Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC International Health and Human Rights 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

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

Authors: Antonella F. Lavelanet, Stephanie Schlitt, Brooke Ronald Johnson Jr, Bela Ganatra

Published in: BMC International Health and Human Rights | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

The GAPD reflects details that exist within countries’ laws and highlights the nuance within legal categories of abortion; no assumptions are made as to how laws are interpreted or applied in practice. By examining the text of the law, additional complexities related to the legal categories of abortion become more apparent.
Footnotes
1
Information in the GAPD changes as new sources are received and verified.
 
2
‘Other’ includes countries with caveats, stipulations or countries where additional qualifications linked to a woman’s request are required; these countries are not represented as having abortion on request in the GAPD. Results for these countries are presented as an access ground based on a specific legal indication.
 
3
In Tajikistan, an order of the Minister of Health containing National Standards for safe abortion and post abortion care exist and may contain information related to gestational limits, but is not reflected here as this source could not be translated.
 
4
Africa: Malawi and Uganda; Oceania: Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.
 
5
Africa: Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, Malawi, South Sudan, Uganda; Asia: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Lebanon, Myanmar, Oman, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen; Europe: Ireland; Latin America and Caribbean: Guatemala, Paraguay, and Venezuela; Oceania: Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, and Solomon Islands.
 
6
Argentina, Bolivia, Chad, Columbia, Ecuador, Hungary, Iceland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay.
 
7
Bulgaria, Cuba, Czech Republic, Guyana, Moldova, Mozambique, Timor Leste, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference David H. Abortion in Europe, 1920-91: a public health perspective. Stud Fam Plan. 1992;23:1–22.CrossRef David H. Abortion in Europe, 1920-91: a public health perspective. Stud Fam Plan. 1992;23:1–22.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Reagan LJ. When abortion was a crime: women, medicine, and law in the United States, 1867–1973. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1997. Reagan LJ. When abortion was a crime: women, medicine, and law in the United States, 1867–1973. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1997.
3.
go back to reference Hessini L. Abortion and Islam: policies and practice in the Middle East and North Africa. Reprod Health Matters. 2007;15:75–84.CrossRef Hessini L. Abortion and Islam: policies and practice in the Middle East and North Africa. Reprod Health Matters. 2007;15:75–84.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Sonbol A. Women, the family and divorce laws in Islamic history. New York: Syracuse: University Press; 1996. Sonbol A. Women, the family and divorce laws in Islamic history. New York: Syracuse: University Press; 1996.
5.
go back to reference Resolution WHA20.41. Health aspects of population dynamics. In: Twentieth world health assembly, Geneva, 1967. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1967 (WHA20/1967/REC/1). Resolution WHA20.41. Health aspects of population dynamics. In: Twentieth world health assembly, Geneva, 1967. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1967 (WHA20/1967/REC/1).
6.
go back to reference Boland R, Katzive L. The worldwide trend toward liberalization of abortion laws. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2008;34:110–20.CrossRef Boland R, Katzive L. The worldwide trend toward liberalization of abortion laws. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2008;34:110–20.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Cleeve A, Oguttu M, Ganatra B, Atuhairwe S, Larsson E, Makenzius M, et al. Time to act—comprehensive abortion care in East Africa. Lancet Global Health. 2016;4:e601–2.CrossRef Cleeve A, Oguttu M, Ganatra B, Atuhairwe S, Larsson E, Makenzius M, et al. Time to act—comprehensive abortion care in East Africa. Lancet Global Health. 2016;4:e601–2.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Johnson BR, Mishra V, Lavelanet AF, Khosla R, Ganatra B. A global database of abortion laws, policies, health standards, and guidelines. Bull World Health Organ. 2017;95:542–4.CrossRef Johnson BR, Mishra V, Lavelanet AF, Khosla R, Ganatra B. A global database of abortion laws, policies, health standards, and guidelines. Bull World Health Organ. 2017;95:542–4.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Johnson BR, Lavelanet AF, Schlitt S. Global abortion policies database: a new approach to strengthening knowledge on laws, policies, and human rights standards. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2018;18:35.CrossRef Johnson BR, Lavelanet AF, Schlitt S. Global abortion policies database: a new approach to strengthening knowledge on laws, policies, and human rights standards. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2018;18:35.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Constitution of the World Health Organization. 47th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009. Constitution of the World Health Organization. 47th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009.
15.
go back to reference Ipas Bangladesh. Woman-centered MR and Postabortion care services reference manual. Dot Net Ltd; 2013. Ipas Bangladesh. Woman-centered MR and Postabortion care services reference manual. Dot Net Ltd; 2013.
16.
go back to reference Say L, Chou D, Gemmill AT, OMoller AB, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2:e323–33.CrossRef Say L, Chou D, Gemmill AT, OMoller AB, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2:e323–33.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Raymond EG, Grimes D. The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:215–9.CrossRef Raymond EG, Grimes D. The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:215–9.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Ramos S, Romero M, Ramón Michel A. Health care providers’ opinions on abortion: a study for the implementation of the legal abortion public policy in the province of Santa Fe, Argentina. Reprod Health. 2014;11:72.CrossRef Ramos S, Romero M, Ramón Michel A. Health care providers’ opinions on abortion: a study for the implementation of the legal abortion public policy in the province of Santa Fe, Argentina. Reprod Health. 2014;11:72.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Canes-Wrone B, Dorf M. Measuring the chilling effect. New York: New York University Law Review. 2015. Canes-Wrone B, Dorf M. Measuring the chilling effect. New York: New York University Law Review. 2015.
21.
go back to reference Berer M. National laws and unsafe abortion: the parameters of change. reproductive health matters. 2005;12(Suppl 24):1–8. Berer M. National laws and unsafe abortion: the parameters of change. reproductive health matters. 2005;12(Suppl 24):1–8.
22.
go back to reference World Health Organization. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems. second ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012. World Health Organization. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems. second ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.
23.
go back to reference Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 22 (2016) on the Right to Sexual and Reprod Health (under article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), 10, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/GC/22 May 2, 2016. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 22 (2016) on the Right to Sexual and Reprod Health (under article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), 10, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/GC/22 May 2, 2016.
Metadata
Title
Global Abortion Policies Database: a descriptive analysis of the legal categories of lawful abortion
Authors
Antonella F. Lavelanet
Stephanie Schlitt
Brooke Ronald Johnson Jr
Bela Ganatra
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC International Health and Human Rights / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-698X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-018-0183-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC International Health and Human Rights 1/2018 Go to the issue