used for more than half (53%) of all abortions. While medication abortion has been available in the U.S. for more than 20 years, studies have found that many adults and women of reproductive age have not heard of medication abortion. Many have confused emergency contraception ( EC ) pills with medication abortion pills, but EC does not terminate a pregnancy. EC works by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and will not affect an established pregnancy.

Aspiration , a minimally invasive and commonly used gynecological procedure, is the most common form of procedural abortion. It can be used to conduct abortions up to 14-16 weeks of gestation. Aspiration is also commonly used in cases of early pregnancy loss (miscarriage).
Dilation and evacuation abortions (D&E) are usually performed after the 14th week of pregnancy. The cervix is dilated, and the pregnancy tissue is evacuated using forceps or suction.
Induction abortions are rare and conducted later in pregnancy. They involve the use of medications to induce labor and delivery of the fetus.

( Back to top )

Decades of research have shown that abortion is a very safe medical service.

Despite its strong safety profile, abortion is the most highly regulated medical service in the country and is now banned in several states. In addition to bans on abortion altogether and telehealth, many states impose other limitations on abortion that are not medically indicated, including waiting periods, ultrasound requirements, gestational age limits, and parental notification and consent requirements. These restrictions typically delay receipt of services.

NASEM completed an exhaustive review on the safety and effectiveness of abortion care and concluded that complications from abortion are rare and occur far less frequently than during childbirth.
NASEM also concluded that safety is enhanced when the abortion is performed earlier in the pregnancy. State level restrictions such as waiting periods, ultrasound requirements, and gestational limits that impede access and delay abortion provision likely make abortions less safe.
When medication abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions, are administered at 9 weeks’ gestation or less, the pregnancy is terminated successfully 99.6% of the time, with a 0.4% risk of major complications, and an associated mortality rate of less than 0.001 percent (0.00064%).
Medication abortion pills can be provided in a clinical setting or via telehealth (without an in-person visit). Research has found that the provision of medication abortion via telehealth is as safe and effective as the provision of the pills at an in person visit.
Studies on procedural abortions, which include aspiration and D&E, have also found that they are very safe. Research on aspiration abortions, the most common procedural method, have found the rate of major complications of less than 1%.

There are three major data sources on abortion incidence and the characteristics of people who obtain abortions in the U.S: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Guttmacher Institute, and most recently, the Society of Family Planning’s (SFP) #WeCount project.

The federal CDC Abortion Surveillance System requests data from the central health agencies of the 50 states, DC, and New York City to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining abortions. Most states collect data from facilities where abortions are provided on the demographic characteristics of patients, gestational age, and type of abortion procedure. Reporting these data to the CDC is voluntary and not all states participate in the surveillance system. Notably, California, Maryland, and New Hampshire have not reported data on abortions to the CDC system for years. CDC publishes available data from the surveillance system annually.

Guttmacher Institute , an independent research and advocacy organization, is another major source of data on abortions in the U.S. Prior to the Dobbs ruling, Guttmacher conducted the Abortion Provider Census (APC) periodically which has provided data on abortion incidence, abortion facilities, and characteristics of abortion patients. Data from this Census are based primarily on questionnaires collected from all known facilities that provide abortion in the country, information obtained from state health departments, and Guttmacher estimates for a small portion of facilities. The most recent APC reports data from 2020.

The CDC and Guttmacher data differ in terms of methods, timeframe, and completeness, but both have shown similar trends in abortion rates over the past decade. One notable difference is that Guttmacher’s study includes continuous reporting from California, D.C., Maryland, and New Hampshire, which explains at least in part the higher number of abortions in their data.

Since the Dobbs ruling, the Guttmacher Institute has established the Monthly Abortion Provision Study to track abortion volume within the formal United States health care system. This ongoing effort collects data on and provides national and state-level estimates on procedural and medication abortions while also tracking the changes in abortion volume since 2020. The Monthly Abortion Provision Study was designed to complement Guttmacher’s APC along with other data collection efforts to allow for quick snapshots of the changing abortion landscape in the United States.

Society of Family Planning’s (SFP) #WeCount is another national reporting effort that measures changes in abortion access following the Dobbs ruling. The project reports on the number of abortions per month by state and includes data on abortions provided through clinics, private practices, hospitals, and virtual-only providers. The report does not include data on self-managed abortions that are performed without clinical supervision. The most recent #WeCount report analyzes data from April 2022 to data from June 2023, marking one full year of abortion data since Dobbs. The effort represents 83% of all providers known to #WeCount who agreed to participate in their research.

This KFF issue brief uses data from the CDC, Guttmacher, and SFP as well as other research organizations.

How has the abortion rate changed over time?

For most of the decade prior to the Dobbs ruling, there was a steady decline in abortion rates nationally, but there was a slight increase in the years just before the ruling.

In their most recent national data, Guttmacher Institute reported 930,160 abortions in 2020 and a rate of 14.4 per 1,000 women. CDC reported 622,108 abortions in 2021 and a rate of 11.6 abortions per 1,000 women (excludes CA, DC, MD, NH). Guttmacher’s study showed an upward trend in abortion from 2017 to 2020 whereas CDC’s report showed an increase in abortions from 2017 to 2021 except for a slight decrease in 2020.

While most attribute the long-term decline in abortion rates to increased use of more effective methods of contraception , several states had reduced access to low- or no-cost contraceptive care as a result of reductions in the Title X network under the Trump Administration, which may have contributed to the slight rise in abortions prior to the Dobbs ruling. Other factors that may have contributed to the increase could include greater coverage under Medicaid that subsequently made abortions more affordable in some states and broader financial support from abortion funds to help individuals pay for the costs of abortion care.

Even prior to the Dobbs ruling, abortion rates varied widely between states.

National averages can mask local and more granular differences. Lower state-level abortion rates do not reflect less need. Some of the variation has been due to the wide differences in state policies, with some states historically placing restrictions on abortion that make access and availability to nearly out of reach and, on the other side, some states enshrining protections in state Constitutions and legislation.

In 2020, the abortion rate (per 1,000 women ages 15-44) ranged from 0.1 in Missouri to 48.9 in the District of Columbia (DC). Trends also varied between states. While the national rate of abortion increased between 2017 and 2019, some states saw declines, with particularly sharp drops in states where heavy restrictions were put into place.

While the number of abortions in the U.S. dropped immediately following the Dobbs decision, new data show that the number of abortions increased overall one year following the ruling. However, the upswing obscures the declines in abortion care in states with bans.

SFP’s #WeCount estimates there were 2,200 cumulative more abortions in the year following Dobbs (July 2022 to June 2023) compared to the pre- Dobbs period (April 2022 and May 2022). Nationally, the number of abortions varied month-by-month, with the largest decrease observed in November 2022 (73,930 abortions; 8,185 fewer abortions than pre- Dobbs period ) and the largest increase in March 2023 (92,680 abortions; 10,565 more abortions than pre- Dobbs period). The states with the largest cumulative increases in the total number of abortions provided by a clinician during the 12-month period include Illinois, Florida, North Carolina, California, and New Mexico. States with abortion bans experienced the largest cumulative decreases in the number of abortions, including Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana (data varies by month in each state; data not shown).

States without abortion bans experienced an increase of abortions following the Dobbs ruling likely due to a combination of reasons: increased interstate travel for abortion access, expanded in-person and virtual/telehealth capacity to see patients, increased measures to protect and cover abortion care for residents and out-of-state patients, and potentially reduced abortion-related stigma as a result of community mobilization around abortion care.

However, the overall national increase in the number of abortions masks the absence and/or scarcity of abortion care in states with total abortion bans or severe restrictions. States with total bans experienced observed 94,930 fewer clinician-provided abortions a year following the ruling (data not shown). Note, this figure is an underestimate due several state policies that restricted abortion access during the pre- Dobbs period. These estimates do not include abortions that may have been performed through self-managed means.

Most of the information about people who receive abortions comes from data prior to the Dobbs ruling. In 2021, women across a range of age groups, socioeconomic status, and racial and ethnic backgrounds obtained abortions, but the majority were obtained by women who were in their twenties, low-income, and women of color.

Women in their twenties accounted for more than half (57%) of abortions. Nearly one-third (31%) were among women in their thirties and a small share were among women in their 40s (4%) and teens (8%).
Seven in ten abortion patients were of women of color. Black women comprised 42% of abortion recipients, White women 30% , Hispanic women 22%, and 7% women of other races/ethnicities.
Many women who sought abortions have children. More than six in 10 (61%) abortion patients in 2021 had at least one previous birth.

The vast majority (94%) of abortions occur during the first trimester of pregnancy according to data available from before the Dobbs decision.

Before the 2022 ruling in Dobbs, there was a federal constitutional right to abortion before the pregnancy is considered to be viable, that is, can survive outside of a pregnant person’s uterus. Viability is generally considered around 24 weeks of pregnancy. Most abortions, though, occur well before the point of fetal viability.

Data from 2021 found that more than four in ten (45%) abortions occurred by six weeks of gestation, a third (36%) occurred between seven and nine weeks, and 13% at 10-13 weeks. Just 7% of abortions occurred after the first trimester.
Prior to the decision in the Dobbs case, almost half of states (22) had enacted laws that ban abortion at a certain gestational age. Most of these limits are in the second trimester, but some are in the first trimester, well before fetal viability. Many of these laws were blocked because they violated the federal standard established by Roe v Wade. Some states have enacted laws banning abortions after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, or around 6 weeks of pregnancy, which is often before a person knows they are pregnant. In addition to banning abortion, states can now establish pre-viability gestational restrictions because the federal standard has been overturned.

Just over half of abortions were provided at clinics that specialize in abortion care in 2020. Others were provided at clinics that offer abortion care in addition to other family planning services.

Guttmacher Institute estimated that 96% of abortions were provided at clinics and just 4% were provided in doctors’ offices or hospitals in 2020. Most clinic-based abortions were provided at clinics that specialize in providing abortion care, but many were provided at clinics that offer a wide range of other sexual and reproductive health services like contraception and STI care. Most abortions are provided by physicians. However, in 19 states and D.C., Advanced Practice Clinicians (APCs) such as Nurse Practitioners and midwives may provide medication abortions. Conversely, 31 states prohibit clinicians other than physicians from providing abortion care.

Even prior to the ruling in Dobbs , access to abortion services was very uneven across the country though. The proliferation of restrictions in many states, particularly in the South, had greatly shrunk the availability of services in some areas. In the wake of overturning Roe v. Wade , these geographic disparities are likely to widen as more states ban abortion services altogether.

Telehealth has grown as a delivery mechanism for abortion services.

