Medical Reasons for Abortion
An abortion is a clinical procedure that terminates a pregnancy. The procedure is a fundamental healthcare requirement for numerous girls and women. An estimated 25% of all annual pregnancies globally culminate in abortion (Carvajal et al. 103-363). Whereas there is a common need for abortion, there is no guarantee for safe and legal abortion services for those who may require abortion services. Undoubtedly, access to abortion ranks amongst the most controversial subjects globally. Distortions cloud the topic regarding the consequences of limiting access to primary healthcare services. This essay will explore the medical reason for an abortion to be performed. It will further ask the pertinent question of why abortion should remain legal with limitations.
Justifications for Abortion with Limitations
The first reason why abortion should remain legal with restrictions is the fact that abortion is a rampant occurrence regardless of what the law prescribes. According to assertations by Chemlal and Russo (9), despite the legal status of abortion, individuals still need and frequently get abortion services. Based on statistics from Guttmacher Institute, a U.S.-based non-profit specializing in reproductive health, the rate of abortion stands at 3.7% in nations that outlaw abortion overall or in cases of saving a woman’s life. The rate stands at 3.4% in nations that largely support abortion, a variance that is not statistically substantial (Chemlal & Russo 10). Abortions have also been proven to be among the safest clinical procedures available, even safer than childbirth when performed by a skilled healthcare provider in hygienic conditions (Coast et al. 203). In other words, the abortion bans and restrictions force individuals seeking the procedure to undergo it with a lower degree of safety and security.
Criminalization of Abortion
Criminalizing abortion reduces its safety rather than deterring the practice. Deterring girls and women from accessing absorption does not decrease the extent to which they need it (Berer 18). This situation explains why measures to restrict abortions compel individuals to seek unsafe abortions rather than lessen their prevalence. The WHO defines unsafe abortions as “procedures for ending unplanned pregnancies undertaken either by individuals lacking the requisite abilities or in settings that do not meet minimal clinical standards, or both” (Allotey, et al. 512). The WHO estimates that approximately 25 million insecure abortions occur annually, many in third-world nations (Allotey et al. 512). The fatal consequences of unsafe abortions are evidenced by the fact that it is the third leading cause of maternal mortality globally and culminates in an extra five million mostly avoidable disabilities.
Abortion should remain legal with restrictions because almost every injury and death from abortion is avoidable. In countries where girls and women are restricted from accessing abortion services, the law characteristically supports narrow exemptions to the statute proscribing abortion (Clarke et al. 1024). The exemptions entail the pregnancy culminates from incest or rape, instances of lethal and severe fetal damage, or when the health or life of the pregnant individual is at risk (Power, Meaney, & O’Donoghue 681). The motivations behind many abortions do not fall into the mentioned categories. There is an inherent risk element to abortion seeking by women and girls under the conditions of high restrictions and inaccessibility.
Such regulations unduly impact the already marginalized communities since they lack the means to secure legal services in other nations or attain private care. They comprise girls and women on a limited income, adolescents, and bisexual cisgender girls and women. This list includes migrants and refugees, indigenous or minority women, lesbians, and gender non-conforming or transgender individuals. Evidence by Julian (275) has depicted higher abortion rates in nations with inadequate access to contraception. Additionally, lower rates have been shown in areas where individuals, primarily adolescents, are aware of and can access contemporary contraceptive techniques. Also, the availability of comprehensive sex education is essential, and so is safe and lawful abortion on extensive grounds.
Primary Care Deterrence
Another argument in support of abortion remaining legal with restrictions is that restricting or criminalizing abortion deters doctors from offering primary care. This is guided by their medical practice standards and ethical code of conduct. Abortion’s criminalization culminates in a chilling effect, whereby clinical experts may fail to comprehend the legal confines. These experts may also apply the bounds in a narrower perspective that is legally required (McLean et al. 6). In other words, it is possible that legally restrictive measures become accompanied by stigmatization, criminalization, and attachment of persona bias or belief on the subject. These changes subsequently affect the female population by making them more reluctant to seek post-abortion care in case of complications.
A country’s stringent abortion regulations may undermine the right to health for women with complex and life-threatening health conditions (Aiken et al. 183). When women with pulmonary hypertension or atresia become pregnant, they risk their illness worsening or even dying during pregnancy. This situation explains why these women seek abortion services. The decline to such requests by doctors bound by their national laws leaves the patients at risk and the doctors in a dilemma.
