Talk:Abortion law/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Australia

@Human.: Please see the previous discussions about Australia here and here. In New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, the law simply says that a doctor "may perform" an abortion before 22 or 24 weeks, without listing any condition or with only the woman's "informed consent". After 22 or 24 weeks, they allow it considering "all relevant medical circumstances; and the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances". So there must be a difference between the two criteria, and the sources say that the latter is not "on request".[1][2] In the Northern Territory, the law uses the latter criteria for abortion at any time during pregnancy, with a difference only in the number of doctors that must approve it depending on the gestational limit. So for consistency, we should either mark the Northern Territory as not allowing abortion on request, or also mark New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria as allowing it with no gestational limit. I prefer the first option, since that is how the sources classify it. Heitordp (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

After my initial edit, I noticed that the law of the Northern Territory is not very clear and requires that a doctor considers the abortion is "appropriate in all the circumstances, having regard to ...", so I changed the Northern Territory to {{yes2}} ("permitted, with complex legality or practice") with an explaining note (I've now also changed "no limit" to just "permitted"). As {{yes2}} is used to differentiate the Northern Territory, I don't think there is now inconsistency with New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. Also, the laws of these 3 states require that two doctors approve the abortion after 22–24 weeks, whereas according to the Northern Territory law, one doctor's approval is sufficient up to 24 weeks. Human. (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Human.: Thanks for the adjustment. However, I haven't seen any source classifying the law in the Northern Territory as allowing abortion "on request" or "on demand". On the contrary, a report by the government of New South Wales in 2017 considered that the law in the Northern Territory did not allow abortion "on request";[3] and a critic of the law said that it was "really a cover for abortion on demand", implying that formally it wasn't supposed to be.[4] The law was changed in 2021 to allow abortion with approval by only one doctor up to 24 weeks, and to allow it also after 24 weeks with approval by two doctors, but the criteria that the doctors must consider remain the same. I see it as similar to the law in Great Britain, which all sources emphasize as not allowing abortion "on request". In practice it may make no difference, but I think that we should reflect how the sources and the governments of these places classify their own laws, so I think that it would be more appropriate to show it as "prohibited" with a no2 color and the note that you wrote, and green on the map. Heitordp (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Human. It might be helpful to think of "Abortion on request" as there existing a time in the pregnancy where nobody can tell the pregnant woman "you cannot have an abortion" or "you do not meet the criteria for having an abortion". As of the 7th of July all other states and territories in Australia will have such periods, where the only possible way to "stop" an abortion is by conscientiously objecting, (if thats even allowed in state or territory law). Northern Territory does not have such a period, even during the 24 week period the doctor can still theoretically say "no". This means that the law in NT cannot be legal on request. It is clearly very liberal, allowing a very broad and vague range of justifications for abortion, and removing it from the criminal code, and the chance of anyone actually refusing a woman an abortion on legal grounds is effectively zero, so NT is at least green on the map, but it can't be classified as legal on request, and it can't be blue on the map. Gorillainacoupe (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Heitordp and Gorillainacoupe: The Northern Territory abortion law is not similiar to the UK Abortion Act 1967. The wording of the UK Abortion Act itself is actually quite strict and doesn't allow abortion on request, although thanks to broad interpretation, abortions on request are de facto available. The vast majority of abortions in UK are performed on the ground that "the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman".

Also, I don't think saying abortion on request means that "no one can tell a pregnant woman she cannot have an abortion" is correct. The laws of other Australian states are formulated that a doctor "may perform an abortion", not that a doctor must perform an abortion upon request nor that a woman has a guaranteed right to abortion. This article shows whether abortions on request are legally allowed, which means that performing abortions is not limited only to reasons prescribed by law. The NT law says just that a doctor may perform an abortion if he considers it "appropriate in all the circumstances". Even if it's left to the doctor's discretion, the law plausibly allows doctors to perform abortions on request. Abortion could also be refused due to medical reasons (contraindications) and that's what the NT abortion guidelines focus on (for example, page 20 of the clinical guidelines). In view of these, the NT law apparently mean just that the doctor should medically assess the pregnant woman and make sure that the abortion wouldn't endanger her life or health.

So I still think it's more appropriate to mark the Northern Territory as permitting abortion on request (rather than prohibiting it). And if it's to be marked as "prohibited", then at least the {{no2}} template should be used. Human. (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Human.: I think that we should follow what the sources say. Multiple sources, including from the Australian state governments themselves, clearly say that the phrase "all relevant medical circumstances; and the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances", used by the laws in the Northern Territory and in other states, does not mean abortion "on request" or "on demand". If you still want to mark the Northern Territory as allowing abortion on request, I think that you need to find at least one reliable source that says so, preferably from the Northern Territory government. Meanwhile, I agree with using the no2 template. Heitordp (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Mexico's table information is outdated

It needs to be changed because:

- Since November 2021, Baja California's penal code does not explicitly stipulate a temporal framework for risk to health, rape or fetal impairment cases. Actually, abortion in case of rape can be performed at any stage, even late, because the 12 weeks/90 days/3 months limit is unconstitutional, so the legal framework was reformed to comply with it. https://transparencia.pjbc.gob.mx/documentos/pdfs/Codigos/CodigoPenal.pdf (in Spanish, page 38, article 136, fraction II).

- Since December 2021, Colima's penal code does not explicitly stipulate a temporal framework for rape cases. Again, abortion in case of rape can be performed at any stage, even late, because the 12 weeks/90 days/3 months limit is unconstitutional, so the legal framework was reformed to comply with it. https://www.congresocol.gob.mx/web/Sistema/uploads/LegislacionEstatal/Codigos/codigo_penal_15jun2022.pdf (in Spanish, page 54, article 141, fraction II).

- Since June 2021, Hidalgo's penal code does not explicitly stipulate a temporal framework for rape cases. Again, abortion in case of rape can be performed at any stage, even late, because the 12 weeks/90 days/3 months limit is unconstitutional, so the legal framework was reformed to comply with it. http://www.congreso-hidalgo.gob.mx/biblioteca_legislativa/leyes_cintillo/Codigo%20Penal%20para%20el%20Estado%20de%20Hidalgo.pdf (in Spanish, page 33, article 158, fraction II).

- Since September 2019, Oaxaca's penal code does not explicitly stipulate a temporal framework for rape cases. Again, abortion in case of rape can be performed at any stage, even late, because the 12 weeks/90 days/3 months limit is unconstitutional, so the legal framework was reformed to comply with it. https://sspo.gob.mx/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CODIGO-PENAL-PARA-EL-ESTADO-LIBRE-Y-SOBERANO-DE-OAXACA..pdf (in Spanish, page 85, article 316, fraction II).

- Since July 2021, Veracruz's penal code does not explicitly stipulate a temporal framework for rape cases. Again, abortion in case of rape can be performed at any stage, even late, because the 12 weeks/90 days/3 months limit is unconstitutional, so the legal framework was reformed to comply with it. https://www.legisver.gob.mx/leyes/LeyesPDF/CPENAL02032022F2.pdf (in Spanish, page 31, article 154, fraction II).

