essay about abortion with introduction body and conclusion

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Abortion — Abortion Introduction

Abortion Introduction

Categories: Abortion

About this sample

Words: 628 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 628 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 938 words

4 pages / 1770 words

3 pages / 1313 words

1 pages / 584 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Abortion

The debate surrounding abortion has long been a contentious and deeply divided issue in society. This essay will provide an argumentative analysis of the pros and cons of abortion to society, addressing both the ethical and [...]

The topic of abortion is one of the most divisive and emotionally charged subjects in contemporary society. This essay, titled "A Defense of Abortion," seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of this complex moral issue. [...]

Medically ending a pregnancy before it has the chance to result in the birth of a baby is abortion (Izugbara, Otsola, & Ezeh, 2009). Abortion is yet to be legalized in Kenya due to pro-life and pro-choice squabbles. Pro-life [...]

Abortion should be legal, and this argumentative essay aims to elucidate why. The debate surrounding abortion is one of the most contentious and complex issues in society, touching upon matters of ethics, religion, and [...]

Abortion has been a major conflict in society. It puts a tremendous amount of pressure on women who are debating whether to change their lives dramatically by having a baby. Abortion terminates fetuses in the womb and that is [...]

In recent years, abortion has been the most controversial and politically charged subject in the United States. Abortion can be defined as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. The two main sides of the debate are [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

essay about abortion with introduction body and conclusion

Please wait while we process your request

Abortion Argumentative Essay: Definitive Guide

Academic writing

Abortion remains a debatable issue even today, especially in countries like the USA, where a controversial ban was upheld in 13 states at the point this article was written. That’s why an essay on abortion has become one of the most popular tasks in schools, colleges, and universities. When writing this kind of essay, students learn to express their opinion, find and draw arguments and examples, and conduct research.

It’s very easy to speculate on topics like this. However, this makes it harder to find credible and peer-reviewed information on the topic that isn’t merely someone’s opinion. If you were assigned this kind of academic task, do not lose heart. In this article, we will provide you with all the tips and tricks for writing about abortion.

Where to begin?

Conversations about abortion are always emotional. Complex stories, difficult decisions, bitter moments, and terrible diagnoses make this topic hard to cover. Some young people may be shocked by this assignment, while others would be happy to express their opinion on the matter.

One way or another, this topic doesn't leave anyone indifferent. However, it shouldn’t have an effect on the way you approach the research and writing process. What should you remember when working on an argumentative essay about abortion?

Don’t let your emotions take over. As this is an academic paper, you have to stay impartial and operate with facts. The topic is indeed sore and burning, causing thousands of scandals on the Internet, but you are writing it for school, not a Quora thread.
Try to balance your opinions. There are always two sides to one story, even if the story is so fragile. You need to present an issue from different angles. This is what your tutors seek to teach you.
Be tolerant and mind your language. It is very important not to hurt anybody with the choice of words in your essay. So make sure you avoid any possible rough words. It is important to respect people with polar opinions, especially when it comes to academic writing.
Use facts, not claims. Your essay cannot be based solely on your personal ideas – your conclusions should be derived from facts. Roe v. Wade case, WHO or Mayo Clinic information, and CDC are some of the sources you can rely on.

Speaking of Outline

An argumentative essay on abortion outline is a must-have even for experienced writers. In general, each essay, irrespective of its kind or topic, has a strict outline. It may be brief or extended, but the major parts are always the same:

Introduction. This is a relatively short paragraph that starts with a hook and presents the background information on the topic. It should end with a thesis statement telling your reader what your main goal or idea is.
Body. This section usually consists of 2-4 paragraphs. Each one has its own structure: main argument + facts to support it + small conclusion and transition into the next paragraph.
Conclusion. In this part, your task is to summarize all your thoughts and come to a general conclusive idea. You may have to restate some info from the body and your thesis statement and add a couple of conclusive statements without introducing new facts.

Why is it important to create an outline?

You will structure your ideas. We bet you’ve got lots on your mind. Writing them down and seeing how one can flow logically into the other will help you create a consistent paper. Naturally, you will have to abandon some of the ideas if they don’t fit the overall narrative you’re building.
You can get some inspiration. While creating your outline, which usually consists of some brief ideas, you can come up with many more to research. Some will add to your current ones or replace them with better options.
You will find the most suitable sources. Argumentative essay writing requires you to use solid facts and trustworthy arguments built on them. When the topic is as controversial as abortion, these arguments should be taken from up-to-date, reliable sources. With an outline, you will see if you have enough to back up your ideas.
You will write your text as professionals do. Most expert writers start with outlines to write the text faster and make it generally better. As you will have your ideas structured, the general flow of thoughts will be clear. And, of course, it will influence your overall grade positively.

Abortion Essay Introduction

The introduction is perhaps the most important part of the whole essay. In this relatively small part, you will have to present the issue under consideration and state your opinion on it. Here is a typical introduction outline:

The first sentence is a hook grabbing readers' attention.
A few sentences that go after elaborate on the hook. They give your readers some background and explain your research.
The last sentence is a thesis statement showing the key idea you are building your text around.

Before writing an abortion essay intro, first thing first, you will need to define your position. If you are in favor of this procedure, what exactly made you think so? If you are an opponent of abortion, determine how to argue your position. In both cases, you may research the point of view in medicine, history, ethics, and other fields.

When writing an introduction, remember:

Never repeat your title. First of all, it looks too obvious; secondly, it may be boring for your reader right from the start. Your first sentence should be a well-crafted hook. The topic of abortion worries many people, so it’s your chance to catch your audience’s attention with some facts or shocking figures.
Do not make it too long. Your task here is to engage your audience and let them know what they are about to learn. The rest of the information will be disclosed in the main part. Nobody likes long introductions, so keep it short but informative.
Pay due attention to the thesis statement. This is the central sentence of your introduction. A thesis statement in your abortion intro paragraph should show that you have a well-supported position and are ready to argue it. Therefore, it has to be strong and convey your idea as clearly as possible. We advise you to make several options for the thesis statement and choose the strongest one.

Hooks for an Abortion Essay

Writing a hook is a good way to catch the attention of your audience, as this is usually the first sentence in an essay. How to start an essay about abortion? You can begin with some shocking fact, question, statistics, or even a quote. However, always make sure that this piece is taken from a trusted resource.

Here are some examples of hooks you can use in your paper:

As of July 1, 2022, 13 states banned abortion, depriving millions of women of control of their bodies.
According to WHO, 125,000 abortions take place every day worldwide.
Is abortion a woman’s right or a crime?
Since 1994, more than 40 countries have liberalized their abortion laws.
Around 48% of all abortions are unsafe, and 8% of them lead to women’s death.
The right to an abortion is one of the reproductive and basic rights of a woman.
Abortion is as old as the world itself – women have resorted to this method since ancient times.
Only 60% of women in the world live in countries where pregnancy termination is allowed.

Body Paragraphs: Pros and Cons of Abortion

The body is the biggest part of your paper. Here, you have a chance to make your voice concerning the abortion issue heard. Not sure where to start? Facts about abortion pros and cons should give you a basic understanding of which direction to move in.

First things first, let’s review some brief tips for you on how to write the best essay body if you have already made up your mind.

Make a draft

It’s always a good idea to have a rough draft of your writing. Follow the outline and don’t bother with the word choice, grammar, or sentence structure much at first. You can polish it all later, as the initial draft will not likely be your final. You may see some omissions in your arguments, lack of factual basis, or repetitiveness that can be eliminated in the next versions.

Trust only reliable sources

This part of an essay includes loads of factual information, and you should be very careful with it. Otherwise, your paper may look unprofessional and cost you precious points. Never rely on sources like Wikipedia or tabloids – they lack veracity and preciseness.

Edit rigorously

It’s best to do it the next day after you finish writing so that you can spot even the smallest mistakes. Remember, this is the most important part of your paper, so it has to be flawless. You can also use editing tools like Grammarly.

Determine your weak points

Since you are writing an argumentative essay, your ideas should be backed up by strong facts so that you sound convincing. Sometimes it happens that one argument looks weaker than the other. Your task is to find it and strengthen it with more or better facts.

Add an opposing view

Sometimes, it’s not enough to present only one side of the discussion. Showing one of the common views from the opposing side might actually help you strengthen your main idea. Besides, making an attempt at refuting it with alternative facts can show your teacher or professor that you’ve researched and analyzed all viewpoints, not just the one you stand by.

If you have chosen a side but are struggling to find the arguments for or against it, we have complied abortion pro and cons list for you. You can use both sets if you are writing an abortion summary essay covering all the stances.

Why Should Abortion Be Legal

If you stick to the opinion that abortion is just a medical procedure, which should be a basic health care need for each woman, you will definitely want to write the pros of abortion essay. Here is some important information and a list of pros about abortion for you to use:

Since the fetus is a set of cells – not an individual, it’s up to a pregnant woman to make a decision concerning her body. Only she can decide whether she wants to keep the pregnancy or have an abortion. The abortion ban is a violation of a woman’s right to have control over her own body.
The fact that women and girls do not have access to effective contraception and safe abortion services has serious consequences for their own health and the health of their families.
The criminalization of abortion usually leads to an increase in the number of clandestine abortions. Many years ago, fetuses were disposed of with improvised means, which included knitting needles and half-straightened metal hangers. 13% of women’s deaths are the result of unsafe abortions.
Many women live in a difficult financial situation and cannot support their children financially. Having access to safe abortion takes this burden off their shoulders. This will also not decrease their quality of life as the birth and childcare would.
In countries where abortion is prohibited, there is a phenomenon of abortion tourism to other countries where it can be done without obstacles. Giving access to this procedure can make the lives of women much easier.
Women should not put their lives or health in danger because of the laws that were adopted by other people.
Girls and women who do not have proper sex education may not understand pregnancy as a concept or determine that they are pregnant early on. Instead of educating them and giving them a choice, an abortion ban forces them to become mothers and expects them to be fit parents despite not knowing much about reproduction.
There are women who have genetic disorders or severe mental health issues that will affect their children if they're born. Giving them an option to terminate ensures that there won't be a child with a low quality of life and that the woman will not have to suffer through pregnancy, birth, and raising a child with her condition.
Being pro-choice is about the freedom to make decisions about your body so that women who are for termination can do it safely, and those who are against it can choose not to do it. It is an inclusive option that caters to everyone.
Women and girls who were raped or abused by their partner, caregiver, or stranger and chose to terminate the pregnancy can now be imprisoned for longer than their abusers. This implies that the system values the life of a fetus with no or primitive brain function over the life of a living woman.
People who lived in times when artificial termination of pregnancy was scarcely available remember clandestine abortions and how traumatic they were, not only for the physical but also for the mental health of women. Indeed, traditionally, in many countries, large families were a norm. However, the times have changed, and supervised abortion is a safe and accessible procedure these days. A ban on abortion will simply push humanity away from the achievements of the civilized world.

Types of abortion

There are 2 main types of abortions that can be performed at different pregnancy stages and for different reasons:

Medical abortion. It is performed by taking a specially prescribed pill. It does not require any special manipulations and can even be done at home (however, after a doctor’s visit and under supervision). It is considered very safe and is usually done during the very first weeks of pregnancy.
Surgical abortion. This is a medical operation that is done with the help of a suction tube. It then removes the fetus and any related material. Anesthesia is used for this procedure, and therefore, it can only be done in a hospital. The maximum time allowed for surgical abortion is determined in each country specifically.

Cases when abortion is needed

Center for Reproductive Rights singles out the following situations when abortion is required:

When there is a risk to the life or physical/mental health of a pregnant woman.
When a pregnant woman has social or economic reasons for it.
Upon the woman's request.
If a pregnant woman is mentally or cognitively disabled.
In case of rape and/or incest.
If there were congenital anomalies detected in the fetus.

Countries and their abortion laws

Countries where abortion is legalized in any case: Australia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Ukraine, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, etc.
Countries where abortion is completely prohibited: Angola, Venezuela, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Oman, Paraguay, Palau, Jamaica, Laos, Haiti, Honduras, Andorra, Aruba, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Sierra Leone, Senegal, etc.
Countries where abortion is allowed for medical reasons: Afghanistan, Israel, Argentina, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ghana, Israel, Morocco, Mexico, Bahamas, Central African Republic, Ecuador, Ghana, Algeria, Monaco, Pakistan, Poland, etc.
Countries where abortion is allowed for both medical and socioeconomic reasons: England, India, Spain, Luxembourg, Japan, Finland, Taiwan, Zambia, Iceland, Fiji, Cyprus, Barbados, Belize, etc.

Why Abortion Should Be Banned

Essays against abortions are popular in educational institutions since we all know that many people – many minds. So if you don’t want to support this procedure in your essay, here are some facts that may help you to argument why abortion is wrong:

Abortion at an early age is especially dangerous because a young woman with an unstable hormonal system may no longer be able to have children throughout her life. Termination of pregnancy disrupts the hormonal development of the body.
Health complications caused by abortion can occur many years after the procedure. Even if a woman feels fine in the short run, the situation may change in the future.
Abortion clearly has a negative effect on reproductive function. Artificial dilation of the cervix during an abortion leads to weak uterus tonus, which can cause a miscarriage during the next pregnancy.
Evidence shows that surgical termination of pregnancy significantly increases the risk of breast cancer.
In December 1996, the session of the Council of Europe on bioethics concluded that a fetus is considered a human being on the 14th day after conception.

You are free to use each of these arguments for essays against abortions. Remember that each claim should not be supported by emotions but by facts, figures, and so on.

Health complications after abortion

One way or another, abortion is extremely stressful for a woman’s body. Apart from that, it can even lead to various health problems in the future. You can also cover them in your cons of an abortion essay:

Continuation of pregnancy. If the dose of the drug is calculated by the doctor in the wrong way, the pregnancy will progress.
Uterine bleeding, which requires immediate surgical intervention.
Severe nausea or even vomiting occurs as a result of a sharp change in the hormonal background.
Severe stomach pain. Medical abortion causes miscarriage and, as a result, strong contractions of the uterus.
High blood pressure and allergic reactions to medicines.
Depression or other mental problems after a difficult procedure.

Abortion Essay Conclusion

After you have finished working on the previous sections of your paper, you will have to end it with a strong conclusion. The last impression is no less important than the first one. Here is how you can make it perfect in your conclusion paragraph on abortion:

It should be concise. The conclusion cannot be as long as your essay body and should not add anything that cannot be derived from the main section. Reiterate the key ideas, combine some of them, and end the paragraph with something for the readers to think about.
It cannot repeat already stated information. Restate your thesis statement in completely other words and summarize your main points. Do not repeat anything word for word – rephrase and shorten the information instead.
It should include a call to action or a cliffhanger. Writing experts believe that a rhetorical question works really great for an argumentative essay. Another good strategy is to leave your readers with some curious ideas to ponder upon.

Abortion Facts for Essay

Abortion is a topic that concerns most modern women. Thousands of books, research papers, and articles on abortion are written across the world. Even though pregnancy termination has become much safer and less stigmatized with time, it still worries millions. What can you cover in your paper so that it can really stand out among others? You may want to add some shocking abortion statistics and facts:

40-50 million abortions are done in the world every year (approximately 125,000 per day).
According to UN statistics, women have 25 million unsafe abortions each year. Most of them (97%) are performed in the countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. 14% of them are especially unsafe because they are done by people without any medical knowledge.
Since 2017, the United States has shown the highest abortion rate in the last 30 years.
The biggest number of abortion procedures happen in the countries where they are officially banned. The lowest rate is demonstrated in the countries with high income and free access to contraception.
Women in low-income regions are three times more susceptible to unplanned pregnancies than those in developed countries.
In Argentina, more than 38,000 women face dreadful health consequences after unsafe abortions.
The highest teen abortion rates in the world are seen in 3 countries: England, Wales, and Sweden.
Only 31% of teenagers decide to terminate their pregnancy. However, the rate of early pregnancies is getting lower each year.
Approximately 13 million children are born to mothers under the age of 20 each year.
5% of women of reproductive age live in countries where abortions are prohibited.

We hope that this abortion information was useful for you, and you can use some of these facts for your own argumentative essay. If you find some additional facts, make sure that they are not manipulative and are taken from official medical resources.

Abortion Essay Topics

Do you feel like you are lost in the abundance of information? Don’t know what topic to choose among the thousands available online? Check our short list of the best abortion argumentative essay topics:

Why should abortion be legalized essay
Abortion: a murder or a basic human right?
Why we should all support abortion rights
Is the abortion ban in the US a good initiative?
The moral aspect of teen abortions
Can the abortion ban solve birth control problems?
Should all countries allow abortion?
What consequences can abortion have in the long run?
Is denying abortion sexist?
Why is abortion a human right?
Are there any ethical implications of abortion?
Do you consider abortion a crime?
Should women face charges for terminating a pregnancy?

Want to come up with your own? Here is how to create good titles for abortion essays:

Write down the first associations. It can be something that swirls around in your head and comes to the surface when you think about the topic. These won’t necessarily be well-written headlines, but each word or phrase can be the first link in the chain of ideas that leads you to the best option.
Irony and puns are not always a good idea. Especially when it comes to such difficult topics as abortion. Therefore, in your efforts to be original, remain sensitive to the issue you want to discuss.
Never make a quote as your headline. First, a wordy quote makes the headline long. Secondly, readers do not understand whose words are given in the headline. Therefore, it may confuse them right from the start. If you have found a great quote, you can use it as your hook, but don’t forget to mention its author.
Try to briefly summarize what is said in the essay. What is the focus of your paper? If the essence of your argumentative essay can be reduced to one sentence, it can be used as a title, paraphrased, or shortened.
Write your title after you have finished your text. Before you just start writing, you might not yet have a catchy phrase in mind to use as a title. Don’t let it keep you from working on your essay – it might come along as you write.

Abortion Essay Example

We know that it is always easier to learn from a good example. For this reason, our writing experts have complied a detailed abortion essay outline for you. For your convenience, we have created two options with different opinions.

Topic: Why should abortion be legal?

Introduction – hook + thesis statement + short background information

Essay hook: More than 59% of women in the world do not have access to safe abortions, which leads to dreading health consequences or even death.

Thesis statement: Since banning abortions does not decrease their rates but only makes them unsafe, it is not logical to ban abortions.

Body – each paragraph should be devoted to one argument

Argument 1: Woman’s body – women’s rules. + example: basic human rights.

Argument 2: Banning abortion will only lead to more women’s death. + example: cases of Polish women.

Argument 3: Only women should decide on abortion. + example: many abortion laws are made by male politicians who lack knowledge and first-hand experience in pregnancies.

Conclusion – restated thesis statement + generalized conclusive statements + cliffhanger

Restated thesis: The abortion ban makes pregnancy terminations unsafe without decreasing the number of abortions, making it dangerous for women.

Cliffhanger: After all, who are we to decide a woman’s fate?

Topic: Why should abortion be banned?

Essay hook: Each year, over 40 million new babies are never born because their mothers decide to have an abortion.

Thesis statement: Abortions on request should be banned because we cannot decide for the baby whether it should live or die.

Argument 1: A fetus is considered a person almost as soon as it is conceived. Killing it should be regarded as murder. + example: Abortion bans in countries such as Poland, Egypt, etc.

Argument 2: Interrupting a baby’s life is morally wrong. + example: The Bible, the session of the Council of Europe on bioethics decision in 1996, etc.

Argument 3: Abortion may put the reproductive health of a woman at risk. + example: negative consequences of abortion.

Restated thesis: Women should not be allowed to have abortions without serious reason because a baby’s life is as priceless as their own.

Cliffhanger: Why is killing an adult considered a crime while killing an unborn baby is not?

Argumentative essay on pros and cons of abortion

Examples of Essays on Abortion

There are many great abortion essays examples on the Web. You can easily find an argumentative essay on abortion in pdf and save it as an example. Many students and scholars upload their pieces to specialized websites so that others can read them and continue the discussion in their own texts.

In a free argumentative essay on abortion, you can look at the structure of the paper, choice of the arguments, depth of research, and so on. Reading scientific papers on abortion or essays of famous activists is also a good idea. Here are the works of famous authors discussing abortion.

A Defense of Abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson

Published in 1971, this essay by an American philosopher considers the moral permissibility of abortion. It is considered the most debated and famous essay on this topic, and it’s definitely worth reading no matter what your stance is.

Abortion and Infanticide by Michael Tooley

It was written in 1972 by an American philosopher known for his work in the field of metaphysics. In this essay, the author considers whether fetuses and infants have the same rights. Even though this work is quite complex, it presents some really interesting ideas on the matter.

Some Biological Insights into Abortion by Garret Hardin

This article by American ecologist Garret Hardin, who had focused on the issue of overpopulation during his scholarly activities, presents some insights into abortion from a scientific point of view. He also touches on non-biological issues, such as moral and economic. This essay will be of great interest to those who support the pro-choice stance.