While procedural abortions must be provided in a clinical setting, medication abortion can be provided in a clinical setting or via telehealth. Access to medication abortion via telehealth had been limited for many years by a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) restriction that had permitted only certified clinicians to dispense mifepristone in a health care setting. The drug could not be mailed or picked up at a retail pharmacy. However, in December 2021, the FDA permanently revised its policy and no longer requires clinicians to dispense the drug in person. Additionally, in January 2023, the FDA finalized a change that allows retail pharmacies to dispense medication abortion pills to patients with a prescription.

While some states are regulating the use of mifepristone as an abortion method, the Biden Administration has asserted that the FDA has regulatory power over all drugs, including mifepristone. This could result in future legal action as the authority of the state to regulate health care will be pitted against the authority of the federal government to regulate drugs through the FDA will be contested.

In a telehealth abortion, the patient typically completes an online questionnaire to assess (1) confirmation of pregnancy, (2) gestational age and (3) blood type. If determined eligible by a remote clinician, the patient is mailed the medications. This model does not require an ultrasound for pregnancy dating if the patient has regular periods and is sure of the date of their last menstrual period (in line with ACOG ’s guidelines for pregnancy dating). If the patient has irregular periods or is unsure how long they have been pregnant, they must obtain an ultrasound to confirm gestational age and rule out an ectopic pregnancy 3 and send in the images for review before receiving their medications. If the patient does not know their blood type or has Rh negative blood, the provider may prompt the patient to visit a nearby clinic for an injection to prevent adverse reactions between maternal and fetal blood ( RhoGAM ), The follow-up visit with a clinician can also happen via a telehealth visit.
However, even in some of the states that have not banned abortion altogether, telehealth may not be available. Many states had established restrictions prior to the Dobbs ruling that limit the use of telehealth abortions by either requiring abortion patients to take the pills at a physical clinic, require ultrasounds for all abortions, set their own policies regarding the dispensing of the medications used for abortion care, or directly ban the use of telehealth for abortion care. As of November 2022, of the 33 states that have not banned abortion, eight had at least one of these restrictions, effectively prohibiting telehealth for medication abortion.
Medication abortion has emerged as a major legal front in the battle over abortion access across the nation. Multiple cases have been filed in federal courts regarding aspects of the FDA’s regulation of medication abortion as well as the mailing of medications. One notable ongoing case is Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA , where the plaintiffs are challenging the FDA’s authority and approval process for mifepristone. The plaintiffs also contend that an 1873 anti-obscenity law, the Comstock Act, prohibits the mailing of any medication used for abortion. In April 2023, a US Supreme Court ruling allowed current FDA rules to remain in effect as the case proceeds through the courts. This means that mifepristone remains available for medication abortion either in a clinic or via telehealth where state law permits.

Data from SFP’s October 2023 #WeCount report show that abortions provided by virtual-only clinics represent approximately 5% of all abortions post- Roe . The number of telehealth abortions increased 72% from a monthly average of 4,045 abortions in April and May 2022 to 6,950 abortions per month in the 12 months post- Dobbs . Nearly all of these abortions occurred in states that permit abortions.

Self-managed abortions are provided without a clinician visit.

Self-managed abortions typically involve obtaining medication abortion pills from an online pharmacy that will send the pills by mail or by purchasing the pills from a pharmacy in another country. This does not typically involve a direct consultation with a clinician either in person or via telehealth.

Research has found that prior to Dobbs , more than one in ten patients who obtained abortions at clinics had considered self-managing their abortions. This is likely to increase going forward since abortion care is not available in many states, and there have already been reports of people ordering pills from online markets outside the U.S. medical system. Tracking information on these online orders can help fill in gaps in abortion count estimates but can also be difficult. Some companies may not share data on purchases, and it would also be unclear whether patients take the abortion medication after receiving it in the mail.

The median costs of abortion services exceed $500.

Obtaining an abortion can be costly. On average, the costs are higher for abortions in the second trimester than in the first trimester. State restrictions can also raise the costs, as people may have to travel if abortions are prohibited or not available in their area. Many people pay for abortion services out of pocket, but some people can obtain assistance from local abortion funds.

In 2021, the median costs for people paying out of pocket in the first trimester were $568 for a medication abortion and $625 for a procedural abortion. The Federal Reserve estimates that nationally about one-third of people do not have $400 on hand for unexpected expenses. For low-income people, who are more likely to need abortion care, these costs are often unaffordable.
The costs of abortion are higher in the second trimester compared to the first, with median self-pay of $775. In the second trimester, more intensive procedures may be needed, more are likely to be conducted in a hospital setting (although still a minority), and local options are more limited in many communities that have fewer facilities. This results in additional nonmedical costs for transportation, childcare, lodging, and lost wages. nonmedical costs for transportation, childcare, lodging, and lost wages.
Abortion funds are independent organizations that help some people pay for the costs of abortion services. Most abortion funds are regional and have connections to clinics in their area. Funds vary, but they typically provide assistance with the costs of medical care, travel, and accommodations if needed. However, they do not reach all people seeking services, and many people are not able to afford the costs of obtaining an abortion because they cannot pay for the abortion itself or cover the costs of travel, lodging or missed work.

Insurance coverage for abortion services is heavily restricted in certain private insurance plans and public programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

Private insurance covers most women of reproductive age, and states have the responsibility to regulate fully insured private plans in their state, whereas the federal government regulates self-funded plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). States can choose whether abortion coverage is included or excluded in private plans that are not self-insured.

Prior to the Dobbs ruling, several states had enacted private plan restrictions and banned abortion coverage from ACA Marketplace plans. Currently, there are 11 states that have policies restricting abortion coverage in private plans and 26 that ban coverage in any Marketplace plans. Since the Dobbs ruling, some of these states have also banned the provision of abortion services altogether.
A handful of states ( 9 ), however, have enacted laws that require private plans to cover abortion.
The Medicaid program covers approximately one in five women of reproductive age and four in ten who are low-income. For decades, the Hyde Amendment has banned the use of federal funds for abortion in Medicaid and other public programs unless the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest, or it endangers the woman’s life.
States have the option to use state-only funds to cover abortions under other circumstances for women on Medicaid, which 16 states do currently. However, more than half (56% ) of women covered by Medicaid live in Hyde states.
According to a Guttmacher Institute survey of patients in the year prior to the Dobbs ruling, a quarter (26%) of abortion patients in the study used Medicaid to pay for abortion services, 11% used private insurance, and 60% paid out of pocket. People in states with more restrictive abortion policies were less likely to use Medicaid or private insurance and more likely to pay out of pocket compared to people living in less restrictive states.
Federal law also restricts abortion funding under the Indian Health Service, Medicare, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Over the years, language similar to that in the Hyde Amendment has been incorporated into a range of other federal programs that provide or pay for health services to women including: the military’s TRICARE program, federal prisons, the Peace Corps, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

National polls have consistently found that a majority of the public did not want to see Roe v . Wade overturned and that most people feel that abortion is a personal medical decision. The public also strongly opposes the criminalization of abortion both among people who get abortion and the clinicians who provide abortion services. Nearly three quarters of adults (74%) and 79% of reproductive age women say that obtaining an abortion should be a personal choice rather than regulated by law (data not shown). For example, two-thirds of the public are concerned that bans on abortion may lead to unnecessary health problems for people experiencing pregnancy complications.

Additional KFF resources:

Abortion in the US Dashboard

Access and Coverage of Abortion Services

Issue Brief: Abortion at SCOTUS: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health

Issue Brief: State Actions to Protect and Expand Access to Abortion Services

Policy Watch: A Year After Dobbs: Policies Restricting Access to Abortion in States Even Where It’s Not Banned

Policy Watch: Employer Coverage of Travel Costs for Out-of-State Abortion

Issue Brief: Exclusion of Abortion Coverage from Employer-Sponsored Health Plans

Interactive: How State Policies Shape Access to Abortion Coverage

Medication Abortion

Issue Brief: Legal Challenges to the FDA Approval of Medication Abortion Pills

Infographic: The Availability and Use of Medication Abortion Care

Fact Sheet: The Availability and Use of Medication Abortion

Issue Brief: The Intersection of State and Federal Policies on Access to Medication Abortion Via Telehealth

Public Opinion on Abortion

Web Event: Americans’ Knowledge and Attitudes About Abortion Access and The Pending Supreme Court Ruling

KFF Health Tracking Poll: Early 2023 Update On Public Awareness On Abortion and Emergency Contraception

KFF Health Tracking Poll: Views on and Knowledge about Abortion in Wake of Leaked Supreme Court Opinion

Other Resources on Women’s Health

Interactive: State Profiles for Women’s Health

Interactive: State Health Facts on Women’s Health Indicators

Homepage: Women’s Health Policy

Women's Health Policy
Access to Care

Also of Interest

The Availability and Use of Medication Abortion
State Actions to Protect and Expand Access to Abortion Services
Legal Challenges to State Abortion Bans Since the Dobbs Decision
Legal Challenges to the FDA Approval of Medication Abortion Pills
Employer Coverage of Travel Costs for Out-of-State Abortion
Abortion in the United States Dashboard

Princeton Legal Journal

The First Amendment and the Abortion Rights Debate

Sofia Cipriano

Following Dobbs v. Jackson ’s (2022) reversal of Roe v. Wade (1973) — and the subsequent revocation of federal abortion protection — activists and scholars have begun to reconsider how to best ground abortion rights in the Constitution. In the past year, numerous Jewish rights groups have attempted to overturn state abortion bans by arguing that abortion rights are protected by various state constitutions’ free exercise clauses — and, by extension, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While reframing the abortion rights debate as a question of religious freedom is undoubtedly strategic, the Free Exercise Clause is not the only place to locate abortion rights: the Establishment Clause also warrants further investigation.

Roe anchored abortion rights in the right to privacy — an unenumerated right with a long history of legal recognition. In various cases spanning the past two centuries, t he Supreme Court located the right to privacy in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments . Roe classified abortion as a fundamental right protected by strict scrutiny, meaning that states could only regulate abortion in the face of a “compelling government interest” and must narrowly tailor legislation to that end. As such, Roe ’s trimester framework prevented states from placing burdens on abortion access in the first few months of pregnancy. After the fetus crosses the viability line — the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb — states could pass laws regulating abortion, as the Court found that “the potentiality of human life” constitutes a “compelling” interest. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) later replaced strict scrutiny with the weaker “undue burden” standard, giving states greater leeway to restrict abortion access. Dobbs v. Jackson overturned both Roe and Casey , leaving abortion regulations up to individual states.

While Roe constituted an essential step forward in terms of abortion rights, weaknesses in its argumentation made it more susceptible to attacks by skeptics of substantive due process. Roe argues that the unenumerated right to abortion is implied by the unenumerated right to privacy — a chain of logic which twice removes abortion rights from the Constitution’s language. Moreover, Roe’s trimester framework was unclear and flawed from the beginning, lacking substantial scientific rationale. As medicine becomes more and more advanced, the arbitrariness of the viability line has grown increasingly apparent.