As a reminder: all those Penal Codes states elective abortion is still (technically) a 'crime' after the 12th or 13th week of gestational age. Before that limit, no matter the cause, it is not a crime (those documents don't even consider it as an 'abortion' if done before the limit). The language of those documents is importat because the part of the causales says elective abortion (as a possible crime; after the limit) won't be considered a crime under those special circumstances (like risk to health, rape or fetal impairment cases; it depends on each state). It is 'technically' a crime because since september 2021, no one will go to jail if the non-justified abortion was consensual even after the limit (instead of going to jail, people receive a fine or is sent to community service). Non-consensual abortion is still a crime (punished with incarceration) no matter the gestational age.

Abortion is a complex matter in Mexico.

Please change that informartion as the article is partially protected and I'm not a registered user. Aleqc (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aleqc: Thanks for mentioning this. I updated the table. Heitordp (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'm in charge of the Spanish version of the article related to Abortion in Mexico. So every doubt you have about this subject, please let us know!Aleqc (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Request to Editor: kindly change Saudi Arabia Abortion law status from Orange to Yellow

Dear editor:

As seen by the sources of this page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Saudi_Arabia

Kindly change the Saudi Arabian Law of Abortion from Orange (Risk to woman's life or to her health)

To Yellow (Risk to woman's life, to her health*, rape, or fetal impairment)

Thank you and best regards. 169.148.30.242 (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

That Wikipedia article is incorrect. It uses a source that states the following:

"A pregnancy arising from incest or rape might qualify for a legal abortion there under the mental health exemption."

That doesn't mean rape or incest is an exception. That article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Saudi_Arabia) is incorrect and needs to be updated, not this one. 71.59.196.190 (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Color scheme vs NPOV?

Does it perhaps inherently express a point of view to show the more permissive regions in peaceful colors and the more restrictive regions in menacing colors? Jmaranvi (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the citation came from. Please disregard. Thank you. Jmaranvi (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jmaranvi: Create an RFC for more feedback.64.53.212.155 (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Benin and Guinea-Bissau's (two West African countries) colours and the section in Timeline are not corrrect

For Benin as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Benin and here https://reproductiverights.org/maps/worlds-abortion-laws/?country=BEN abortion has been legal on request (12 weeks) since last year (2021) with a Gestational Limit of 12 weeks so Benins colour should be dark blue (Gestational limit in the first 17 weeks) and the secction for Timeline Benin should be added in the year 2021 next to Argentina, South Korea and Thailand.

For Guinea-Bissau as seen here https://www.guttmacher.org/geography/africa/guinea-bissau# and here https://reproductiverights.org/maps/worlds-abortion-laws/?country=GNB abortion is also legal on request though the gestational preriod is not known so the country should be purple (Unclear gestational limit) like China and not red and in the Timeline section as seen here https://delano.lu/article/delano_legal-status-abortion-worldwide Guinea-Bissau should be added in the year 2018 next to Cyprus. 85.187.219.5 (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The law in Benin allows abortion "when the pregnancy is likely to aggravate or cause a situation of material, educational, professional or moral distress". This legal ground can be considered economic or social, but not merely on request. That's how it's classified by the WHO, which is used as the basis for most of this article.[5]

Thank you for mentioning Guinea-Bissau. Indeed, after reading the penal code more carefully, I realize that it only prohibits abortion if done without the woman's consent, outside a medical facility or by someone who is not a licensed professional. It doesn't specify a gestational limit, so it should be purple on the map, as you wrote. But the penal code came into force in 1993, replacing the previous penal code of 1886, which prohibited abortion without explicitly listing any exception, so in the timeline it should be 1993. I'll make these changes. Heitordp (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying and changing I appreciate it but when it comes to Benin even the WHO says that "Interruption of pregnancy can be authorized on the demand of the pregnant woman up until 12 weeks gestation, when the pregnancy is susceptible to cause or aggravate a material, educational, professional or moral distress that is incompatible with the interest of the woman or the baby to born." The wording is so broad that it de facto allows a woman to have an abortion per her request in the first 12 weeks of gestation does not matter what the reason is. So Benin should dark blue and added to the year 2021. Thank you again for your reply. 85.187.219.5 (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Almost all countries that allow abortion for social reasons have broad wording and also de facto allow it on request: Great Britain, Finland, Hungary, Israel, India, Laos, Taiwan, Japan, Zambia, Northern Territory, etc. But the WHO still marks all of them as "no" or "not specified" in the column for abortion on request. Benin is not different in this aspect. I have proposed merging the categories of social reasons and on request for all countries here to avoid this issue, but other users have opposed it. If you'd like, you may start a RFC to discuss it again. But while the categories remain separate and we remain using the WHO classification, for consistency Benin should not be marked as allowing abortion on request. Heitordp (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying I understand and thank you for changing Guinea-Bissau! Also can you clarify the situation in San Marino since last year they did have a referendum on the issue an an huge majority voted to legalize abortion in the first 12 weeks on request but on the map San Marino is red 85.187.219.5 (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

See the note for San Marino in the table in the article. The referendum was only a proposal, the parliament still has to change the law to implement the result of the referendum. The parliament has made a draft but only last week started discussing the details.[6] It will take some time until the law is passed and takes effect. Heitordp (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright thank you! 85.187.219.5 (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Section on comparable limits

@Kwamikagami: I appreciate that you spent the time to make the maps of Europe, US and Canada with comparable colors for gestational limits, but I see many problems:

• You assumed that the limits in all countries in Europe are counted from implantation, but this is not correct. For example, in Austria it's from implantation, but in Switzerland it's from the last menstrual period, and in Belgium and France it's legally considered from fertilization but in practice it's implemented from the last menstrual period plus two weeks. So the limit in Austria is actually later than in France, contrary to what your map shows. These are just some examples, and I suppose that many others are not precisely correct on the map.
• Some small jurisdictions in Europe are incorrect or inconsistent: San Marino does not yet allow abortion on request, the parliament still has to pass a law to implement the result of the referendum and it's still discussing the details; Guernsey and Gibraltar should be shown like Great Britain, as their laws are all similar; it's an exaggeration to say that abortion on request is not available in Northern Ireland, as abortion pills, which can be used up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, are available at least in some areas.[7]
• You assumed that the limits in all subdivisions of Canada are counted from fertilization, but this is not correct. I suppose that you used this source, but it doesn't say how the limits are counted. Also, that source doesn't seem very reliable as its diagram and text contradict each other, for example for British Columbia and Nunavut, and Manitoba may be incorrect or outdated. I recommend using this source, which is a lot more detailed and updated, and it specifies the limits more clearly, most of them from the last menstrual period.
• It's already difficult to keep the tables and the first map in the article matching each other, and adding more maps makes it even more difficult to keep everything updated and matching.
• Another user added a banner mentioning that the section doesn't show a worldwide view.
• I don't see the point of having a section about comparable limits if it already says that the limits are not directly comparable.