H4 Hidden in Plain View: An Overview of Abortion in Rural Illinois and Around the Globe by Heather McIlvaine-Newsad

In this study, McIlvaine-Newsad has researched the phenomenon of abortion since prehistoric times. She also finds an obvious link between the rate of abortions and the specifics of each individual country. Overall, this scientific work published in 2014 is extremely interesting and useful for those who want to base their essay on factual information.

H4 Reproduction, Politics, and John Irving’s The Cider House Rules: Women’s Rights or “Fetal Rights”? by Helena Wahlström

In her article of 2013, Wahlström considers John Irving’s novel The Cider House Rules published in 1985 and is regarded as a revolutionary work for that time, as it acknowledges abortion mostly as a political problem. This article will be a great option for those who want to investigate the roots of the abortion debate.

FAQs On Abortion Argumentative Essay

Is abortion immoral?

This question is impossible to answer correctly because each person independently determines their own moral framework. One group of people will say that abortion is a woman’s right because only she has power over her body and can make decisions about it. Another group will argue that the embryo is also a person and has the right to birth and life.

In general, the attitude towards abortion is determined based on the political and religious views of each person. Religious people generally believe that abortion is immoral because it is murder, while secular people see it as a normal medical procedure. For example, in the US, the ban on abortion was introduced in red states where the vast majority have conservative views, while blue liberal states do not support this law. Overall, it’s up to a person to decide whether they consider abortion immoral based on their own values and beliefs.

Is abortion legal?

The answer to this question depends on the country in which you live. There are countries in which pregnancy termination is a common medical procedure and is performed at the woman's request. There are also states in which there must be a serious reason for abortion: medical, social, or economic. Finally, there are nations in which abortion is prohibited and criminalized. For example, in Jamaica, a woman can get life imprisonment for abortion, while in Kenya, a medical worker who volunteers to perform an abortion can be imprisoned for up to 14 years.

Is abortion safe?

In general, modern medicine has reached such a level that abortion has become a common (albeit difficult from various points of view) medical procedure. There are several types of abortion, as well as many medical devices and means that ensure the maximum safety of the pregnancy termination. Like all other medical procedures, abortion can have various consequences and complications.

Abortions – whether safe or not - exist in all countries of the world. The thing is that more than half of them are dangerous because women have them in unsuitable conditions and without professional help. Only universal access to abortion in all parts of the world can make it absolutely safe. In such a case, it will be performed only after a thorough assessment and under the control of a medical professional who can mitigate the potential risks.

How safe is abortion?

If we do not talk about the ethical side of the issue related to abortion, it still has some risks. In fact, any medical procedure has them to a greater or lesser extent.

The effectiveness of the safe method in a medical setting is 80-99%. An illegal abortion (for example, the one without special indications after 12 weeks) can lead to a patient’s death, and the person who performed it will be criminally liable in this case.

Doctors do not have universal advice for all pregnant women on whether it is worth making this decision or not. However, many of them still tend to believe that any contraception - even one that may have negative side effects - is better than abortion. That’s why spreading awareness on means of contraception and free access to it is vital.

Your email address will not be published / Required fields are marked *

Try it now!

Calculate your price

Number of pages:

Order an essay!

Fill out the order form

Make a secure payment

Receive your order by email

Report writing

How to Write an Investigation Report

To write a good investigation document, you need to understand how to present information efficiently and clearly. Below, you will find a detailed description of the types and formats of…

23rd Oct 2022

Essay paper writing

How To Write Papers About Veterans

Nowadays, there are many important topics that need to be discussed. The world is full of events, and some of them change our lives in the most unpredictable and terrifying way. War is the most…

27th Jul 2020

Immigration Essay Writing Guide

Nowadays, immigration is getting more wide-spread in the world than it was a couple of decades ago. The reason for this is the progress in economic and technological spheres. Besides, the gap between…

9th May 2019

Get your project done perfectly

Professional writing service

Reset password

We’ve sent you an email containing a link that will allow you to reset your password for the next 24 hours.

Please check your spam folder if the email doesn’t appear within a few minutes.

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Abortion

Crafting a Convincing Persuasive Essay About Abortion

How To Write a Persuasive Essay About Abortion?

Abortion is a controversial topic, with people having differing points of view and opinions on the matter. There are those who oppose abortion, while some people endorse pro-choice arguments.

It is also an emotionally charged subject, so you need to be extra careful when crafting your persuasive essay .

Before you start writing your persuasive essay, you need to understand the following steps.

Step 1: Choose Your Position

The first step to writing a persuasive essay on abortion is to decide your position. Do you support the practice or are you against it? You need to make sure that you have a clear opinion before you begin writing.

Once you have decided, research and find evidence that supports your position. This will help strengthen your argument.

Check out the video below to get more insights into this topic:

Step 2: Choose Your Audience

The next step is to decide who your audience will be. Will you write for pro-life or pro-choice individuals? Or both?

Knowing who you are writing for will guide your writing and help you include the most relevant facts and information.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Step 3: Define Your Argument

Now that you have chosen your position and audience, it is time to craft your argument.

Start by defining what you believe and why, making sure to use evidence to support your claims. You also need to consider the opposing arguments and come up with counter arguments. This helps make your essay more balanced and convincing.

Step 4: Format Your Essay

Once you have the argument ready, it is time to craft your persuasive essay. Follow a standard format for the essay, with an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion.

Make sure that each paragraph is organized and flows smoothly. Use clear and concise language, getting straight to the point.

Step 5: Proofread and Edit

The last step in writing your persuasive essay is to make sure that you proofread and edit it carefully. Look for spelling, grammar, punctuation, or factual errors and correct them. This will help make your essay more professional and convincing.

These are the steps you need to follow when writing a persuasive essay on abortion. It is a good idea to read some examples before you start so you can know how they should be written.

Continue reading to find helpful examples.

Persuasive Essay About Abortion Examples

To help you get started, here are some example persuasive essays on abortion that may be useful for your own paper.

Short Persuasive Essay About Abortion

Persuasive Essay About No To Abortion

What Is Abortion? - Essay Example

Persuasive Speech on Abortion

Legal Abortion Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay About Abortion in the Philippines

Persuasive Essay about legalizing abortion

You can also read m ore persuasive essay examples to imp rove your persuasive skills.

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Abortion

An argumentative essay is a type of essay that presents both sides of an argument. These essays rely heavily on logic and evidence.

Here are some examples of argumentative essay with introduction, body and conclusion that you can use as a reference in writing your own argumentative essay.

Abortion Persuasive Essay Introduction

Argumentative Essay About Abortion Conclusion

Argumentative Essay About Abortion Pdf

Argumentative Essay About Abortion in the Philippines

Argumentative Essay About Abortion - Introduction

Abortion Persuasive Essay Topics

If you are looking for some topics to write your persuasive essay on abortion, here are some examples:

Should abortion be legal in the United States?
Is it ethical to perform abortions, considering its pros and cons?
What should be done to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions?
Is there a connection between abortion and psychological trauma?
What are the ethical implications of abortion on demand?
How has the debate over abortion changed over time?
Should there be legal restrictions on late-term abortions?
Does gender play a role in how people view abortion rights?
Is it possible to reduce poverty and unwanted pregnancies through better sex education?
How is the anti-abortion point of view affected by religious beliefs and values?

These are just some of the potential topics that you can use for your persuasive essay on abortion. Think carefully about the topic you want to write about and make sure it is something that interests you.

Check out m ore persuasive essay topics that will help you explore other things that you can write about!

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Facts About Abortion You Need to Know

Here are some facts about abortion that will help you formulate better arguments.

According to the Guttmacher Institute , 1 in 4 pregnancies end in abortion.
The majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester.
Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures, with less than a 0.5% risk of major complications.
In the United States, 14 states have laws that restrict or ban most forms of abortion after 20 weeks gestation.
Seven out of 198 nations allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
In places where abortion is illegal, more women die during childbirth and due to complications resulting from pregnancy.
A majority of pregnant women who opt for abortions do so for financial and social reasons.
According to estimates, 56 million abortions occur annually.

In conclusion, these are some of the examples, steps, and topics that you can use to write a persuasive essay. Make sure to do your research thoroughly and back up your arguments with evidence. This will make your essay more professional and convincing.

Need the services of a professional essay writing service ? We've got your back!

MyPerfectWords.com is a persuasive essay writing service that provides help to students in the form of professionally written essays. Our persuasive essay writer can craft quality persuasive essays on any topic, including abortion.

Frequently Asked Questions

What should i talk about in an essay about abortion.

When writing an essay about abortion, it is important to cover all the aspects of the subject. This includes discussing both sides of the argument, providing facts and evidence to support your claims, and exploring potential solutions.

What is a good argument for abortion?

A good argument for abortion could be that it is a woman’s choice to choose whether or not to have an abortion. It is also important to consider the potential risks of carrying a pregnancy to term.

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Find anything you save across the site in your account

How the Right to Legal Abortion Changed the Arc of All Women’s Lives

By Katha Pollitt

Prochoice demonstrators during the March for Women's Lives rally organized by NOW Washington DC April 5 1992.

I’ve never had an abortion. In this, I am like most American women. A frequently quoted statistic from a recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, which reports that one in four women will have an abortion before the age of forty-five, may strike you as high, but it means that a large majority of women never need to end a pregnancy. (Indeed, the abortion rate has been declining for decades, although it’s disputed how much of that decrease is due to better birth control, and wider use of it, and how much to restrictions that have made abortions much harder to get.) Now that the Supreme Court seems likely to overturn Roe v. Wade sometime in the next few years—Alabama has passed a near-total ban on abortion, and Ohio, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Missouri have passed “heartbeat” bills that, in effect, ban abortion later than six weeks of pregnancy, and any of these laws, or similar ones, could prove the catalyst—I wonder if women who have never needed to undergo the procedure, and perhaps believe that they never will, realize the many ways that the legal right to abortion has undergirded their lives.

Legal abortion means that the law recognizes a woman as a person. It says that she belongs to herself. Most obviously, it means that a woman has a safe recourse if she becomes pregnant as a result of being raped. (Believe it or not, in some states, the law allows a rapist to sue for custody or visitation rights.) It means that doctors no longer need to deny treatment to pregnant women with certain serious conditions—cancer, heart disease, kidney disease—until after they’ve given birth, by which time their health may have deteriorated irretrievably. And it means that non-Catholic hospitals can treat a woman promptly if she is having a miscarriage. (If she goes to a Catholic hospital, she may have to wait until the embryo or fetus dies. In one hospital, in Ireland, such a delay led to the death of a woman named Savita Halappanavar, who contracted septicemia. Her case spurred a movement to repeal that country’s constitutional amendment banning abortion.)

The legalization of abortion, though, has had broader and more subtle effects than limiting damage in these grave but relatively uncommon scenarios. The revolutionary advances made in the social status of American women during the nineteen-seventies are generally attributed to the availability of oral contraception, which came on the market in 1960. But, according to a 2017 study by the economist Caitlin Knowles Myers, “The Power of Abortion Policy: Re-Examining the Effects of Young Women’s Access to Reproductive Control,” published in the Journal of Political Economy , the effects of the Pill were offset by the fact that more teens and women were having sex, and so birth-control failure affected more people. Complicating the conventional wisdom that oral contraception made sex risk-free for all, the Pill was also not easy for many women to get. Restrictive laws in some states barred it for unmarried women and for women under the age of twenty-one. The Roe decision, in 1973, afforded thousands upon thousands of teen-agers a chance to avoid early marriage and motherhood. Myers writes, “Policies governing access to the pill had little if any effect on the average probabilities of marrying and giving birth at a young age. In contrast, policy environments in which abortion was legal and readily accessible by young women are estimated to have caused a 34 percent reduction in first births, a 19 percent reduction in first marriages, and a 63 percent reduction in ‘shotgun marriages’ prior to age 19.”

Access to legal abortion, whether as a backup to birth control or not, meant that women, like men, could have a sexual life without risking their future. A woman could plan her life without having to consider that it could be derailed by a single sperm. She could dream bigger dreams. Under the old rules, inculcated from girlhood, if a woman got pregnant at a young age, she married her boyfriend; and, expecting early marriage and kids, she wouldn’t have invested too heavily in her education in any case, and she would have chosen work that she could drop in and out of as family demands required.

In 1970, the average age of first-time American mothers was younger than twenty-two. Today, more women postpone marriage until they are ready for it. (Early marriages are notoriously unstable, so, if you’re glad that the divorce rate is down, you can, in part, thank Roe.) Women can also postpone childbearing until they are prepared for it, which takes some serious doing in a country that lacks paid parental leave and affordable childcare, and where discrimination against pregnant women and mothers is still widespread. For all the hand-wringing about lower birth rates, most women— eighty-six per cent of them —still become mothers. They just do it later, and have fewer children.

Most women don’t enter fields that require years of graduate-school education, but all women have benefitted from having larger numbers of women in those fields. It was female lawyers, for example, who brought cases that opened up good blue-collar jobs to women. Without more women obtaining law degrees, would men still be shaping all our legislation? Without the large numbers of women who have entered the medical professions, would psychiatrists still be telling women that they suffered from penis envy and were masochistic by nature? Would women still routinely undergo unnecessary hysterectomies? Without increased numbers of women in academia, and without the new field of women’s studies, would children still be taught, as I was, that, a hundred years ago this month, Woodrow Wilson “gave” women the vote? There has been a revolution in every field, and the women in those fields have led it.

It is frequently pointed out that the states passing abortion restrictions and bans are states where women’s status remains particularly low. Take Alabama. According to one study , by almost every index—pay, workforce participation, percentage of single mothers living in poverty, mortality due to conditions such as heart disease and stroke—the state scores among the worst for women. Children don’t fare much better: according to U.S. News rankings , Alabama is the worst state for education. It also has one of the nation’s highest rates of infant mortality (only half the counties have even one ob-gyn), and it has refused to expand Medicaid, either through the Affordable Care Act or on its own. Only four women sit in Alabama’s thirty-five-member State Senate, and none of them voted for the ban. Maybe that’s why an amendment to the bill proposed by State Senator Linda Coleman-Madison was voted down. It would have provided prenatal care and medical care for a woman and child in cases where the new law prevents the woman from obtaining an abortion. Interestingly, the law allows in-vitro fertilization, a procedure that often results in the discarding of fertilized eggs. As Clyde Chambliss, the bill’s chief sponsor in the state senate, put it, “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.” In other words, life only begins at conception if there’s a woman’s body to control.

Indifference to women and children isn’t an oversight. This is why calls for better sex education and wider access to birth control are non-starters, even though they have helped lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies, which is the cause of abortion. The point isn’t to prevent unwanted pregnancy. (States with strong anti-abortion laws have some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the country; Alabama is among them.) The point is to roll back modernity for women.

So, if women who have never had an abortion, and don’t expect to, think that the new restrictions and bans won’t affect them, they are wrong. The new laws will fall most heavily on poor women, disproportionately on women of color, who have the highest abortion rates and will be hard-pressed to travel to distant clinics.

But without legal, accessible abortion, the assumptions that have shaped all women’s lives in the past few decades—including that they, not a torn condom or a missed pill or a rapist, will decide what happens to their bodies and their futures—will change. Women and their daughters will have a harder time, and there will be plenty of people who will say that they were foolish to think that it could be otherwise.

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The Messiness of Reproduction and the Dishonesty of Anti-Abortion Propaganda

By Jia Tolentino

A Supreme Court Reporter Defines the Threat to Abortion Rights

By Isaac Chotiner

By Jessica Winter

Essay Samples
College Essay
Writing Tools
Writing guide

Creative samples from the experts

↑ Return to Essay Samples

Five paragraph essay on abortion

This essay discusses three issues that revolve around abortion in order to help the reader better understand abortion issues in general. This is not a comprehensive list of all the issues surrounding abortion, but does explain three issues and then knits them together in the conclusion to show that the abortion issue is not a simple one.

Considering the suffering that unwanted birth causes, it is better to allow abortion so that termination happens before life takes hold outside the womb. Unwanted children are often neglected, put up for adoption, or are pushed into prostitution and crime by parents that do not have their best interests at heart. It results in a life of misery and heartache for the child.

People that do not support abortion do not have adopted children. It would be far easier to digest a no-abortion stance from a person that has adopted children, and yet most (if not all) do not have adopted children. They are basically sending the message that all pregnancies should be taken to term but once the child is out of the womb then they are on their own. The lack of support for neglected and orphan children is already at a level that is going to make people in the future look back and frown in the same way we frown at our ancestors for their treatment of other races.

Unwanted pregnancy ruins the lives of good people. Most of the time is the woman that has to give up ever having a successful career and is quite often left without a man in her life. If the man is also a caring type, then he has to give up 20 years of doing what he wishes, and even his career will often take a knock, especially if he is the primary care giver. People that do not have children will have more money, more life experiences, better health and a better career. All of this is taken away from people if they are not allowed to control when they do and do not conceive.

Unwanted births will invariably cause suffering to the child, especially if the child is not wanted by the parents and knows it. Plus, that child may end up neglected, in an orphanage, or thrust into a life of crime. People that argue against abortion are never prepared to take on the burdens of what would happen if it were banned. Even now, when abortion is allowed, these no-abortion promoters are not prepared to adopt children or help to care for them when their parents cannot. Add to this the fact that a person has to give up opportunities and the choice of a happy life if that person cannot choose when to conceive. People that want children will consider having them something to be happy about, but if a person considers a great career, money or life experiences to be something to be happy about, then having children is going to remove those options and opportunities from them.

Follow Us on Social Media

Get more free essays

Send via email

Most useful resources for students:.

Free Essays Download
Writing Tools List
Proofreading Services
Universities Rating

Contributors Bio

Find more useful services for students

Free plagiarism check, professional editing, online tutoring, free grammar check.

The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States (2018)

Chapter: 1 introduction, 1 introduction.

When the Institute of Medicine (IOM) 1 issued its 1975 report on the public health impact of legalized abortion, the scientific evidence on the safety and health effects of legal abortion services was limited ( IOM, 1975 ). It had been only 2 years since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision had legalized abortion throughout the United States and nationwide data collection was just under way ( Cates et al., 2000 ; Kahn et al., 1971 ). Today, the available scientific evidence on abortion’s health effects is quite robust.

In 2016, six private foundations came together to ask the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a comprehensive review of the state of the science on the safety and quality of legal abortion services in the United States. The sponsors—The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Grove Foundation, The JPB Foundation, The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, Tara Health Foundation, and William and Flora Hewlett Foundation—asked that the review focus on the eight research questions listed in Box 1-1 .

The Committee on Reproductive Health Services: Assessing the Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the U.S. was appointed in December 2016 to conduct the study and prepare this report. The committee included 13 individuals 2 with research or clinical experience in anesthesiology,

___________________

1 In March 2016, the IOM, the division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine focused on health and medicine, was renamed the Health and Medicine Division.

2 A 14th committee member participated for just the first 4 months of the study.

obstetrics and gynecology, nursing and midwifery, primary care, epidemiology of reproductive health, mental health, health care disparities, health care delivery and management, health law, health professional education and training, public health, quality assurance and assessment,

statistics and research methods, and women’s health policy. Brief biographies of committee members are provided in Appendix A .

This chapter describes the context for the study and the scope of the inquiry. It also presents the committee’s conceptual framework for conducting its review.

ABORTION CARE TODAY

Since the IOM first reviewed the health implications of national legalized abortion in 1975, there has been a plethora of related scientific research, including well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and epidemiological studies examining abortion care. This research has focused on examining the relative safety of abortion methods and the appropriateness of methods for different clinical circumstances ( Ashok et al., 2004 ; Autry et al., 2002 ; Bartlett et al., 2004 ; Borgatta, 2011 ; Borkowski et al., 2015 ; Bryant et al., 2011 ; Cates et al., 1982 ; Chen and Creinin, 2015 ; Cleland et al., 2013 ; Frick et al., 2010 ; Gary and Harrison, 2006 ; Grimes et al., 2004 ; Grossman et al., 2008 , 2011 ; Ireland et al., 2015 ; Kelly et al., 2010 ; Kulier et al., 2011 ; Lohr et al., 2008 ; Low et al., 2012 ; Mauelshagen et al., 2009 ; Ngoc et al., 2011 ; Ohannessian et al., 2016 ; Peterson et al., 1983 ; Raymond et al., 2013 ; Roblin, 2014 ; Sonalkar et al., 2017 ; Upadhyay et al., 2015 ; White et al., 2015 ; Wildschut et al., 2011 ; Woodcock, 2016 ; Zane et al., 2015 ). With this growing body of research, earlier abortion methods have been refined, discontinued, and new approaches have been developed ( Chen and Creinin, 2015 ; Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ; Lichtenberg and Paul, 2013 ). For example, the use of dilation and sharp curettage is now considered obsolete in most cases because safer alternatives, such as aspiration methods, have been developed ( Edelman et al, 1974 ; Lean et al, 1976 ; RCOG, 2015 ). The use of abortion medications in the United States began in 2000 with the approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the drug mifepristone. In 2016, the FDA, citing extensive clinical research, updated the indications for mifepristone for medication abortion 3 up to 10 weeks’ (70 days’) gestation ( FDA, 2016 ; Woodcock, 2016 ).