As abortion rights supporters have looked for alternative constitutional justifications for abortion rights, the First Amendment has become increasingly more visible. Certain religious groups — particularly Jewish groups — have argued that they have a right to abortion care. In Generation to Generation Inc v. Florida , a religious rights group argued that Florida’s abortion ban (HB 5) constituted a violation of the Florida State Constitution: “In Jewish law, abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman, or for many other reasons not permitted under the Act. As such, the Act prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and thus violates their privacy rights and religious freedom.” Similar cases have arisen in Indiana and Texas. Absent constitutional protection of abortion rights, the Christian religious majorities in many states may unjustly impose their moral and ethical code on other groups, implying an unconstitutional religious hierarchy.

Cases like Generation to Generation Inc v. Florida may also trigger heightened scrutiny status in higher courts; The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) places strict scrutiny on cases which “burden any aspect of religious observance or practice.”

But framing the issue as one of Free Exercise does not interact with major objections to abortion rights. Anti-abortion advocates contend that abortion is tantamount to murder. An anti-abortion advocate may argue that just as religious rituals involving human sacrifice are illegal, so abortion ought to be illegal. Anti-abortion advocates may be able to argue that abortion bans hold up against strict scrutiny since “preserving potential life” constitutes a “compelling interest.”

The question of when life begins—which is fundamentally a moral and religious question—is both essential to the abortion debate and often ignored by left-leaning activists. For select Christian advocacy groups (as well as other anti-abortion groups) who believe that life begins at conception, abortion bans are a deeply moral issue. Abortion bans which operate under the logic that abortion is murder essentially legislate a definition of when life begins, which is problematic from a First Amendment perspective; the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prevents the government from intervening in religious debates. While numerous legal thinkers have associated the abortion debate with the First Amendment, this argument has not been fully litigated. As an amicus brief filed in Dobbs by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Center for Inquiry, and American Atheists points out, anti-abortion rhetoric is explicitly religious: “There is hardly a secular veil to the religious intent and positions of individuals, churches, and state actors in their attempts to limit access to abortion.” Justice Stevens located a similar issue with anti-abortion rhetoric in his concurring opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) , stating: “I am persuaded that the absence of any secular purpose for the legislative declarations that life begins at conception and that conception occurs at fertilization makes the relevant portion of the preamble invalid under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution.” Judges who justify their judicial decisions on abortion using similar rhetoric blur the line between church and state.

Framing the abortion debate around religious freedom would thus address the two main categories of arguments made by anti-abortion activists: arguments centered around issues with substantive due process and moral objections to abortion.

Conservatives may maintain, however, that legalizing abortion on the federal level is an Establishment Clause violation to begin with, since the government would essentially be imposing a federal position on abortion. Many anti-abortion advocates favor leaving abortion rights up to individual states. However, in the absence of recognized federal, constitutional protection of abortion rights, states will ban abortion. Protecting religious freedom of the individual is of the utmost importance — the United States government must actively intervene in order to uphold the line between church and state. Protecting abortion rights would allow everyone in the United States to act in accordance with their own moral and religious perspectives on abortion.

Reframing the abortion rights debate as a question of religious freedom is the most viable path forward. Anchoring abortion rights in the Establishment Clause would ensure Americans have the right to maintain their own personal and religious beliefs regarding the question of when life begins. In the short term, however, litigants could take advantage of Establishment Clauses in state constitutions. Yet, given the swing of the Court towards expanding religious freedom protections at the time of writing, Free Exercise arguments may prove better at securing citizens a right to an abortion.

Statement: Reproductive rights are women’s rights and human rights

Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to LinkedIn
Share to E-mail

Reproductive rights are integral to women’s rights, a fact that is upheld by international agreements and reflected in law in different parts of the world.

To be able to exercise their human rights and make essential decisions, women need to be able to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to information, education, and services.

When safe and legal access to abortion is restricted, women are forced to resort to less-safe methods, too often with damaging or disastrous results—especially for women who are affected by poverty or marginalization, including minority women.

The ability of women to control what happens to their own bodies is also associated with the roles women are able to play in society, whether as a member of the family, the workforce, or government.

UN Women remains steadfast in our determination to ensure that the rights of women and girls are fully observed and enjoyed worldwide, and we look forward to continued evidence-based engagement with our partners everywhere in support of rapid progress towards universal enjoyment of universal rights.

Sexual and reproductive health and rights
Women’s rights
Human rights

Six months into the war on Gaza, over 10,000 women have been killed, among them an estimated 6,000 mothers, leaving 19,000 children orphaned

UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous delivers closing remarks to the 68th session of the Commission on the Status of Women, UN headquarters, 27 March 2024. Photo: UN Women/Ryan Brown.

Speech: Gender equality – just, prudent, and essential for everything we all aspire to

UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous delivers opening remarks at the CSW68 side event, “Multistakeholder partnership and practices to push forward for gender equality, human rights and democracy”, UN headquarters, 20 March 2024. Photo: UN Women/Ryan Brown.

Speech: We are not deterred – Let us push forward together for gender equality

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Rom J Morphol Embryol
v.61(1); Jan-Mar 2020

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

Andreea mihaela niţă.

1 Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Craiova, Romania

Cristina Ilie Goga

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

The analysis of abortion by means of medical and social documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case study: Romania

Legal perspective on abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact situation in Romania

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reproductive behavior in Romania in 1989–2014

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

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

Maternal mortality estimation in Romania in 1990–2015

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

Opinion survey: women’s opinion on abortion

Argument for choosing the research theme

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

Examining the literature field of study

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

Formulation of hypotheses and objectives

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

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

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

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

Research methodology

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

Determination of the sample to be studied

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

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

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

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

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

Data collection

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

The analysis of the research results

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

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

Opinion on the possibility of carrying out an abortion

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

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

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

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

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

Abortion of a child vs. abortion of a fetus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential reasons for carrying out an abortion

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

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

Rate of abortion among women in the sample

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

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

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

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

Opinion on the consequences of abortion

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

Opinion on the legal regulation of abortion

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Wesleyan University Magazine

AUTHOR ESSAY: What Women Really Think About Abortion

The Abortion Myth was first published in Australia (Allen & Unwin, 1998) where I’ve been living for the last eleven years. However, the kernel of the book was formed in the country of my birth, the United States.

Aged fourteen, I remember accompanying my mother to the office of a local senate candidate to stuff envelopes for his reelection push. I don’t know if either of us even knew the candidate’s name, or what he stood for, beyond the fact that he was pro–choice. This was 1979, and the intentions of Ronald Reagan were already written on the wall, though few would have predicted how successful the anti–choice movement would become. If you’d asked me why I cared so passionately about the abortion issue, I almost certainly would have shrugged my shoulders in an irritated way and said “I don’t knooow.”

It took me a few years, but I think I now do know why the topic of abortion fascinates me. When I was younger I suspect I knew on some visceral level what I now know intellectually: that without full reproductive rights—and that includes abortion—women’s crusade for freedom and equality is beaten before it’s begun.

But the other reason I was and remain so spellbound by the abortion issue is that I never felt the whole story was being told. Yes, I surely believed— as I do now—that women have a right to choose an abortion, but I was unsure if abortion was a choice I could ever make. I remember during high school experiencing a great deal of confusion about these feelings and keeping them to myself for fear that voicing them would lead to my being mistaken for a “right–to–lifer.”

ARTIFICIAL WOMBS

Not long after I immigrated to Australia, I began a masters’ at the Centre for Human Bioethics at Monash University in Melbourne. One of the required texts was a book co–authored by Professor Peter Singer and Deane Wells called Making Babies: The New Science and Ethics of Conception (Scribner, 1985).

The authors speculated that in the future neo–natal incubators would be able to gestate very young fetuses, far younger than the 22–week–old ones currently salvaged by such technology. This would mean that women facing unplanned pregnancies would be able to evacuate their fetuses to such artificial wombs, rather than kill them through conventional abortion techniques. The authors predicted that artificial wombs would satisfy both the concerns of the anti–choice movement, by keeping the fetus alive, and the pro–choice feminists, by allowing women “to control their bodies.” Fetal evacuation would render abortion unethical.

Were they kidding? I can still remember how astounding I found these conclusions. Did Singer and Wells really think that unhappily pregnant women would see the artificial womb as solving the same problems solved by conventional abortion? How out of touch with the meaning to women of pregnancy, motherhood and abortion could they be? But it didn’t take me long to realize that the solution was of our own making. Pro–choice feminists had argued that the loss of bodily autonomy— or “control”—during nine months of unwanted pregnancy was the real problem with denying women abortion rights. They had never argued—had never needed to argue—that death of the fetus was essential. The artificial womb brought the central moral question of abortion to the forefront.

So I decided to do my master’s thesis, and later to write a book, on women’s views of the artificial womb, adoption, and abortion. Was my intuition correct that most—if not all— would reject the artificial womb for failing to solve what women saw as the real problems posed by unplanned pregnancy? Could and should feminist pro–choice rhetoric be adjusted to reflect women’s experiences and understandings of pregnancy and motherhood— and so their intentions and goals when deciding to abort?

To find out, I had to do what is done so rarely in abortion research—to ask women about their views and experience of abortion, and how they made sense of the issue ethically. I interviewed 45 women of child–bearing age, equally divided between pro–choice and antichoice. Their stories reveal that abortion is not straight–forward. They were clear that abortion is a difficult and a moral decision. The book is definitely prochoice, but the ethic spelled out comes from women in the “mushy middle,” those who know that women must have the right to choose, but recognize that with rights come responsibilities.

Heady topic, I know, but I made a spectacular effort to write the book in jargon–free English. Academic–jargon drives me crazy, and I figure that if this is my response to it, feelings among a lay audience must run even higher. My most treasured review of it came by word–of–mouth. Apparently the book made the rounds among the staff at one of the local Catholic hospitals. Most rated it “extremely balanced.”

Leslie Cannold, ’87 is a research fellow at the Centre for Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. Her column appears regularly in the Melbourne broadsheet The Age and occasionally in the Brisbane Courier Mail and Women’s E–news . She is heard weekly on ABC radio’s regional drive program. The working title of her next book, based on her doctoral thesis, is tentatively titled Women Who Choose Not To Have Children and Other 21st– Century Myths.

A new look at schizophrenia.

THINKING ABOUT CAMPUS, 1997 AND 2015

SCHOLAR ATHLETE ANDREW YIN ’15

Made by History

The Abortion Fight Isn’t a ‘War on Women.’ It’s a War on Poor Women

An activist seen holding a placard that says Stop The War On

O n April 9, Arizona’s supreme court ruled that its 1864 almost total abortion ban remains in place. That came a week after Florida’s supreme court upheld an abortion ban, triggering an even stricter six-week ban. The onslaught of anti-abortion laws and court decisions has led liberals like California Governor Gavin Newsom to assert that the political right has declared “a war on women .”

