Talk:Abortion law

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kimiesha (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): S.Huda, Future PharmD, Mhabtezion, CAngerman, Catherinerbarton (article contribs).

Abortion Map

Can the maps for socio-economic categories and abortion on request be merged? They aren't that very different if you think about it. Abortion laws of India and UK happen to be quite a lot more liberal when it comes to access than many European countries such as Germany which requires mandatory counselling and a compulsory waiting period. That makes me think that the categorisation is unfair when it comes to access to abortion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Addie293 (talk • contribs)

Unenforced law

Could this article mention about unenforced law or symbolic law anywhere?

Texas, US States

With Texas signing it's new abortion law, should it be colored separately?

--Jimmy Jimsson (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No. Texas still allows abortion on request, it just restricts it to the beginning of the pregnancy while a heartbeat is not yet detected. This period is at least 6 weeks, but depending on the detection method it could be longer. This is not very different from several countries that allow abortion on request only in the first 8 (Guyana) or 10 weeks of pregnancy (Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Turkey). Similarly, some countries allow abortion in case of rape only in the first 6 (Indonesia) or 8 weeks of pregnancy (Panama) but are still marked as allowing abortion in that circumstance. Heitordp (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I colored Texas differently because technically Texas's abortion ban is a de facto ban because a) the SCOTUS refused to block its enforcement and b) the majority of women don't even know their pregnant until after six weeks, effectively not allowing them to get an abortion. cookie monster (2020) 755 02:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I added notes and sources explaining the situation. However, Texas still allows abortion on request in some initial portion of the pregnancy, not very different from the other countries that I listed above, so I think that it would be more appropriate to mark it light green instead of light red in the table. Heitordp (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Article reads that abortion is "de facto" illegal in Texas, but the sources cited don't actually say this, only that abortion clinics have to turn away clients after 6 weeks gestation. Abortion is totally legal before 6 weeks in Texas, and pregnancy tests are accurate 10 days after conception meaning that anyone closely monitoring for pregnancy would have about a month to act under current law. Obviously this makes abortion more difficult, but does not make it "de facto" illegal. TocMan (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that the majority of people getting abortions in Texas are past six weeks, SB8 has the de facto effect of banning all abortions. per here [1]. At conception, an egg cell (or cells, in the case of fraternal twins) is fertilized by a sperm cell and the next menstrual cycle is missed. Now, the clock ticks backwards, because the ACOG defines the beginning of pregnancy as “measured from the [patient’s] last menstrual period (LMP).” In other words, if, hypothetically, you conceived today, and your last menstrual period was two weeks ago, you are now considered two weeks pregnant. Given that a typical menstrual cycle lasts between 21 and 40 days, according to the National Health Service, this doesn’t offer much of a time window for patients to determine if they are pregnant — especially if their menstrual cycles are irregular. It is a de facto ban on abortion when the virtual majority of women won't know they are pregnant until they notice the time since their menstrual cycle. The LA Times here also mention that this law acts as a de facto ban. The Arkansas Democrat Gazette also describes it as a de facto ban here. The New York Times here calls it an "almost complete ban". This Texas law is trying to bypass Roe v. Wade as much as possible before crossing the line. The Supreme Court has refused to block the law. Healthline here says A Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks, which is before most people even realize they’re pregnant or have missed a period. It is a de facto ban. cookie monster (2020) 755 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@TocMan: The law doesn't say 6 weeks, it says while a heartbeat is not detected. The media keeps saying 6 weeks because it's the earliest time when it's possible to detect a heartbeat, but it can vary. These 6 weeks are counted from the last menstrual period, so it's actually about 4 weeks after conception. If the pregnancy test works 10 days after conception, it would give the person about 18 days to decide. It's certainly very restrictive and the time can be easily missed if the person is not careful. However, I think that it's an exaggeration, or at least a subjective statement, to call it a "de facto ban", and in any case this article is supposed to show the legal situation, not de facto, to be consistent with how all other jurisdictions are showed. I'll start a request for comment below. Heitordp (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Texas abortion law

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Option 2: Texas as light green in the table and blue in the map. Whether to use shades of blue in the map based on gestational limits is the subject of another discussion. Heitordp (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

---

A law in Texas, effective 1 September 2021, requires abortion providers to try to detect an embryonic or fetal heartbeat, and prohibits them from performing the abortion if the heartbeat is detected, except for medical emergencies. Normally it's possible to detect a heartbeat about 6 weeks after the last menstrual period. Most women tend to find out that they are pregnant after this time, thus missing the legal opportunity to abort, but if they find out earlier they are still allowed. Given these circumstances, how should Texas and the United States be shown in abortion law? (See the article for the meaning of the colors.)

• Option 1: In the table, mark the last 4 columns of Texas in light red, and the last 4 columns of the United States in yellow, with notes explaining the details. In the map, mark Texas in orange, and the rest of the United States in blue.
• Option 2: In the table, mark the last 4 columns of Texas in light green, and the last 4 columns of the United States also in light green, with notes explaining the details. In the map, mark all of the United States in blue.