Box 1-2 describes the abortion methods currently recommended by U.S. and international medical, nursing, and other health organizations that set professional standards for reproductive health care, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the Society of Family Planning, the American College of Nurse-Midwifes, the National Abortion Federation (NAF), the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) (in the United Kingdom), and the World

3 The terms “medication abortion” and “medical abortion” are used interchangeably in the literature.

Health Organization ( ACNM, 2011 , 2016 ; ACOG, 2013 , 2014 ; Costescu et al., 2016 ; Lichtenberg and Paul, 2013 ; NAF, 2017 ; RCOG, 2011 ; WHO, 2014 ).

A Continuum of Care

The committee views abortion care as a continuum of services, as illustrated in Figure 1-1 . For purposes of this study, it begins when a woman, who has decided to terminate a pregnancy, contacts or visits a provider seeking an abortion. The first, preabortion phase of care includes an initial clinical assessment of the woman’s overall health (e.g., physical examination, pregnancy determination, weeks of gestation, and laboratory and other testing as needed); communication of information on the risks and benefits of alternative abortion procedures and pain management options; discussion of the patient’s preferences based on desired anesthesia and weeks of gestation; discussion of postabortion contraceptive options if desired; counseling

and referral to services (if needed); and final decision making and informed consent. The next phases in the continuum are the abortion procedure itself and postabortion care, including appropriate follow-up care and provision of contraceptives (for women who opt for them).

A Note on Terminology

Important clinical terms that describe pregnancy and abortion lack consistent definition. The committee tried to be as precise as possible to avoid misinterpreting or miscommunicating the research evidence, clinical practice guidelines, and other relevant sources of information with potentially significant clinical implications. Note that this report follows Grimes and Stuart’s (2010) recommendation that weeks’ gestation be quantified using cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3...) rather than ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, 3rd...). It is important to note, however, that these two numbering conventions are sometimes used interchangeably in the research literature despite having different meanings. For example, a woman who is 6 weeks pregnant has completed 6 weeks of pregnancy: she is in her 7th (not 6th) week of pregnancy.

This report also avoids using the term “trimester” where possible because completed weeks’ or days’ gestation is a more precise designation, and the clinical appropriateness of abortion methods does not align with specific trimesters.

Although the literature typically classifies the method of abortion as either “medical” or “surgical” abortion, the committee decided to specify methods more precisely by using the terminology defined in Box 1-2 . The term “surgical abortion” is often used by others as a catchall category that includes a variety of procedures, ranging from an aspiration to a dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure involving sharp surgical and other instrumentation as well as deeper levels of sedation. This report avoids describing abortion procedures as “surgical” so as to characterize a method more accurately as either an aspiration or D&E. As noted in Box 1-2 , the term “induction abortion” is used to distinguish later abortions that use a

medication regimen from medication abortions performed before 10 weeks’ gestation.

See Appendix B for a glossary of the technical terms used in this report.

Regulation of Abortion Services

Abortion is among the most regulated medical procedures in the nation ( Jones et al., 2010 ; Nash et al., 2017 ). While a comprehensive legal analysis of abortion regulation is beyond the scope of this report, the committee agreed that it should consider how abortion’s unique regulatory environment relates to the safety and quality of abortion care.

In addition to the federal, state, and local rules and policies governing all medical services, numerous abortion-specific federal 4 and state laws and regulations affect the delivery of abortion services. Table 1-1 lists the abortion-specific regulations by state. The regulations range from prescribing information to be provided to women when they are counseled and setting mandatory waiting periods between counseling and the abortion procedure to those that define the clinical qualifications of abortion providers, the types of procedures they are permitted to perform, and detailed facility standards for abortion services. In addition, many states place limitations on the circumstances under which private health insurance and Medicaid can be used to pay for abortions, limiting coverage to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest or posing a medical threat to the pregnant woman’s life. Other policies prevent facilities that receive state funds from providing abortion services 5 or place restrictions on the availability of services based on the gestation of the fetus that are narrower than those established under federal law ( Guttmacher Institute, 2017h ).

Trends and Demographics

National- and state-level abortion statistics come from two primary sources: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Abortion

4 Hyde Amendment (P.L. 94-439, 1976); Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-457, 1978); Peace Corps Provision and Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-481, 1978); Pregnancy Discrimination Act (P.L. 95-555, 1977); Department of the Treasury and Postal Service Appropriations Act (P.L. 98-151, 1983); FY1987 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 99-591, 1986); Dornan Amendment (P.L. 100-462, 1988); Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (P.L. 108-105, 2003); Weldon Amendment (P.L. 108-199, 2004); Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148 as amended by P.L. 111-152, 2010).

5 Personal communication, O. Cappello, Guttmacher Institute, August 4, 2017: AZ § 15-1630, GA § 20-2-773; KS § 65-6733 and § 76-3308; KY § 311.800; LA RS § 40:1299 and RS § 4 0.1061; MO § 188.210 and § 188.215; MS § 41-41-91; ND § 14-02.3-04; OH § 5101.57; OK 63 § 1-741.1; PA 18 § 3215; TX § 285.202.

TABLE 1-1 Overview of State Abortion-Specific Regulations That May Impact Safety and Quality, as of September 1, 2017

a Excludes laws or regulations permanently or temporarily enjoined pending a court decision.

b States have abortion-specific requirements generally following the established principles of informed consent.

c The content of informed consent materials is specified in state law or developed by the state department of health.

d In-person counseling is not required for women who live more than 100 miles from an abortion provider.

e Counseling requirement is waived if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or the patient is younger than 15.

f Maximum distance requirement does not apply to medication abortions.

g Some states also exempt women whose physical health is at severe risk and/or in cases of fetal impairment.

h Some states have exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, pregnancies that severely threaten women’s physical health or endanger their life, and/or in cases of fetal impairment.

SOURCES: Guttmacher Institute, 2017b , c , d , e , f , g , h , i , 2018b .

Surveillance System and the Guttmacher Institute’s Abortion Provider Census ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ; Jerman et al., 2016 ; Jones and Kavanaugh, 2011 ; Pazol et al., 2015 ). Both of these sources provide estimates of the number and rate of abortions, the use of different abortion methods, the characteristics of women who have abortions, and other related statistics. However, both sources have limitations.

The CDC system is a voluntary, state-reported system; 6 , 7 three states (California, Maryland, and New Hampshire) do not provide information ( CDC, 2017 ). The Guttmacher census, also voluntary, solicits information from all known abortion providers throughout the United States, including in the states that do not submit information to the CDC surveillance system. For 2014, the latest year reported by Guttmacher, 8 information was obtained directly from 58 percent of abortion providers, and data for nonrespondents were imputed ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ). The CDC’s latest report, for abortions in 2013, includes approximately 70 percent of the abortions reported by the Guttmacher Institute for that year ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ).

Both data collection systems report descriptive statistics on women who have abortions and the types of abortion provided, although they define demographic variables and procedure types differently. Nevertheless, in the aggregate, the trends in abortion utilization reported by the CDC and Guttmacher closely mirror each other—indicating decreasing rates of abortion, an increasing proportion of medication abortions, and the vast majority of abortions (90 percent) occurring by 13 weeks’ gestation (see Figures 1-2 and 1-3 ) ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ; Jones and Jerman, 2017a ). 9 Both data sources are used in this chapter’s brief review of trends in abortions and throughout the report.

Trends in the Number and Rate of Abortions

The number and rate of abortions have changed considerably during the decades following national legalization in 1973. In the immediate years after

6 In most states, hospitals, facilities, and physicians are required by law to report abortion data to a central health agency. These agencies submit the aggregate utilization data to the CDC ( Guttmacher Institute, 2018a ).

7 New York City and the District of Columbia also report data to the CDC.

8 Guttmacher researchers estimate that the census undercounts the number of abortions performed in the United States by about 5 percent (i.e., 51,725 abortions provided by 2,069 obstetrician/gynecologist [OB/GYN] physicians). The estimate is based on a survey of a random sample of OB/GYN physicians. The survey did not include other physician specialties and other types of clinicians.

9 A full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks.

national legalization, both the number and rate 10 of legal abortions steadily increased ( Bracken et al., 1982 ; Guttmacher Institute, 2017a ; Pazol et al., 2015 ; Strauss et al., 2007 ) (see Figure 1-2 ). The abortion rate peaked in the

10 Reported abortion rates are for females aged 15 to 44.

1980s, and the trend then reversed, a decline that has continued for more than three decades ( Guttmacher Institute, 2017a ; Jones and Kavanaugh, 2011 ; Pazol et al., 2015 ; Strauss et al., 2007 ). Between 1980 and 2014, the abortion rate among U.S. women fell by more than half, from 29.3 to 14.6 per 1,000 women ( Finer and Henshaw, 2003 ; Guttmacher Institute, 2017a ; Jones and Jerman, 2017a ) (see Figure 1-2 ). In 2014, the most recent year for which data are available, the aggregate number of abortions reached a low of 926,190 after peaking at nearly 1.6 million in 1990 ( Finer and Henshaw, 2003 ; Jones and Jerman, 2017a ). The reason for the decline is not fully understood but has been attributed to several factors, including the increasing use of contraceptives, especially long-acting methods (e.g., intrauterine devices and implants); historic declines in the rate of unintended pregnancy; and increasing numbers of state regulations resulting in limited access to abortion services ( Finer and Zolna, 2016 ; Jerman et al., 2017 ; Jones and Jerman, 2017a ; Kost, 2015 ; Strauss et al., 2007 ).

Weeks’ Gestation

Length of gestation—measured as the amount of time since the first day of the last menstrual period—is the primary factor in deciding what abortion procedure is most appropriate ( ACOG, 2014 ). Since national legalization, most abortions in the United States have been performed in early pregnancy (≤13 weeks) ( Cates et al., 2000 ; CDC, 1983 ; Elam-Evans et al., 2003 ; Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ; Jones and Jerman, 2017a ; Koonin and Smith, 1993 ; Lawson et al., 1989 ; Pazol et al., 2015 ; Strauss et al., 2007 ). CDC surveillance reports indicate that since at least 1992 (when detailed data on early abortions were first collected), the vast majority of abortions in the United States were early-gestation procedures ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ; Strauss et al., 2007 ); this was the case for approximately 92 percent of all abortions in 2013 ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ). With such technological advances as highly sensitive pregnancy tests and medication abortion, procedures are being performed at increasingly earlier gestational stages. According to the CDC, the percentage of early abortions performed ≤6 weeks’ gestation increased by 16 percent from 2004 to 2013 ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ); in 2013, 38 percent of early abortions occurred ≤6 weeks ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ). The proportion of early-gestation abortions occurring ≤6 weeks is expected to increase even further as the use of medication abortions becomes more widespread ( Jones and Boonstra, 2016 ; Pazol et al., 2012 ).

Figure 1-3 shows the proportion of abortions in nonhospital settings by weeks’ gestation in 2014 ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ).

Abortion Methods

Aspiration is the abortion method most commonly used in the United States, accounting for almost 68 percent of all abortions performed in 2013 ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ). 11 Its use, however, is likely to decline as the use of medication abortion increases. The percentage of abortions performed by the medication method rose an estimated 110 percent between 2004 and 2013, from 10.6 to 22.3 percent ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ). In 2014, approximately 45 percent of abortions performed up to 9 weeks’ gestation were medication abortions, up from 36 percent in 2011 ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ).

Fewer than 9 percent of abortions are performed after 13 weeks’ gestation; most of these are D&E procedures ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ). Induction abortion is the most infrequently used of all abortion methods, accounting for approximately 2 percent of all abortions at 14 weeks’ gestation or later in 2013 ( Jatlaoui et al., 2016 ).

Characteristics of Women Who Have Abortions

The most detailed sociodemographic statistics on women who have had an abortion in the United States are provided by the Guttmacher Institute’s Abortion Patient Survey. Respondents to the 2014/2015 survey included more than 8,000 women who had had an abortion in 1 of 87 outpatient (nonhospital) facilities across the United States in 2014 ( Jerman et al., 2016 ; Jones and Jerman, 2017b ). 12 Table 1-2 provides selected findings from this survey. Although women who had an abortion in a hospital setting are excluded from these statistics, the data represent an estimated 95 percent of all abortions provided (see Figure 1-3 ).

The Guttmacher survey found that most women who had had an abortion were under age 30 (72 percent) and were unmarried (86 percent) ( Jones and Jerman, 2017b ). Women seeking an abortion were far more likely to be poor or low-income: the household income of 49 percent was below the federal poverty level (FPL), and that of 26 percent was 100 to 199 percent of the FPL ( Jerman et al., 2016 ). In comparison, the

11 CDC surveillance reports use the catchall category of “curettage” to refer to nonmedical abortion methods. The committee assumed that the CDC’s curettage estimates before 13 weeks’ gestation refer to aspiration procedures and that its curettage estimates after 13 weeks’ gestation referred to D&E procedures.

12 Participating facilities were randomly selected and excluded hospitals. All other types of facilities were included if they had provided at least 30 abortions in 2011 ( Jerman et al., 2016 ). Jerman and colleagues report that logistical challenges precluded including hospital patients in the survey. The researchers believe that the exclusion of hospitals did not bias the survey sample, noting that hospitals accounted for only 4 percent of all abortions in 2011.

TABLE 1-2 Characteristics of Women Who Had an Abortion in an Outpatient Setting in 2014, by Percent

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCES: (a) Jones and Jerman, 2017b (n = 8,098); (b) Jerman et al., 2016 (n = 8,380).

corresponding percentages among all women aged 15 to 49 are 16 and 18 percent. 13 Women who had had an abortion were also more likely to be women of color 14 (61.0 percent); overall, half of women who had had an abortion were either black (24.8 percent) or Hispanic (24.5 percent) ( Jones and Jerman, 2017b ). This distribution is similar to the racial and ethnic distribution of women with household income below 200 percent of the FPL, 49 percent of whom are either black (20 percent) or Hispanic (29 percent). 15 Poor women and women of color are also more likely than others to experience an unintended pregnancy ( Finer and Henshaw, 2006 ; Finer et al., 2006 ; Jones and Kavanaugh, 2011 ).

Many women who have an abortion have previously experienced pregnancy or childbirth. Among respondents to the Guttmacher survey, 59.3 percent had given birth at least once, and 44.8 percent had had a prior abortion ( Jerman et al., 2016 ; Jones and Jerman, 2017b ).

While precise estimates of health insurance coverage of abortion are not available, numerous regulations limit coverage. As noted in Table 1-1 , 33 states prohibit public payers from paying for abortions and other states have laws that either prohibit health insurance exchange plans (25 states) or private insurance plans (11 states) sold in the state from covering or paying for abortions, with few exceptions. 16 In the Guttmacher survey, only 14 percent of respondents had paid for the procedure using private insurance coverage, and despite the disproportionately high rate of poverty and low income among those who had had an abortion, only 22 percent reported that Medicaid was the method of payment for their abortion. In 2015, 39 percent of the 25 million women lived in households that earned less than 200 percent of the FPL in the United States were enrolled in Medicaid, and 36 percent had private insurance ( Ranji et al., 2017 ).

Number of Clinics Providing Abortion Care

As noted earlier, the vast majority of abortions are performed in nonhospital settings—either an abortion clinic (59 percent) or a clinic offering a variety of medical services (36 percent) ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ) (see Figure 1-4 ). Although hospitals account for almost 40 percent of facilities offering abortion care, they provide less than 5 percent of abortions overall.

13 Calculation by the committee based on estimates from Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS) .

14 Includes all nonwhite race and ethnicity categories in Table 1-2 . Data were collected via self-administered questionnaire ( Jones and Jerman, 2017b ).

15 Calculation by the committee based on estimates from Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS) .

16 Some states have exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, pregnancies that endanger the woman’s life or severely threaten her health, and in cases of fetal impairment.

The overall number of nonhospital facilities providing abortions—especially specialty abortion clinics—is declining. The greatest proportional decline is in states that have enacted abortion-specific regulations ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ). In 2014, there were 272 abortion clinics in the United States, 17 percent fewer than in 2011. The greatest decline (26 percent) was among large clinics with annual caseloads of 1,000–4,999 patients and clinics in the Midwest (22 percent) and the South (13 percent). In 2014, approximately 39 percent of U.S. women aged 15 to 44 resided in a U.S. county without an abortion provider (90 percent of counties overall) ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ). Twenty-five states have five or fewer abortion clinics; five states have one abortion clinic ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ). A recent analysis 17 by Guttmacher evaluated geographic disparities in access to abortion by calculating the distance between women of reproductive age (15 to 44) and the nearest abortion-providing facility in 2014 ( Bearak et al., 2017 ). Figure 1-5 highlights the median distance to the nearest facility by county.

17 The analysis was limited to facilities that provided at least 400 abortions per year and those affiliated with Planned Parenthood that performed at least 1 abortion during the period of analysis.

The majority of facilities offer early medication and aspiration abortions. In 2014, 87 percent of nonhospital facilities provided early medication abortions; 23 percent of all nonhospital facilities offered this type of abortion ( Jones and Jerman, 2017a ). Fewer facilities offer later-gestation procedures, and availability decreases as gestation increases. In 2012, 95 percent of all abortion facilities offered abortions at 8 weeks’ gestation, 72 percent at 12 weeks’ gestation, 34 percent at 20 weeks’ gestation, and 16 percent at 24 weeks’ gestation ( Jerman and Jones, 2014 ).

STUDY APPROACH

Conceptual framework.

The committee’s approach to this study built on two foundational developments in the understanding and evaluation of the quality of health

care services: Donabedian’s (1980) structure-process-outcome framework and the IOM’s (2001) six dimensions of quality health care. Figure 1-6 illustrates the committee’s adaptation of these concepts for this study’s assessment of abortion care in the United States.

Structure-Process-Outcome Framework

In seminal work published almost 40 years ago, Donabedian (1980) proposed that the quality of health care be assessed by examining its structure, process, and outcomes ( Donabedian, 1980 ):

Structure refers to organizational factors that may create the potential for good quality. In abortion care, such structural factors as the availability of trained staff and the characteristics of the clinical setting may ensure—or inhibit—the capacity for quality.
Process refers to what is done to and for the patient. Its assessment assumes that the services patients receive should be evidence based and correlated with patients’ desired outcomes—for example, an early and complete abortion for women who wish to terminate an unintended pregnancy.
Outcomes are the end results of care—the effects of the intervention on the health and well-being of the patient. Does the procedure achieve its objective? Does it lead to serious health risks in the short or long term?

Six Dimensions of Health Care Quality

The landmark IOM report Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century ( IOM, 2001 ) identifies six dimensions of health care quality—safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity. The articulation of these six dimensions has guided public and private efforts to improve U.S. health care delivery at the local, state, and national levels since that report was published ( AHRQ, 2016 ).

In addition, as with other health care services, women should expect that the abortion care they receive meets well-established standards for objectivity, transparency, and scientific rigor ( IOM, 2011a , b ).

Two of the IOM’s six dimensions—safety and effectiveness—are particularly salient to the present study. Assessing both involves making relative judgments. There are no universally agreed-upon thresholds for defining care as “safe” versus “unsafe” or “effective” versus “not effective,” and decisions about safety and effectiveness have a great deal to do with the context of the clinical scenario. Thus, the committee’s frame of reference for evaluating safety, effectiveness, and other quality domains is of necessity a

relative one—one that entails not only comparing the alternative abortion methods but also comparing these methods with other health care services and with risks associated with not achieving the desired outcome.

Safety—avoiding injury to patients—is often assessed by measuring the incidence and severity of complications and other adverse events associated with receiving a specific procedure. If infrequent, a complication may be characterized as “rare”—a term that lacks consistent definition. In this report, “rare” is used to describe outcomes that affect fewer than 1 percent of patients. Complications are considered “serious” if they result in a blood transfusion, surgery, or hospitalization.

Note also that the term “effectiveness” is used differently in this report depending on the context. As noted in Box 1-3 , effectiveness as an attribute of quality refers to providing services based on scientific knowledge to all who could benefit and refraining from providing services to those not likely to benefit (avoiding underuse and overuse, respectively). Elsewhere in this report, effectiveness denotes the clinical effectiveness of a procedure, that

is, the successful completion of an abortion without the need for a follow-up aspiration.

Finding and Assessing the Evidence

The committee deliberated during four in-person meetings and numerous teleconferences between January 2017 and December 2017. On March 24, 2017, the committee hosted a public workshop at the Keck Center of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Washington, DC. The workshop included presentations from three speakers on topics related to facility standards and the safety of outpatient procedures. Appendix C contains the workshop agenda.

Several committee workgroups were formed to find and assess the quality of the available evidence and to draft summary materials for the full committee’s review. The workgroups conducted in-depth reviews of the epidemiology of abortions, including rates of complications and mortality, the safety and effectiveness of alternative abortion methods, professional standards and methods for performing all aspects of abortion care (as described in Figure 1-1 ), the short- and long-term physical and mental health effects of having an abortion; and the safety and quality implications of abortion-specific regulations on abortion.