This concept isn’t new, but it actually distorts the history of anti-abortion legislation. Abortion regulations have never applied equally to all doctors or all women. Understanding this history reveals that today — as in the past — abortion bans affect both women and providers differently depending upon factors like their race, class, and social standing. The people impacted most have changed over time, but one thing has remained consistent: abortion restrictions are less a war on women than a war on poor women.

The conditions that created these class and social dynamics began to emerge almost two centuries ago. In 1829, for example, New York State enacted a law defining abortion as second-degree manslaughter — but only if the woman was “pregnant with a quick child,” that is, if she’d felt the fetus moving inside of her, something that typically happened around 20 weeks.

In the late 1850s, that law — and others like it — came under attack by Boston doctor Horatio R. Storer. In an 1859 essay, he argued that these laws defined the crime of abortion too leniently. “By the Moral Law, THE WILFUL KILLING OF A HUMAN BEING AT ANY STAGE OF ITS EXISTENCE IS MURDER.” He also argued, without evidence, that women could face dire medical consequences from an abortion, including, on occasion, death.

But Storer wasn’t just worried about women as a universal class. He reserved his greatest scorn for white middle- and upper-class women, whom he claimed were seeking abortions in greater numbers than poor and immigrant women. He claimed that middle-class women boasted to each other about their successful abortions, in the same way they might brag about a new dress or a social coup. In Storer’s view, these women who sought abortions were not just victims of a purportedly dangerous medical procedure, but dangerous criminals who were outside the reach of the law.

Read More: What to Know About the Arizona Supreme Court Abortion Ban Ruling

Storer’s anti-abortion activism occurred at a time when he and other “medical men” of similar social standing were attempting to professionalize medicine by implementing rigorous educational and training standards. As part of this push, these doctors hoped to take over what would become the lucrative fields of obstetrics and gynecology from female midwives and other providers they considered untrained and dangerous — those who Storer claimed “frequently cause abortion openly and without disguise.”

In Storer’s view, white, educated “medical men” like him had to seek justice as “the physical guardians of women and their offspring.” It was their responsibility to “stand… in the breach fast making in the public morality, decency, and conscience.” Behind these righteous pronouncements, though, lurked Storer’s unspoken fear: that if men like him did not intervene, middle-class wives would shirk their childbearing duties, leaving their husbands without heirs while poor and immigrant families swelled their ranks.

Storer spent the latter part of the 1850s, and much of the 1860s, organizing letter-writing campaigns by new professional medical societies, including state affiliates of the American Medical Association (AMA). He hoped to pressure states into passing ever-stricter abortion bans. In New York, the effort paid off in 1869 when the legislature made abortion second-degree manslaughter at any stage of pregnancy if it resulted in the death of the mother or the termination of the pregnancy.

In the fall of 1871, the new statute led to the conviction of abortion provider Jacob Rosenzweig for manslaughter in the death of Alice Bowlsby in New York City. Railway officials had found Bowlsby's body in a trunk bound for Chicago only days after the New York Times had published an exposé on abortionists, including Rosenzweig, titled “The Evil of the Age.”

The paper had described Rosenzweig as having a $40 degree, and purportedly knowing “more of the saloon business than of medicine.” Nonetheless, he did “a large business” — part of a “frightful profusion” of discreet abortions performed by untrained practitioners.

It took less than two hours for a jury to find Rosenzweig guilty, and a judge sentenced him to seven years’ hard labor in the Albany State Penitentiary, the maximum sentence possible.

Meanwhile, just weeks after Bowlsby's death, a young Albany waitress named Margaret Campbell died from an abortion performed by “Mrs. Dr. Emma Burleigh,” a well known abortionist. After colleagues of Burleigh’s tried to cover it up — including spiriting Campbell’s body away to an unmarked grave in the local cemetery — a second autopsy revealed that the young woman’s abdomen was inflamed, her uterus was missing, and her breasts were full of milk. A laceration was found in her vagina, “occupied by a clot of blood.”

The outcome for Burleigh, however, was very different than for Rosenzweig. Under cross-examination at the coroner’s inquest, she got the doctors who performed the autopsy to admit that alternate explanations existed for all of their findings. There was no definitive proof that Campbell had been pregnant, that she’d had an abortion, or that the operation had caused her death. The jury agreed that the cause of death was simple peritonitis , and Burleigh walked free.

The disparity between the two cases was no accident. The abortion statute really wasn’t about protecting women from unqualified practitioners, nor was it a war on women, as Storer might have hoped. Instead, it was a weapon of class warfare.

Rosenzweig was a Jewish immigrant — a dangerous outsider. Meanwhile, Burleigh — who lied about having a medical degree in advertisements, but had taken medical classes — was an educated white woman. That made her less of a threat to the native-born doctors like Storer who were working to consolidate medical authority under their own control.

Class also separated the two victims: Newspaper accounts of Bowlsby’s death painted her as a young lady from “respectable society,” with “relatives in the highest circles.” In other words, she was an ideal victim for the villain of the immigrant doctor. Campbell, by contrast, was, in the words of one prominent abortion opponent, an obscure Irish waitress who was “evidently…not of correct moral habits.”

Read More: How Ronald Reagan Helped Abortion Take Over the Republican Agenda

In 1872, New York toughened the law further, defining abortion as a felony with a possible sentence of 20 years in prison. Yet even under this law, wealthy, typically white women continued to seek and receive safe abortions. Often, it was trained male physicians of similar social and class standing who performed them without legal penalties. Strict enforcement of abortion laws didn’t ramp up until the mid-20th century , when medical care moved from private offices exclusive to a well-off clientele into public hospitals and clinics serving the poor along with the wealthy.

Understanding how New York’s abortion laws functioned in the 19th century creates a new perspective on abortion bans in 2024.

They, too, are far more of a weapon of class warfare than a war on all women.

Strict abortion bans are more likely to exist in states where a high number of women of childbearing age have incomes below 200% of the federal poverty line. Of the five states with the highest levels of poverty among women of childbearing age — Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, and New Mexico — all but New Mexico fall into the Guttmacher Institute’s “most restrictive” abortion law category. Poverty strengthens the effects of abortion bans, since poor women can’t afford to miss work, book travel, arrange childcare, and pay out of pocket for procedures if they do not have health insurance.

Abortion bans also exacerbate poverty. A University of California San Francisco study found that women denied an abortion saw an increase in poverty for at least four years and were more likely to see drops in their credit scores . These impacts don’t hurt poor women in isolation: abortion bans also put their children, their husbands, and their wider communities at a disadvantage by making the cycle of poverty harder to escape.

By contrast, just as in the 19th century, wealthier women — those who have health insurance, who can afford a pharmaceutical or surgical copay, and who have the means to take time off work and travel to a state with more lenient regulations — are far more insulated from the most potent and cascading impacts of abortion bans. So, too, are their families and communities.

As in the 19th century, class, hand in hand with race, provides a more useful lens of analysis for understanding abortion legislation in the U.S. In restricting abortion, “medical men” like Storer worked to consolidate medical authority among the white upper classes. Today, it is often men from a similarly high social and class standing, serving in state legislatures and on courts, who are once again pushing for abortion restrictions that most adversely impact Americans with less social and economic capital.

R.E. Fulton is an independent historian of medicine, gender, and crime whose work focuses on abortion practitioners in 19th-century New York. Their book The Abortionist of Howard Street , out May 2024 from Cornell University Press, studies the life and career of Josephine McCarty, alias Emma Burleigh.

Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here . Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors .

More Must-Reads From TIME

The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
The Revolution of Yulia Navalnaya
6 Compliments That Land Every Time
Stop Looking for Your Forever Home
If You're Dating Right Now , You're Brave: Column
The AI That Could Heal a Divided Internet
Fallout Is a Brilliant Model for the Future of Video Game Adaptations
Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Made by History / R.E. Fulton at [email protected]

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

Banning Abortion Doesn’t Protect Women’s Health

By Michele Goodwin

Ms. Goodwin is a professor of law at the University of California, Irvine, and the founding director of the U.C.I. Law Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy and its Reproductive Justice Initiative.

During its coming term, the Supreme Court will review the constitutionality of a Mississippi anti-abortion law that criminalizes abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Already in Mississippi, only one abortion clinic remains to serve the entire state. This new law, one of the most restrictive anti-abortion measures yet, provides no exemptions in cases of rape or incest. Many see it as the gravest threat to Roe v. Wade ever taken up by the Supreme Court. They are not wrong.

But this effort to dismantle Roe is not new, nor is it isolated. More than 550 anti-abortion restrictions have been put in place across the country since 2011. Each is part of a concerted, sweeping campaign in Republican-dominated state legislatures to dismantle reproductive rights — often presented in the name of protecting women. Take Mississippi’s attorney general, Lynn Fitch, who argued that the Legislature enacted the law “to promote women’s health and preserve the dignity and sanctity of life.”

But if concern for women’s health were truly driving this legislation, it would not be targeting abortion. A person is 14 times more likely to die by carrying a pregnancy to term than by legally induced abortion.

Black women bear the brunt of reproductive politicking in the United States. Nationally, they are over three times as likely to die because of pregnancy and labor complications as white women. That figure multiplies in states hostile to abortion rights. The 2019 Health of Women and Children Report ranked Mississippi 50th among the states overall in promoting the health of women, infants and children. Using abortion surveillance data compiled nationally, it quickly becomes clear that it is far more dangerous for Black women to give birth in Mississippi than it is for them to terminate a pregnancy.

There are implicit and explicit racial biases underpinning coercive reproductive rights legislation. In the middle of the last century, Black girls and women throughout the South experienced forced sterilizations, euphemistically referred to as Mississippi appendectomies . What we see today reflects centuries-old patterns of control and bargaining over the reproductive autonomy of Black women, dating back to slavery, denying Black women the dignity to govern their bodies and families. Black girls and women were commodities to be acted upon, and their reproductive capacities served as means of wealth maximization. However, slavery was not the endpoint, only the beginning of coercive policing of Black women’s reproduction.

And while Americans are coming to understand slavery’s enduring impact manifesting in the present (including but not limited to policing, wealth disparities and segregation), Black women have urged a deeper and more nuanced understanding about its continuity in reproductive policies and politics (for example, forced reproduction, compulsory sterilization and now anti-abortion laws that deny them the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy).

It is not a coincidence that anti-abortion legislation is often accompanied by wide racial disparities in Black women’s health. Indeed, Mississippi lawmakers could learn a great deal from the state’s Department of Health , which, as published in the Mississippi Maternal Mortality Report , found that from 2013 to 2016, Black women accounted for “nearly 80 percent of pregnancy-related cardiac deaths.”