For all these reasons, I suggest removing this section, at least for now. If you really want to add maps to show comparable colors in Europe, US and Canada with such high precision in steps of one week, I suggest first confirming how exactly the limits are counted in each country and subdivision, adjusting the numbers in the tables to reflect the same definition with notes (as it's done for Belgium and France), and only then adding the maps to match the tables. Heitordp (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Yes, I'm trying to confirm a few countries.

That is the source I used for Canada; don't remember where I found that it was from fertilization.

As for world-wide view, agreed. It's a work in progress.

I can adjust the table here and in the sub-articles with the updated limits. But would like to confirm them first! Maps seem to attract corrections more readily than tables do. People react in days to weeks, whereas tables can sometimes be a decade out of date and no-one seems to notice.

— kwami (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Utah

@5truenos: In the law in Utah, section 76-7-302.5 says that the limit of 18 weeks does not apply in the cases listed in section 76-7-302(3)(b). Section 76-7-302(3)(b) has 3 paragraphs: (i) for risk to life or health, (ii) for fetal impairment, or (iii) for rape or incest. In your screenshot, you only underlined paragraph (i). Here is a link to this law in the Utah Code, with identations that show more clearly everything that is included in section (3)(b). Do you agree? Heitordp (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Heitordp I apologise. Probably I got confused among all the categories and subcategories written with the same left margin. I have just updated the Utah abortion legal grounds by incorporating the remaining exceptions found in the act. Thanks for figuring out.--5truenos (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022

Add that Zambia passed the termination of pregnancy act in 1972 121.44.216.229 (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Tennessee

The map will need to be updated for Tennessee to black on 8/25, all abortions will be illegal in the state https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2022/08/22/tennessee-abortion-law-take-effect-aug-25-gov-bill-lee-doctors-protected/7867269001/ source]. Idaho will ban abortions on 8/25 and should be updated to brown and will ban all abortions except rape, incest or medical emergencies source. cookie monster 755 02:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755: I disagree with marking Tennessee black. There are several countries where the abortion law doesn't explicitly mention any exception but a legal principle overrides criminal punishment in case of risk to life, and these countries are marked red on the map. In Tennessee the law is even more explicit than in those other countries, so for consistency it should be marked red or orange. It's true that the law makes it only a defense against prosecution, but the government itself considers it an exception so such cases might not be prosecuted at all. I also find it more appropriate to rely on what the government concludes about its own laws than the opinion of a lawyer mentioned in a news article. Heitordp (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose bringing the contents of Anti-abortion by country into this article and Anti-abortion movements. The Anti-abortion by country article contains similar information, though it's more poorly sourced and more difficult to parse (here, it's organized in tables). SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Alabama & Louisiana

Alabama and Louisiana should be edited to reflect their laws, which have exceptions for fetal impairment (confirmed by state officials). Alabama allows an exception for pregnancies that have a "lethal anomaly" and Louisiana has an exception for pregnancies that are "medically futile". This would make both of them pink on the global map. RenewIR (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@RenewIR: I agree. It would be consistent with Brazil and the UAE, whose exceptions for fetal anomaly are also only for lethal cases and they are marked yellow or pink on the map. Heitordp (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Also agree with above. GenuineArt (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

San Marino in Map

San Marino status is not correctly modified in the global map. https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/01/san-marino-legalises-abortion-one-year-after-landmark-referendum https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/san-marino-legalizes-abortion-year-after-voters-gave-ok/2022/09/01/8555c974-2a05-11ed-a90a-fce4015dfc8f_story.html https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-religion-legislature-f9c2a8aea37ed03272aa994c74f465cc FedericoAsc (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@FedericoAsc: The law will take effect on 12 September 2022. The map should be updated after that. Heitordp (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Issues

I have three possible considerations:

• I think it would be good to separate the listings (when did abortion become legal in what country, under what circumstances can an abortion be done in country X) from the rest of the article
• We need to look at certain countries: Eg. Vatican City: most people living there are priests, they have given a vow of chastity, or they are nuns, who likewise have given such a vow. So: how many abortions do you think have been carried out in the last 50-odd years? - And looking around: Vatican City has an area of less than 10km, all around is Italy.
• The article should be moved to abortion laws, we are tzalking about many laws of many countries, not one law.Eptalon (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

See the citizenship section of the article on Vatican City. Citizenship of Vatican City is granted on jus officii, to those working for the Holy See. It is also extended to the spouse and children of a citizen, "provided they are living together in the city". The Vatican has several civilian employees, including the members of the Swiss Guard and the Corps of Gendarmerie of Vatican City. It is not solely populated by clergy. Dimadick (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

India

@PixlAdventrer: The law in India allows abortion up to 20 weeks of pregnancy if a doctor agrees that the pregnancy would cause injury to the woman's mental health, and up to 24 weeks of pregnancy for certain categories of women (specified in regulations to include married, divorced or widows but not unmarried) if two doctors agree that the pregnancy would cause injury to her mental health. The law then says that to determine injury to mental health, "account may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment", which is identical to the law of the UK and other countries and is considered to mean allowing abortion for social reasons by not merely on request. The recent court ruling only had the effect of eliminating the distinction due to marital status, thus including unmarried women (or any women) in the second category that allows abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy with the approval of two doctors.[8] But the doctors must still agree that the pregnancy causes injury to the woman's mental health. The court ruling did not change this criteria. So abortion in India should still be classified as allowed for social reasons, which are indeed very broad, but not merely on request. This situation is similar to the UK. Heitordp (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Finland

Potentially, this news must be followed. 175.176.90.204 (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Southeast Ukraine

@Treesmelon: For now, I removed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics and showed them as part of Ukraine. I can draw the entire area annexed by Russia as part of Russia, but I think that it's better to wait until the situation becomes more settled. The exact border is still changing due to war. Heitordp (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds correct to me as long as – and this clarification is not for you – WP:NPOV is respected. Treesmelon (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Philippines

Doesn't the Philippines at least on paper allow the exception if mother's life is at risk? 49.146.34.248 (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

No, indirect abortion doesn't always apply to mother's life exception. It is more narrow. The table reflects this and the map is mainly about direct abortions. Malta is similar to Phillipines.131.193.82.134 (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thailand

There are many news articles about how Thailand’s limit on on-request abortion has been moved from 12 weeks to 20 weeks. It looks like this has been in the news for a while, so I’m surprised to see that this page and the page for “Abortion in Thailand” haven’t been updated yet. Is there a reason that the pages haven’t been updated yet? People here usually seem to know about new legal changes before I do. 2600:100A:B12A:3137:B854:E1D0:9A9D:A77A (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the news. The government issued the regulation a month ago, but it only entered into force yesterday. Here we usually update the table and map only after the legal change enters into force, which can be many days or months after its approval. I updated them now. Heitordp (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Quintana Roo

