全球人工流产法律发展:2008-2019。

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 Social Sciences International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.1363/46e0920
Lisa Remez, Katherine Mayall, Susheela Singh
{"title":"全球人工流产法律发展:2008-2019。","authors":"Lisa Remez,&nbsp;Katherine Mayall,&nbsp;Susheela Singh","doi":"10.1363/46e0920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Evidence shows that laws that restrict abortion do not eliminate its practice, but instead result in women having clandestine abortions, which are likely to be unsafe. It is important to periodically assess changes in the legal status of abortion around the world.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The criteria for legal abortion as of 2019 for 199 countries and territories were used to distribute them along a continuum of six mutually exclusive categories, from prohibited to permitted without restriction as to reason. The three most common additional legal grounds that fall outside of this continuum-rape, incest and fetal anomaly-were also quantified. Patterns by region and per capita gross national income were examined. Changes resulting from law reform and judicial decisions since 2008 were assessed, as were changes in policies and guidelines that affect access.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Legality correlated positively with income: The proportions of countries in the two most-liberal categories rose uniformly with gross national income. From 2008 to 2019,27 countries expanded the number of legal grounds for abortion; of those, 21 advanced to another legality category, and six added at least one of the most common additional legal grounds. Reform resulted from a range of strategies, generally involving multiple stakeholders and calls for compliance with international human rights norms.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The global trend toward liberalization continued over the past decade; however, even greater progress is needed to guarantee all women's right to legal abortion and to ensure adequate access to safe services in all countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":46940,"journal":{"name":"International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Global Developments in Laws on Induced Abortion: 2008-2019.\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Remez,&nbsp;Katherine Mayall,&nbsp;Susheela Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1363/46e0920\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Evidence shows that laws that restrict abortion do not eliminate its practice, but instead result in women having clandestine abortions, which are likely to be unsafe. It is important to periodically assess changes in the legal status of abortion around the world.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The criteria for legal abortion as of 2019 for 199 countries and territories were used to distribute them along a continuum of six mutually exclusive categories, from prohibited to permitted without restriction as to reason. The three most common additional legal grounds that fall outside of this continuum-rape, incest and fetal anomaly-were also quantified. Patterns by region and per capita gross national income were examined. Changes resulting from law reform and judicial decisions since 2008 were assessed, as were changes in policies and guidelines that affect access.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Legality correlated positively with income: The proportions of countries in the two most-liberal categories rose uniformly with gross national income. From 2008 to 2019,27 countries expanded the number of legal grounds for abortion; of those, 21 advanced to another legality category, and six added at least one of the most common additional legal grounds. Reform resulted from a range of strategies, generally involving multiple stakeholders and calls for compliance with international human rights norms.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The global trend toward liberalization continued over the past decade; however, even greater progress is needed to guarantee all women's right to legal abortion and to ensure adequate access to safe services in all countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1363/46e0920\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1363/46e0920","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

背景:有证据表明,限制堕胎的法律并没有消除堕胎的做法,反而导致妇女秘密堕胎,这很可能是不安全的。定期评估世界各地堕胎法律地位的变化是很重要的。方法:采用199个国家和地区截至2019年的合法堕胎标准,将其划分为从禁止到允许的6个相互排斥的类别,不受理由限制。另外三种最常见的法律依据——强奸、乱伦和胎儿畸形——也被量化了。研究了按区域和人均国民总收入划分的模式。评估了自2008年以来法律改革和司法决定带来的变化,以及影响获取的政策和准则的变化。结果:合法性与收入呈正相关:在两个最自由的类别中,国家的比例与国民总收入一致上升。从2008年到2019年,27个国家扩大了堕胎的合法理由;其中,21个进入了另一个合法性类别,6个增加了至少一种最常见的额外法律依据。改革源于一系列战略,这些战略通常涉及多个利益攸关方,并呼吁遵守国际人权准则。结论:在过去十年中,全球自由化趋势仍在继续;然而,还需要取得更大的进展,以保障所有妇女合法堕胎的权利,并确保在所有国家充分获得安全服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Global Developments in Laws on Induced Abortion: 2008-2019.

Context: Evidence shows that laws that restrict abortion do not eliminate its practice, but instead result in women having clandestine abortions, which are likely to be unsafe. It is important to periodically assess changes in the legal status of abortion around the world.

Methods: The criteria for legal abortion as of 2019 for 199 countries and territories were used to distribute them along a continuum of six mutually exclusive categories, from prohibited to permitted without restriction as to reason. The three most common additional legal grounds that fall outside of this continuum-rape, incest and fetal anomaly-were also quantified. Patterns by region and per capita gross national income were examined. Changes resulting from law reform and judicial decisions since 2008 were assessed, as were changes in policies and guidelines that affect access.

Results: Legality correlated positively with income: The proportions of countries in the two most-liberal categories rose uniformly with gross national income. From 2008 to 2019,27 countries expanded the number of legal grounds for abortion; of those, 21 advanced to another legality category, and six added at least one of the most common additional legal grounds. Reform resulted from a range of strategies, generally involving multiple stakeholders and calls for compliance with international human rights norms.

Conclusions: The global trend toward liberalization continued over the past decade; however, even greater progress is needed to guarantee all women's right to legal abortion and to ensure adequate access to safe services in all countries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Women's Perspectives on Contraceptive-Induced Amenorrhea in Burkina Faso and Uganda. Provider and Women Characteristics as Risk Factors for Postpartum Copper IUD Expulsion and Discontinuation in Nepal. Assessing Readiness to Provide Comprehensive Abortion Care in the Democratic Republic of the Congo After Passage of the Maputo Protocol. An Application of the List Experiment to Estimate Abortion Prevalence in Karachi, Pakistan. Chilean Medical and Midwifery Faculty's Views on Conscientious Objection for Abortion Services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1