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Black women are 60 percent “more likely to have high blood pressure, as compared to non-Hispanic white women.” For Black women experiencing economic and political vulnerabilities, these conditions may be compounded in states like Mississippi by stresses associated with the inability to afford child care, the rising costs of housing , food insecurity , a criminal justice system that has too frequently been an outsize presence in their lives and a political system historically designed to suppress their agency.

Yet even while Mississippi is at the bottom overall in women’s health, it is not the deadliest place to be pregnant in the United States. Texas, Georgia and Louisiana are even more dangerous. Like Mississippi, in recent years they have chipped away at reproductive health and rights, resulting in the closing of clinics that provide abortions as well as contraception, counseling, sexually transmitted infection testing and breast and cervical cancer screenings. The result is not only fewer abortion clinics in those states but also real-world, deadly consequences of diminished health care.

These problems have arisen even in states attentive to reproductive health, rights and justice. Consider California, one of the earliest states to enact legislation to protect reproductive health care and embed reproductive privacy in its Constitution. From 2006 to 2010 , nearly 150 incarcerated women were coercively sterilized, in violation of prison rules. According to one report, “the women were signed up for the surgery while they were pregnant” and were targeted for the procedure based on perceived risks of recidivism. California finally banned the practice in 2014.

Given this backdrop, Black women cannot take seriously the claims that anti-abortion laws have anything to do with promoting their health and protecting their rights. If lawmakers want to promote women’s health, they should be passing laws that address these enormous disparities in the safety of carrying (wanted) pregnancies to term and the illnesses that arise at the intersection of entrenched racism and economic vulnerability.

In the end, Black pregnant women pay steep costs of the enduring legacies of systemic racism and the political whims and agendas of men who govern their reproductive health and rights. And the dangers that lurk at the Supreme Court, where there has yet to be a Black woman to serve as a justice, could not be more pronounced.

Michele Goodwin is a chancellor’s professor of law at the University of California, Irvine, and the founding director of the U.C.I. Law Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy and its Reproductive Justice Initiative.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

International edition
Australia edition
Europe edition

People protest Arizona supreme court’s revival of a law dating to 1864 that bans abortion in virtually all instances.

Arizona reinstated a near-total ban on abortions. Providers are surprisingly optimistic

There is hope for a different future for abortion in the state even as Republicans flounder in their response

T he waiting room of the Acacia Women’s Center in Phoenix, Arizona , was calm and quiet on Friday. Patients sat with their mothers, friends or partners, paying no mind to the slapstick Tyler Perry movie on the TV and an arrangement of Vogue magazines resting on a table.

It had been three days since the state’s highest court reinstated an 1864 law that would ban almost all abortions and send abortion providers to prison for up to five years.

The revival of the 160-year-old statute has kickstarted deep uncertainty over the fate of clinics like Acacia, one of the few medical centers left providing abortions in the state.

Some of the women awaiting the procedure that day said they were deeply worried by the state supreme court’s decision. Others didn’t want to talk about it.

Dr Ronald Yunis, the obstetrician and gynecologist who owns the women’s center was nervous yet hopeful. Yes, the 1864 law is jeopardizing abortion access in his state. But he, like some other providers, believe it will eventually lead to abortion being enshrined in the state’s constitution. And if that happens, abortion rights in Arizona will be stronger than ever.

For now, Yunis is determined to keep performing abortions, which take up about half of his practice – at least until June, when the law is slated to take effect. In the meantime, abortions up to 15 weeks can be performed in accordance with a restrictive 2022 state law passed by conservative Republican lawmakers.

A conservative himself, Yunis once supported Republicans in the statehouse.

Now he calls them “idiots” who refuse to “shut their mouths about abortion”.

He’s sure Republican lawmakers will reverse course and vote to repeal the law despite having blocked an effort by Democrats to undo it last week. It’s “their only political play”, Yunis says, given the blowback from Arizona voters and weakened GOP candidates facing tight races in November.

It would take only a few Republicans to join forces with Democrats to knock the ancient statute down, the Arizona Republic reports , and lawmakers could start the process to repeal the law as early as Wednesday.

Even if the law is stricken from the books, abortion providers in Arizona face deep uncertainty. There is nothing preventing the passage of more anti-abortion measures in the future. And in a statehouse where an election-denying GOP lawmaker recently spoke in tongues with his anti-abortion “prayer team” in the senate chamber, anything is possible.

Arizona’s attorney general, Kris Mayes, a Democrat, has assured providers they will not be prosecuted for performing abortions as long as she is in office. But providers nevertheless fear that a subsequent attorney general might prosecute them for practicing abortion under Mayes’s watch if far-right leaders in the legislature either preserve the 1864 law or criminalize abortion with further legislation. There’s a seven-year statute of limitations for many crimes in Arizona.

Meanwhile, Republican leaders are flip-flopping on the issue. Kari Lake, the Arizona senate candidate, once ballyhooed the 1864 law. Now trailing her Democratic rival in the race, the congressman Ruben Gallego, in a US Senate race, she maintains the law is “out of step” with Arizonans. It might be an acknowledgment made too late. When polled in 2022, only 28% of voters in Arizona approved of the 1864 law.

Amid the uncertainty, providers say they are hanging their hopes on what’s become an increasingly effective way to undo bills passed by Republican legislators – relying on voters to enshrine abortion rights in state constitutions via ballot measures.

In the wake of the decision to reinstate the 1864 law, a popular proposed ballot measure giving Arizona voters the chance to add abortion rights to the state constitution in November is gaining momentum – even as Republicans strategize the measure’s defeat .

“This whole episode is so emblematic of how broken our political system is,” says Dr Paul Isaacson, of Family Planning Associates Medical Group in Phoenix.

Women hold signs against Kari Lake, the Arizona Republican Senate candidate, during a protest on 14 April 2024.

Isaacson, 65, a longtime abortion provider, says his medical group will continue offering services “until we can’t”.

Amid the uncertainty, Isaacson worries he might have to shut down for several months before the election brings more clarity about his future. If he shuts down, he will still have to pay rent and bills for leased equipment in his office. Worse, there may be painful layoffs of a small staff he calls a “second family”.

“It’s a very, very big deal,” he says.

Last week was nerve-racking, abortion providers say, but now they are taking a step back from the chaos and trying to figure out the best way to move forward in the short term.

Dr Gabrielle Goodrick, a physician who owns Camelback Family Practice, a clinic that provides one-third of the state’s abortions, says she was holding fostered kittens in her lap when she learned of the court’s decision to revive the 1864 law. Her initial reaction, she says, was “grief and shock”.

Setting aside her emotions, Goodrick began researching ways for her practice to stay open. She vows the clinic will not close its doors. In the worst-case scenario, she envisions it staying open to help women go to other states for abortions and to provide legal reproductive and healthcare needs to women in Arizona.

She’s looking for grants and funding possibilities that would help any staffers that might be let go, which would be the hardest part of any partial shutdown. Her 15 staffers, she says, “are fighters and I love all of them”.

Layoffs will not be necessary if Arizona voters cement abortion rights in the state constitution in November. And Goodrick has high hopes for the passage of the measure.

“I can feel the blue wave coming,” she says. “It’s very reassuring.”

That optimism is echoed by Dr Jill Gibson, chief medical officer at a Phoenix-based Planned Parenthood Arizona. The non-profit recently resumed providing abortions in Flagstaff, a city in northern Arizona’s “abortion care desert”.

It’s been two years since Planned Parenthood provided abortions in Flagstaff, and given the firestorm precipitated by the 1864 law, it could be risky to resume services. But Gibson is hanging her hopes on voters giving abortion constitutional protection in November.

“I am absolutely certain it will pass,” she says, noting that “when abortion is on the ballot it wins.”

Yunis, the abortion provider who owns the Acacia Women’s Center, likes a good fight. He’s fought for women’s rights for years, he says, and he’s not about to stop.

Several years ago, he allegedly pointed a gun at an anti-abortion protester “with a history of violence” blocking his car. Yunis claims self-defense. Still, the incident led to a misdemeanor conviction, scrutiny by the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners and getting dropped by Medicare. But it didn’t dampen his spirit.

Now, even amid the chaos caused by Arizona’s abortion ban machinations, he senses victory.

“We are going to see abortion as a constitutional amendment in Arizona,” he says. “There is no doubt now.”

Where the Future of Abortion Access Lies

Donald Trump recently tried to push responsibility onto the states, whose approaches continue to vary widely.

A group of protesters seen from behind raising signs and their fists, in front of the state capitol in St. Paul, Minnesota, in 2022

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

To win over more voters on the issue of abortion, Donald Trump has tried to push responsibility onto the states—whose varied approaches, even just in recent weeks, demonstrate the uncertain future of abortion access.

First, here are three new stories from The Atlantic :

Matt Gaetz is winning.
A child’s-eye view of 1970s debauchery
Larry David learned nothing, and neither did we.

A Question for the States

Donald Trump has a history of flip-flopping on abortion. On Monday, he released a video in which he claimed credit for the fall of Roe v. Wade before suggesting that abortion access should be left up to the states. He did not weigh in on whether he would support outlawing abortion on the federal level—a ban he’d favored during his 2016 campaign and first term. Then, pressed by reporters in Georgia yesterday , he said that, if elected, he wouldn’t sign a nationwide ban.

Trump seems to be responding to the political toxicity of harsh abortion restrictions, likely softening his current stance to win over more moderate and swing-state voters. Most Americans say in polling that they support legal access to abortion in some form, with certain limits, so his statements this week should be viewed not as some kind of fundamental shift, my colleague Elaine Godfrey advised, but as a purely political play.

“He knows which way the political winds are blowing, and they’re against the pro-life camp at this point,” she told me. Trump waited until after the Republican primaries to announce his stance, she explained, because he didn’t want to lose votes from social conservatives. “Now that he’s the presumptive nominee, he can afford to piss off a few anti-abortion people—in the pursuit of winning over moderates in a general” election, she said.

The fall of Roe has been steadily remaking America’s political landscape since 2022, energizing Democratic voters and turning swing areas blue. Seizing on the issue, the Biden campaign has released a series of emotionally wrenching ads telling the stories of American women who were denied access to abortions. One video , released on Monday, features a woman who developed sepsis after a miscarriage for which she was denied an abortion in Texas, where the procedure is banned in most instances. She may not be able to have another child as a result of the infection, and wept as the message “Donald Trump did this” appeared on the screen.

Abortion will shape the 2024 presidential election—and its outcome will determine access to reproductive health care across the country. Biden has promised to restore federal abortion rights if he wins, but such a vow faces massive challenges in today’s political landscape, including legal hurdles and right-wing objections. His success will not be guaranteed—and the measures he has tried to introduce during his current term have suffered from a fractured Congress.

