Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Identifying data for the empirical assessment of law (IDEAL): A realist approach to research gaps on the health effects of abortion lawReproductive rights have been the focus of United Nations consensus documents, a priority for agencies like the WHO, and the subject of judgments issued by national and international courts. Human rights approaches have galvanised abortion law reform across numerous countries, but human rights analysis is not designed to empirically assess how legal provisions regulating abortion shape the actual delivery of abortion services and outcomes. Reliable empirical measurement of the health and social effects of abortion regulation is vital input for policymakers and public health guidance for abortion policy and practice, but research focused explicitly on assessing the health effects of abortion law and policy is limited at the global level. This paper describes a method for Identifying Data for the Empirical Assessment of Law (IDEAL), to assess potential health effects of abortion regulations. The approach was applied to six critical legal interventions: mandatory waiting periods, third-party authorisation, gestational limits, criminalisation, provider restrictions and conscientious objection. The IDEAL process allowed researchers to link legal interventions and processes that have not been investigated fully in empirical research to processes and outcomes that have been more thoroughly studied. To the extent these links are both transparent and plausible, using IDEAL to make them explicit allows both researchers and policy stakeholders to make better informed assessments and guidance related to abortion law. The IDEAL method also identifies gaps in scientific research. Given the importance of law to public health generally, the utility of IDEAL is not limited to abortion law.
-
Assuring Access to AbortionOver the spring of 2020, numerous states announced measures suspending abortions in response to COVID-19. Banning abortion during the pandemic is counterproductive. Impeding access to abortion will not help preserve healthcare resources. Moreover, prohibiting access to abortion care exacerbates the strain on the healthcare system. People who lack access to abortions will travel to neighboring states, induce their own abortions, or carry pregnancies to term, which will require prenatal care and assistance in childbirth. Perhaps more importantly, the people hit hardest by suspending abortion care are those for whom the pandemic already has had devastating effects. Lifting restrictions on medication abortion and expanding telehealth abortion services will conserve healthcare resources and improve public health. Recognizing the advantages of telemedicine, some states, as well as the federal government, have relaxed restrictions on remote diagnosis and treatment. However, many of those same states have carved out exceptions for abortion in their telemedicine policies. In addition, people seeking medication abortions still face unnecessary restrictions on access, none of which are applied to comparable office-based procedures. Policymakers can eliminate barriers to safe abortion services now and in the future. “No-touch” terminations, in which all medical supervision happens over the telephone or online, can better accomplish the goals that the present abortion suspensions cannot. Telehealth for medical abortion can ease the burdens on pregnant people, healthcare workers, and health systems in light of the unprecedented challenges presented by COVID-19.
-
Policy surveillance for a global analysis of national abortion lawsPolicy surveillance offers a novel and important method for comparing law across jurisdictions. We used policy surveillance to examine abortion laws across the globe. Self-managed abortion, which generally takes place outside formal healthcare settings, is increasing in prevalence and can be safe. We analysed provisions that do not account for the prevalence of self-managed abortion and evidence of its safety. Such provisions require that abortion take place in a formal healthcare setting. We also analysed criminal penalties for non-compliance. Our method included development of a legal framework, an iterative process of refining coding schemes and procedures, and rigorous quality control. We limited our analysis to liberal abortion laws for two reasons. Abortion laws globally trend towards less restrictive. In addition, we aimed to focus on how laws relate to abortion outside a formal healthcare setting specifically and excluded laws that prohibit abortion more broadly. We found that in all countries with liberal national abortion laws, the law permits only healthcare professionals or trained health workers to perform legal abortion and the majority require the abortion to take place in a specified health facility. With policy surveillance methods we can illuminate characteristics of law across many jurisdictions and the need for widespread reform, toward laws that reflect scientific evidence and the way people have abortions.