The committee focused on finding reliable, scientific information reflecting contemporary U.S. abortion practices. An extensive body of research on abortion has been conducted outside the United States. A substantial proportion of this literature concerns the delivery of abortion care in countries where socioeconomic conditions, culture, population health, health care resources, and/or the health care system are markedly different from their U.S. counterparts. Studies from other countries were excluded from this review if the committee judged those factors to be relevant to the health outcomes being assessed.

The committee considered evidence from randomized controlled trials comparing two or more approaches to abortion care; systematic reviews; meta-analyses; retrospective cohort studies, case control studies, and other types of observational studies; and patient and provider surveys (see Box 1-4 ).

An extensive literature documents the biases common in published research on the effectiveness of health care services ( Altman et al., 2001 ; Glasziou et al., 2008 ; Hopewell et al., 2008 ; Ioannidis et al., 2004 ; IOM, 2011a , b ; Plint et al., 2006 ; Sackett, 1979 ; von Elm et al., 2007 ). Thus, the committee prioritized the available research according to conventional principles of evidence-based medicine intended to reduce the risk of bias in a study’s conclusions, such as how subjects were allocated to different types of abortion care, the comparability of study populations, controls

for confounding factors, how outcome assessments were conducted, the completeness of outcome reporting, the representativeness of the study population compared with the general U.S. population, and the degree to which statistical analyses helped reduce bias ( IOM, 2011b ). Applying these principles is particularly important with respect to understanding abortion’s

long-term health effects, an area in which the relevant literature is vulnerable to bias (as discussed in Chapter 4 ).

The committee’s literature search strategy is described in Appendix D .

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Chapter 2 of this report describes the continuum of abortion care including current abortion methods (question 1 in the committee’s statement of task [ Box 1-1 ]); reviews the evidence on factors affecting their safety and quality, including expected side effects and possible complications (questions 2 and 3), necessary safeguards to manage medical emergencies (question 6), and provision of pain management (question 7); and presents the evidence on the types of facilities or facility factors necessary to provide safe and effective abortion care (question 4).

Chapter 3 summarizes the clinical skills that are integral to safe and high-quality abortion care according to the recommendations of leading national professional organizations and abortion training curricula (question 5).

Chapter 4 reviews research examining the long-term health effects of undergoing an abortion (question 2).

Finally, Chapter 5 presents the committee’s conclusions regarding the findings presented in the previous chapters, responding to each of the questions posed in the statement of task. Findings are statements of scientific evidence. The report’s conclusions are the committee’s inferences, interpretations, or generalizations drawn from the evidence.

ACNM (American College of Nurse-Midwives). 2011. Position statement: Reproductive health choices . http://www.midwife.org/ACNM/files/ACNMLibraryData/UPLOADFILENAME/000000000087/Reproductive_Choices.pdf (accessed August 1, 2017).

ACNM. 2016. Position statement: Access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care services . http://www.midwife.org/ACNM/files/ACNMLibraryData/UPLOADFILENAME/000000000087/Access-to-Comprehensive-Sexual-and-Reproductive-Health-Care-Services-FINAL-04-12-17.pdf (accessed August 1, 2017).

ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). 2013. Practice Bulletin No. 135: Second-trimester abortion. Obstetrics & Gynecology 121(6):1394–1406.

ACOG. 2014. Practice Bulletin No. 143: Medical management of first-trimester abortion (reaffirmed). Obstetrics & Gynecology 123(3):676–692.

AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). 2016. The six domains of health care quality. https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/talkingquality/create/sixdomains.html (accessed May 3, 2017).

Altman, D. G., K. F. Schulz, D. Moher, M. Egger, F. Davidoff, D. Elbourne, P. C. Gøtzsche, and T. Lang. 2001. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine 134(8):663–694.

Ashok, P. W., A. Templeton, P. T. Wagaarachchi, and G. M. Flett. 2004. Midtrimester medical termination of pregnancy: A review of 1002 consecutive cases. Contraception 69(1):51–58.

Autry, A. M., E. C. Hayes, G. F. Jacobson, and R. S. Kirby. 2002. A comparison of medical induction and dilation and evacuation for second-trimester abortion. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 187(2):393–397.

Bartlett, L. A., C. J. Berg, H. B. Shulman, S. B. Zane, C. A. Green, S. Whitehead, and H. K. Atrash. 2004. Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States. Obstetrics & Gynecology 103(4):729–737.

Bearak, J. M., K. L. Burke, and R. K. Jones. 2017. Disparities and change over time in distance women would need to travel to have an abortion in the USA: A spatial analysis. The Lancet Public Health 2(11):e493–e500.

Borgatta, L. 2011. Labor induction termination of pregnancy. Global library for women’s medicine . https://www.glowm.com/section_view/heading/Labor%20Induction%20Termination%20of%20Pregnancy/item/443 (accessed September 13, 2017).

Borkowski, L., J. Strasser, A. Allina, and S. Wood. 2015. Medication abortion. Overview of research & policy in the United States . http://publichealth.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/Medication_Abortion_white_paper.pdf (accessed January 25, 2017).

Bracken, M. B., D. H. Freeman, Jr., and K. Hellenbrand. 1982. Hospitalization for medical-legal and other abortions in the United States 1970–1977. American Journal of Public Health 72(1):30–37.

Bryant, A. G., D. A. Grimes, J. M. Garrett, and G. S. Stuart. 2011. Second-trimester abortion for fetal anomalies or fetal death: Labor induction compared with dilation and evacuation. Obstetrics & Gynecology 117(4):788–792.

Cates, Jr., W., K. F. Schulz, D. A. Grimes, A. J. Horowitz, F. A. Lyon, F. H. Kravitz, and M. J. Frisch. 1982. Dilatation and evacuation procedures and second-trimester abortions. The role of physician skill and hospital setting. Journal of the American medical Association 248(5):559–563.

Cates, Jr., W., D. A. Grimes, and K. F. Schulz. 2000. Abortion surveillance at CDC: Creating public health light out of political heat. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 19(1, Suppl. 1):12–17.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 1983. Surveillance summary abortion surveillance: Preliminary analysis, 1979–1980—United States. MMWR Weekly 32(5): 62–64. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001243.htm (accessed September 18, 2017).

CDC. 2017. CDC’s abortion surveillance system FAQs . https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm (accessed June 22, 2017).

Chen, M. J., and M. D. Creinin. 2015. Mifepristone with buccal misoprostol for medical abortion: A systematic review. Obstetrics & Gynecology 126(1):12–21.

Cleland, K., M. D. Creinin, D. Nucatola, M. Nshom, and J. Trussell. 2013. Significant adverse events and outcomes after medical abortion. Obstetrics & Gynecology 121(1):166–171.

Costescu, D., E. Guilbert, J. Bernardin, A. Black, S. Dunn, B. Fitzsimmons, W. V. Norman, H. Pymar, J. Soon, K. Trouton, M. S. Wagner, and E. Wiebe. 2016. Medical abortion. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 38(4):366–389.

Donabedian, A. 1980. The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment. In Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. Vol. 1. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.

Edelman, D. A., W. E. Brenner, and G. S. Berger. 1974. The effectiveness and complications of abortion by dilatation and vacuum aspiration versus dilatation and rigid metal curettage. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 119(4):473–480.

Elam-Evans, L. D., L. T. Strauss, J. Herndon, W. Y. Parker, S. V. Bowens, S. Zane, and C. J. Berg. 2003. Abortion surveillance—United States, 2000. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 52(SS-12):1–32. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm (accessed September 18, 2017).

FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 2016. MIFEPREX ® : Highligh ts of prescribing information. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/020687s020lbl.pdf (accessed September 11, 2017).

Finer, L. B., and S. K. Henshaw. 2003. Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 35(1):6–15.

Finer, L. B., and S. K. Henshaw. 2006. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 38(2):90–96.

Finer, L. B., and M. R. Zolna. 2016. Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011. New England Journal of Medicine 374(9):843–852.

Finer, L. B., L. F. Frohwirth, L. A. Dauphinee, S. Singh, and A. M. Moore. 2006. Timing of steps and reasons for delays in obtaining abortions in the United States. Contraception 74(4):334–344.

Frick, A. C., E. A. Drey, J. T. Diedrich, and J. E. Steinauer. 2010. Effect of prior cesarean delivery on risk of second-trimester surgical abortion complications. Obstetrics & Gynecology 115(4):760–764.

Gary, M. M., and D. J. Harrison. 2006. Analysis of severe adverse events related to the use of mifepristone as an abortifacient. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 40(2):191–197.

Glasziou, P., E. Meats, C. Heneghan, and S. Shepperd. 2008. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? British Medical Journal 336(7659):1472–1474.

Grimes, D. A., and G. Stuart. 2010. Abortion jabberwocky: The need for better terminology. Contraception 81(2):93–96.

Grimes, D. A., S. M. Smith, and A. D. Witham. 2004. Mifepristone and misoprostol versus dilation and evacuation for midtrimester abortion: A pilot randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 111(2):148–153.

Grossman, D., K. Blanchard, and P. Blumenthal. 2008. Complications after second trimester surgical and medical abortion. Reproductive Health Matters 16(31 Suppl.):173–182.

Grossman, D., K. Grindlay, T. Buchacker, K. Lane, and K. Blanchard. 2011. Effectiveness and acceptability of medical abortion provided through telemedicine. Obstetrics & Gynecology 118(2 Pt. 1):296–303.

Guttmacher Institute. 2017a. Fact sheet: Induced abortion in the United States. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states (accessed November 10, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017b. Bans on specific abortion methods used after the first trimester. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/bans-specific-abortion-methods-used-after-first-trimester (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017c. Counseling and waiting periods for abortion. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/counseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017d. Medication abortion. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/medication-abortion (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017e. An overview of abortion laws. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017f. Requirements for ultrasound. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/requirements-ultrasound (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017g. State funding of abortion under Medicaid. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-funding-abortion-under-medicaid (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017h. State policies on later abortions. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2017i. Targeted regulation of abortion providers. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/targeted-regulation-abortion-providers (accessed September 12, 2017).

Guttmacher Institute. 2018a. Abortion reporting requirements. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-reporting-requirements (accessed January 22, 2018).

Guttmacher Institute. 2018b. Restricting insurance coverage of abortion. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/restricting-insurance-coverage-abortion (accessed January 24, 2018).

Hopewell, S., M. Clarke, D. Moher, E. Wager, P. Middleton, D. G. Altman, K. F. Schulz, and the CONSORT Group. 2008. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 5(1):e20.

Ioannidis, J. P., S. J. Evans, P. C. Gøtzsche, R. T. O’Neill, D. G. Altman, K. Schulz, D. Moher, and the CONSORT Group. 2004. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 141(10):781–788.

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1975. Legalized abortion and the public health . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

IOM. 2001. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

IOM. 2011a. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

IOM. 2011b. Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Ireland, L. D., M. Gatter, and A. Y. Chen. 2015. Medical compared with surgical abortion for effective pregnancy termination in the first trimester. Obstetrics & Gynecology 126(1):22–28.

Jatlaoui, T. C., A. Ewing, M. G. Mandel, K. B. Simmons, D. B. Suchdev, D. J. Jamieson, and K. Pazol. 2016. Abortion surveillance—United States, 2013. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 65(No. SS-12):1–44.

Jerman, J., and R. K. Jones. 2014. Secondary measures of access to abortion services in the United States, 2011 and 2012: Gestational age limits, cost, and harassment. Women’s Health Issues 24(4): e419–e424.

Jerman J., R. K. Jones, and T. Onda. 2016. Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients in 2014 and changes since 2008 . https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014.pdf (accessed October 17, 2016).

Jerman, J., L. Frohwirth, M. L. Kavanaugh, and N. Blades. 2017. Barriers to abortion care and their consequences for patients traveling for services: Qualitative findings from two states. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 49(2):95–102.

Jones, R. K., and H. D. Boonstra. 2016. The public health implications of the FDA update to the medication abortion label. New York: Guttmacher Institute. https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2016/06/public-health-implications-fda-update-medication-abortion-label (accessed October 27, 2017).

Jones, R. K., and J. Jerman. 2017a. Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2014. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 49(1):1–11.

Jones, R. K., and J. Jerman. 2017b. Characteristics and circumstances of U.S. women who obtain very early and second trimester abortions. PLoS One 12(1):e0169969.

Jones, R. K., and M. L. Kavanaugh. 2011. Changes in abortion rates between 2000 and 2008 and lifetime incidence of abortion. Obstetrics & Gynecology 117(6):1358–1366.

Jones, R. K., L. B. Finer, and S. Singh. 2010. Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients, 2008. New York: Guttmacher Institute.

Kahn, J. B., J. P. Bourne, J. D. Asher, and C. W. Tyler. 1971. Technical reports: Surveillance of abortions in hospitals in the United States, 1970. HSMHA Health Reports 86(5):423–430.

Kelly, T., J. Suddes, D. Howel, J. Hewison, and S. Robson. 2010. Comparing medical versus surgical termination of pregnancy at 13–20 weeks of gestation: A randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 117(12): 1512–1520.

Koonin, L. M., and J. C. Smith. 1993. Abortion surveillance—United States, 1990. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 42(SS-6):29–57. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031585.htm (accessed September 18, 2017).

Kost, K. 2015. Unintended pregnancy rates at the state level: Estimates for 2010 and trends since 2002. New York: Guttmacher Institute.

Kulier, R., N. Kapp, A. M. Gulmezoglu, G. J. Hofmeyr, L. Cheng, and A. Campana. 2011. Medical methods for first trimester abortion. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (11):CD002855.

Lawson, H. W., H. K. Atrash, A. F. Saftlas, L. M. Koonin, M. Ramick, and J. C. Smith. 1989. Abortion surveillance, United States, 1984–1985. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 38(SS-2):11–15. https://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001467.htm (accessed September 18, 2017).

Lean, T. H., D. Vengadasalam, S. Pachauri, and E. R. Miller. 1976. A comparison of D & C and vacuum aspiration for performing first trimester abortion. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 14(6):481–486.

Lichtenberg, E. S., and M. Paul. 2013. Surgical abortion prior to 7 weeks of gestation. Contraception 88(1):7–17.

Lohr, A. P., J. L. Hayes, and K. Gemzell Danielsson. 2008. Surgical versus medical methods for second trimester induced abortion. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1):CD006714.

Low, N., M. Mueller, H. A. Van Vliet, and N. Kapp. 2012. Perioperative antibiotics to prevent infection after first-trimester abortion. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (3):CD005217.

Mauelshagen, A., L. C. Sadler, H. Roberts, M. Harilall, and C. M. Farquhar. 2009. Audit of short term outcomes of surgical and medical second trimester termination of pregnancy. Reproductive Health 6(1):16.

NAF (National Abortion Federation). 2017. 2017 Clinical policy guidelines for abortion care . Washington, DC: NAF.

Nash, E., R. B. Gold, L. Mohammed, O. Cappello, and Z. Ansari-Thomas. 2017. Laws affecting reproductive health and rights: State policy trends at midyear, 2017 . Washington, DC: Guttmacher Institute. https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2017/07/laws-affecting-reproductive-health-and-rights-state-policy-trends-midyear-2017 (accessed September 21, 2017).

Ngoc, N. T., T. Shochet, S. Raghavan, J. Blum, N. T. Nga, N. T. Minh, V. Q. Phan, B. Winikoff. 2011. Mifepristone and misoprostol compared with misoprostol alone for second-trimester abortion: A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 118(3):601–608.

Ohannessian, A., K. Baumstarck, J. Maruani, E. Cohen-Solal, P. Auquier, and A. Agostini. 2016. Mifepristone and misoprostol for cervical ripening in surgical abortion between 12 and 14 weeks of gestation: A randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 201:151–155.

Pazol, K., A. A. Creanga, and S. B. Zane. 2012. Trends in use of medical abortion in the United States: Reanalysis of surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001–2008. Contraception 86(6):746–751.

Pazol, K., A. A. Creanga, and D. J. Jamieson. 2015. Abortion surveillance—United States, 2012. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 64(SS-10):1–40.

Peterson, W. F., F. N. Berry, M. R. Grace, and C. L. Gulbranson. 1983. Second-trimester abortion by dilatation and evacuation: An analysis of 11,747 cases. Obstetrics & Gynecology 62(2):185–190.

Plint, A. C., D. Moher, A. Morrison, K. Schulz, D. G. Altman, C. Hill, and I. Gaboury. 2006. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Medical Journal of Australia 185(5):263–267.

Ranji, U., A. Salganicoff, L. Sobel, C. Rosenzweig, and I. Gomez. 2017. Financing family planning services for low-income women: The role of public programs. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/financing-family-planning-services-for-low-income-women-the-role-of-public-programs (accessed September 9, 2017).

Raymond, E. G., C. Shannon, M. A. Weaver, and B. Winikoff. 2013. First-trimester medical abortion with mifepristone 200 mg and misoprostol: A systematic review. Contraception 87(1):26–37.

RCOG (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists). 2011. The care of women requesting induced abortion (Evidence-based clinical guideline number 7). London, UK: RCOG Press. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/abortion-guideline_web_1.pdf (accessed July 27, 2017).

RCOG. 2015. Best practice in comprehensive abortion care (Best practice paper no. 2). London, UK: RCOG Press. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/best-practice-papers/best-practice-paper-2.pdf (accessed September 11, 2017).

Roblin, P. 2014. Vacuum aspiration. In Abortion care, edited by S. Rowlands. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sackett, D. L. 1979. Bias in analytic research. Journal of Chronic Diseases 32(1–2):51–63.

Sonalkar, S., S. N. Ogden, L. K. Tran, and A. Y. Chen. 2017. Comparison of complications associated with induction by misoprostol versus dilation and evacuation for second-trimester abortion. International Journal of Gynaecology & Obstetrics 138(3):272–275.

Strauss, L. T., S. B. Gamble, W. Y. Parker, D. A. Cook, S. B. Zane, and S. Hamdan. 2007. Abortion surveillance—United States, 2004. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 56 (SS-12):1–33.

Upadhyay, U. D., S. Desai, V. Zlidar, T. A. Weitz, D. Grossman, P. Anderson, and D. Taylor. 2015. Incidence of emergency department visits and complications after abortion. Obstetrics & Gynecology 125(1):175–183.

von Elm, E., D. G. Altman, M. Egger, S. J. Pocock, P. C. Gøtzsche, and J. P. Vandenbrouke. 2007. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Medicine 4(10):e296.

White, K., E. Carroll, and D. Grossman. 2015. Complications from first-trimester aspiration abortion: A systematic review of the literature. Contraception 92(5):422–438.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2012. Safe abortion: Technical and policy guidance for health systems (Second edition). http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70914/1/9789241548434_eng.pdf (accessed September 12, 2017).

WHO. 2014. Clinical practice handbook for safe abortion. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/97415/1/9789241548717_eng.pdf?ua=1&ua=1 (accessed November 15, 2016).

Wildschut, H., M. I. Both, S. Medema, E. Thomee, M. F. Wildhagen, and N. Kapp. 2011. Medical methods for mid-trimester termination of pregnancy. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1):Cd005216.

Woodcock, J. 2016. Letter from the director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research to Donna Harrison, Gene Rudd, and Penny Young Nance. Re: Docket No. FDA-2002-P-0364. Silver Spring, MD: FDA.

Zane, S., A. A. Creanga, C. J. Berg, K. Pazol, D. B. Suchdev, D. J. Jamieson, and W. M. Callaghan. 2015. Abortion-related mortality in the United States: 1998–2010. Obstetrics & Gynecology 126(2):258–265.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure that has been provided to millions of American women. Since the Institute of Medicine first reviewed the health implications of national legalized abortion in 1975, there has been a plethora of related scientific research, including well-designed randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, and epidemiological studies examining abortion care. This research has focused on examining the relative safety of abortion methods and the appropriateness of methods for different clinical circumstances. With this growing body of research, earlier abortion methods have been refined, discontinued, and new approaches have been developed.

The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States offers a comprehensive review of the current state of the science related to the provision of safe, high-quality abortion services in the United States. This report considers 8 research questions and presents conclusions, including gaps in research.

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Introduction: The Politics of Abortion 50 Years after Roe

Katrina Kimport is a professor with the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences and a medical sociologist with the ANSIRH program at the University of California, San Francisco. Her research examines the (re)production of inequality in health and reproduction, with a topical focus on abortion, contraception, and pregnancy. She is the author of No Real Choice: How Culture and Politics Matter for Reproductive Autonomy (2022) and Queering Marriage: Challenging Family Formation in the United States (2014) and co-author, with Jennifer Earl, of Digitally Enabled Social Change (2011). She has published more than 75 articles in sociology, health research, and interdisciplinary journals.

[email protected]

Rebecca Kreitzer is an associate professor of public policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research focuses on gendered political representation and intersectional policy inequality in the US states. Much of her research focuses on the political dynamics of reproductive health care, especially surrounding contraception and abortion. She has published dozens of articles in political science, public policy, and law journals.