Thank you. Heitordp (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. The time limit is not an absolute prohibition, and some countries with short limits are still listed as allowing abortion in various cases, such as Indonesia (6 weeks in case of rape), Panama (8 weeks in case of rape) and Guyana (8 weeks on request). In addition, the table considers the legal situation, not de facto. For example, Bangladesh is shown in light red because it legally prohibits abortion except for risk to life, although it allows the almost identical procedure of menstrual regulation on request; Curaçao is shown in light red because it legally prohibits abortion, although the government doesn't prosecute them; Guam is shown in light green because it legally allows abortion on request, although no providers there perform it. In Texas, the sources clearly say that some women were able to abort as their pregnancy stage satisfied the legal criteria. The portion of women able to abort could also change, potentially becoming the majority, if the legal limitation causes them to get tested earlier. But whatever the situation is in practice, it should only be mentioned in the notes and should not affect the colors in the table and map. Heitordp (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. Seconding everything Heitordp said. Seems arbitrary to decide that a ban after ~6 weeks is a "de facto" ban even though elective abortions can and do still take place. Texas should be treated consistently with other jurisdictions that have relatively stringent timelines. TocMan (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. Agree with the above. I think media coverage has been quite sensationalist in calling the Texan law draconian. Perhaps you can say it's more restrictive than the rest of the US or the developed world, a point CNN made, but it's not that harsh relative to global standards, and that's what counts here. I do think Option 1 could work in Abortion in the United States, though. FelipeFritschF (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 as now I have a better understanding about the actual law and that it isn't a nessesarily a 6 week ban. cookie monster 755 15:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: I think the previous answers suffer from not knowing a lot about pregnancy. It's extremely difficult to know you're pregnant at six weeks, even if you were testing regularly. Therefore, a ban on abortion after six weeks is a de facto abortion ban, and so we should treat it as if it was a ban on abortion. (Furthermore, RSes in the US are characterizing it as an abortion ban: [2][3][4], if you're not convinced by my other argument.) Loki (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Those sources all say things like "ban after six weeks" and "almost entirely banning". They do not say complete ban. TocMan (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It's considerably more deceptive for us to color in a state where abortion is almost entirely banned the same as if it was legal than it is for us to color that state as if it was entirely banned. We should not be coloring our map based on difficult-to-access legal technicalities but by the practical legality of abortion in these places. If there was some third option where we color Texas and other "technically legal but not really" places their own special color, I'd be in favor of that, but as it stands Option 1 is more accurate to the actual situation than Option 2. Loki (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Loki: As I mentioned above, there are several countries that allow abortion for various grounds only up to 6, 8 or 10 weeks. It's arbitrary to pick a limit that makes it "almost entirely" or "practically" prohibited, and whatever we do here must be consistent with all countries listed. However, I agree that the current table and map can be deceptive in some cases. I suggest the following: in the table, keep the green color if the ground is allowed, but also show its gestational limit if known, such as the number of weeks, heartbeat or viability; keep the existing map, coloring each jurisdiction if it allows abortion for that ground, but also add a map with colors representing the gestational limits for abortion on request (and maybe also maps for limits of other legal grounds, but these seem less necessary). This way we present exactly what the laws say, in a neutral way, avoiding subjective determinations. Heitordp (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that solution is not terrible, but I would prefer breaking the "legal" color in both the map and the table into four other colors representing "legal until birth", "legal until some time in the third trimester", "legal until some time in the second trimester" and "legal until some time in the first trimester". That would allow both the table and chart to be color-readable (after all, what's the point of the colors if we're not using them?) Loki (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Loki: The table already uses two shades of green, to represent whether abortion is permitted explicitly by law or due to other factors like judicial decisions. Splitting each shade into multiple shades would add too many colors to the table so I think it would be confusing. Do you suggest using colors to represent only gestational limits, eliminating the distinction between the types of legal source? This may be controversial in some cases so I recommend making a separate RfC for it.

The map currently uses only one color for legal on request, so it could be easily split into shades of blue depending on the gestational limit. But trimesters don't seem like a useful classification, because this way Texas would be in the same color as most of Europe (12 weeks), and there are no countries with a limit in the third trimester. So I suggest something like 6-8 weeks (including heartbeat), 10-18 weeks, 20-26 weeks (including viability), and no limit. Heitordp (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that because abortion on demand is still available for the first six weeks, it can't be coloured the same way as territories that don't allow abortions for the full course of the pregnancy unless they meet certain criteria. I agree with the editors who suggest somehow differentiating between the time periods in which abortion on demand is permitted. However, I would make a case here for why it should be kept as 'blue'.