Trump, for his part, has taken policy advice in the past from a group of anti-abortion activists and attorneys, and Elaine reminded me that they will seek to influence his policy decisions if he wins. A major focus of some anti-abortion activists’ efforts, as Elaine has written , would be to revive the Comstock Act, a mostly dormant law that prohibited the shipment of objects used for terminating or preventing pregnancies, effectively criminalizing abortion everywhere. “The idea seems to be that Trump is so uninterested in the technical details of abortion-related matters that he’ll rely on this trusty circle of advisers to shape policy,” she wrote earlier this year. (He privately signaled in February that he supported the idea of a national 16-week ban—in part because he reportedly liked how the even number sounded.)

For the past two years, the issue of abortion access has largely been left up to the states. Americans now face a wide range of reproductive-health restrictions depending on where they live. By last summer, some 25 million women were living in states where abortions had become harder to get. Fourteen states , largely conservative strongholds in the South and West, currently ban abortion in almost all circumstances, and another seven states restrict the procedure earlier in pregnancy than the limit set by Roe .

On Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a particularly restrictive law from the Civil War era—before women could vote—could be reinstated. The law bans nearly all abortions, with no exceptions for rape or incest, and providing an abortion would be a felony that could carry a two-to-five-year prison sentence. Earlier this month, Florida’s top court issued a ruling that allowed for a six-week abortion ban to soon take effect. The state’s ruling also requires any abortion pills to be dispensed in person, effectively outlawing mail orders of the medication.

The overturning of Roe has injected chaos into an established element of American life. Abortion-related ballot measures are expected in a swath of states this fall, and the future of abortion access remains unsettled on the federal level. Now abortion rights are an open question for the states to answer.

A plan to outlaw abortion everywhere
Anti-abortion conservatives’ first target if Trump returns

Today’s News

A vote on a bill to reauthorize a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act failed to pass the House yesterday. Despite House Speaker Mike Johnson advocating for its passage, 19 Republicans voted against the measure.
A senior U.S. military commander arrived in Israel amid fears that Iran will retaliate for a strike in Syria that killed several Iranian commanders earlier this month.
O. J. Simpson, the retired football player acquitted of killing his former wife and her friend in 1995, died at age 76 from cancer.
Time-Travel Thursdays : Faith Hill dug through The Atlantic ’s archival musings on dating. It turns out that romance in America has never been easy .
The Weekly Planet : New federal rules require public systems to measure and mitigate PFAS, Zoë Schlanger writes. The U.S. is about to uncover a crisis in drinking water .

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read

What O. J. Simpson Means to Me

By Ta-Nehisi Coates

( From 2016 )

My reaction to O. J. Simpson’s arrest for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman was atypical. It was 1994. I was a young black man attending a historically black university in the majority-black city of Washington, D.C., with zero sympathy for Simpson, zero understanding of the sympathy he elicited from my people, and zero appreciation for the defense team’s claim that Simpson had been targeted because he was black … Two things, it seemed to me, could be true at once: Simpson was a serial abuser who killed his ex-wife, and the Los Angeles Police Department was a brutal army of occupation. So why was it that the latter seemed to be all that mattered, and what did it have to do with Simpson, who lived a life far beyond the embattled ghettos of L.A.?

Read the full article.

Regions & Countries

Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion: an argument for abortion rights featuring the rev. carlton veazey.

Since the Supreme Court’s historic 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade , the issue of a woman’s right to an abortion has fostered one of the most contentious moral and political debates in America. Opponents of abortion rights argue that life begins at conception – making abortion tantamount to homicide. Abortion rights advocates, in contrast, maintain that women have a right to decide what happens to their bodies – sometimes without any restrictions.

To explore the case for abortion rights, the Pew Forum turns to the Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, who for more than a decade has been president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Based in Washington, D.C., the coalition advocates for reproductive choice and religious freedom on behalf of about 40 religious groups and organizations. Prior to joining the coalition, Veazey spent 33 years as a pastor at Zion Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.

A counterargument explaining the case against abortion rights is made by the Rev. J. Daniel Mindling, professor of moral theology at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary.

Featuring: The Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, President, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Interviewer: David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Question & Answer

Can you explain how your Christian faith informs your views in support of abortion rights?

I grew up in a Christian home. My father was a Baptist minister for many years in Memphis, Tenn. One of the things that he instilled in me – I used to hear it so much – was free will, free will, free will. It was ingrained in me that you have the ability to make choices. You have the ability to decide what you want to do. You are responsible for your decisions, but God has given you that responsibility, that option to make decisions.

I had firsthand experience of seeing black women and poor women being disproportionately impacted by the fact that they had no choices about an unintended pregnancy, even if it would damage their health or cause great hardship in their family. And I remember some of them being maimed in back-alley abortions; some of them died. There was no legal choice before Roe v. Wade .

But in this day and time, we have a clearer understanding that men and women are moral agents and equipped to make decisions about even the most difficult and complex matters. We must ensure a woman can determine when and whether to have children according to her own conscience and religious beliefs and without governmental interference or coercion. We must also ensure that women have the resources to have a healthy, safe pregnancy, if that is their decision, and that women and families have the resources to raise a child with security.

The right to choose has changed and expanded over the years since Roe v. Wade . We now speak of reproductive justice – and that includes comprehensive sex education, family planning and contraception, adequate medical care, a safe environment, the ability to continue a pregnancy and the resources that make that choice possible. That is my moral framework.

You talk about free will, and as a Christian you believe in free will. But you also said that God gave us free will and gave us the opportunity to make right and wrong choices. Why do you believe that abortion can, at least in some instances, be the right choice?

Dan Maguire, a former Jesuit priest and professor of moral theology and ethics at Marquette University, says that to have a child can be a sacred choice, but to not have a child can also be a sacred choice.

And these choices revolve around circumstances and issues – like whether a person is old enough to care for a child or whether a woman already has more children than she can care for. Also, remember that medical circumstances are the reason many women have an abortion – for example, if they are having chemotherapy for cancer or have a life-threatening chronic illness – and most later-term abortions occur because of fetal abnormalities that will result in stillbirth or the death of the child. These are difficult decisions; they’re moral decisions, sometimes requiring a woman to decide if she will risk her life for a pregnancy.

Abortion is a very serious decision and each decision depends on circumstances. That’s why I tell people: I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. And that’s an important distinction.

You’ve talked about the right of a woman to make a choice. Does the fetus have any rights?

First, let me say that the religious, pro-choice position is based on respect for human life, including potential life and existing life.

But I do not believe that life as we know it starts at conception. I am troubled by the implications of a fetus having legal rights because that could pit the fetus against the woman carrying the fetus; for example, if the woman needed a medical procedure, the law could require the fetus to be considered separately and equally.

From a religious perspective, it’s more important to consider the moral issues involved in making a decision about abortion. Also, it’s important to remember that religious traditions have very different ideas about the status of the fetus. Roman Catholic doctrine regards a fertilized egg as a human being. Judaism holds that life begins with the first breath.

What about at the very end of a woman’s pregnancy? Does a fetus acquire rights after the point of viability, when it can survive outside the womb? Or let me ask it another way: Assuming a woman is healthy and her fetus is healthy, should the woman be able to terminate her pregnancy until the end of her pregnancy?

There’s an assumption that a woman would end a viable pregnancy carelessly or without a reason. The facts don’t bear this out. Most abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Late abortions are virtually always performed for the most serious medical and health reasons, including saving the woman’s life.

But what if such a case came before you? If you were that woman’s pastor, what would you say?

I would talk to her in a helpful, positive, respectful way and help her discuss what was troubling her. I would suggest alternatives such as adoption.

Let me shift gears a little bit. Many Americans have said they favor a compromise, or reaching a middle-ground policy, on abortion. Do you sympathize with this desire and do you think that both sides should compromise to end this rancorous debate?

I have been to more middle-ground and common-ground meetings than I can remember and I’ve never been to one where we walked out with any decision.

That being said, I think that we all should agree that abortion should be rare. How do we do that? We do that by providing comprehensive sex education in schools and in religious congregations and by ensuring that there is accurate information about contraception and that contraception is available. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress has not been willing to pass a bill to fund comprehensive sex education, but they are willing to put a lot of money into failed and harmful abstinence-only programs that often rely on scare tactics and inaccurate information.

Former Surgeon General David Satcher has shown that abstinence-only programs do not work and that we should provide young people with the information to protect themselves. Education that stresses abstinence and provides accurate information about contraception will reduce the abortion rate. That is the ground that I stand on. I would say that here is a way we can work together to reduce the need for abortions.

Abortion has become central to what many people call the “culture wars.” Some consider it to be the most contentious moral issue in America today. Why do many Catholics, evangelical Christians and other people of faith disagree with you?

I was raised to respect differing views so the rigid views against abortion are hard for me to understand. I will often tell someone on the other side, “I respect you. I may disagree with your theological perspective, but I respect your views. But I think it’s totally arrogant for you to tell me that I need to believe what you believe.” It’s not that I think we should not try to win each other over. But we have to respect people’s different religious beliefs.

But what about people who believe that life begins at conception and that terminating a pregnancy is murder? For them, it may not just be about respecting or tolerating each other’s viewpoints; they believe this is an issue of life or death. What do you say to people who make that kind of argument?

I would say that they have a right to their beliefs, as do I. I would try to explain that my views are grounded in my religion, as are theirs. I believe that we must ensure that women are treated with dignity and respect and that women are able to follow the dictates of their conscience – and that includes their reproductive decisions. Ultimately, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that women have the ability to make decisions of conscience and have access to reproductive health services.

Some in the anti-abortion camp contend that the existence of legalized abortion is a sign of the self-centeredness and selfishness of our age. Is there any validity to this view?

Although abortion is a very difficult decision, it can be the most responsible decision a person can make when faced with an unintended pregnancy or a pregnancy that will have serious health consequences.

Depending on the circumstances, it might be selfish to bring a child into the world. You know, a lot of people say, “You must bring this child into the world.” They are 100 percent supportive while the child is in the womb. As soon as the child is born, they abort the child in other ways. They abort a child through lack of health care, lack of education, lack of housing, and through poverty, which can drive a child into drugs or the criminal justice system.

So is it selfish to bring children into the world and not care for them? I think the other side can be very selfish by neglecting the children we have already. For all practical purposes, children whom we are neglecting are being aborted.

This transcript has been edited for clarity, spelling and grammar.

Sign up for our Religion newsletter

Sent weekly on Wednesday

Key facts about the abortion debate in america, public opinion on abortion, three-in-ten or more democrats and republicans don’t agree with their party on abortion, partisanship a bigger factor than geography in views of abortion access locally, do state laws on abortion reflect public opinion, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Florida voters will decide on abortion rights this fall. Here's what some are saying

Danielle Prieur

Organizers say that more than 1,000 people were in attendance at a rally for abortion rights in Orlando, Fla. on Saturday, April 13. Danielle Prieur/Central Florida Public Media hide caption

Organizers say that more than 1,000 people were in attendance at a rally for abortion rights in Orlando, Fla. on Saturday, April 13.