[email protected]

Standard View
Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data
Peer Review
Open the PDF for in another window
Permissions
Cite Icon Cite
Search Site

Katrina Kimport , Rebecca Kreitzer; Introduction: The Politics of Abortion 50 Years after Roe . J Health Polit Policy Law 1 August 2023; 48 (4): 463–484. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10451382

Download citation file:

Reference Manager

Abortion is central to the American political landscape and a common pregnancy outcome, yet research on abortion has been siloed and marginalized in the social sciences. In an empirical analysis, the authors found only 22 articles published in this century in the top economics, political science, and sociology journals. This special issue aims to bring abortion research into a more generalist space, challenging what the authors term “the abortion research paradox,” wherein abortion research is largely absent from prominent disciplinary social science journals but flourishes in interdisciplinary and specialized journals. After discussing the misconceptions that likely contribute to abortion research siloization and the implications of this siloization for abortion research as well as social science knowledge more generally, the authors introduce the articles in this special issue. Then, in a call for continued and expanded research on abortion, the introduction to this special issue closes by offering three guiding practices for abortion scholars—both those new to the topic and those deeply familiar with it—in the hopes of building an ever-richer body of literature on abortion politics, policy, and law. The need for such a robust literature is especially acute following the US Supreme Court's June 2022 overturning of the constitutional right to abortion.

Abortion has been both siloed and marginalized in social science research. But because abortion is a perennially politically and socially contested issue as well as vital health care that one in four women in the United States will experience in their lifetime (Jones and Jerman 2022 ), it is imperative that social scientists make a change. This special issue brings together insightful voices from across disciplines to do just that—and does so at a particularly important historical moment. Fifty years after the United States Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade (1973) decision set a national standard amid disparate state policies on abortion, we again find ourselves in a country with a patchwork of laws about abortion. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion it had established in Roe , purportedly returning the question of legalization of abortion to the states. In the immediate aftermath of the Dobbs decision, state policies polarized, and public opinion shifted. This moment demands scholarly evaluation of where we have been, how we arrived at this moment, and what we should be attentive to in coming years. This special issue came about, in part, in response to the on-the-ground conditions of abortion in the United States.

As we argue below, the siloization of abortion research means that the social science literature broadly is not (yet) equipped to make sense of this moment, our history, and what the future holds. First, though, we make a case for the importance of political scientists, economists, and sociologists studying abortion. Then we describe the siloization of abortion research through what we call the “abortion research paradox,” wherein abortion research—despite its social and political import—is curiously absent from top disciplinary journals, even as it thrives in other publication venues that are often interdisciplinary and usually specialized. We theorize some reasons for this siloization and discuss the consequences, both for generalist knowledge and for scientific understanding of abortion. We then introduce the articles in this special issue, noting the breadth of methodological, topical, and theoretical approaches to abortion research they demonstrate. Finally, we offer three suggestions for scholars—both those new to abortion research and those already deeply familiar with it—embarking on abortion research in the hopes of building an ever-richer body of literature on abortion politics, policy, and law.

Why Abortion?

Abortion has arguably shaped the American political landscape more than any other domestic policy issue in the last 50 years. Since the Supreme Court initially established a nationwide right to abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973), debate over this right has influenced elections at just about every level of office (Abramowitz 1995 ; Cook, Hartwig, and Wilcox 1993 ; Cook, Jelen, and Wilcox 1994 ; Cook, Jelen, and Wilcox 1992 ; Paolino 1995 ; Roh and Haider-Markel 2003 ), inspired political activism (Carmines and Woods 2002 ; Killian and Wilcox 2008 ; Maxwell 2002 ; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995 ) and social movements (Kretschmer 2014 ; Meyer and Staggenborg 1996 , 2008 ; Munson 2010a , Munson 2010b ; Rohlinger 2006 ; Staggenborg 1991 ), and fundamentally structured partisan politics (Adams 1997; Carsey and Layman 2006 ; Killian and Wilcox 2008 ). Position on abortion is frequently used as the litmus test for those seeking political office (Flaten 2010 ; Kreitzer and Osborn 2019 ). Opponents to legal abortion have transformed the federal judiciary (Hollis-Brusky and Parry 2021 ; Hollis-Brusky and Wilson 2020 ). Indeed, abortion is often called the quintessential “morality policy” issue (Kreitzer 2015 ; Kreitzer, Kane, and Mooney 2019 ; Mooney 2001 ; Mucciaroni, Ferraiolo, and Rubado 2019 ) and “ground zero” in the prominent culture wars that have polarized Americans (Adams 1997 ; Lewis 2017 ; Mouw and Sobel 2001 ; Wilson 2013 ). Almost fifty years after Roe v. Wade , in June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, ushering in a new chapter of political engagement on abortion.

But abortion is not simply an abstract political issue; it is an extremely common pregnancy outcome. Indeed, as noted above, about one in four US women will get an abortion in her lifetime (Jones and Jerman 2022 ), although the rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion vary substantially across racial and socioeconomic groups (Dehlendorf, Harris, and Weitz 2013 ; Jones and Jerman 2022 ). Despite rampant misinformation claiming otherwise, abortion is a safe procedure (Raymond and Grimes 2012 ; Upadhyay et al. 2015 ), reduces physical health consequences and mortality (Gerdts et al. 2016 ), and does not cause mental health issues (Charles et al. 2008 ; Major et al. 2009 ) or regret (Rocca et al. 2013 , 2015 , 2020 ). Abortion also has a significant impact on people's lives beyond health outcomes. Legal abortion is associated with educational attainment (Everett et al. 2019 ; Ralph et al. 2019 ; Mølland 2016 ) as well as higher female labor force participation, and it affects men's and women's long-term earning potential (Bernstein and Jones 2019 ; Bloom et al. 2009 ; Everett et al. 2019 ; Kalist 2004 ). Access to abortion also shapes relationship satisfaction and stability (Biggs et al. 2014 ; Mauldon, Foster, and Roberts 2015 ). The preponderance of evidence, in other words, demonstrates substantial benefits and no harms to allowing pregnant people to choose abortion.

Yet access to abortion in the United States has been rapidly declining for years. Most abortion care in the United States takes place in stand-alone outpatient facilities that primarily provide reproductive health care (Jones, Witwer, and Jerman 2019 ). As antiabortion legislators in some states have advanced policies that target these facilities, the number of abortion clinics has decreased (Gerdts et al. 2022 ; Venator and Fletcher 2021 ), leaving large geographical areas lacking an abortion facility (Cartwright et al. 2018 ; Cohen and Joffe 2020 ) and thus diminishing pregnant people's ability to obtain abortion care when and where they need it.

The effects of policies regulating abortion, including those that target facilities, have been unevenly experienced, with people of color (Jones and Jerman 2022 ), people in rural areas (Bearak, Burke, and Jones 2017 ), and those who are financially struggling (Cook et al. 1999 ; Roberts et al. 2019 ) disproportionately affected. Even before the Dobbs decision overturned the constitutional right to abortion, the American landscape was characterized by ever-broadening contraception deserts (Axelson, Sealy, and McDonald-Mosley 2022 ; Barber et al. 2019 ; Kreitzer et al. 2021 ; Smith et al. 2022 ), maternity care deserts (Simpson 2020 ; Taporco et al. 2021 ; Wallace et al. 2021 ), and abortion deserts (Cartwright et al. 2018 ; Cohen and Joffe 2020 ; Engle and Freeman 2022 ; McNamara et al. 2022 ; Pleasants, Cartwright, and Upadhyay 2022 ). After Dobbs , access to abortion around the country changed in a matter of weeks. In the 100 days after Roe was overturned, at least 66 clinics closed in 15 states, with 14 of those states no longer having any abortion facilities (Kirstein et al. 2022 ). In this moment of heightened contention about an issue with a long history of social and political contestation, social scientists have a rich opportunity to contribute to scientific knowledge as well as policy and practice that affect millions of lives. This special issue steps into that opportunity.

The Abortion Research Paradox

This special issue is also motivated by what we call the abortion research paradox. As established above, abortion fundamentally shapes politics in a myriad of ways and is a very common pregnancy outcome, with research consistently demonstrating that access to abortion is consequential and beneficial to people's lives. However, social science research on abortion is rarely published in top disciplinary journals. Abortion is a topic of clear social science interest and is well suited for social science inquiry, but it is relatively underrepresented as a topic in generalist social science journals. To measure this underrepresentation empirically, we searched for original research articles about abortion in the United Sates in the top journals of political science, sociology, and economics. We identified the top three journals for each discipline by considering journal reputation within their respective discipline as well as impact factors and Google Scholar rankings. (There is room for debate about what makes a journal a “top” general interest journal, but that is beyond our scope. Whether these journals are exactly the top three is debatable; nonetheless, these are undoubtedly among the top general-interest or “flagship” disciplinary journals and thus representative of what the respective disciplines value as top scholarship.) Then we searched specified journal databases for the keyword “abortion” for articles published in this century (i.e., 2000–2021), excluding commentaries and book reviews. We found few articles about abortion: just seven in economics journals, eight in political science journals, and seven in sociology journals. We read the articles and classified each into one of three categories: articles primarily about abortion; articles about more than one aspect of reproductive health, inclusive of abortion; or articles about several policy issues, among which abortion is one ( table 1 ).

In the three top economics journals, articles about abortion focused on the relationships between abortion and crime or educational attainment, or on the impact of abortion policies on trends in the timing of first births of women (Bitler and Zavodny 2002 ; Donohue III and Levitt 2001 ; Myers 2017 ). Articles that studied abortion as one among several topics also studied “morally controversial” issues (Elías et al. 2017 ), the electoral implications of abortion (Glaeser, Ponzetto, and Shapiro 2005 ; Washington 2008 ), or contraception (Bailey 2010 ). Articles published in the three top political science journals that focused primarily on abortion evaluated judicial decision-making and legitimacy (Caldarone, Canes-Wrone, and Clark 2009 ; Zink, Spriggs, and Scott 2009 ) or public opinion (Kalla, Levine, and Broockman 2022 ; Rosenfeld, Imai, and Shapiro 2016 ). More commonly, abortion was one of several (or many) different issues analyzed, including government spending and provision of services, government help for African Americans, law enforcement, health care, education, free speech, Hatch Act restrictions, and the Clinton impeachment. The degree to which these articles are “about abortion” varies considerably. In the three top sociology journals, articles represented a slightly broader range of topics, including policy diffusion (Boyle, Kim, and Longhofer 2015 ), public opinion (Mouw and Sobel 2001 ), social movements (Ferree 2003 ), and crisis pregnancy centers (McVeigh, Crubaugh, and Estep 2017 ). Unlike in economics and political science, articles in sociology on abortion mostly focused directly on abortion.

The Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law ( JHPPL ) would seem well positioned to publish research on abortion. Yet, even in JHPPL , abortion research is not very common. In the same time period (2000–2021), JHPPL published five articles on reproductive health: two articles on abortion (Daniels et al. 2016 ; Kimport, Johns, and Upadhyay 2018 ), one on contraception (Kreitzer et al. 2021 ), one on forced interventions on pregnant people (Paltrow and Flavin 2013 ), and one about how states could respond to the passage of the Affordable Care Act mandate regarding reproductive health (Stulberg 2013 ).

This is not to say that there is no extensive, rigorous published research on abortion in the social science literature. Interdisciplinary journals that are focused on reproductive health, such as Contraception and Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health , as well as health research journals, such as the American Journal of Public Health and Social Science & Medicine , regularly published high-quality social science research on abortion during the focal time period. Research on abortion can also be found in disciplinary subfield journals. In the same time period addressed above, the Journal of Women, Politics, and Public Policy and Politics & Gender— two subfield journals focused on gender and politics—each published around 20 articles that mentioned abortion in the abstract. In practice, while this means excellent research on abortion is published, the net effect is that abortion research is siloed from other research areas in the disciplines of economics, political science, and sociology. This special issue aims to redress some of this siloization and to inspire future scholarship on abortion. Our motivation is not simply premised on quantitative counts, however. As we assert below, abortion research siloization has significant consequences for knowledge—and especially for real people's lives. First, though, we consider some of the possible reasons for this siloization.

The Origins of Siloization

We do not know why abortion research is not more commonly published in top disciplinary journals, given the topic's clear importance in key areas of focus for these disciplines, including public discourse, politics, law, family life, and health. The siloing and marginalization of abortion is likely related to several misconceptions. For one, because of social contention on the issue, peer reviewers may not have a deep understanding of abortion as a research topic, may express hostility to the topic, or may believe that abortion is exceptional in some way—a niche or ungeneralizable research topic better published in a subfield journal. Scholars themselves may share this mischaracterization of abortion. As Borgman ( 2014 ) argues about the legal arena, and as Roberts, Schroeder, and Joffe ( 2020 ) provide evidence of in medicine, abortion is regularly treated as exceptional, making it both definitional and reasonable that abortion be treated differently in the law and in health care from other medical experiences. Scholars are not immune to social patterns that exceptionalize abortion. In their peer and editor reviews, they may inappropriately—and perhaps inadvertently—draw on their social, rather than academic, knowledge. For scholars of abortion, reviews premised on social knowledge may not be constructive to strengthening the research, and additional labor may be required to educate reviewers and editors on the academic parameters of the topic, including which social assumptions about abortion are scientifically inaccurate. Comments from authors educating editors and peer reviewers on abortion research may then counterintuitively reinforce the (mis)perception that abortion research is niche and not of general interest.

Second, authors' negative experiences while trying to publish about abortion or reproductive health in top disciplinary journals may compound as scholars share information about journals. This is the case for research on gender; evidence from political science suggests that certain journals are perceived as more or less likely to publish research on gender (Brown et al. 2020 ). Such reputations, especially for venues that do not publish abortion research, may not even be rooted in negative experiences. The absence of published articles on abortion may itself dissuade scholars from submitting to a journal based on an educated guess that the journal does not welcome abortion research. Regardless of the veracity of these perceptions, certain journals may get a reputation for publishing on abortion (or not), which then may make future submissions of abortion research to those outlets more (or less) likely. After all, authors seek publication venues where they believe their research will get a robust review and is likely to be published. This pattern may be more common for some author groups than others. Research from political science suggests women are more risk averse than men when it comes to publishing strategies and less likely to submit manuscripts to journals where the perceived likelihood of successful publication is lower (Key and Sumner 2019 ). Special issues like this one are an important way for journals without a substantial track record of publishing abortion research to establish their willingness to do so.

Third, there might be a methodological bias, which unevenly intersects with some author groups. Top disciplinary journals are more likely to publish quantitative approaches rather than qualitative ones, which can result in the exclusion of women and minority scholars who are more likely to utilize mixed or qualitative methods (Teele and Thelen 2017 ). To the extent that investigations of abortion in the social sciences have utilized qualitative rather than quantitative methods, that might contribute to the underrepresentation of abortion-focused scholarship in top disciplinary journals.

Stepping back from the idiosyncrasies of peer review and methodologies, a fourth explanation for why abortion research is not more prominent in generalist social science journals may arise far earlier than the publishing process. PhD-granting departments in the social sciences may have an undersupply of scholars with expertise in reproductive health who can mentor junior scholars interested in studying abortion. (We firmly believe one need not be an expert in reproductive health to mentor junior scholars studying reproductive health, so this explanation only goes so far.) Anecdotally, we have experienced and heard many accounts of scholars who were discouraged from focusing on abortion in dissertation research because of advisors', mentors', and senior scholars' misconceptions about the topic and about the viability of a career in abortion research. In data provided to us by Key and Sumner from their analysis of the “leaky pipeline” in the publication of research on gender at top disciplinary journals in political science (Key and Sumner 2019 ), there were only nine dissertations written between 2000 and 2013 that mention abortion in the abstract, most of which are focused on judicial behavior or political party dynamics rather than focusing on abortion policy itself. If few junior scholars focus on abortion, it makes sense there may be an undersupply of cutting-edge social science research on abortion submitted to top disciplinary journals.

The Implications of Siloization

The relative lack of scholarly attention to abortion as a social phenomenon in generalist journals has implications for general scholarship. Most concerningly, it limits our ability to understand other social phenomena for which the case of abortion is a useful entry point. For example, the case of abortion as a common, highly safe medical procedure is useful for examining medical innovations and technologies, such as telemedicine. Similarly, given the disparities in who seeks and obtains abortion care in the United States, abortion is an excellent case study for scholars interested in race, class, and gender inequality. It also holds great potential as an opportunity for exploration of public opinion and attitudes, particularly as a case of an issue whose ties to partisan politics have solidified over time and that is often—but not always—“moralized” in policy engagement (Kreitzer, Kane, and Mooney 2019 ). Additionally, there are missed opportunities to generate theory from the specifics of abortion. For example, there is ample evidence of abortion stigma and stigmatization (Hanschmidt et al. 2016 ) and of their effects on people who obtain abortions (Sorhaindo and Lavelanet 2022 ). This research is often unmoored from existing theorization on stigmatization, however, because the bulk of the stigma literature focuses on identities; and having had an abortion is not an identity the same way as, for example, being queer is. (For a notable exception to this trend, see Beynon-Jones 2017 .)

There is, it must be noted, at least one benefit of abortion research being regularly siloed within social science disciplines. The small but growing number of researchers engaged in abortion research has often had to seek mentorship and collaborations outside their disciplines. Indeed, several of the articles included in this special issue come from multidisciplinary author teams, building bridges between disciplinary literatures and pushing knowledge forward. Social scientists studying abortion regularly engage with research by clinicians and clinician-researchers, which is somewhat rare in the academy. The interdisciplinary journals noted above that regularly publish social science abortion research ( Contraception and Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health ) also regularly publish clinical articles and are read by advocates and policy makers. In other words, social scientists studying abortion frequently reach audiences that include clinicians, advocates, and policy makers, marking an opportunity for social science research to influence practice.

The siloization of abortion research in the social sciences affects more than broad social science knowledge; it also dramatically shapes our understanding of abortion. When abortion researchers are largely relegated to their own spaces, they risk missing opportunities to learn from other areas of scholarship that are not related to abortion. Lacking context from other topics, abortion scholars may inaccurately understand an aspect of abortion as exceptional that is not, or they may reinvent the proverbial theoretical wheel to describe an abortion-related phenomenon that is not actually unique to abortion. For example, scholars have studied criminalized behavior for decades, offering theoretical insights and methodological best practices for research on illegal activities. With abortion now illegal in many states, abortion researchers can benefit from drawing on that extant literature to examine the implications of illegality, identifying which aspects of abortion illegality are unique and which are common to other illegal activities. Likewise, methodologically, abortion researchers can learn from other researchers of illegal activities about how to protect participants' confidentiality.

The ontological and epistemological implications for the siloization of abortion research extend beyond reproductive health. When abortion research is not part of the central discussions in economics, political science, and sociology, our understanding of health policy, politics, and law is impoverished. We thus miss opportunities to identify and address chronic health disparities and health inequities, with both conceptual and practical consequences. These oversights matter for people's lives. Following the June 2022 Dobbs decision, millions of people with the capacity of pregnancy are now barred from one key way to control fertility: abortion. The implications of scholars' failure to comprehensively grapple with the place of abortion in health policy, politics, and law are playing out in those people's lives and the lives of their loved ones.

Articles in this Special Issue

In this landscape, we offer this special issue on “The Politics of Abortion 50 Years After Roe .” We seek in this issue to illustrate some of the many ways abortion can and should be studied, with benefits not only for scholarly knowledge about abortion and its role in policy, politics, and law but also for general knowledge about health policy, politics, and law themselves.

The issue's articles represent multiple disciplines, including several articles by multidisciplinary teams. Although public health has long been a welcoming home for abortion research, authors in this special issue point to opportunities in anthropology, sociology, and political science, among other disciplines, for the study of abortion. We do not see the differences and variations among disciplinary approaches as a competition. Rather, we believe that the more diverse the body of researchers grappling with questions about abortion, abortion provision, and abortion patients, the better our collective knowledge about abortion and its role in the social landscape.

The same goes for diversity of methodological approaches. Authors in this issue employ qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, showcasing compelling methodological variation. There is no singular or best methodology for answering research questions about abortion. Instead, the impressive variation in methodological approaches in this special issue highlights the vast methodological opportunities for future research. A diversity of methodologies enables a diversity of research questions. Indeed, different methods can identify, generate, and respond to different research questions, enriching the literature on abortion. The methodologies represented in this issue are certainly not exhaustive, but we believe they are suggestive of future opportunities for scholarly exploration and investigation. We hope these articles will provide a road map for rich expansions of the research literature on abortion.

By way of brief introduction, we offer short summaries of the included articles. Baker traces the history of medication abortion in the United States, cataloging the initial approval of the two-part regimen by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), subsequent policy debates over FDA-imposed restrictions on how medication abortion is dispensed, and the work of abortion access advocates to get medication abortion to people who need it. Weaving together accounts of health care policy, abortion advocacy, and on-the-ground activism, Baker illustrates both the unique contentions specific to abortion policy and how the history of medication abortion can be seen as a case of health care advocacy.