Stigmatization and Discrimination
Legally bounded abortion is also critical since it is required for cisgender girls and women. However, its importance surpasses the above group to include transgender boys and men, intersex individuals, and individuals bearing other gender identities with the reproductive capability to attain pregnancy (Julian 275). The most significant barriers for the mentioned groups are poor access to healthcare, stigma, and prejudice during healthcare provision. It also includes assumptions that they do not require access to services and information about contraception and abortion. In some circumstances, 28% of gender non-conforming and transgender people have reported harassment in healthcare environments, while 19 reported declining healthcare (Osborne et al. 518). Such statistics result from interlined variables of race and poverty and linked intersectional victimization.
The fact that the criminalization of abortion is a type of discrimination that propels stigma also justifies the support for the legalization of abortion with restrictions. According to the committee for the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), denying women reproductive health services is discrimination against women (Assis & Erdman 2238). The term women also cover bisexuals, lesbians, and transgender. In addition, it is important to note that gender stereotyping, and abortion-related stigma is akin to the criminalization of abortion and other limiting abortion policies and regulations. The sheer perception of abortion being immoral or illegal culminates in the stigmatization of girls and women by family members, healthcare personnel, and the judiciary, among others.
Abortion as a Human Right
Access to abortion is a human rights issue. The universal human rights law accords every human being the right to life, health, and freedom from discrimination, violence, and torture (or inhuman, cruel, and degrading treatment) (Pizzarossa et al. 199). Based on human rights law, decisions concerning one’s body are private. Thus, privacy and autonomy are the foundational principles of human rights, which become severely violated when a woman or girl is legally forced to birth an unwanted child. In numerous instances, those lacking a choice apart from procuring unsafe abortion also risk trial and retribution, including incarceration. Therefore, access to absorption is connected to safeguarding and perpetuating the human rights of girls, women, and others who are susceptible to pregnancy, hence attaining gender and social justice.
Abortion should remain legal with limitations because of a couple of reasons. First, despite the legal status of abortion, individuals still need and frequently get abortion services. Secondly, criminalizing abortion reduces its safety rather than deterring it. One should be aware of the fact that almost every injury and death from abortion is avoidable. Additionally, restricting or criminalizing abortion deters doctors from offering primary care as guided by their medical practice standards and ethical code of conduct. Besides, the importance of abortion surpasses cisgender girls and women to include transgender boys and men, intersex individuals, and individuals bearing other gender identities with the reproductive capability to attain pregnancy. Further, the criminalization of abortion is a type of discrimination that propels stigma. Access to abortion is a human rights issue; every individual should be free to exercise their bodily independence and make personal decisions regarding their reproductive lives. It is of paramount importance that laws and regulations related to abortion are designed in accordance with the principles of human rights.
Works Cited
Aiken, Abigail RA, et al. “Experiences of Women in Ireland Who Accessed Abortion By Travelling Abroad or by Using Abortion Medication at Home: A Qualitative Study.” BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health, vol. 44, no. 3, 2018, pp. 181-186.
Allotey, Pascale, TK Sundari Ravindran, and Vithiya Sathivelu. “Trends in Abortion Policies in Low-And Middle-Income Countries.” Annual Review of Public Health, vol. 42, 2021, pp. 505-518.
Assis, Mariana Prandini, and Joanna N. Erdman. “Abortion Rights Beyond the Medico-Legal Paradigm.” Global Public Health, vol. 17, no. 10, 2022, pp. 2235-2250.
Berer, Marge. “Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: In Search of Decriminalization.” Health & Hum. Rts. J., vol. 19, 2017, pp. 13-27.
Carvajal, Bielka, et al. “Experiences of Midwives and Nurses When Implementing Abortion Policies: A Systematic Integrative Review.” Midwifery, 2022, p. 103363.
Chemlal, Sonia, and Giuliano Russo. “Why Do They Take the Risk? A Systematic Review of the Qualitative Literature on Informal Sector Abortions in Settings Where Abortion Is Legal.” BMC Women’s Health, vol. 19, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1-11.
Clarke, Damian, and Hanna Mühlrad. “Abortion Laws and Women’s Health.” Journal of Health Economics, vol. 76, 2021, p. 102413.
Coast, Ernestina, et al. “Trajectories of Women’s Abortion-Related Care: A Conceptual Framework.” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 200, 2018, pp. 199-210.
Julian, Alyssa. “Redefining LGBTQ and Abortion Rights in Latin America: A Transnational Toolkit.” Vand. J. Transnat’l L., vol. 53, 2020, p. 275.
McLean, Emily, et al. “When the Law Makes Doors Slightly Open: Ethical Dilemmas Among Abortion Service Providers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.” BMC medical ethics, vol. 20, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1-10.