I just mentioned about Thailand legalizing abortion on-request up to 20 weeks, and the map and table on this page as well as well as the “Abortion in Thailand” page not being updated yet, and now I’ve remembered reading about another Mexican state legalizing abortion on-request as well. The “Abortion in Mexico” article has already been updated to show Quintana Roo’s legalization, but this article hasn’t, in the map or the table. 2600:100A:B12A:3137:B854:E1D0:9A9D:A77A (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the news. The Congress of Quintana Roo passed the law on 26 October 2022, it was approved by the governor and published in the state's official journal on 28 October 2022, and it enters into force on 29 October 2022. I updated the table and map. Heitordp (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Germany is a rather confusing case

There it is basicly illegal, but without punishment within gestational limit. 49.146.34.248 (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Finland should be blue

Finland changed the law a week ago. https://yle.fi/news/3-12667534 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adw142 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Adw142: Thanks for the news. But the law will only enter into force in 2023, so the table and map should be updated at that time. Heitordp (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Indian changed legal rights for abortion

Indian has changed the rights now and abortion is permitted but it’s shown different on wikipedia 180.151.224.107 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The law in India permits abortion if the pregnancy poses risk to the woman's mental health, including anguish caused by failure of contraception, but not merely by the woman's request. The changes in 2021 and 2022 only increased the gestational limits and equalized the conditions regardless of marital status, but they did not allow abortion without one of the listed reasons. Therefore, India remains classified similar to the UK, as allowing abortion for social reasons but not on request. Heitordp (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I was interested to see that "grave injury ... to her mental health", as a reason for abortion, includes "failure of any device or method used by any woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting the number of children or preventing pregnancy." That sounds like it would include not just dispensary-issued contraception but the rhythm method, or eating a papaya the next morning. So while not technically "on request", it's pretty close. Rather like the Mexican exception for rape, where you do not need a police report or anything more than your word. — kwami (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Politics in Global Perspective

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 22 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Byroncaroline (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Byroncaroline (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Australia 2022

Australia fully legalised in 2022 according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Australia

Whatever sources are on that article should work here, yeah? 49.2.199.172 (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed before, see here, here and here. The table in this article follows the UN classification, which makes a distinction between abortion allowed for social reasons and allowed merely by the woman's request. Multiple sources cited in the table here, including one from an Australian state government, explicitly say that the law in the Northern Territory does not allow abortion on request or on demand, even after the changes to the law in 2021.

The lead in the article Abortion in Australia is not entirely correct. Abortion has not been "fully decriminalised" in all subdivisions of Australia, as some of them still have penalties for abortion in their criminal codes if not done in certain conditions, and in the case of the Northern Territory it's not legal "on request". The table in that article correctly says that in the Northern Territory it's legal "if medical practitioners consider appropriate", and the sources cited there do not say that it's legal "on request" or "on demand". Heitordp (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

It seems like experienced editors are not staying on top of this article like they used to, and now someone has edited Saudi Arabia in the table without adding any sources. Is this a correct interpretation of the sources, or not? 2600:100A:B120:A952:7033:3EE1:58E9:B883 (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This edit was partially correct as the sources cited say that Saudi Arabia allows abortion for rape and fetal impairment, but they don't say that it's up to 4 months in these cases. The law says that abortion is allowed for reasons that are not economic or social up to 40 days of gestation, so I changed it to 40 days in the table. The limit of 4 months is only for risk to health. Heitordp (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Minnesota

@RenewIR: The law in Minnesota specifies that abortion is permitted for any reason before "potential viability", defined as the second half of the gestational period,[9] and after that point only in case of risk to the woman's life or health.[10] In 1976, a court ruled that the "potential viability" limit was unconstitutional, but allowed a limit at actual viability.[11] Some scholars claim that this judicial decision technically invalidated the whole section of the law so there would be no gestational limit at all, but the government of Minnesota, medical providers and various other sources conclude that the legal limit remains at actual viability.[12]

The Protect Reproductive Options Act, which was enacted today, is only a general declaration of rights. It doesn't say that abortion is permitted without gestational limit, and it doesn't alter the existing law that specifies the limit.[13] In fact the new Act doesn't practically change anything,[14] and the governor has declared that the legal limit remains at viability even after the new Act. So I think that the table should still list the viability limit for Minnesota, with a note mentioning the alternative claim of no limit, and that the map should still show the state with a medium blue color (limit >17 weeks), or maybe purple (unclear limit). Heitordp (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If this new action on Minnesota’s part has removed the gestational limit there, doesn’t that mean that California and other states that have enshrined abortion rights in their constitutions without mentioning any gestational limits should also have theirs removed? 2600:100A:B1E4:C8D2:9555:F5F1:50D7:9CCB (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the limit we show should be the limit in practice. If it's only available to viability, it doesn't matter to a woman seeking an abortion whether it is "really" unlimited. If a provider disputes the governor's declaration and starts providing abortions past that point, then we can alter the map to match. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

But then what about places like Sint Maarten, where abortion is illegal on paper but apparently safely available on-request from physicians and ignored by the police in practice? This article is supposed to be about the laws, which is why, for example, Vermont is shown to have no gestational limit, even though it seems there aren’t any providers there providing abortions past 21 weeks and 6 days LMP. Although, certain limits are shown for Canadian provinces despite the fact that there are no laws against abortion in Canada. 2600:100A:B1E4:C8D2:9555:F5F1:50D7:9CCB (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Partly we'd need RS's on what the law says, and not try to interpret it ourselves if there's any dispute over its meaning. As for Canada using a different standard than the rest of the world, this article suffers from a lot of inconsistencies. Perhaps it would be best to list both the theoretical and the actual limits. — kwami (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It’s possible that even though a provider might say on their website that they only provide abortions up to a certain point in pregnancy, they may be willing to go beyond that if a woman in need came to them, especially if it wouldn’t be against the law, and cases like that probably wouldn’t be reported anywhere that we might hear about them. So I really don’t see how we’d ever be able to accurately report on how far along abortions are available, even though that is important information for women to know. What we can usually know is what the law says. 2600:100A:B1E4:C8D2:9555:F5F1:50D7:9CCB (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe 'uncertain' in this case then. But that doesn't fix Canada. — kwami (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think it would be right to say that we’re just uncertain when it comes to Minnesota and California and potentially other states, because we are certain that it’s legal up to at least the point of viability, it’s only after viability that we’re uncertain about. Perhaps we could approach the map sort of like the map showing the laws of European countries at the bottom of the “national laws” section of this article did, with stripes of both colors showing that there’s a law giving a gestational limit past 17 weeks and another law that doesn’t assign a limit, and put “viability or no limit” with a note with details in the “national laws” section of the article? 2600:100A:B1E4:C8D2:9555:F5F1:50D7:9CCB (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The lawmakers voted down amendments to add a viability standard, and the text you're referencing is near identical to the law passed in Colorado, which we recognize has no gestational limit. RenewIR (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