Two of the issue's articles focus on state-level legislative policy on abortion. Roth and Lee generate an original data set cataloging the introduction and implementation of statutes on abortion and other aspects of reproductive health at the state level in the United States monthly, from 1994 to 2022. In their descriptive analysis, the authors highlight trends in abortion legislation and the emergent pattern of state polarization around abortion. Their examination adds rich longitudinal context to contemporary analyses of reproductive health legislation, providing a valuable resource for future scholarship. Carson and Carter similarly attend to state-level legislation, zeroing in on the case of abortion policy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to show how legislation unrelated to abortion has been opportunistically used to restrict abortion access. The authors also examine how abortion is discursively constructed as a risk to public health. This latter move, they argue, builds on previous constructions of abortion as a risk to individual health and points to a new horizon of antiabortion constructions of the meaning of abortion access.

Kim et al. and Kumar examine the implementation of US abortion policies. Kim et al. use an original data set of 20 years of state supreme court decisions to investigate factors that affect state supreme court decision-making on abortion. Their regression analysis uncovers the complex relationship between state legislatures, state supreme courts, and the voting public for the case of abortion. Kumar charts how 50 years of US abortion policy have affected global access to abortion, offering insights into the underexamined international implications of US abortion policy and into social movement advocacy that has expanded abortion access around the world.

Karlin and Joffe and Heymann et al. draw on data collected when Roe was still the law of the land to investigate phenomena that are likely to become far more common now that Roe has been overturned. Karlin and Joffe utilize interviews with 40 physicians who provide abortions to examine their perspectives on people who terminate their pregnancies outside the formal health care system—an abortion pathway whose popularity increases when abortion access constricts (Aiken et al. 2022 ). By contextualizing their findings on the contradictions physicians voiced—desiring to support reproductive autonomy but invested in physician authority—in a historical overview of how mainstream medicine has marginalized abortion provision since the early days after Roe , the authors add nuance to understandings of the “formal health care system,” its members, and the stakes faced by people bypassing this system to obtain their desired health outcome. Heymann et al. investigate a process also likely to increase in the wake of the Dobbs decision: the implementation of restrictive state-level abortion policy by unelected bureaucrats. Using the case of variances for a written transfer agreement requirement in Ohio—a requirement with no medical merit that is designed to add administrative burden to stand-alone abortion clinics—Heymann et al. demonstrate how bureaucratic discretion by political appointees can increase the administrative burden of restrictive abortion laws and thus further constrain abortion access. Together, these two articles demonstrate how pre- Roe data can point scholars to areas that merit investigation after Roe has been overturned.

Finally, using mixed methods, Buyuker et al. analyze attitudes about abortion acceptability and the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, distinguishing what people think about abortion from what they know about abortion policy. In addition to providing methodological insights about survey items related to abortion attitudes, the authors expose a disconnect between how people think about abortion acceptability and their support for the Roe decision. In other words, as polarized as abortion attitudes are said to be, there is unacknowledged and largely unmeasured complexity in how the general public thinks about abortion.

Future Research on Abortion

We hope that a desire to engage in abortion research prompts scholars to read the excellent articles in this special issue. We also hope that reading these pieces inspires at least some readers to engage in abortion research. Having researched abortion for nearly three decades between us, we are delighted by the emerging interest in studying abortion, whether as a focal topic or alongside a different focus. This research is essential to our collective understanding of abortion politics, policy, and law and the many millions of people whose lives are affected by US abortion politics, policy, and law annually. In light of the limitations of the current field of abortion research, we have several suggestions for scholars of abortion, regardless of their level of familiarity with the topic.

First, know and cite the existing literature on abortion. To address the siloization of abortion research, and particularly the scarcity of abortion research published in generalist journals, scholars must be sure to build on the impressive work that has been published on the topic in specialized spaces. Moreover, becoming familiar with existing research can help scholars avoid several common pitfalls in abortion research. For example, being immersed in existing literature can help scholars avoid outdated, imprecise, or inappropriate language and terminology. Smith et al. ( 2018 ), for instance, illuminate the implications of clinicians deploying seemingly everday language around “elective” abortion. They find that it muddies the distinction between the use of “elective” colloquially and in clinical settings, contributing to the stigmatization of abortion and abortion patients. Examinations like theirs advance understanding of abortion stigmatization while highlighting for scholars the importance of being sensitive to and reflective about language. Familiarity with existing research can help scholars avoid methodological pitfalls as well, such as incomplete understanding of the organization of abortion provision. Although Planned Parenthood has brand recognition for providing abortion care, the majority of abortions in the United States are performed at independent abortion clinics. Misunderstanding the provision landscape can have consequences for some study designs.

Second, we encourage scholars of abortion to think critically about the ideological underpinnings of how their research questions and findings are framed. Academic research of all kinds, including abortion, is better when it is critical of ideologically informed premises. Abortion scholars must be careful to avoid uncritically accepting both antiabortion premises and abortion-supportive premises, especially as those premises unconsciously guide much of the public discourse on abortion. Scholars have the opportunity to use methodological tools not to find an objective truth per se but to challenge the uncontested common sense claims that frequently guide public thinking on abortion. One strategy for avoiding common framing pitfalls is to construct research and analysis to center the people most affected by abortion politics, policy, and law (Kimport and McLemore 2022 ). Another strategy is to critique what Baird and Millar ( 2019 , 2020 ) have termed the performative nature of abortion scholarship. Abortion scholarship, they note, has predominantly focused on negative aspects and effects of abortion care. Research that finds and explores affirmatively positive aspects—for instance, the joy in abortion—can crucially thicken scholarly understanding.

Third, related to our discussion above, scholars of abortion face an interesting challenge regarding how abortion is and is not exceptional. Research on abortion must attend to how abortion has been exceptionalized—and marginalized—in policy and practices. But there are also numerous instances where abortion is only one example of many. In these cases, investigation of abortion under the assumption that it is exceptional is an unnecessary limitation on the work's contribution. Scholars of abortion benefit from mastery of the literature on abortion, yet knowing this literature is not sufficient. There are important bridges from scholarship on abortion to scholarship in other areas, important conversations across and within literatures, that can yield insights both about abortion and about other topical foci.

As guest coeditors of this special issue, we are delighted by the rich and growing body of scholarship on abortion, to which the articles in this special issue represent an important addition. There is still much more work to be done. Going forward, we are eager to see future scholarship on abortion build on this work and tackle new questions.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Krystale Littlejohn, Jon Oberlander, Ellen Key, and Jane Sumner for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article. Both authors contributed equally to this article and are listed alphabetically.

Previous Issue
Next Article

Data & Figures

Number of Articles about Abortion in Top Disciplinary Journals, 2000–2021

Note : AER = American Economic Review ; QJE = Quarterly Journal of Economics ; JPE = Journal of Political Economy ; APSR = American Political Science Review ; AJPS = American Journal of Political Science ; JOP = Journal of Politics ; ASR = American Sociological Review ; AJS = American Journal of Sociology ; ARS = Annual Review of Sociology.

Supplements

Citing articles via, email alerts, related articles, related book chapters, related topics, affiliations.

About Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law
Editorial Board
For Authors
Rights and Permissions Inquiry
Online ISSN 1527-1927
Print ISSN 0361-6878
Duke University Press
905 W. Main St. Ste. 18-B
Durham, NC 27701
(888) 651-0122
International
+1 (919) 688-5134
Information For
Advertisers
Book Authors
Booksellers/Media
Journal Authors/Editors
Journal Subscribers
Prospective Journals
Licensing and Subsidiary Rights
View Open Positions
email Join our Mailing List
catalog Current Catalog
Accessibility
Get Adobe Reader

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
v.79(1); 2012 Feb

Book Review: The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice

William e. may.

Emeritus Pontifical John Paul II Institute For Studies on Marriage and Family Washington, D.C.

The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice by Christopher Kaczor. New York:. Routledge, 2011. x+246. pp.

Christopher Kaczor's thorough study of “the ethics of abortion” is logically organized as follows: 1) introduction (1–12); 2) “Does Personhood Begin after Birth?” (14–37); 3) “Does Personhood Begin at Birth?” (38–55); 4) “Does Personhood Begin During Pregnancy?” (56–90); 5) “Does Personhood Begin at Conception?” (91–120); 6) “Does the Human Embryo Have Rights?” (121–144); 7) “Is It Wrong to Abort a Person?” (145–176); 8) “Is Abortion Permissible in Hard Cases?” (177–214); 9) “Could Artificial Wombs End the Abortion Debate?” (215–230). He answers “no” to numbers 2, 3, and 4, and “yes” to number 5. His own answer to numbers 6, 7, and 9 is “yes,” but his strategy is to consider and reject arguments answering “no” to these questions; his own answer to number 8 is “no,” but again his strategy is to consider and rebut arguments for a “yes” answer.

Kaczor asks whether “personhood,” not “human life,” begins at different points. He does so because today many claim that not all living members of the human species are persons with rights; only “persons” have rights, and killing human beings who are not persons does not violate any “right” to life.

First let us examine the rich contents of Kaczor's book. I will then close with an evaluative critique.

1. The Introduction

Kaczor believes that sound philosophical reasoning informed by a careful examination of the evidence can show that the vast majority of abortions are morally unjust (12). But he is convinced that meaningful and respectful dialogue between defenders and critics of abortion is possible if two key truths are honored. The first is the difference between the subjective culpability of the agent and the objective morality of the act as determined by relevant moral principles and norms. We must not, indeed cannot, judge those who choose to have or defend abortions. “Whatever one's view of abortion itself, refraining from making judgments about the character of those touched by abortion (in whatever way) is helpful in treating the topic properly, and more importantly, I believe (but won't defend here), that it is an essential part of being a decent human being” (5). The second is to avoid loaded language such as anti-life, anti-choice , etc. and use instead terms such as defenders of abortion, critics of abortion (6).

2. Does Personhood Begin after Birth?

Defenders of the claim that personhood begins after birth include Michael Tooley and others who accept the definition (or varieties and nuances thereof) of person given by Peter Singer: namely, “a being is a person if and only if the being has 1) an awareness of his or her own existence, 2) over time and in different places with 3) the capacity to have wants, and 4) plans for the future” (17–18). Kaczor provides an exhaustive critique of this definition and the four “person-making” criteria it stipulates, along with a critique of the efforts of many (Julian Savulescu, Galen Strawson, David Boonin, a “later” Tooley and his colleague Laura Purdy, and others) to “nuance” this definition and offer more sophisticated versions of it in order to answer objections, among them the criticism that, if strictly interpreted, Singer's definition would include among non-persons those who are sleeping or anesthetized, and if more loosely interpreted would include those in deep coma or severely mentally disabled (24–32).

A common claim is that the unborn and newly born are not actual persons but only “potential persons.” Responding to this claim, Kaczor distinguishes between a “passive potency” and an “active potency.” The former requires the intervention of an agent extrinsic to the being to effect the change from potential to actual (e.g., a sapling has a passive potency to become the leg of a chair) whereas the sapling has the active potency to become a mature tree (24). In defending this distinction Kaczor shows the absurdity of scenarios invented by writers like Nicole Hassoun and Uriah Kriegel to show how an oyster could develop its own rational powers if it were transported to Mars and if living on Mars made oysters capable of this (24–25).

Kaczor counters Jeff McMahan's argument that neonates and young children are not “persons” by a reductio ad absurdum. McMahan argued that since rational functioning determines moral worth, then there are degrees of personhood, and some persons are of greater value not only than non-rational humans but also than some rational ones. He further argued that there is no logical reason why rational entities with rational capacities might not be manufactured. In fact, McMahan himself had to admit that his idea that those persons whose rational capacities are greater than others have more rights than other persons is “dangerously invidious” (23).

Kaczor also shows that the acceptance of the Dutch “Gronigen Protocol” by Hilde Lindemann and Marian Verkerk is rooted in the a priori and falsifiable presupposition that the most humane way to treat severely handicapped newborns is to kill them to save them from a life of “hopeless and unbearable suffering.” This view presupposes that there is such a thing as a life not worth living and that one can judge that another human being is better off dead than alive. But empirical studies show that individuals who have suffered a lifetime because of a genetically-caused serious handicap or accident do not want to be so killed (33–34).

3. Does Personhood Begin at Birth?

Kaczor's procedure in showing that the answer to this question is “no” is to summarize and criticize the specific views of different authors (e.g., Mary Ann Warren, David Boonin, H. Tristam Englehardt, Ronald Green, Lawrence Tribe), playing them off against each other and showing their inconsistencies and in particular the inconsistencies in the changing views of Warren; he likewise briefly examines the nature of partial-birth abortion, and the Supreme Court's ruling affirming a constitutional right to this procedure and by that ruling reaffirming the conventional pro-choice view that abortion ought to be legally permissible throughout the nine months of pregnancy until the human being has been entirely removed from the woman's body (38–55).

4. Does Personhood Begin during Pregnancy?

Kaczor examines the following stages during pregnancy when different authors think the living human being becomes a “person” with a serious right to life: conscious desires/interests (Bonnie Steinbock); viability ( Roe v. Wade ); quickening/fetal movement (Kaczor names no one who holds this but simply proposes and then disposes of arguments claiming this); sentience (Ronald Green, David Overberg, et al.); human appearance (Roger Wertheimer; Jane English); brain development (Baruch Brody who, however, completely repudiates abortion after the brain appears, although Kaczor fails to note this); implantation (Bernard Nathanson prior to his conversion; Stephan Coleman). Kaczor rebuts these proposals by appealing to relevant scientific studies and to the infighting among defenders of abortion over these criteria for determining the beginning of personhood. In criticizing the claim that the human organism becomes a person when the brain is developed, Kaczor appeals to D. Alan Shewmon's refutation of the rationale used to claim that the brain is the central organizing element in the human person (79–81).

Of special interest in this chapter is Kaczor's presentation of and refutation of the developmental view or the multicriterial approach of Mary Anne Warren in her later writings, which is endorsed by Green and others. According to this approach, each of the criteria noted earlier fails as a sufficient criterion for determining personhood if taken individually. However, if they are taken together they lead to the conclusion that the right to life (a right of “persons”) gradually gains strength as pregnancy progresses, and the more similar the human being in utero is to “full-fledged” persons like those of us who are born, the greater the protection it deserves. Nonetheless before birth this being is not , Warren claims, a full-fledged person with a serious right to life (83–85).

Her claim ignores the vast difference in the right to life and other rights. There are age restrictions on voting, driving, and being elected to public office because these rights imply abilities to discharge specific responsibilities. But the right to life does not imply any corresponding responsibilities and so can be enjoyed regardless of age or mental capacities. And Warren's view has other problems as well.

Since Kaczor had shown in the earlier chapter that personhood does not begin after birth , he ends this chapter by saying that inconsistencies and inner contradictions of the most important arguments that personhood arises during pregnancy point to the logical conclusion that personhood begins at conception, the issue of the following chapter (90).

5. Does Personhood Begin at Conception?

Kaczor begins his yes answer to the question by saying that he will address not one but two questions. The first is “a moral question that inquires as to who is a member of the moral community; the second is a biological question that seeks to know when human life begins” (91). The first question is extremely important, not only for the abortion issue and other ethical issues but also because its answer presupposes or reinforces at least implicitly a general theory of personhood. Kaczor draws on Robert Spitzer's Healing the Culture: A Commonsense Philosophy of Happiness, Freedom, and Life Issues and John Kavanaugh's Who Count as Persons? Human Identity and the Ethics of Killing to contrast the endowment account of personhood and the performance account of personhood (93). After criticizing efforts (e.g., by Jeff McMahan, S. Matthew Liao) to defend the performance account of personhood and efforts to discredit the endowment account (e.g., by Martha Nussbaum), Kaczor argues that every human being is a rational animal (Aristotle's definition centuries ago; man is the zoon logikon , animal rationale ). Moreover every human being is not potentially a rational being, but a currently existing actual rational being. Kaczor illustrates this by using examples from pathology—for instance, some men are sterile and cannot therefore reproduce when united in the bodily act of genital intercourse with a woman. But this is a pathological condition, and these men's generative organs remain generative even if they cannot be exercised. Thus human beings from conception on are the kind of beings who are actual existing rational beings even if these rational powers, rooted in their being, must be developed in order to be exercised, but they could not be developed if they were not there to begin with, etc. (98–102).

The second question, when does a human being begin to exist, is a biological or scientific question and Kaczor, making his own the scientific studies cited by Patrick Lee, 1 shows that this evidence leaves no doubt about the beginning of human beings; they come to be at conception, when the sperm from the man fuses with the oocyte of the woman and a new organism, distinct from mother and father, begins to be, with the active potency to develop into an embryo, fetus, newborn … senile old person. Kaczor then offers another argument, which he calls the “constitutive property” argument, to support this conclusion (105–120). (Kaczor notes that David Boonin had articulated this argument. He does not, however, point out that Boonin's articulation of the argument is in essence a misreading of the argument proposed by Paul Ramsey years ago; Boonin discusses this argument in his widely ac-claimed A Defense of Abortion 2 ). The “constitutive property” is that all human beings from conception on are rational animals , i.e., bodily beings with the active potency to develop and exercise the rational acts of forming concepts, judgments, and arguments, and of making free choices.

6. Does the Human Embryo Have Rights?

In answering “yes” to this question, Kaczor does not give arguments to show that embryos have rights. His strategy is to consider and answer “several major objections to the view that the human embryo is a person, a being due fundamental respect” (121). He had examined those objections and rejected them in chapters 2, 3, and 4. This chapter is thus somewhat repetitious. It focuses on twelve arguments proposed by defenders of abortion to deny personal rights to human embryos: the acorn analogy; the size of the embryo; twinning; embryo fusion; the high embryo mortality rate; hylomorphism (the “delayed hominization theory”); the anti-abortion, anti-contraception argument; the argument that cells are not persons; the embryo rescue case; the bag of marbles analogy; cost-benefit analysis; the uncertainty argument.

I will not consider these objections and Kaczor's replies to them in any detail, but I will illustrate his strategy in his replies to the arguments based on monozygotic twinning and on fusion, as well as the high embryo mortality rate, or “wastage,” argument.

Some (Mary Warnock, Jeff McMahan) argue that the phenomenon of monozygotic twinning proves that an individual human being cannot exist in the early stages of pregnancy. Kaczor's basic reply is that even if one being can be divided into two, this does not mean that it was never an individual being, something demonstrated by cloning, an artificial kind of twinning. He stresses the difference between individuation and indivisibility : the fact that one being can be divided into two does not mean that it was never an individual being. It is also possible that the original human zygote died and in doing so gave rise to two or more individual human beings (127–129).

It may be possible that two human zygotes can fuse into one. The argument (Harris, Green) is that two human beings cannot fuse into one; therefore two human zygotes cannot so fuse but rather become “humanized” with the appearance of the primitive streak fourteen days after conception. All this case shows is that two human beings were in existence prior to fusion (and no instances of the fusing of human embryos have been recorded so far as I know, although Kaczor does not note this), and now the two human beings cease to exist and a new human being takes their place (129–130).

Embryo wastage or high embryo mortality

The argument (Green, McMahan) is that if embryos were truly human beings and especially if they were persons, parents would grieve over miscarriages as they do over the death of a toddler or aunt or beloved friend, whereas they do not. But most women do grieve over miscarriages. Far more important, however, is that grieving a death is itself irrelevant to whether an entity is a human being or person. There seems to be a relatively high rate of “embryo” wastage. But, Kaczor argues, experts think that this is the result of gross abnormalities and serious deficiencies in the reproductive process because of incomplete fertilization. In a majority of cases, it is likely that no human being or person was “wasted” or lost but rather some non-human organism. In addition, all human beings die, some during pregnancy, others at birth, others at different stages of their lives, but their deaths in no way show that they were not human beings or persons when they died (131–133).

7. Is it Wrong to Abort a Person?

Kaczor begins this chapter by declaring: “If every human fetus is a person, is abortion always wrong? It would seem so. Since having others respect one's right to life is a necessary condition for the possibility of enjoying all other rights (including the right to privacy and bodily integrity), it has a necessary priority over all other rights [with a reference to Spitzer's Healing the Culture ]” (145). But Kaczor does not show precisely why intentionally aborting a person, including unborn persons, is always morally wrong. Rather he criticizes some major arguments proposed by defenders of abortion justifying the killing of the unborn. The arguments are the following: the violinist analogy (of Judith Thomson), the burglar analogy (Thomson's), the “no worse off” analogy (Francis Kamm), the “special duties to children but not to fetuses” argument (Thomson), the comparative burdens objection (Thomson, Martha Nussbaum), the “does killing make the fetus worse off” argument (Kamm). Kaczor analyzes and criticizes these arguments from page 150 through page 176, giving special attention to Thomson's different “arguments/analogies” (150–167); in analyzing Thomson's thought he shows the significant moral distinction between foreseeing an evil effect and intending that effect, a distinction Thomson rejects.