ORLANDO, Fla. – Earlier this month, the Florida Supreme Court released two decisions that could significantly change abortion rights in the state.

Justices triggered a 6-week abortion ban to take effect May 1 by upholding the state's 15-week restrictions. The same day, justices ruled that Amendment 4, which would protect abortion up to 24 weeks, can appear before voters on the ballot in November.

If approved, the amendment would add the following language to the state's constitution: "No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider."

Voters on both sides of the issue showed up at a rally in downtown Orlando over the weekend.

"Yes on 4" supporters

Organizers of the "Yes on 4" campaign said about 1,500 people came out to support the amendment, including Gail Quinn.

Gail Quinn and friends from her condo association say they are voting "Yes" on Amendment 4. Danielle Prieur/Central Florida Public Media hide caption

Gail Quinn and friends from her condo association say they are voting "Yes" on Amendment 4.

Quinn carried a sign that said, "We Aren't Ovary Acting!!!" and brought a group of women from her condo association who support the amendment.

"They should have the right to determine whether they bring a child into the world or whether they need an abortion for other healthcare reasons," Quinn said about pregnant people.

Anne Pierre drove several hours from Palm Beach County to attend the rally in Central Florida. Her sign read, "Stop Political Interference."

Pierre said she's encouraging everyone in Florida to vote "Yes" on Amendment 4.

Anne Pierre is a "Yes" vote on 4. She drove up from South Florida for the rally. Danielle Prieur/Central Florida Public Media hide caption

Anne Pierre is a "Yes" vote on 4. She drove up from South Florida for the rally.

"This is a democratic country where everybody has the right," Pierre said. "No one has the right to make a decision for a woman to know when they should carry a baby or not. At the end of the day, they will be the one taking care of it."

"No on 4" supporters

Wearing white, dozens of counter-protesters were also at the rally. Many held rosaries and crosses and called on voters to reject the amendment.

Alma McCormick held a sign that read "Vote No on 4," and "Amendment 4 = Abortion on Demand."

McCormick said she strongly disagrees with allowing abortion up to 24 weeks and will vote "No" on the amendment.

Alma McCormick said she is voting "No" on Amendment 4. Danielle Prieur/Central Florida Public Media hide caption

Alma McCormick said she is voting "No" on Amendment 4.

"It makes me not only sad, but it also makes me feel really bad for humanity. Because human life is for everyone, and the fact that some people don't really respect human life at any stage is really unbelievable at this point," McCormick said.

Christine Crafton also opposes the amendment. She held a sign that said, "Say No, Absolutely Not, to Abortion Amendment 4."

She's worried the amendment would make abortion too readily accessible in the state, well into the second trimester.

"This particular amendment is particularly offensive because it just totally opens up the door to a rather cavalier decision to abort one's child," Crafton said.

Police oversee the rally at Lake Eola Park in Orlando where protesters and counter-protesters engaged in a heated debate over Amendment 4. Danielle Prieur/Central Florida Public Media hide caption

Police oversee the rally at Lake Eola Park in Orlando where protesters and counter-protesters engaged in a heated debate over Amendment 4.

Crafton said she wishes the state would do more to educate women on other options, outside of abortion.

Amendments in Florida only pass if 60% or more of voters approve them. That's a higher bar than most other states, including Michigan and Ohio where voters passed amendments enshrining abortion rights in their state constitutions.

If it passes in November, Amendment 4 will overturn both the 15-week and 6-week abortion bans.

Florida is one of about a dozen states with an effort to get abortion rights on the ballot this fall.

Danielle Prieur is a reporter at Central Florida Public Media in Orlando.

Abortion Pros and Cons

This essay about the abortion debate examines the complex array of perspectives surrounding the topic. It into the arguments of advocates for abortion rights, who emphasize bodily autonomy and the necessity of safe abortion services. Conversely, opponents assert the sanctity of life from conception and express concerns about the societal implications of abortion. The essay also touches on the practical realities faced by marginalized communities and the challenges policymakers encounter in reconciling divergent viewpoints within legal frameworks. Ultimately, it emphasizes the importance of dialogue and understanding in navigating this contentious issue.

How it works

Exploring the labyrinthine terrain of the abortion discourse, one is confronted with a kaleidoscope of divergent viewpoints, each casting its own unique shadow on the broader tapestry of ethical contemplation. Amidst the cacophony of voices, individuals grapple with the intricate interplay of personal autonomy, the sanctity of life, and the societal ramifications of reproductive choice.

Advocates for abortion rights champion the cause of bodily autonomy, vigorously defending a woman’s prerogative to make decisions regarding her own body free from external coercion.

At the heart of their advocacy lies the conviction that access to safe and legal abortion services is paramount for safeguarding women’s health and well-being. They underscore the dire consequences of restricting abortion access, shining a light on the harrowing realities of unsafe procedures and the grave risks they pose. For proponents of abortion rights, the ability to control one’s reproductive destiny is not merely a matter of convenience but an indispensable human right, pivotal for advancing gender equality and societal progress.

Conversely, opponents of abortion frame their argument within the framework of moral absolutism, contending that every embryo and fetus possesses an intrinsic right to life that must be fiercely protected. Rooted in religious doctrine and philosophical reflection, the pro-life stance upholds the sanctity of human existence from the moment of conception. From this perspective, abortion is not merely a medical procedure but a moral transgression of profound magnitude, tantamount to the extinguishing of a nascent life before it has had the opportunity to blossom.

Beyond the theoretical debates, the abortion discourse spills over into the realm of practical realities, where socio-economic disparities and systemic inequities loom large over reproductive decision-making. For marginalized communities grappling with limited access to healthcare and educational opportunities, unwanted pregnancies can exacerbate existing hardships and perpetuate cycles of poverty and disenfranchisement. Advocates for abortion rights argue that denying women the autonomy to terminate unwanted pregnancies only serves to deepen inequalities and deprive them of agency over their own destinies.

Conversely, opponents of abortion raise poignant concerns about the societal consequences of normalizing what they perceive as the termination of innocent life. They point to research suggesting potential psychological ramifications for women who undergo abortions, cautioning against the emotional toll of a decision freighted with profound moral implications. From their perspective, society must prioritize the protection of vulnerable lives and offer support and resources to women facing unplanned pregnancies, rather than promoting abortion as a solution to complex social challenges.

As the pendulum of public opinion swings and policymakers grapple with the task of navigating competing values within the framework of law and governance, finding common ground on the issue of abortion remains an elusive aspiration. Yet, amidst the cacophony of discordant voices, there exists an opportunity for dialogue and understanding—a chance to transcend entrenched ideologies and embrace the multifaceted complexity of the human experience.

In conclusion, the abortion discourse serves as a crucible for grappling with the fundamental questions that define our shared humanity. It is a testament to our capacity for empathy, compassion, and reasoned deliberation in the face of profound moral disagreement. As we navigate the ethically charged terrain of abortion, let us strive to approach this contentious issue with humility, empathy, and a willingness to engage with perspectives that challenge our own. For it is through such dialogue and introspection that we may hope to forge a path towards a more just and equitable society for all.

Cite this page

Abortion Pros and Cons. (2024, Apr 07). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-pros-and-cons/

"Abortion Pros and Cons." PapersOwl.com , 7 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-pros-and-cons/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Abortion Pros and Cons . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-pros-and-cons/ [Accessed: 18 Apr. 2024]

"Abortion Pros and Cons." PapersOwl.com, Apr 07, 2024. Accessed April 18, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-pros-and-cons/

"Abortion Pros and Cons," PapersOwl.com , 07-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-pros-and-cons/. [Accessed: 18-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Abortion Pros and Cons . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-pros-and-cons/ [Accessed: 18-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Opinion Arizona’s conservatives brought this political nightmare on themselves

The problem bedeviling Republicans on abortion right now isn’t leaving the contentious issue to the states. It’s leaving abortion rights in the hands of state supreme courts, which Republicans have carefully remolded in a more conservative direction — one that is now inflicting untold political damage on the party.

The country’s been reminded over the past few years about the critical role state courts play in overseeing fractious issues, from drawing voting districts to refereeing abortion rights. That’s made state high courts, especially in states where justices are elected, new political battlegrounds, with multimillion-dollar campaigns. In Wisconsin, the battle for control over the state Supreme Court last year cost an eye-popping $51 million and shifted control to liberals for the first time in 15 years.

I have sharply criticized judicial elections, but at least that method gives voters some say in what rights they are granted. What’s happened in recent days in Florida and Arizona is the predictable and intended result of a different and more insidious form of politicization of the judiciary: court-packing by Republican governors.

The effectiveness of that tactic was on vivid display this week in Arizona. For more than a half-century, the state had five Supreme Court justices. Then came Republican Gov. Doug Ducey. In 2016, the Republican-controlled state legislature — over the objections of the sitting justices — expanded the court to seven. As a result, Ducey was able to name five of the seven justices sitting today; the other two were named by his Republican predecessor, Jan Brewer.

Ducey rejected suggestions that he was engaging in court-packing, noting that an independent merit selection panel screens candidates and sends recommendations to him. But as a prescient 2020 Politico Magazine story recounted , Ducey made it a goal to shift the Supreme Court to the right. When the judicial nominating commission rejected the application of Bill Montgomery, a prosecutor allied with former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Ducey replaced the three commissioners who had voted against Montgomery — and proceeded to name Montgomery to the high court.

That effort paid off — or backfired — this week. The court reinstated Arizona’s 1864 abortion law , which prohibits the procedure except to save the life of the mother. After initially resisting calls to step aside, Montgomery recused himself on the basis of previous statements he had made on abortion, including calling Planned Parenthood, a party in the case, “responsible for the greatest generational genocide known to man.”

But four Ducey appointees were still left — and they voted as a bloc to revive the Civil War-era abortion law. The majority professed to be following a course of judicial restraint. “A policy matter of this gravity must ultimately be resolved by our citizens through the legislature or the initiative process,” wrote Justice John R. Lopez IV. “Today, we decline to make this weighty policy decision because such judgments are reserved for our citizens. Instead, we merely follow our limited constitutional role and duty to interpret the law as written.”

Of course, the “citizens” whose judgment the court respected didn’t include women — they couldn’t vote in 1864. Arizona wouldn’t become a state until 47 years later.

The Arizona court didn’t have to come out this way, even after the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization . In 2022, as the Supreme Court was considering Dobbs, Arizona passed a new law — it didn’t take effect until after Dobbs was decided — that prohibited abortion, “except in a medical emergency,” after 15 weeks. There was no hint in that measure that this new law would suddenly become inoperative if Roe were overturned. No “trigger” mechanism, like those adopted in other states, provided that the 1864 law would spring back to life if Roe were overruled.