But it's not just the law, but how much is still in effect after the circuit court struck much of it down. When even the lawyers don't know what the law is, I don't think we should try to decide it ourselves. — kwami (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

How is the situation in Minnesota different from the situation in California, though? I don’t understand why Minnesota would be labeled as having no limit when the article still shows California’s viability limit being left intact. Isn’t the text from the Minnesota act near-identical to the text from the California constitutional amendment from November? Colorado’s situation was different from Minnesota and California because Colorado never had a gestational limit. 2600:100A:B1E4:C8D2:9555:F5F1:50D7:9CCB (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Who knows? I'm not a lawyer. But we follow RS's. We have RS's that there's no limit in CA; do don't [yet] have such RS for that for MN. — kwami (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don’t understand. You’re saying that there are reliable sources saying that there’s no limit in California but none saying that for Minnesota. I was asking RenewIR why they edited this article and other articles to say that Minnesota has no limit when no one has edited this article or any other articles to say that California has no limit. If what you’re saying is true, then they should’ve done the opposite—changed what’s said about California but not what’s said about Minnesota—but they’re still continuing to further edit pages to say that there’s no limit in Minnesota. If there’s no limit in California, then why has no one edited any articles to say that in the months since the vote? And if the viability limit remains in Minnesota, then why hasn’t anyone intervened against the edits that RenewIR has been making for days? 2600:100A:B102:3199:2021:631D:F7D6:D76E (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

California law is settled. We can refer to Guttmacher or whoever, which is what we've been doing. Minnesota just passed a law that some people say has overridden the (previous) limit, and others say has no effect on the limit. Govt. officials in MN say the old limit is still in effect. Meanwhile anti-abortion groups are claiming that the sky is falling. Personally, I think if e.g. the AG of MN says the law is X, we should report that it is X unless we have a RS to the contrary. We should see what Guttmacher says with their next update. I suspect there will be no change, but who knows. — kwami (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

But you said that “We have RS's that there's no limit in CA”. I’m asking why this article and others say that California has a limit at viability if you have reliable sources saying that there’s no limit in California. 2600:100A:B120:A952:7033:3EE1:58E9:B883 (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

My error. We give the limit for CA that we have in RS's. We should do the same for MN. — kwami (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I changed Minnesota to "permitted", with a note explaining the unclear limit and sources. I wouldn't oppose changing it back to to "viability" or "no limit" as long as the note remains.

Canada has been discussed before here. Although the laws in Canada do not directly mention abortion, they do prohibit it like any medical procedure if not done by a licenced medical professional. The laws also establish a single authority to grant medical licences in each province, and these authorities issue regulations specifying gestational limits. Other countries such as Bahrain and Laos also have a similar situation. The table should consider all legal sources, not only statutes but also regulations and judicial decisions, so it's not inconsistent to show the gestational limits for Canada. Heitordp (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Opted for viability after reviewing the sources. RenewIR (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Belgium

I just happened across this article and thought I should mention it here, because I know it can be very difficult to keep up with all of the developments happening in every country:

https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/03/15/progressives-in-belgium-demand-extension-of-time-period-allowed-for-abortion/

This could be something to watch for, to see if the law does end up changing. 2600:100A:B1CE:5CD8:318F:BA6C:EC00:864A (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo

Kosovo also allows abortion shouldn't it be included in the list? 145.127.62.239 (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo is already listed in the main table. The timeline table only lists UN member states, but I think that for consistency it should also list other de facto independent states with limited recognition. In this case it would list Artsakh, South Ossetia and Transnistria as part of the Soviet Union in 1955, Kosovo as part of Yugoslavia in 1977, and Northern Cyprus in 1983. I suggest listing these countries in italics. @Treesmelon: what do you think? Heitordp (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Brazil

If abortion in case of encephalopaty is exception from the rule, Shouldn't be Brazil marked as brown in the map? The Wolak (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@The Wolak: As explained in the note in the table, the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil allowed abortion explicitly only in case of anencephaly, but lower courts expanded this ruling to allow abortion also in other fatal cases of fetal anomalies. Only the Supreme Court ruling is automatic, but in the other cases people can request an individual ruling in the lower courts, which often accept it. This situation is similar to the UAE and some US states, which allow abortion for fetal impairment only in fatal cases, and they are marked yellow or pink on the map. Heitordp (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

But you need agreement of judgement to undergo abortion in this case, so it's performed in some cases, it's not a condition to perform abortion de iure. In other countries, when abortion with fetal imparmtment is legal abortion is offered by ginecologist after detection of impartment, there is no neccesity of asking the crout to perform abortion The Wolak (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@The Wolak: OK, I agree to change Brazil to brown on the map. But let's wait to see if others want to comment. @RenewIR: what do you think? Heitordp (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd keep it as yellow since lower courts expanded it as you said, and well as consistency across countries/subdivisions. RenewIR (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Senegal and Center for Reproductive Rights

@Rote1234: I'm continuing here the discussion started on RenewIR's talk page. The code of medical ethics of Senegal explicitly permits abortion in case of risk to life,[15] and the government of Senegal,[16] the UN[17] and other sources[18] have clarified that it overrides the general prohibition of the penal code in this case. I added these sources to the table.

A similar situation occurs for other countries. The Center for Reproductive Rights seems to consider only what is explicitly mentioned in the criminal law of each country, which is already cited here as well, but it does not consider the combination of other laws or legal principles like the UN source does. The Center for Reproductive Rights is not more reliable or more recent, it is more simplistic, so it should not be cited as a conclusive source for countries with complex legality. Heitordp (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

if that's the case the we will need to update the map for Madagascar and Philippines to allow to save life of mother: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782417305310 and https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/917566/duterte-told-therapeutic-abortion-allowed-to-save-womens-lives Rote1234 (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rote1234: For Madagascar, the source that you cited says that abortion is illegal except to save the woman's life, citing articles 312 bis, 317 and 378 of the penal code. However, these articles don't say anything about an exception for risk to life. The only article that might be relevant is 328, which decriminalizes any action done in self-defense or defense of others.[19] Many countries apply the legal principle of self-defense to allow abortion to save the woman's life, but it's not clear whether the government of Madagascar accepts this interpretation. The UN source from 2020 mentioned it,[20] but the current version of the UN abortion database doesn't.[21] None of the reports by the government of Madagascar to CEDAW mention it either.[22] Several sources say that abortion is not allowed there even to save the woman's life, and that many doctors do it anyway in this case but risk prosecution.[23][24][25] Due to this legal uncertainty, I think that to change Madagascar to red on the map we would need a source from the government itself clarifying the situation.

