Explore the vast range of titles available.

Data of abortion incidence and trends are needed to monitor progress toward improvement of maternal health and access to family planning. To date, estimates of safe and unsafe abortion worldwide have only been made for 1995 and 2003. We used the standard WHO definition of unsafe abortions. Safe abortion estimates were based largely on official statistics and nationally representative surveys. Unsafe abortion estimates were based primarily on information from published studies, hospital records, and surveys of women. We used additional sources and systematic approaches to make corrections and projections as needed where data were misreported, incomplete, or from earlier years. We assessed trends in abortion incidence using rates developed for 1995, 2003, and 2008 with the same methodology. We used linear regression models to explore the association of the legal status of abortion with the abortion rate across subregions of the world in 2008. The global abortion rate was stable between 2003 and 2008, with rates of 29 and 28 abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 years, respectively, following a period of decline from 35 abortions per 1000 women in 1995. The average annual percent change in the rate was nearly 2·4% between 1995 and 2003 and 0·3% between 2003 and 2008. Worldwide, 49% of abortions were unsafe in 2008, compared to 44% in 1995. About one in five pregnancies ended in abortion in 2008. The abortion rate was lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws (p<0·05). The substantial decline in the abortion rate observed earlier has stalled, and the proportion of all abortions that are unsafe has increased. Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. Measures to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion, including investments in family planning services and safe abortion care, are crucial steps toward achieving the Millennium Development Goals. UK Department for International Development, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation.

Objectives. To compare the experiences of people who obtained abortions before the implementation of a state abortion ban with those seeking abortion after a ban. Methods. Using self-administered surveys (n = 855), we examined the abortion-seeking experiences of individuals recruited from clinics and call centers in 14 US states that implemented bans on abortion at all gestations, June 2022 to June 2024. We used bivariate analyses to compare differences in travel by ban status. Results. Most people (81%) who contacted a clinic or call center after a ban reported traveling to another state for an abortion; few (3%) continued their pregnancy to birth. Compared with those who accessed abortion in their state before a ban, postban travelers were less likely to drive and more likely to travel by bus, train, or airplane. Mean travel time (2.8 vs 11.3 hours), overnight stays (5% vs 58%), and mean travel costs ( $179 vs $ 372) increased, as did mean pregnancy duration (7.7 vs 8.8 weeks) and the proportion occurring at 13 weeks or more duration (8% vs 17%). Conclusions. Travel burdens, costs, and delays in abortion have increased since the implementation of state abortion bans. ( Am J Public Health. 2025;115(10):1713–1722. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308191 )

Objectives. To examine associations between state-level variation in abortion-restricting policies in 2015 and total maternal mortality (TMM), maternal mortality (MM), and late maternal mortality (LMM) from 2015 to 2018 in the United States. Methods. We derived an abortion policy composite index for each state based on 8 state-level abortion-restricting policies. We fit ecological state-level generalized linear Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to estimate 4-year TMM, MM, and LMM rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) associated with a 1-unit increase in the abortion index, adjusting for state-level covariates. Results. States with the higher score of abortion policy composite index had a 7% increase in TMM (adjusted rate ratio [ARR] = 1.07; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.12) compared with states with lower abortion policy composite index, after we adjusted for state-level covariates. Among individual abortion policies, states with a licensed physician requirement had a 51% higher TMM (ARR = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.15, 1.99) and a 35% higher MM (ARR = 1.35; 95% CI = 1.09, 1.67), and states with restrictions on Medicaid coverage of abortion care had a 29% higher TMM (ARR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.61). Conclusions. Restricting access to abortion care at the state level may increase the risk for TMM.

During the 1970s the Nordic countries liberalized their abortion laws. We assessed epidemiological trends for induced abortion on all Nordic countries, considered legal similarities and diversities, effects of new medical innovations and changes in practical and legal provisions during the subsequent years. New legislation strengthened surveillance of induced abortion in all countries and mandated hospitals that performed abortions to report to national abortion registers. Published data from the Nordic abortion registers were considered and new comparative analyses done. The data cover complete national populations. After an increase in abortion rates during the first years following liberalization, the general abortion rates stabilized and even decreased in all Nordic countries, especially for women under 25 years. From the mid-1980s higher awareness about pregnancy termination led women to present at an earlier gestational age, which was accelerated by the introduction of medical abortion some years later. Most terminations (80-86%) are now done before the 9th gestational week in all countries, primarily by medical rather than surgical means. Introduction of routine ultrasound screening in pregnancy during the late 1980s, increased the number of 2nd trimester abortions on fetal anomaly indications without an overall increase in the proportion of 2nd relative to 1st trimester abortions. Further refinement of ultrasound screening and non-invasive prenatal diagnostic methods led to a slight increase in the proportion of early 2nd trimester abortions after the year 2000. Country-specific differences in abortion rates have remained stable over the 50 years of liberalized abortion laws.