The majority’s contention to the contrary rests on an accompanying “construction provision” stating that the 2022 law didn’t repeal the earlier ban. As the dissenting justices noted, however, the legislature could have easily said it wanted to revive the absolute abortion ban if Roe were gone. “Undoubtedly, the legislature knew how to use trigger clauses because it has explicitly inserted them into other abortion-related session laws,” the dissent said.

This isn’t judicial restraint — it’s judicial activism. And now Arizona Republicans are reaping what Ducey and his allies sowed.

The same is happening in Florida, although the goings-on there have received less attention. Like in Arizona, all seven justices on the Florida Supreme Court were named by Republican governors, five by Gov. Ron DeSantis .

The governor has made reshaping the judiciary a central part of his tenure — “Judicial activism ends, right here and right now,” DeSantis pledged in his inaugural address — and his picks have shifted the court sharply to the right. “A newly constituted, conservative court,” with appointments “I hoped would judge in the mold of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,” DeSantis wrote in his book.

Hence, the latest pair of abortion rulings this month from the Florida Supreme Court. In one case, the court rejected a challenge to the state’s 15-week abortion law — a decision that effectively allows a new, even stricter six-week ban to go into effect. In the second case, the court permitted a proposed constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights to appear on the November ballot.

This might sound like a split-the-difference approach. Don’t be fooled. In the ballot measure case, three dissenting justices, all appointed by DeSantis, raised the question , not posed by the advocates themselves, of whether and how the Florida Constitution protects the rights of fetuses — a claim of “fetal personhood” that came up in the Alabama in vitro fertilization case and that is the next frontier in the legal abortion wars.

“The exercise of a ‘right’ to an abortion literally results in a devastating infringement on the right of another person: the right to live,” wrote Justice Renatha Francis. “And our Florida Constitution recognizes that ‘life’ is a ‘basic right’ for ‘all natural persons.’ One must recognize the unborn’s competing right to life and the State’s moral duty to protect that life.” Justice Jamie Grosshans, joined by Justice Meredith Sasso, said it wasn’t yet clear how Florida’s constitutional protections “apply to the unborn and, if so, what the scope of those rights could be.”

That’s just three. But a fourth DeSantis appointee who ruled to allow the ballot measure to go forward, Chief Justice Carlos G. Muñiz, raised the question of fetal rights at oral argument, and an ominous footnote in the majority opinion noted that the “constitutional status of a preborn child … presents complex and unsettled questions.”

In other words, don’t count on us upholding your ballot measure even if it does get the required 60 percent vote. So much for letting the people decide.

Opinion | A stunning victory with the shield creates an opening for Israel April 14, 2024 Opinion | A stunning victory with the shield creates an opening for Israel April 14, 2024
Opinion | I have some better questions for potential Trump jurors April 15, 2024 Opinion | I have some better questions for potential Trump jurors April 15, 2024
Opinion | This might be Trump’s most inflationary, economically destructive idea yet April 16, 2024 Opinion | This might be Trump’s most inflationary, economically destructive idea yet April 16, 2024

IMAGES

≫ Legalization of Abortion Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
⇉Abortion And A Womens Right To Choose Essay Example
Essay on Abortion: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Perspectives
What are late-term abortions and who gets them?
Abortion law map: 'Roe v. Wade' made it legal, but 43 states limit it
I had an abortion. Why is none of your business.

COMMENTS

How Abortion Changed the Arc of Women's Lives
Legal abortion means that the law recognizes a woman as a person. It says that she belongs to herself. Most obviously, it means that a woman has a safe recourse if she becomes pregnant as a result ...
Abortion Care in the United States
Abortion services are a vital component of reproductive health care. Since the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in Dobbs v.Jackson Women's Health Organization, access to abortion services has been increasingly restricted in the United States. Jung and colleagues review current practice and evidence on medication abortion, procedural abortion, and associated reproductive health care, as well as ...
US: Abortion Access is a Human Right
Q&A: Access to Abortion is a Human Right. "Guaranteeing access to abortion is not only a public health imperative, it is a human rights imperative as well," said Macarena Sáez, women's ...
Key facts about abortion views in the U.S.
Women (66%) are more likely than men (57%) to say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to the survey conducted after the court's ruling. More than half of U.S. adults - including 60% of women and 51% of men - said in March that women should have a greater say than men in setting abortion policy.
Opinion
The Case Against Abortion. Nov. 30, 2021. Crosses representing abortions in Lindale, Tex. Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times. Share full article. 3367. By Ross Douthat. Opinion Columnist. A ...
What can economic research tell us about the effect of abortion access
Introduction. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization considers the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law that prohibits women from accessing abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy ...
Abortion
Abortion is a common health intervention. It is safe when carried out using a method recommended by WHO, appropriate to the pregnancy duration and by someone with the necessary skills. Six out of 10 of all unintended pregnancies end in an induced abortion. Around 45% of all abortions are unsafe, of which 97% take place in developing countries.
Q&A: Access to Abortion is a Human Right
Human Rights Watch believes that reproductive rights are human rights, including the right to access to abortion. States have the obligation to provide women, girls, and other pregnant people with ...
2. Social and moral considerations on abortion
Social and moral considerations on abortion. Relatively few Americans view the morality of abortion in stark terms: Overall, just 7% of all U.S. adults say abortion is morally acceptable in all cases, and 13% say it is morally wrong in all cases. A third say that abortion is morally wrong in most cases, while about a quarter (24%) say it is ...
Access to safe abortion is a fundamental human right
Abortion is a common medical or surgical intervention used to terminate pregnancy. Although a controversial and widely debated topic, approximately 73 million induced abortions occur worldwide each year, with 29% of all pregnancies and over 60% of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion. Abortions are considered safe if they are carried out using a method recommended by WHO, appropriate to ...
To Be Pro-Choice, You Must Have the Privilege of Having Choices
Reproductive justice has always been more than just being "pro-choice.". To be pro-choice you must have the privilege of having choices. The fight for reproductive justice must be led by those ...
'The Pro-Life Generation': Young Women Fight Against Abortion Rights
July 3, 2022. DALLAS — The rollback of abortion rights has been received by many American women with a sense of shock and fear, and warnings about an ominous decline in women's status as full ...
Views on whether abortion should be legal, and in what circumstances
As the long-running debate over abortion reaches another key moment at the Supreme Court and in state legislatures across the country, a majority of U.S. adults continue to say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.About six-in-ten Americans (61%) say abortion should be legal in "all" or "most" cases, while 37% think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
We must all support women in the fight for abortion
23·7% of US women will have an abortion by the age of 45 years and 926 000 abortions were done in the USA in 2014. Restrictions will hit poor women and women of colour the hardest. UN human rights spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani went as far as to call them "inherently discriminatory" in an interview with Reuters Television on May 21. The ...
Key Facts on Abortion in the United States
Black women comprised 42% of abortion recipients, White women 30% , Hispanic women 22%, and 7% women of other races/ethnicities. Many women who sought abortions have children. More than six in 10 ...
Reproductive Rights and Abortion
Mexican State Becomes 12th to Decriminalize Abortion. Reproductive rights are essential for women to enjoy their human rights. These rights are centered on women's ability to make the best ...
The First Amendment and the Abortion Rights Debate
Sofia Cipriano. Following Dobbs v.Jackson's (2022) reversal of Roe v.Wade (1973) — and the subsequent revocation of federal abortion protection — activists and scholars have begun to reconsider how to best ground abortion rights in the Constitution. In the past year, numerous Jewish rights groups have attempted to overturn state abortion bans by arguing that abortion rights are protected ...
Statement: Reproductive rights are women's rights and human rights
Statement: Reproductive rights are women's rights and human rights. 24 June 2022. Reproductive rights are integral to women's rights, a fact that is upheld by international agreements and reflected in law in different parts of the world. To be able to exercise their human rights and make essential decisions, women need to be able to decide ...
A research on abortion: ethics, legislation and socio-medical outcomes
A percentage of 3.3% of women had different reasons for abortion, as follows: age difference too large between children, career, marital status, etc. Asked later whether they regretted the abortion, a rate of 69.6% of women who said they had at least one abortion regret it (34.8% opted for "Yes", and 34.8% said "Yes, partially"). 26.1% ...
AUTHOR ESSAY: What Women Really Think About Abortion
Pro-choice feminists had argued that the loss of bodily autonomy— or "control"—during nine months of unwanted pregnancy was the real problem with denying women abortion rights. They had never argued—had never needed to argue—that death of the fetus was essential. The artificial womb brought the central moral question of abortion ...
The Abortion Fight Is a War on Poor Women
By Made by History / R.E. Fulton. April 15, 2024 9:00 AM EDT. O n April 9, Arizona's supreme court ruled that its 1864 almost total abortion ban remains in place. That came a week after Florida ...
Banning Abortion Doesn't Protect Women's Health
Guest Essay. Banning Abortion Doesn't Protect Women's Health. July 9, 2021. ... Section A, Page 18 of the New York edition with the headline: Banning Abortion Hurts Black Women's Health.
Arizona reinstated a near-total ban on abortions. Providers are
Women hold signs against Kari Lake, the Arizona Republican Senate candidate, during a protest on Sunday. Photograph: Rebecca Noble/Reuters. Isaacson, 65, a longtime abortion provider, says his ...
Where the future of abortion access lies
My reaction to O. J. Simpson's arrest for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman was atypical. It was 1994. I was a young black man attending a historically black ...
'Trump did this': abortion ruling hands Biden opening in Arizona
The Biden campaign last week announced a "seven-figure" investment in an ad campaign in Arizona to attack Trump on the issue, including television spots and billboards in English and Spanish ...
Pro-Choice Does Not Mean Pro-Abortion: An Argument for Abortion Rights
Abortion rights advocates, in contrast, maintain that women have a right to decide what happens to their bodies - sometimes without any restrictions. To explore the case for abortion rights, the Pew Forum turns to the Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, who for more than a decade has been president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice ...
Florida abortion rights campaign for Amendment 4 kicks off : NPR
The campaign to amend Florida's constitution to protect abortion rights kicked off in Orlando, attracting voters on both sides of the issue. The ballot question needs 60% approval to pass.
Abortion Pros and Cons
In conclusion, the abortion discourse serves as a crucible for grappling with the fundamental questions that define our shared humanity. It is a testament to our capacity for empathy, compassion, and reasoned deliberation in the face of profound moral disagreement. As we navigate the ethically charged terrain of abortion, let us strive to ...
Opinion
The problem bedeviling Republicans on abortion right now isn't leaving the contentious issue to the states. It's leaving abortion rights in the hands of state supreme courts, which Republicans ...