For the Philippines, the situation is described in the note in the table. The Supreme Court ruled that abortion to save the woman's life is permitted, but only as indirect abortion under the principle of double effect. This is the same principle used by Malta and Vatican City. I would mark these countries as allowing abortion in case of risk to the woman's life, but other users here consider that indirect abortion is a more limited circumstance, so it's better to ask their opinion before changing the table and map. In any case, if we change the Philippines, I think that we shold change Malta and Vatican City as well. @Manabimasu, RenewIR, and Gelutheranger: What do you think? Heitordp (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It is clear that if we find the exception for Egypt and Mauritania, then it applies to Madagascar and Philippines as well. Rote1234 (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Heitordp:. The principle of double effect isn't mentioned in the UN source and there is semantics on whether indirect abortion is abortion or if the page is about direct abortion. For instance, miscarriage is termed "spontaneous abortion". Which abortion is being referred by the page indirect abortion or direct abortion? If the latter, then the changes should not apply.71.201.78.227 (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Politics in Global Perspective

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 26 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Byroncaroline (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Danimo2021, Angel.e.sosa.

— Assignment last updated by A.lejla (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Collapsible table

Can the judicial decisions and timeline tables be combined? 207.96.32.81 (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

South Carolina information is incorrect

The new South Carolina ban has already been blocked. The article on Abortion in South Carolina was updated to reflect that hours ago but this article still hasn’t been updated. 2600:100A:B11F:EC56:4BB:2A1E:1BAF:C5D4 (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the news. This article has been updated. Heitordp (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The Article on abortion in South Carolina says that the 6 week ban has been reinstated, so shouldn't South Carolina be dark blue again to represent that the gestational limit is in the first 17 weeks? Gavinbarton (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gavinbarton: Yes, and the map was updated yesterday. You may need to refresh the page or clear the cache to see the new version. Heitordp (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Mexican Supreme Court decisions

Aguascalientes

Mexican Supreme Court decriminalised elective abortion today. No gestational limits, so it can be performed at any stage (like in Coahuila).[26] Aleqc (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aleqc: Thanks for the news. I updated the article and map. Heitordp (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Federal

The Mexican Supreme Court decision of 6 September 2023 only invalidates the federal law that prohibited abortion, but the state laws remain unaffected. The result of this decision is that federal health facilities anywhere in the country may provide abortion without prosecution, but state and private health facilities are still subject to the respective state laws.[27] Therefore, the tables in this article and the map should not be changed due to this decision. Heitordp (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

flag error?

Check Ukrainian flag! 71.245.225.216 (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The flag is before the state name.

It is not just formatted clearly but it is correct. Jacques Renaître (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality of Colours

The changes that reduced restrictions is in green and those that maintained or increased them is in red.

Green and Red are usually used to denote positive and negative, so it really begs the question: are these choices neutral or not? Jacques Renaître (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

We just regurgitate what sources do Moxy- 19:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I checked the history of the map and its usage of colours and it is older than your article. Jacques Renaître (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Bingo Moxy- 19:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you understood my point. I meant that you aren't basing the choices in source materials but using them to influence others. Jacques Renaître (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Legal Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 17 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Swifty4life1989, BronzeOwl8803 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Borchersg1, Norseup123, Winchester3324.

— Assignment last updated by User78632 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Canada and Australia and New Zealand

Why does the table list gestational age limits for Canada and Australia and New Zealand? Canada has no laws regarding abortion whatsoever, their abortion laws were overturned by the Supreme Court in the late 199th decade and have never been replaced with anything. Australia has no federal abortion laws (just like the United States), and every state and territory has enacted legislation to remove the procedure from their criminal codes. The only regulations are found in their health policies, just like any other medical procedure. And New Zealand repealed their abortion laws a few years ago through an act of Parliament which fully decriminalized the procedure (they did so legislatively while Canada did so judicially). In all three countries, there is no upper limit on when one can be performed, as long as a physician determines it to be in the best interests of the patient, which the law does not specify any requirements for. The only way to be prosecuted for an abortion is by performing one without a medical licence. I believe it would be more accurate to state that the three countries have no legal restrictions on abortion. 75.27.37.89 (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The table considers anything that has legal force, not just criminal codes but also any laws, regulations and judicial decisions.

Canada has been discussed before here. The laws of Canada do not explicitly mention abortion, but they prohibit medical practice without a license and authorize a single institution in each province to issue such licenses and to make regulations that licensed professionals must follow, and these regulations in turn specify gestational limits for abortion depending on the circumstance. See for example Quebec[28][29] and Alberta.[30][31] The table lists the limits according to the sources cited in the note there.[32][33]

The laws of Australian states and of New Zealand, cited in the table, explicitly specify a gestational limit under which abortion can be done without restriction, and the circumstances that physicians must consider to allow abortion after this limit. Accordingly, the table shows a gestational limit for these countries only in the last column, which refers to abortion merely by the woman's request, and no limit in the other columns, which refer to circumstances determined by the physicians. Please see also my responses to your comments to the map here. Heitordp (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

So in other words, what you're saying is that Canada does have indirect abortion laws, or more accurately pseudo laws, even if they're not quite as obvious as an actual piece of legislation which is created by a body of government? 75.27.37.89 (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, regardless of whether those countries have abortion restrictions, it's still worth pointing out that all three have no restrictions in their criminal codes. This is vastly different from much of Europe where abortion is regulated by the government and subject to criminal laws. This is true even in otherwise progressive nations such as the UK, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden. 75.27.37.89 (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the abortion regulations in Canada can be considered indirect laws. These regulations are established by regulatory colleges, which are authorized to do so by laws created by the provincial legislatures.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand still have criminal penalties for abortion not done by medical professionals. In Canada they are generally for medical practice without a license, and in Australia and New Zealand they are specifically for abortion. There are also other countries that have removed criminal penalties for abortion done by medical professionals, such as Bahrain and Laos, but their abortion regulations that medical professionals must follow are more restrictive than in the European countries that you mentioned. So I don't think that the removal of abortion from the criminal code by itself is really notable. Heitordp (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Well for one thing it shows the intent of the law. I don't think a law in Texas which gives life in prison to a physician who helps a 12 year old rape victim terminate a nonviable and dangerous pregnancy can be compared with an abortion law in France which simply requires a physician to approve an abortion after the first trimester as medically necessary, but with no legal requirements which must be met and no criminal penalties involved. It's obvious that one of these is about enforcing your personal views on everyone else, while the other is about protecting patient safety and maintaining health standards.

I'll also admit that I'm surprised about Bahrain and Laos decriminalizing abortion. Laos isn't too surprising as a communist country, since they tend to be free of any social issues which are fueled by religion, even if they're hardly free in any other way. Bahrain is a lot more surprising, since it's an Islamic theocracy which means it's even worse than a Christian theocracy. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I would like to see where you heard that they have no criminal restrictions on abortion. 12.14.78.226 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Texas and France are already shown very differently in the table and map, because Texas allows abortion only in case of risk to the woman's life, and France allows it merely by the woman's request in the first 16 weeks and for various medical reasons at any time.