Limited research in high-income countries (HICs) examines adolescent abortion care-seeking pathways. This review aims to examine the pathways and experiences of adolescents when seeking abortion care, and service delivery processes in provision of such care. We undertook a systematic search of the literature to identify relevant studies in HICs (2000–2020). A directed content analysis of qualitative and quantitative studies was conducted. Findings were organised to one or more of three domains of an a priori conceptual framework: context, components of abortion care and access pathway. Thirty-five studies were included. Themes classified to the Context domain included adolescent-specific and restrictive abortion legislation, mostly focused on the United States. Components of abortion care themes included confidentiality, comprehensive care, and abortion procedure. Access pathway themes included delays to access, abortion procedure information, decision-making, clinic operation and environments, and financial and transportation barriers. This review highlights issues affecting access to abortion that are particularly salient for adolescents, including additional legal barriers and challenges receiving care due to their age. Opportunities to enhance abortion access include removing legal barriers, provision of comprehensive care, enhancing the quality of information, and harnessing innovative delivery approaches offered by medical abortion.

In Germany, efforts to reform current legislation governing access to termination of pregnancy (TOP) have recently gained momentum. In 2023, the German Federal Government appointed a ‘Commission on Reproductive Self-Determination and Reproductive Medicine’, which released recommendations to revise legislation of TOP in April 2024. Currently, TOP is unlawful under the German Criminal Code, with exemptions from punishment for TOP performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy following mandatory counselling. Additional exemptions exist in case of criminological or medical-social indications.The Commission report recommends the decriminalisation of early-stage TOP and potential abolition of the mandatory counselling requirement. It further recommends a revision of the medical-social indication, due to a lack of clarity in its interpretation. This indication allows for TOP beyond 12 weeks of pregnancy, where there is danger to the pregnant woman’s life or health.This paper provides an overview of Germany’s current TOP regulation and the Commission’s recommendations, with a particular focus on the ethical and legal challenges posed by the application of the current medical-social indication in cases of fetal anomalies. We argue that while legislative clarity is important, maintaining a broad interpretation of the medical-social indication is crucial to prevent undue restrictions on TOP access at later gestations.The Commission report represents a promising step forward in changes for TOP legislation in Germany, and we welcome its call for legal reform. However, given the outcome of the recent federal election in February 2025, it is unlikely that the revision of TOP legislation will be part of the new government’s agenda.

We argue that, in certain circumstances, doctors might be professionally justified to provide abortions even in those jurisdictions where abortion is illegal. That it is at least professionally permissible does not mean that they have an all-things-considered ethical justification or obligation to provide illegal abortions or that professional obligations or professional permissibility trump legal obligations. It rather means that professional organisations should respect and indeed protect doctors’ positive claims of conscience to provide abortions if they plausibly track what is in the best medical interests of their patients. It is the responsibility of state authorities to enforce the law, but it is the responsibility of professional organisations to uphold the highest standards of medical ethics, even when they conflict with the law. Whatever the legal sanctions in place, healthcare professionals should not be sanctioned by the professional bodies for providing abortions according to professional standards, even if illegally. Indeed, professional organisation should lobby to offer protection to such professionals. Our arguments have practical implications for what healthcare professionals and healthcare professional organisations may or should do in those jurisdictions that legally prohibit abortion, such as some US States after the reversal of Roe v Wade.

Back in November 2022, the members of French Parliament (deputies) approved a bill which aimed for the law to guarantee “the effectiveness and equal access to the right to abortion”, but the members of the higher parliamentary chamber (senators) rejected this in February 2023 and replaced the word ‘right’ for the word ‘freedom’. [...]it does not prevent laws from being passed that could reduce the maximum time limit, reintroduce a reflection period, or require parental authorisation for young girls, and so on Box 1. [...]there is concern about the real extent of the constitutional ‘guarantee’ promised by the bill. 4 July 2001 – The Aubry-Guigou Law extends the legal period of pregnancy from 12 to 14 weeks and relaxes the conditions of access to contraceptives and abortion for minors. 17 December 2012 – Abortion is 100% covered by health insurance. 4 August 2014 – Removal of the notion of distress from the conditions for recourse to abortion. 26 January 2016 – Midwives can perform medical abortion; the 7-day mandatory reflection period is waived. 2 March 2022 – The Gaillot Law extends the legal deadline for abortion from 14 to 16 weeks of gestation and authorises midwives to perform surgical abortions in healthcare settings.

CONTEXT: The incidence of abortion has declined nearly every year between 1990 and 2005, but this trend may be ending, or at least leveling off. Access to abortion services is a critical issue, particularly since the number of abortion providers has been falling for the last three decades. METHODS: In 2009 and 2010, all facilities known or expected to have provided abortion services in 2007 and 2008 were contacted, including hospitals, clinics and physicians' offices. Data on the number of abortions performed were collected and combined with population data to estimate national and state-level abortion rates. Abortion incidence, provision of early medication abortion, gestational limits, charges and antiabortion harassment were assessed by provider type and abortion caseload. RESULTS: In 2008, an estimated 1.21 million abortions were performed in the United States. The abortion rate increased 1% between 2005 and 2008, from 19.4 to 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44; the total number of abortion providers was virtually unchanged. Small changes in national abortion incidence and number of providers masked substantial changes in some states. Accessibility of services changed little: In both years, 35% of women of reproductive age lived in the 87% of counties that lacked a provider. Fifty-seven percent of nonhospital providers experienced antiabortion harassment in 2008; levels of harassment were particularly high in the Midwest (85%) and the South (75%). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term decline in abortion incidence has stalled. Higher levels of harassment in some regions suggest the need to enact and enforce laws that prohibit the more intrusive forms of harassment.