I will not consider Kaczor's critique of all these arguments but rather show his procedure by briefly summing up his critique of Thomson's violinist analogy and his treatment of the key difference between foreseeing and intending. Most readers are familiar with the violinist analogy that Thomson used in her famous article “The Rights and Wrongs of Abortion,” published in the inaugural issue of Princeton University's Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1971, two years before Roe v. Wade. Just as a person does not have a moral obligation to allow the violinist plugged into her body while she is sleeping so that his blood can be purified by her kidneys to use her body for this purpose for nine months, so a woman who gets pregnant, perhaps after taking precautions (e.g., contraceptives) not to, has no obligation to allow the unborn child to continue to use her body for nurture for nine months; rather she has a right to have the child removed from her body even if its death is foreseen as an effect of its removal.

Thomson tries to buttress this analogy by referring to the Gospel story of the Good Samaritan. She thinks that if the woman were a “good” or “very good” Samaritan she would permit the violinist to remain plugged into her and the fetus to remain in her body for nurture until birth. But she says we are not obliged to be “good” or “very good” Samaritans, only “decent” Samaritans, and that a decent Samaritan would not be obliged to sustain the life of either violinist or fetus at such a severe cost to his own life.

Kaczor's criticism focuses on the Good Samaritan story. He says that the strength (or initial plausibility) of the analogy rests on the intuition that one may unplug oneself from the violinist, but he argues that Thomson's reference to the Good Samaritan considerably weakens her analogy. He stresses that the point of the story is moral and not legal . Thomson appeals to it as offering us moral wisdom (not religious faith). “Using the Good Samaritan story to justify not helping someone in need is,” Kaczor writes, “rather like using the race between the tortoise and the hare to justify a lack of perseverance” (150–151). He goes on to argue that the violinist analogy can be attacked on other grounds, for instance, on the right of the violinist and fetus to bodily integrity. Unplugging yourself from the violinist suggests that you are not violating his bodily integrity. But what if you could unplug yourself from him only by chopping him up or tearing him limb from limb or suctioning him away by a machine that grinds him to pieces? If one does this, is not one violating his right to bodily integrity, the same right the one to whom he is attached possesses? And to separate herself from the fetus, does not the woman have to have it ripped apart by a curette, or sucked out by a machine that grinds it into pieces, and in so doing she violates its right to bodily integrity? (151–152).

Kaczor emphasizes that Thomson's analogies proceed on the assumption that there is no moral difference between foreseeing and intending the evil effects of our actions, e.g., the death of a human person, say the violinist, the fetus, or an innocent non-combatant in war. But Kaczor goes on to show the centrality of this distinction for morality. We are in some way responsible for the unintended evil effects of our actions, for they would not take place if we did not choose to do the deeds that cause those effects (e.g., the deaths of innocent non-combatants caused by dropping bombs on a military target—what is now called “collateral damage”). However, we have a much greater moral responsibility for the actions we freely choose—i.e., intend—to do, as examples clarify, and here I offer some of my own. For instance, if I drive a car to go to the store, my chosen deed here and now is to drive the car to the store; in driving it I foresee that I will use up gasoline, wear out my tires, and pollute the atmosphere. But I do not intend these evil effects; indeed I would prefer that they not occur. Similarly, a dentist may foresee that he will cause me pain in doing some procedure on my teeth, but he is not intending that I experience the pain; if he does I will go to a different dentist. Many abortion defenders (e.g., Boonin, Thomson) reject this key distinction, and Kaczor takes up their objections in detail and answers them (157–162).

8. Is Abortion Permissible in Hard Cases?

Kaczor answers “no” to this question. He divides the chapter into two lengthy sections separated by a shorter one. The first major section discusses “Hard Cases for Critics of Abortion” (178–191), and these include the following: difficult circumstances, fetal deformity, abortion for the child's good, cases of rape and incest, abortion to save the mother's life. The second major section takes up “Hard Cases for Defenders of Abortion” (193–214), and these include the following: murder of pregnant women; sex selection abortion; abortion for frivolous reasons; safe and legal, but why rare? why parental opposition? prenatal bonding with “our baby”; morally permissible vs. morally objectionable; intermediate moral worth of the human fetus. The third and shorter section concerns “Cases of Conscience” (191–193). It will be useful to consider all of these.

Hard Cases for Critics of Abortion

Difficult circumstances.

The most common reason for abortion is that the circumstances of the pregnancy are not felt to be right either for the mother or for the child to be born. Typical circumstances of formidable difficulties are broken homes, drug abuse, crushing poverty, abusive relationships, fear of public humiliation, inability to complete education or do one's work. It would be arrogant and wrong to judge women seeking abortion because of these circumstances; what they need is support, not condemnation. But these circumstances can and do exist after a child is born and can even be worse. But even defenders of abortion would not use these circumstances to justify the intentional killing of a six-year-old child. Commonly accepted morality holds that such killing of innocent persons or helping others to do so is not ethically permissible even in the worst circumstances. Doing the right thing may be difficult and even heroic, but one is obliged not to do or facilitate such intentional killing (178–179).

Fetal deformity

Kaczor uses the same kind of reasoning to answer this difficulty. He notes the exceptional difficult case when prenatal testing shows that the unborn child has a disease or malady known to be fatal shortly after birth. Even if abortion is not chosen, the unborn child is doomed to death. Abortion will spare the mother the burden of continuing the pregnancy, the burden of giving birth, and the agony of waiting for the child to die after birth. Abortion seems justified by the principle that in such circumstances we should salvage the best out of a difficult situation. But Kaczor notes that abortion itself imposes serious burdens on the woman; more important ethically is that the expected lifespan of a person does not affect the permissibility of killing him. Thus if the human being in utero is a person, then intentionally killing him or her is impermissible even if he or she will shortly die (180–181).

Abortion for the child's good

This difficulty, similar to the previous one, appeals to the emotions and shows that the motives of those who abort unborn children for this reason are used to justify the intentional killing of innocent unborn persons. But good motives are not sufficient to justify freely chosen human acts. They cannot justify the intentional killing of innocent human persons whose lives are integral to their being (181–183).

Cases of rape and incest

In such cases (Kaczor treats incest as often the same as rape, since it usually occurs against the free consent of the woman) abortion is justified as the necessary means to protect the good of the mother. Kaczor first points out that if conception can be prevented, this is morally acceptable because the means chosen is not contraceptive (to impede the beginning of new life through a freely chosen genital act) but is rather to protect the woman from suffering further bodily violence from the rapist. (Kaczor does not himself spell this out in his text, but his footnote reference is to John Finnis's treatment of the matter in his Moral Absolutes of 1991, and Finnis clearly sets forth the reasons why this is true.) Kaczor emphasizes that most women who conceive a child after rape do not abort the child but bring it to birth and either place the child for adoption or raise him or her themselves.

But if the woman wants the abortion so that she will not be reminded of the suffering she endured by being raped, nonetheless the truth remains that the unborn child is an innocent human person with the same inviolable right to life as the pregnant woman. Like all other human persons, the mother has the corresponding duty to refuse to intentionally kill that person, which is what she does if she consents to abortion. Some (e.g., Thomson) object that this would require heroic virtue on the part of the woman. Kaczor acknowledges this, but he then affirms a most important truth, writing: “[S]ome circumstances, including those created by the evil choices of others, can sometimes remove the category of the merely permissible, leaving us with a choice between the morally wrong and the morally heroic. If a dictator orders you to torture your mother to death or face a firing squad, you will be faced with a choice between the morally wrong and the morally heroic” (184–185). And this, one will correctly infer, is the same situation for the woman made pregnant by being raped.

Abortion to save a mother's life

Kaczor addresses these cases by using what he calls “DER,” double effect reasoning, and he then briefly summarizes the requirements of this reasoning as summed up in the principle of double effect by Thomas Cavanaugh. 3 According to this summary of the principle of double effect and of double effect reasoning, performing an act with two morally significant effects is justified if “(1) the evil effect is not intended as a means or as an end; and (2) there is a proportionately serious reason allowing for the evil effect” (186).

Kaczor says that if we apply double effect reasoning to abortion, its first condition shows us the moral difference between “direct” and “indirect” abortion, and it is crucially important to distinguish abortions where fetal death is intentionally brought about (frequently called “direct” abortion) and procedures in which the death of the human being in utero is not intentionally brought about but is the side effect of what a person brings about intentionally (frequently called “indirect” abortion). Direct abortion is not justifiable because it is the intentional killing of an unborn human person. The second condition of double effect reasoning is fulfilled if the mother's life is at risk, because saving her life is a proportionately serious reason for allowing or tolerating the death of the unborn child. Kaczor then examines three cases in which the mother's life it at risk: ectopic pregnancy, cancer of the uterus, and the case when the baby has trouble exiting the birth canal.

He judges that abortion in the first two cases is “indirect” and the death of the unborn child a foreseen but not intended effect, and that therefore abortion in such cases is morally justifiable. He notes some debate among reputable writers who reject all intentional killing of innocent persons over different methods of coping with ectopic pregnancies, especially by use of the drug methotrexate. But he says that the majority of contemporary writers now accept salpingostomy: splitting of the fallopian tube in which the fetus has implanted, removing the unborn child, and sewing the tube up in order to increase the woman's chances of conceiving in the future. This method had been repudiated many years ago by J. Lincoln Bouscaren, a Jesuit canon lawyer who first developed an argument justifying salpingectomy as a morally permissible way to save the life of a mother if endangered by an ectopic pregnancy—a salpingectomy is the excision of the fallopian tube where the fetus had implanted rather than in the womb.

Kaczor also judges morally right radiation therapy or a hysterectomy, that is, removal of the uterus, to save the life of a pregnant woman suffering from cancer of the uterus and for whom life-saving treatment of the cancer cannot be postponed until the baby is born. In such a case, use of radiation therapy that would have as a side effect the death of the unborn baby, or a hysterectomy that would also result in its death, is justifiable insofar as the death of the unborn child is not intended but only the life-preserving therapy done to the mother (186–189).

The third case, when the unborn child cannot exit the birth canal because it is stuck in it and the pressure it exerts can cause the mother to die, is also called the craniotomy case because the unborn child can exit the birth canal if a craniotomy is performed on it, and this requires that the baby's skull be crushed. If the craniotomy is not done then both mother and baby will die; if it is done, the mother's life can be saved. Kaczor identifies four possible outcomes, the first three resulting if the doctor does nothing and the fourth resulting from his intervention: 1) both mother and child will die; 2) the baby will die, and then removing its corpse by crushing its head is not immoral; 3) the mother will die and then the child can be removed safely; and 4) the mother will be saved if a craniotomy is performed on the baby.

Kaczor notes that Germain Grisez, John Finnis, and Joseph A. Boyle have argued that in both the hysterectomy and craniotomy cases the death of the unborn child is neither the means nor the end intended and that there is no moral obstacle to engaging in these performances to save the life of the mother. 4 Kaczor thinks that one could argue that “even if the crushing of the baby's skull is not killing as a means to save the mother's life it may involve another evil means, namely the mutilation or violation of the physical integrity of the child,” and one could thus distinguish the craniotomy case from the hysterectomy case. But he then goes on to consider arguments for and against the claim that crushing the baby's skull is an unjustifiable mutilation because it results in the baby's death and the questions these arguments raise. He judges these questions to be of great importance and difficulty and leaves them as open questions (190–191).

Cases of Conscience

This brief section concerns the debate between critics of abortion and defenders of abortion about the place of conscience. Kaczor criticizes the 2007 paper “The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine” issued by the Committee on Ethics of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). This document shows that ACOG considers conscience not as one's best judgment concluding a process of moral deliberation from basic moral principles to practical conclusions about what one is obliged to do or not to do here and now. Rather, it regards conscience as someone's own private opinion about what he personally ought to do without any appeal to basic principles to justify that opinion. Conscience is more of a belief that must not be imposed on others. The ACOG document also requires doctors and other health-care personnel to refer patients to others if they feel that they cannot personally provide the standard reproductive services—these include artificially making children in the laboratory, providing contraceptives, and abortion. The ACOG document not only unfairly limits a doctor's liberty in action but also infringes on his right of free speech. For these and other reasons this position regarding the role of conscience must be repudiated (191–193).

Hard Cases for Defenders of Abortion

Murder of pregnant women.

Most people find the raping of women morally abhorrent and particularly odious if the woman is pregnant and even more so if it causes her to have a miscarriage. So true is this that even proponents of capital punishment balk at executing a pregnant woman. At times the male who has caused a woman to become pregnant assaults her in order to cause a miscarriage if she refuses to abort the child. A notorious example occurred when Scott Peterson killed his wife Luci, eight months pregnant with their son Connor. Missing from Christmas Eve, 2002, their bodies, separately, washed to shore on April 14, 2003, and Connor's umbilical cord was still attached. Despite protests by abortion rights advocates, the husband was legally charged by the California Court with two counts of murder, with “special circumstances” calling for tougher penalties. Laws similar to the one in California charging the murderer with two homicides are in effect in many states (193–194).

Sex-selection abortion

If abortion is done because a child of unwanted sex is known to be in the womb, another serious problem for defenders of abortion is posed. Sex-selection abortion almost always means the elimination of females and in some countries/cultures extends to their infanticide should they survive until birth. In the U.S., for instance, eighty-five percent of women and ninety-five percent of men want a male child for the first baby and the first baby may well be the last wanted. If abortion is not the killing of a person, it poses no problem different from the killing of a guppy (as Warren holds), but this kind of abortion troubles female defenders of abortion. But how could they criticize such abortions without implying that abortion itself is problematic? In fact, the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (ACOG) opposes sex-selection abortion. Kaczor gives other good reasons for opposing sex-selection abortion (e.g., it leads to further violence against women) and concludes, “It is not a simple matter to condemn SSA [sex-selection abortion] while upholding abortion for other reasons” (194–200).

Abortion for frivolous reasons

Abortions are frequently done for very frivolous reasons—parents want a child conceived during a certain astrological sign, a Leo, say, rather than an Aries; or they want a child of a certain hair color. Kaczor cites Naomi Wolf, who identified some frivolous reasons used by classmates in her high school during the 1970s (for instance, a girl would try to get pregnant just to find out if she could; and if she did, she would abort the pregnancy). This is enough to illustrate the problem (200).

Safe and legal, but rare?

Abortion defenders frequently claim that they want to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare. “ But if there is nothing wrong with abortion and if it is a woman's right, what difference does it make how often a woman has one? Some sexually active women simply do not want to use contraceptives (and some begin their sexually active lives during their teens), and such women may want to have abortions rather frequently before they reach menopause. Some may say that abortion is bad for their health, physical and psychological, and that they therefore ought to practice birth control to avoid abortions. Certainly abortion is much more invasive and expensive than using contraceptives. But does this championing of contraception over abortion for health reasons not show that the emotional trauma frequently caused by abortion is perhaps due to the recognition that birth control prevents a new human life from coming into existence whereas abortion destroys one that has already come to be (200–202)?

Why personal opposition?

Many abortion advocates say that they are personally opposed to abortion but do not want to impose their views on others and want to keep abortion legal and safe. But presumably one is personally opposed because abortion is the unjust taking of a human life. A rebuttal of this argument is suggested by some defenders of abortion (e.g., McMahan). According to this rebuttal the critic of abortion is inconsistent if he says he is “personally opposed” to killing abortionists. If abortion really is a gravely unjust killing of the innocent, then violence to stop that killing seems morally required. To condemn this violence shows the inconistency of opposition to abortion. Kaczor answers this objection by noting, for instance, that many people think that the war against Iraq initiated by President Bush in 2003 was unjust and led to the unjust killing of many innocent persons. They did not, however, seek to assassinate him, and they have not been accused of inconsistency. So why make this charge against critics of abortion if they do not choose to kill abortionists? Kaczor offers other arguments of a similar kind to answer this problem (202–206).

Prenatal bonding with “our baby.”

Many parents immediately begin to love the unborn human being in the woman's womb as a person. But if this entity is not a person or has no moral worth, as abortion defenders claim, it is difficult to explain why these parents can be so terribly mistaken; in fact, many parents like this grieve deeply over a miscarriage, and if the unborn is not a person, their behavior seems silly or stupid, but it does not seem right to accuse them of this.

Elizabeth Harman offers a sophisticated argument to reply to this objection; her argument is based on what she terms the “Actual Future Principle.” According to this principle, if an early fetus has an actual future in which he or she will be conscious, then this human fetus has moral worth; but if an early fetus does not have an actual future of which he or she will be conscious, then the fetus has no moral worth. Parents who immediately love the unborn human being are acting reasonably since it is likely that this fetus will have an actual future of which it will be conscious, but obviously fetuses to be aborted will not have such an actual future. Kaczor rebuts this argument with four cogent considerations, and there is no need to set them forth here (206–209).

Morally permissible vs. morally objectionable

On this view abortion is legally permissible but morally objectionable. This distinction might help defenders of abortion respond to many of the hard cases and could even be extended to all abortions. Kaczor doubts that this distinction is a real one. There is a real distinction between the morally permissible and the morally heroic, between the obligatory and the supererogatory. Earlier (150–158, pages to which Kaczor now refers), he had shown that at times circumstances so shape a situation that one must choose between a heroic act and seriously violating an innocent person's inviolable right to life, and he suggests that this is the situation here (209–210).

Intermediate moral worth of the human fetus

Kaczor begins this section by writing: “[T]he defender of abortion can respond to all these [previous] cases with one rejoinder. The murder of pregnant women, a condemnation of sex-selection abortion, the moral impermissibility of abortion for insignificant reasons, personal opposition, the desire to see the practice of abortion become rare, and parental love for their prenatal children do not presuppose the personhood of the fetus, but rather that the human fetus has some value” (210). But if the human fetus has some value, so does a puppy, but we do not respect puppies as we do persons, so there is no reason to respect human fetuses as persons.

There are many objections to this claim and Kaczor neatly summarizes them, but in essence this claim was shown to be arbitrary in the chapters of his book showing that personhood does not begin after birth or at some time during gestation (211–214).

9. Could Artificial Wombs End the Abortion Debate?

Kaczor gives a “yes” answer to this question, but examines the issue first from the perspective of ardent defenders of abortion and then from that of ardent critics of abortion, answering objections to a yes answer.

From the Perspective of Ardent Defenders of Abortion

Kaczor asks what is meant by a “right to abortion.” It could mean a right to terminate the human embryo/fetus or a right to extricate it from the woman's body. They seem to be linked at present because methods used to extricate the fetus from the womb invariably kill it. But if an artificial womb becomes available, the distinction would be meaningful. Kaczor's reading of the literature convinced him that many ardent defenders of abortion in fact advocate only a right to evacuate the embryo/fetus and not to kill it, and he refers to many well-known defenders of abortion to show this (the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Warren, Thomson, Boonin). Even some ardent defenders of abortion who also defend infanticide (Singer) think that if someone wants to adopt a healthy fetus brought to term in such an artificial womb it is difficult to see why it should die. Kaczor concludes that if ardent supporters of abortion like those named are willing to let live a fetus brought to term in this way, then artificial wombs could surely end the abortion debate for them (214–219).

From the Perspective of Ardent Critics of Abortion

Kaczor identifies some major objections to the use of artificial wombs by ardent critics of abortion: the artificiality objection, the IVF objection, the deprivation of maternal shelter objection, the birth within marriage objection, the integrative parenthood objection, the surrogate motherhood objection, the wrongful experimentation objection, the objection from the right of the child to develop within the womb of the mother.

The artificiality objection

Kaczor answers this by noting that neonatal intensive care units are highly artificial and are not ethically impermissible, and an artificial womb seems simply to be a further development along the same lines. Moreover, in the case of a pregnant woman about to have a hysterectomy because of cancer to protect her life, she would prefer to have her baby moved to such a womb than die as the foreseen but not intended effect of her cancer treatment.

The IVF objection

This objection fails to distinguish between complete ectogenesis, required by IVF, and partial ectogenesis when an unborn child is already in his mother's womb and is transferred to an artificial womb rather than being killed by direct abortion or as the unintended effect of a legitimate therapy (radiation therapy or hysterectomy for uterine cancer) on the mother.

The deprivation of the mother's sheltering womb objection

This is more serious and difficult to answer. However, unborn children whose lives are at risk in utero (e.g., if the mother is poisoned) are sometimes removed by doctors and cared for outside the maternal womb and there is no objection to this; some cases may become complicated but there is no reason in principle , to exclude use of an artificial womb to preserve the life of an unborn child whose life is in grave danger if he remains in his mother's womb.

The birth within marriage objection

Some critics of abortion emphasize that Donum vitae judges immoral birth outside of marriage as achieved by IVF and warns that IVF techniques can open the way to other forms of biological and genetic manipulation. Critics argue that use of artificial wombs is such manipulation. In fact, the document explicitly mentions the possibility of making such wombs and seems to condemn ectogenesis. But this passage does not condemn partial ectogenesis that in many ways simply extends the value of NICUs (newborn intensive care units) to protecting lives of unborn babies if those lives are in imminent danger of being lost.

