Prosecutorial Discretion for Self-Managed Abortion Helpers.

Elected prosecutors have pledged not to enforce abortion laws, in response to state-level abortion bans. For their pledges to be meaningful, prosecutors must exercise their discretion in cases of individuals who face legal risk, including people who help others self-manage their abortions. With a harm-reduction approach to improving abortion access, prosecutors should aim to reduce abortion helpers' involvement with the criminal justice system.

Self-managed abortion: Aligning law and policy with medical evidence.

People have always and will always find ways to try to end their pregnancies when necessary. Many do so safely without the involvement or direct supervision of healthcare professionals by self-managing their abortions. In 2022, the well-established safety and efficacy of abortion medications prompted WHO to fully endorse self-managed medication abortion as part of a comprehensive range of safe, effective options for abortion care. But despite robust evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of the self-use of medications for abortion, abortion laws and policies around the world remain at odds with clinical evidence and with the realities of self-managed medication abortion in the present day. The present article considers legal issues related to self-managed abortion and addresses the role of obstetricians, gynecologists, and other healthcare professionals in promoting clinical and legal safety in abortion care through support of self-managed abortion.

Policy surveillance for a global analysis of national abortion laws.

Policy 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.

Easing of Regulatory Barriers to Telemedicine Abortion in Response to COVID-19.

For many people seeking abortion during the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine abortion is the safest and most acceptable method, posing lower risk of exposure to the virus. In addition, by reducing in-person visits with health care providers, increased use of telemedicine for abortion can reduce pressure on overburdened health systems. Given the benefits of telemedicine during the pandemic, government agencies in several countries took measures to temporarily allow telemedicine abortion. We conducted key-word English-language searches to identify examples of government action to remove regulatory barriers to the practice of telemedicine abortion in response to the pandemic. We found instances of government agencies in eight countries taking steps to ease regulatory barriers to telemedicine abortion. Telemedicine abortion is safe, cost-effective, and may be the preferred method of abortion during acute periods of COVID-19 transmission, as well as after the pandemic has abated. As one step to expanding access to abortion with medicine where abortion is legal, health agencies and other regulatory bodies can take steps to remove barriers specific to telemedicine abortion.

Toward Human Rights and Evidence-Based Legal Frameworks for (Self-Managed) Abortion: A Review of the Last Decade of Legal Reform.

Since the late 1980s, people have safely self-managed their abortions with medication, changing the landscape of abortion. This practice continues to evolve and expand and has been identified as a cause of decline in severe abortion-related morbidity and mortality. However, developments in medical abortion and self-management have yet to be reflected in the way abortion is regulated. Building on the need for evidence and human rights-based laws, this article explores developments in abortion laws from around the world between 2010 and 2020 to explore the extent to which they have contributed to an enabling environment for self-managed abortion. We focus on recent laws-those adopted in the past 10 years-for which we had access to information for analysis. We observe that laws in force still retain clinical settings and the involvement of medical professionals as the desirable circumstances for an abortion to take place and that even those that have liberalized access still retain some degree of criminalization for the pregnant person who carries out a self-managed abortion or for those who support the process. We conclude that there is enough evidence and support from international human rights standards to ground legal developments that enable self-managed abortion.

Identifying data for the empirical assessment of law (IDEAL): a realist approach to research gaps on the health effects of abortion law.

Reproductive 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.

The Foreseeable Harms of Trump's Global Gag Rule.

As one of his first acts as President of the United States, Donald Trump signed an executive order reinstating a version of the global gag rule. Under this rule, US grantees are barred from receiving global health funding if they engage in abortion-related work: not only abortion services, but also abortion referrals and counseling or advocacy for the liberalization of abortion laws. Critics of the Trump global gag rule generally raise three classes of objections: (1) that the rule fails to accomplish its presumed objective of reducing the number of abortions; (2) that it negatively affects the health and well-being of individuals and populations in affected countries; and (3) that it interferes with governments' ability to meet their international obligations. In this commentary, we examine the scientific and policy bases for these criticisms.

Human rights advances in women's reproductive health in Africa.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights recently adopted General Comment No 2 to interpret provisions of Article 14 of the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights Women. The provisions relate to women's rights to fertility control, contraception, family planning, information and education, and abortion. The present article highlights the General Comment's potential to promote women's sexual and reproductive rights in multiple ways. The General Comment's human rights value goes beyond providing states with guidance for framing their domestic laws, practices, and policies to comply with treaty obligations. General Comment No 2 is invaluable in educating all stakeholders-including healthcare providers, lawyers, policymakers, and judicial officers at the domestic level-about pertinent jurisprudence. Civil society and human rights advocates can use the General Comment to render the state accountable for failure to implement its treaty obligations.

Implementing the mental health indication to help ensure access to safe abortion.

This paper recommends implementation of the mental health indication for legal abortion to help reduce high rates of death and injury from unsafe abortion. Legal abortion to preserve a women's mental health is explicitly recognized in the laws of 23 countries. However, the law is implemented in different countries in varied ways, giving rise to a range of access to safe abortion among countries with similar laws. In this paper, I propose the enactment of guidelines for implementing the mental health indication to improve access to safe abortion. Such guidelines should enable providers to consider a woman's social and economic circumstances in determining the risk of pregnancy to her mental health. This approach is supported by global health authorities and psychological research. I also present empirical and legal support for the notion that abortion can lead to favorable mental health outcomes, as is implicit in the mental health indication.