Communist countries are not necessarily more liberal regarding abortion. For example, Albania, Cambodia, Bulgaria, Mongolia, Mozambique and Romania only liberalized abortion after they ended communism or during their transition from it. Laos has been communist since 1975, but it only decriminalized abortion by medical professionals in 2017.

Bahrain is not a theocracy, it's a semi-constitutional monarchy where the power is shared by the king and elected representatives. It defines Islam as the official religion and imposes some Islamic laws, but it still allows the private practice of other religions. Most other Muslim-majority countries are similar. Very few countries can actually be considered theocracies, where the government is assigned to religious leaders, such as Vatican City and to some extent Iran and Afghanistan. Also, in terms of abortion Islam can be less restrictive than Christianity, as many Islamic interpretations allow abortion for various medical reasons while many Christian interpretations allow it only for risk to the woman's life.

All sources about Bahrain and other countries are already in the table in the article. The penal code of Bahrain imposes penalties for abortion only if not done by a medical professional (article 321) or if done without the woman's consent (article 322). In fact, because of this the UN listed Bahrain as allowing abortion on request.[34] However, the medical regulation of Bahrain prohibits abortion except in case of risk to the woman's life (article 19). Medical professionals who violate this restriction are subject to disciplinary actions such as suspension or revocation of license (articles 30 and 31), but not criminal penalties. Heitordp (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Discrepancy on British Columbia

I’ve just noticed that, in the table, the Canadian province of British Columbia is listed as having a gestational limit of 24 weeks, but the map underneath that table that focuses on Canadian provinces shows it as being the only one with a limit of 25 weeks. Which is correct? The same discrepancy is also formatted in a different way in two spots in the article on “Abortion in Canada”. 2600:100A:B1E2:2B0A:2414:8730:E191:B801 (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The table cites two sources for Canada. In the first source, the figure says that British Columbia has a limit of 24 weeks and 6 days. In the second source, the figure also says 24 weeks and 6 days, but the text says 23 weeks and 6 days. I think that the text is more reliable than the figure. Heitordp (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I found that the article on “Abortion in Canada” had the website for an abortion clinic in British Columbia cited, and that clinic’s website said they do abortions up to 25 weeks, and I feel like that’s going to be the most reliable source.

Here’s that site, which says “CARE Program provides abortions up to the 25th week of pregnancy”: http://www.bcwomens.ca/health-info/sexual-reproductive-health/abortion-services 2600:100A:B1E2:2B0A:2414:8730:E191:B801 (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Why was contraceptive failure removed from the map key?

I don’t understand why user 7szz removed contraceptive failure from the map key. I think it needs to be mentioned in the article, as India and Laos adding it as an exception to their laws is a very significant development, considering that the data I’ve seen shows that the majority of abortions are of pregnancies that resulted from contraceptive failure, and other countries might follow them, as it was added in early 2021 in India and that seems to have possibly inspired Laos to add it as well later that year.

Have other countries also added it to their laws, or does it seem like they might? I think it’s really important to note the countries that have, for the reasons I’ve already mentioned, and to explain what sorts of “proof” of which contraceptive methods failing might be required in the countries where contraceptive failure is an exception to abortion bans. (Sorry to go a bit off-topic, but I want to add that I think that info should be added for rape exceptions as well, as I’m sure the requirements differ greatly across different countries, like, for example, countries like Poland that require police involvement vs. countries like Ethiopia that only require the woman’s word.)

Also, I disagree with user 7szz’s claim that contraceptive failure is “included in socioeconomic ground”. And another very important thing that I think needs to be noted is what qualifies as allowing abortion to protect the woman’s health or life. There’s a big difference between countries that only allow abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancies and countries that essentially allow abortion on-request under the exceptions for protecting a woman’s health and life because they recognize that abortion always does that, as it does much less damage to a woman’s body than carrying a pregnancy to term does and has a much lower mortality rate.

I want to clarify that I’m not suggesting adding all of the things that I’ve mentioned or suggested to the main map itself at the top of the page, which is what I’ve been referring to (and which is, I have to say, an absolutely wonderful map that I appreciate a lot and the absolute best source I’ve ever seen on abortion laws around the world). But there are a few additional maps that have been added lower down in the article (the ones that focus more in detail on laws in Europe and U.S. states and Canadian provinces), and I was thinking that more maps could possibly be added that are like those but tackle the other things I’ve mentioned. 2600:100A:B1E2:2B0A:2414:8730:E191:B801 (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

India added the criterion of contraceptive failure already in its first abortion law in 1971, but it was limited to married women. The change in 2021 was only to extend it to all women regardless of marital status. So by itself, this criterion for abortion is not new. It's possible that the change to the law in India inspired the regulation in Laos, but unless we find reliable sources that indicate so, it's speculation and should not be mentioned in the article.

The Indian law says that abortion is allowed in case the pregnancy involves a risk of "grave injury to her physical or mental health", then it adds an explanation that in case of contraceptive failure, "the anguish caused by such pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman". The Laotian regulation lists contraceptive failure under the category of "social aspects", so user 7szz is correct at least in the case of Laos. Since neither of these countries lists contraceptive failure as a category on its own, I don't think that the map legend should do so either.

The only other country that I found which mentions contraceptive failure in its abortion law is Guyana, but it also allows abortion on request, the only difference is the gestational limit.

For all countries in the table, the categories of risk to life or health refer to risk of harm due to an abnormal medical condition, such as an ectopic pregnancy, which is much clearer and greater than the general minimal risk from a normal pregnancy. If a country allows abortion practically on request because it considers that any pregnancy is a potential risk to health, such as the UK, it's also marked as permitted in the columns of economic or social or on request. Note that even these countries still treat the two cases differently, for example abortion due to a clear risk to health is allowed at any time, but if only due to a potential or general risk from a normal pregnancy it has a gestational limit.

Feel free to add notes to the table if you'd like to clarify any detailed conditions in specific countries, but please add sources to support the information. Heitordp (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t suggesting that speculation be added to the article, I was just pointing out how significant that development was and could be. I don’t see other countries following Israel’s example of allowing abortion on-request for all unmarried women and all married women with pregnancies that were not caused by their spouses, and it’s not considered as allowing abortion on-request in general, so I wouldn’t say that India really did allow abortion on the ground of contraceptive failure when it was limited to married women. And, although it’s a pretty broad term, I don’t see how someone choosing not to continue an accidental pregnancy is due to socioeconomic concerns and not someone’s desire to not go through pregnancy and childbirth to get a child they obviously didn’t want to have just because they had bad luck and contraceptives failed to do their job. It’s about physical health concerns.

You should know that EVERY pregnancy carries grave risks to the woman’s physical and mental health. My own mother could tell you about how she almost died giving birth despite doing everything “right” and not being considered “at risk” at all, in any way, with the only possibly “abnormal” thing being how well planned out the whole pregnancy was. There are only some things that statistically make those risks even more likely to occur than usual, but the risks are always there, and abortion is always infinitely safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. Carrying a pregnancy to term ALWAYS damages a woman’s body in ways that abortion could prevent, and where I am unfortunately forced to live, the maternal mortality rate is more than a hundred times higher than the abortion mortality rate.