The integrative parenthood objection

This objection is based on this passage of Donum vitae in particular: “a child has the right to be conceived, carried in the womb , brought into the world and brought up within marriage.” 5 This text and some others seem to exclude partial ectogenesis as undermining gestational parenthood. But this interpretation does not stand scrutiny. Were it to be understood as absolutely unexceptionable, it would follow that all women who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest ought to marry the unborn baby's father. But marriage after any pregnancy out of wedlock is not a good solution. It would be far better for the child if its mother gave it up for adoption after birth, and this requires heroic action on the mother's part and on that of the adopting parents.

The surrogate motherhood objection

This is based on the truth that surrogate motherhood is clearly wrong and strongly condemned by Donum vitae. But none of that document's definitions of surrogate motherhood include partial ectogenesis as a form of surrogacy.

The wrongful experimentation objection

Kaczor thinks that this is the most powerful objection against use of an artificial womb by women seeking abortion. One ought never subject unborn human persons to risky experiments that are not undertaken for their good but rather for the sake of their mothers, who want to rid themselves of their unborn children. Kaczor argues that basic bioethical principles justifying experimental procedures intended to save the lives of individuals in imminent danger of death could be applied to use of artificial wombs to protect the lives of unborn human persons who would otherwise be killed by abortion. If such experimentation led to the improvement of these techniques, use of an artificial womb would no longer be experimental but a common procedure subjecting a person to no unacceptable risks.

The objection of the right of the child to develop in his mother's womb

This seems a good one in the light of a passage from Pope John Paul II's Centessimus annus : “Among the most important of these [basic human rights] mention must be made of the right to life, an integral part of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother's womb from the moment of conception.” 6 “But,” Kaczor writes, “it is not evident from this or from other passages from John Paul II that he even considered the possibility of an artificial womb as a way of overcoming the impasse over abortion, let alone that he had considered and rejected this possibility” (227). He thus concludes that using this passage as a definitive magisterial judgment against use of an artificial womb for partial ectogenesis is not licit.

Kaczor's conclusion, after sorting through objections and offering responses to them, is that use of artificial wombs might well be a way to end the abortion debate (215–231).

10. Evaluative Conclusion

Kaczor's book gives good arguments to show that individual personal life begins at conception. He likewise shows, by a host of arguments, many of them playing defenders of abortion off against each other, that the distinction between being a living human being and being a “person” is based on erecting arbitrary criteria for personhood, criteria constantly subject to change. He also considers in some depth and with fairness specific arguments by a wide variety of scholars attempting to justify the practice of abortion and the right of women to abort the unborn at any time during their pregnancy. His work, moreover, is based on a comprehensive study of the literature; the bibliography is twelve pages long and references more than 250 items. His bibliography, however, does ignore some older and still important studies, including Germain Grisez's massive 1970 work Abortion: The Myths, the Realities, and the Arguments . 7

A good, strong point of this work, I think, is Kaczor's commentary and conclusion regarding the current dispute among Catholic scholars on the moral licitness of craniotomy as a means of saving the mother's life if the baby is stuck in the birth canal and pressure exerted on her can kill her.

There are some serious weaknesses in Kaczor's study, however. The chapters on the rights of the human embryo and on whether it is wrong to abort a person (chs. 6 and 7) are in my judgment very weak. In chapter 6, Kaczor defends the rights of the human embryo negatively by offering criticisms, many of them good in their own way, of arguments claiming that the human embryo is not a person and hence does not enjoy rights, as we have seen in the earlier presentation of the contents of that chapter. I think he could and should have offered a stronger positive defense of the rights enjoyed by human embryos, in particular the right not to be killed intentionally by others, if he had summarized or briefly mentioned with references, the brilliant work of Wesley Hohfeld, professor of legal ethics at Harvard University in the first half of the twentieth century, which is central to John Finnis's analysis of rights in his Natural Law and Natural Rights . 8 Hohfeld sharply distinguished between a “claim right,” or right in the strict sense, and a “liberty,” or “liberty right.” To distinguish these rights from each other, it is necessary to speak of a three-term relationship between two persons (or groups of persons) and an act of a specific type. If we do, we can speak of a claim-right as follows: A (=a person or group of persons, or all persons if we are speaking of basic human and inalienable rights of human persons) has a right (a “claim right”) that B (=another person, group of persons, or all persons) should x (=some specifiable act), if and only if B has a duty to A to x.

Thus innocent human persons (=A) have a right in the sense of a claim right to life if and only if innocent human persons (=A) have a right that all other persons (=B) have a duty to innocent human persons (=A) to forbear intentionally killing them (=x). In other words, the right of innocent human persons to life, if genuine, means that all other persons have an obligation or duty not to kill them intentionally. Applying this argument to unborn children, we can say: unborn children have a strict right or claim right to life if and only if unborn children (=A) have a right that their mothers and other persons (=B) have a duty to unborn children to forbear aborting them, i.e., intentionally killing them (=x). This right is genuine because all persons, including mothers, have a strict obligation or duty to forbear intentionally killing innocent human persons, and abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human person.

What of the alleged “right” of a woman to an abortion? Expressed as a three-term relationship between two persons and a specifiable action, we see that the alleged right is really a “liberty” claimed by women. It can be put generally as follows: B (=a person, group of persons, etc.) has a liberty relative to A (=a person, a group of persons, etc.) to x (=some specifiable act), if and only if A has no claim right that B should not x.

Translating a woman's alleged “right” to an abortion into this language we have the following: a woman (= B ) has a liberty relative to the unborn baby (= A ) intentionally to abort it (= x ) if and only if the unborn baby (= A ) has no claim right that the woman (= B ) should not abort it (= x ). But the unborn has the claim right that his or her mother (and others) forbear from aborting it. Consequently, the liberty (and not right) claimed by women to abort is spurious.

Chapter 7 on the wrongness of abortion goes into a minute analysis of many arguments proposed by defenders of abortion to show how specious they are; Kaczor in particular devotes great attention to two analogies used by Judith Jarvis Thomson in her celebrated 1971 article on the rights and wrongs of abortion. But his critique of her reasoning in my judgment is far inferior to the majestic rebuttal of Thomson's entire article by John Finnis in his “Rights and Wrongs of Abortion: A Reply to Judith Jarvis Thomson,” published in 1972 in the same journal in which Thomson's ludicrous essay appeared. Moreover, Kaczor makes no reference whatsoever, either in his text or bibliography, to this masterful article. Kaczor's analyses of some bad arguments to justify abortion are interesting, but they do not develop in any way the great arguments that show why abortion is always wrong.

Other weaknesses are present but not too serious. Moreover, despite the serious weaknesses noted, Kaczor's book is exceptionally valuable and makes a great contribution to the abortion debate.

1 Lee refers to Leslie Arey, Developmental Anatomy , 7th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974); William Larsen, Human Embryology (UK: Churchill, Livingstone, 1993); and Keith Moore, Before We Are Born (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1998).

2 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

3 Thomas Cavanaugh, “The Intended/Foreseen Distinction's Ethical Relevance,” Philosophical Papers 25:3 (1996): 179–188.

4 Kaczor refers to their article, “‘Direct’ and ‘Indirect’: A Reply to Critics of Our Action Theory,” Thomist 65 (2001): 1–44.

5 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum vitae (Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, Replies to Certain Questions of the Day) (1987), n. II.A.1, emphasis added, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html .

6 Pope John Paul II, Centesimus annus (On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum ) (1991), n. 47, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html .

7 Cleveland/New York: Corpus Books, 1972.

8 John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, at the Clarendon Press, 1980), 199–205.

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Supreme Court Got It Wrong: Abortion Is Not Settled Law

In an black-and-white photo illustration, nine abortion pills are arranged on a grid.

By Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw

Ms. Murray is a law professor at New York University. Ms. Shaw is a contributing Opinion writer.

In his majority opinion in the case overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito insisted that the high court was finally settling the vexed abortion debate by returning the “authority to regulate abortion” to the “people and their elected representatives.”

Despite these assurances, less than two years after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, abortion is back at the Supreme Court. In the next month, the justices will hear arguments in two high-stakes cases that may shape the future of access to medication abortion and to lifesaving care for pregnancy emergencies. These cases make clear that Dobbs did not settle the question of abortion in America — instead, it generated a new slate of questions. One of those questions involves the interaction of existing legal rules with the concept of fetal personhood — the view, held by many in the anti-abortion movement, that a fetus is a person entitled to the same rights and protections as any other person.

The first case , scheduled for argument on Tuesday, F.D.A. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, is a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s protocols for approving and regulating mifepristone, one of the two drugs used for medication abortions. An anti-abortion physicians’ group argues that the F.D.A. acted unlawfully when it relaxed existing restrictions on the use and distribution of mifepristone in 2016 and 2021. In 2016, the agency implemented changes that allowed the use of mifepristone up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, rather than seven; reduced the number of required in-person visits for dispensing the drug from three to one; and allowed the drug to be prescribed by individuals like nurse practitioners. In 2021, it eliminated the in-person visit requirement, clearing the way for the drug to be dispensed by mail. The physicians’ group has urged the court to throw out those regulations and reinstate the previous, more restrictive regulations surrounding the drug — a ruling that could affect access to the drug in every state, regardless of the state’s abortion politics.

The second case, scheduled for argument on April 24, involves the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (known by doctors and health policymakers as EMTALA ), which requires federally funded hospitals to provide patients, including pregnant patients, with stabilizing care or transfer to a hospital that can provide such care. At issue is the law’s interaction with state laws that severely restrict abortion, like an Idaho law that bans abortion except in cases of rape or incest and circumstances where abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”

Although the Idaho law limits the provision of abortion care to circumstances where death is imminent, the federal government argues that under EMTALA and basic principles of federal supremacy, pregnant patients experiencing emergencies at federally funded hospitals in Idaho are entitled to abortion care, even if they are not in danger of imminent death.

These cases may be framed in the technical jargon of administrative law and federal pre-emption doctrine, but both cases involve incredibly high-stakes issues for the lives and health of pregnant persons — and offer the court an opportunity to shape the landscape of abortion access in the post-Roe era.

These two cases may also give the court a chance to seed new ground for fetal personhood. Woven throughout both cases are arguments that gesture toward the view that a fetus is a person.

If that is the case, the legal rules that would typically hold sway in these cases might not apply. If these questions must account for the rights and entitlements of the fetus, the entire calculus is upended.

In this new scenario, the issue is not simply whether EMTALA’s protections for pregnant patients pre-empt Idaho’s abortion ban, but rather which set of interests — the patient’s or the fetus’s — should be prioritized in the contest between state and federal law. Likewise, the analysis of F.D.A. regulatory protocols is entirely different if one of the arguments is that the drug to be regulated may be used to end a life.

Neither case presents the justices with a clear opportunity to endorse the notion of fetal personhood — but such claims are lurking beneath the surface. The Idaho abortion ban is called the Defense of Life Act, and in its first bill introduced in 2024, the Idaho Legislature proposed replacing the term “fetus” with “preborn child” in existing Idaho law. In its briefs before the court, Idaho continues to beat the drum of fetal personhood, insisting that EMTALA protects the unborn — rather than pregnant women who need abortions during health emergencies.

According to the state, nothing in EMTALA imposes an obligation to provide stabilizing abortion care for pregnant women. Rather, the law “actually requires stabilizing treatment for the unborn children of pregnant women.” In the mifepristone case, advocates referred to fetuses as “unborn children,” while the district judge in Texas who invalidated F.D.A. approval of the drug described it as one that “starves the unborn human until death.”

Fetal personhood language is in ascent throughout the country. In a recent decision , the Alabama Supreme Court allowed a wrongful-death suit for the destruction of frozen embryos intended for in vitro fertilization, or I.V.F. — embryos that the court characterized as “extrauterine children.”

Less discussed but as worrisome is a recent oral argument at the Florida Supreme Court concerning a proposed ballot initiative intended to enshrine a right to reproductive freedom in the state’s Constitution. In considering the proposed initiative, the chief justice of the state Supreme Court repeatedly peppered Nathan Forrester, the senior deputy solicitor general who was representing the state, with questions about whether the state recognized the fetus as a person under the Florida Constitution. The point was plain: If the fetus was a person, then the proposed ballot initiative, and its protections for reproductive rights, would change the fetus’s rights under the law, raising constitutional questions.

As these cases make clear, the drive toward fetal personhood goes beyond simply recasting abortion as homicide. If the fetus is a person, any act that involves reproduction may implicate fetal rights. Fetal personhood thus has strong potential to raise questions about access to abortion, contraception and various forms of assisted reproductive technology, including I.V.F.

In response to the shifting landscape of reproductive rights, President Biden has pledged to “restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.” Roe and its successor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, were far from perfect; they afforded states significant leeway to impose onerous restrictions on abortion, making meaningful access an empty promise for many women and families of limited means. But the two decisions reflected a constitutional vision that, at least in theory, protected the liberty to make certain intimate choices — including choices surrounding if, when and how to become a parent.

Under the logic of Roe and Casey, the enforceability of EMTALA, the F.D.A.’s power to regulate mifepristone and access to I.V.F. weren’t in question. But in the post-Dobbs landscape, all bets are off. We no longer live in a world in which a shared conception of constitutional liberty makes a ban on I.V.F. or certain forms of contraception beyond the pale.

Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University and a host of the Supreme Court podcast “ Strict Scrutiny ,” is a co-author of “ The Trump Indictments : The Historic Charging Documents With Commentary.”

Kate Shaw is a contributing Opinion writer, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and a host of the Supreme Court podcast “Strict Scrutiny.” She served as a law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens and Judge Richard Posner.

IMAGES

Abortion Essay Writing Guide with Examples
Abortion Essay Writing Guide with Examples
≫ Legalization of Abortion Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
Opinion
Abortion pills are safe and could ease growing access crisis for women
Essay writing introduction body conclusion

COMMENTS

Argumentative Essay on Abortion
My essay is divided into three basic parts, the introduction, the body, and the conclusion. Read till the end to find the brief analysis of the parts /sections. Here is my abortion argumentative essay. Enjoy! Abortion Should Be Legal Introduction . A heated debate continues to surround the question of whether or not abortion should be legal.
Abortion Introduction: [Essay Example], 628 words GradesFixer
Wade, decided in 1973, legalized abortion in the United States. This decision was based on the right to privacy and the idea that a woman has the right to control her own body. However, this ruling has faced significant challenges over the years, with numerous states passing restrictive laws that limit access to abortion services.
Abortion Essay Writing Guide with Examples
Abortion Essay Structure As you have already learned, a classical essay comprises three parts: an introduction, several body paragraphs (3-5), and concluding remarks. The abortion essay isn't an exception. But a structure of an abortion essay should be very specific as it contains several fundamental points that differ from other essay types.
Abortion Argumentative Essay: Writing Guide, Topics, Examples
An outline for an abortion essay: 1.Abortion Essay Introduction 2.Body Paragraphs: Pros and Cons of Abortion 3.Abortion Essay Conclusion. Topics & examples for abortion essay. Pro-Papers Order Now. ... The conclusion cannot be as long as your essay body and should not add anything that cannot be derived from the main section. Reiterate the key ...
Persuasive Essay About Abortion: Examples, Topics, and Facts
Examples of Argumentative Essay About Abortion. An argumentative essay is a type of essay that presents both sides of an argument. These essays rely heavily on logic and evidence. Here are some examples of argumentative essay with introduction, body and conclusion that you can use as a reference in writing your own argumentative essay.
How Abortion Changed the Arc of Women's Lives
A frequently quoted statistic from a recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, which reports that one in four women will have an abortion before the age of forty-five, may strike you as high, but ...
Abortion Essay Writing Guide That Will Help You Get A+ Grade
When the structure of the essay is concerned, this is a classic five-paragraph essay that starts with an introduction, develops into a three-paragraph body of the essay, and ends with a conclusion. If you are writing on the topic of abortion, you could define your thesis statement as "Abortion should be prohibited because it denies the fetus ...
Why Abortion Should Be Legal
Steps to Writing an Abortion Essay. Now, let's proceed to the actual process of writing on abortion. As a rule, an essay should consist of three major parts - an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Once you get to the chosen topic, we advise completing a pre-writing exercise: making an outline for your essay.
5 Conclusions
With this growing body of research, earlier abortion methods have been refined, discontinued, and new approaches have been developed. The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States offers a comprehensive review of the current state of the science related to the provision of safe, high-quality abortion services in the United States ...
Abortion Care in the United States
Abortion services are a vital component of reproductive health care. Since the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in Dobbs v.Jackson Women's Health Organization, access to abortion services has been increasingly restricted in the United States. Jung and colleagues review current practice and evidence on medication abortion, procedural abortion, and associated reproductive health care, as well as ...
Summary and Conclusions
Abortion as a substitute for contraception is one possibility raised by the adoption of non-restrictive abortion laws. Limited data do not allow definitive conclusions, but they suggest that the introduction of non-restrictive abortion laws in the U.S. has not lead to any documented decline in demand for contraceptive services.
Five paragraph essay on abortion
Five paragraph essay on abortion. This essay discusses three issues that revolve around abortion in order to help the reader better understand abortion issues in general. This is not a comprehensive list of all the issues surrounding abortion, but does explain three issues and then knits them together in the conclusion to show that the abortion ...
1 Introduction
1 Introduction. When the Institute of Medicine (IOM) 1 issued its 1975 report on the public health impact of legalized abortion, the scientific evidence on the safety and health effects of legal abortion services was limited ().It had been only 2 years since the landmark Roe v.Wade decision had legalized abortion throughout the United States and nationwide data collection was just under way ...
Persuasive Essay about Abortion
In this essay, we will go through abortion's tragic history, its legalization in each state and its impact on today's society, and the two « sides » that seem to define the debate. This subject splits America into two sides. Pro-life and Pro-choice. Politically: Republicans and Democrats, generally.
Abortion Essay Introduction
Abortion Introduction Essay. Introduction Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability (Statistic Brain). Abortions have become one of the most common ways to end pregnancy. Three out of ten women in the United States have an abortion by the time they are ...
How To Create A Best Abortion Argumentative Essay?
Introduction: The problem of abortions. Main body: Everything considered on the topic of abortions, namely. Paragraph 1: Advantages an abortion can provide. Paragraph 2: Disadvantages and negative consequences of an abortion. Conclusion: Inference and personal point of view on the problem. Argumentative essay on abortion examples and ideas
How to Write an Abortion Argumentative Essay? + FREE Sample
5 Successful Abortion Essay Writing Tips. Tip 1 - Create the Paper Structure. Tip 2 - Outline Your Work. Tip 3 - Plan Your Time Wisely. Tip 4 - Find Good Sources. Tip 5 - Read Abortion Essays Examples. Do's and Don'ts of Abortion Essay Writing. DO'S. DON'TS.
BBC
Introduction. The abortion debate deals with the rights and wrongs of deliberately ending a pregnancy before normal childbirth, killing the foetus in the process. Abortion is a very painful topic ...
Introduction: The Politics of Abortion 50 Years after Roe
Abortion has been both siloed and marginalized in social science research. But because abortion is a perennially politically and socially contested issue as well as vital health care that one in four women in the United States will experience in their lifetime (Jones and Jerman 2022), it is imperative that social scientists make a change.This special issue brings together insightful voices ...
A research on abortion: ethics, legislation and socio-medical outcomes
The analysis of abortion by means of medical and social documents. Abortion means a pregnancy interruption "before the fetus is viable" [] or "before the fetus is able to live independently in the extrauterine environment, usually before the 20 th week of pregnancy" [].]. "Clinical miscarriage is both a common and distressing complication of early pregnancy with many etiological ...
Book Review: The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and
2. Does Personhood Begin after Birth? Defenders of the claim that personhood begins after birth include Michael Tooley and others who accept the definition (or varieties and nuances thereof) of person given by Peter Singer: namely, "a being is a person if and only if the being has 1) an awareness of his or her own existence, 2) over time and in different places with 3) the capacity to have ...
Introduction: Conversations on Abortion Rights and Bodily Autonomy in
less willing to make abortion a matter for the courts as it is today. At the same time, these essays also make clear that even pre-Dobbs, academia was not a friendly place for pregnancy and child-rearing. 1 Barnett Woods and Powell: Introduction: Abortion Rights and Bodily Autonomy Published by Digital Commons @ University of South Florida, 2023
Conclusion (Chapter 8)
Summary. The parliamentary politics of abortion cannot now be neatly arranged around the twin poles of 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' - but they never could. The Abortion Act 1967 did not, and was never meant to, establish a 'right to choose' in law. Instead, it was meant as a partial fix to social problems including poverty, poor ...
Why Abortion Is Back at the Supreme Court
An anti-abortion physicians' group argues that the F.D.A. acted unlawfully when it relaxed existing restrictions on the use and distribution of mifepristone in 2016 and 2021.