I can’t add notes to the table myself because I don’t want to make an account, as keeping watch on pages would be too stressful for me because of how much I care. Thank you for pointing out Guyana, though, which I see has contraceptive failure listed with a limit of 16 weeks. I wasn’t aware of that because of the hidden nature of the notes. It’s so much easier to see things on the map (except for some of the tiny islands which are very difficult to locate). 2600:100A:B1E2:2B0A:2414:8730:E191:B801 (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Colors and WP:npov

@Heitordp Colors have varying symbolism. It isn't a policy that certain colors give unbalanced views on wikipedia. I find being used from Talk:List_of_states_and_union_territories_of_India_by_fertility_rate#RFC_style in many articles. Should the map's colors and keys be changed to have a more "neutral" perception? Maybe more grayscale. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the current colors are really unbalanced, as abortion on request is shown in blue rather than green. Maybe a different set of colors could be used, but not grayscale, because the map needs to contrast 12 categories. Also note that the map is used in hundreds of articles so it would require a lot of work to change all the legends. Heitordp (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Canada

In the table, the Canadian subdivisions are shown with gestational limits, with a note saying that they are set by professional regulations. The note cites two sources that mention the limits, but they don't clarify whether these limits are simply due to availability or actually mandatory regulations. Previously when Canada was discussed here, I provided sources about the professional guidelines in Quebec and Alberta, which did say that they were mandatory. However, in 2022 the College of Physicians of Quebec removed the gestational limit for abortion pills and removed the abortion guidelines from its website altogether;[35] the abortion guidelines from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta are no longer in its website either; and one of the sources cited in the table has a note from 2022 suggesting that the information there may be outdated due to the increased use of medical abortion (pills).[36] Therefore, there is no longer any source citing a provincial regulation that imposes gestational limits. There are also conflicting sources regarding the limits in some provinces, which suggests that they may vary simply due to availability.

Based on these developments, I suggest removing all subdivisions of Canada from the table, then either change all of Canada on the map to purple, which indicates an unclear limit, or set all columns of Canada in the table to "no limit" and accordingly change all of Canada on the map to light blue. Any comments? Heitordp (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

https://nafcanada.org/abortion-coverage-region/ Moxy- 12:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: This source is already cited in the table, but it doesn't clarify whether these limits are from mandatory regulations, which medical providers are supposed to follow at the risk of losing their licence, or simply reflect the limits that providers individually decide to establish for their own services. If it's the latter, I don't think that these limits should be in the table. Heitordp (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that Vietnam is actually another country with no legal limit. People keep repeating that 22-week limit, but I can’t find the source of that claim. There seem to only be two Vietnamese laws on abortion, both of which are just about prohibiting unqualified people from performing abortions on others while ensuring that women have the right and access to abortion, with no limits mentioned.

I noticed that someone recently edited the article on “Abortion in Vietnam” to state that abortion is “legal at all stages of pregnancy” there, but someone else changed it back to saying there’s a 22-week limit, even though I don’t see any source for that, only this source with the laws I mentioned: https://reproductiverights.org/maps/provision/vietnams-abortion-provisions/

Also, I have to say that I don’t think the “unclear limit” category is a good option to use at all. Not only because it’s really failing to provide any useful information, and could make it seem like abortion isn’t accessible at all since bans could restrict abortion even before actual pregnancy begins and “unclear limit” leaves that as a possibility despite us knowing that abortion is widely available on-request in Canada, but also because “unclear limit” is stating that there is a limit when there doesn’t seem to be. 2600:100A:B1C6:8A24:38C9:23EC:678:CFB4 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, I found this source on the Abortion in Canada article a while back, which says that abortions “beyond 30 weeks” used to have to “be performed in the US with all expenses paid by the Quebec government” but apparently have been available in Quebec since 2020. It’s in French, and I don’t know French, but I plugged it into Google Translate, and that statement seemed to be accurately translating what was said: https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2021/08/03/des-avortements-tardifs-faits-au-quebec-a-cause-de-la-covid 2600:100A:B1C6:8A24:38C9:23EC:678:CFB4 (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources for all countries are cited in the table in the article. For Vietnam, the table cites the health law made by the parliament[37] and the guidelines made by the Ministry of Health.[38] Article 44 of the health law, which is also shown in the link that you cited, says that abortion is allowed on the woman's request, but that medical providers are prohibited from performing abortions unless permitted to do so by the Ministry of Health. Therefore, the law allows the Ministry of Health to impose some restrictions. Indeed, page 401 (407 in PDF) of the guidelines from the Ministry of Health defines abortion as the termination of pregnancy up to 22 weeks, and page 49 (55 in PDF) says that after 22 weeks the pregnancy may be terminated if there is an indication such as fetal abnormality. The latter case may be broad, but it's not merely by the woman's request. Accordingly, the table shows "permitted" in all columns except the last one (on request), for which it shows "22 weeks".

The "unclear limit" category is only for abortion on request, so it does provide useful information, namely that the jurisdiction allows abortion on request at least for some portion of the pregnancy. This portion cannot be zero. No jurisdiction sets a gestational limit before pregnancy begins, this doesn't make any sense. Jurisdictions that ban abortion on request do so by restricting it to certain circumstances, such as risk to life or fetal abnormality, or by prohibiting it completely.

It seems that in Canada there is really no law or regulation imposing any limit, so it can be shown with "no limit", but the "unclear limit" is still useful for some jurisdictions where the sources are conflicting or not clear. For example, there are sources saying that mainland China allows abortion on request, but also that it restricts it to certain cases, without explaining what they are. Other examples are South Korea and the Mexican state of Coahuila, whose courts ordered the legislature to allow abortion on request with some gestational limit, but the legislature hasn't defined the limit yet. Heitordp (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Abortions made in the third trimester are very rare procedures but in any case, there isn't a legal limit on abortions in Québec. If a doctor refuses to give an abortion, he must redirect you to one who will. see for instance https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/abortion/

As noted elsewhere, the Collège des médecins abolished any guidance that could have restricted abortions.

Reading the table, I'm coming to the conclusion that Québec has forbidden abortions for its residents after 24 weeks. However, recent policy has been to allow those abortions to take place, although in US hospitals with public funding by the Québec government. This table therefore seems erroneous and for Québec, it should simply be noted that it is permitted. Whatever restriction exists is regarding services offered and not legal constraints.

I'm not aware of legal restrictions in other provinces . so I won't comment on them. Lpsavoie (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That source is about services offered and not about legal limits though. The article doesn’t have any source that would back legal limits because I don’t think they exist: barriers to access come in the form of services that are offered and not from regulations AFAIK. Lpsavoie (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)