The legal setting in Texas is a bit unusual, because technically Roe v Wade remains the law in Texas， which means that 'de jure' abortion on demand remains the actual law even if 'de facto' it is no longer available because clinics won't provide it for fear of being sued under a piece of legislation that has dubious legality; in other words, abortion on demand remains formally legal in Texas, it is just that it is not being carried out because the abortion clinics are afraid of losing money from lawsuits. Theoretically every lawsuit that is raised against a clinic could actually fail in a court, because Roe v Wade remains the controlling precedent and the abortion clinics wouldn't have to pay anything. Therefore you could argue it is the ultimately the business decision of the abortion provider to avoid the legal risk that is making abortion restricted in Texas, rather than it actually being forbidden within the legal framework that governs the territory. The US supreme court didn't uphold the bounty hunter law, it just failed to make a ruling on it at the moment because of a procedural issue since they judged that none has actually been sued by it yet and the state isn't going to enforce it, so there is no one that can be named as a defendant in such a case against this law; theoretically, if someone actually did launch a lawsuit against an abortion provider under this law, the case could return to the supreme court, which might then strike the law down as never being legally valid in the first place.

The map and list that we are using though seems to be based on 'de jure' situations, not 'de facto' situations, unless I am mistaken? There are territories in the world where abortion is legally forbidden but still widely practiced and unenforced by local authorities, however, they may appear on this map as being places without abortion on demand, even if 'de facto' they are. If we wanted to keep it consistent, I think there is a case here for why Texas should just be left in the same way as the other states of the US, because technically Roe v Wade remains the law there, since constitutional precedent always precedes local state laws. Reesorville (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Reesorville: The name of the article is abortion law, so the table and map are de jure, based on explicit laws and other legal texts like judicial decisions and regulations. But de facto situations, such as lack of enforcement, are only mentioned in notes.

The law of Texas says "prohibited abortion", "a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion" etc. It's true that the law specifies an unusual civil liability rather than a criminal penalty for those who violate it, but it still says that it's prohibited, and so far the courts have not invalidated this law. They may eventually do so, but until then I'd say that de jure Texas still prohibits abortions on request after a heartbeat.

For now, I'll add the gestational limits to the table as text, and we can continue debating the colors. Heitordp (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the Texas law is a law, but the point I am trying to make was that Roe v Wade is also the law in Texas and it remains so at the present time. Roe v Wade's precedent has not been invalidated either at the present time; you effectively have two contradictory laws that exist at the same time, neither of which has been formally invalidated. If you colour it only to match the Texas law, then this is ignoring the fact that Roe v Wade is also the law. Given that in the US system, a constitutional precedent takes priority over state laws when there is a contradiction between them, looking simply at the 'de jure' situation, I don't think it is merited to use the Texas law alone to judge what the 'de jure' situation is. It may more effectively match the 'de facto' situation at the moment, but I don't think it is correct if it is based on the 'de jure'. Reesorville (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

If I could maybe give this example to illustrate it further: suppose a US state passed a restriction on abortions, not like the bounty hunter law, but like previous attempts in the past where the state would enforce it and it was immediately challenged in court, the court then ordered enforcement of the law to be suspended. Following this, several months later, the court heard the case regarding this law and formally invalidated it. Would one argue that the situation in that state for those few months, while the law was not being enforced by authorities and before it was formally invalidated meant that the 'de jure' situation in the state was prohibiting abortion? Reesorville (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I make an attempt at summary? According to you, Texas should be colored blue, because abortion is legal in Texas, because it has not actually banned abortion at six weeks, because current federal caselaw does not allow states to ban abortion at six weeks?

(To be clear, I don't think this sort of hard de jure argument is very good. Women are currently unable to get abortions in Texas after six weeks because of a law preventing them. That's what it means for abortion to be illegal in Texas after six weeks. Whether that law will later be struck down doesn't matter for us right now.) Loki (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. If everything else is based on a hard de jure, then Texas should be as well. As mentioned above, there are territories on the map where abortion is practically legal on demand but they are coloured differently because the laws on the books have nominal restrictions for the practice. Technically the law is not preventing any women in Texas from getting an abortion. Abortion clinics are just choosing not to provide services because they can't recover legal costs if they get sued in civil cases, which can now be infinite in number. If they were to go out and perform an abortion, what they are doing is legal. If I could make another comparison: back in the days of Jim Crow, blacks had a right to vote in the south too, according to the constitution and the law; de facto they didn't, however, because of the way the system was arranged against them. But if you were to ask the question, purely from a legal standpoint only: 'was it legal for blacks to vote at the time?' then the answer was yes. If the map is based on de facto situations, rather than de jure, then I think it would be OK to put Texas as restricted, but I think other areas would have to change as well according to the same logic.Reesorville (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Update

I've updated some countries such as Bhutan, Myanmar, San Marino, East Timor, Laos... please if any expert can check it out...

Thank you for all the updates and sources. I made a few changes:

• If the source mentions a limit in days, such as 180 days, I stated it that way in the table. It's not necessary to convert all limits to weeks. In addition, the conversion of 180 days to weeks was wrong (24 weeks and 2 days = 170 days).
• In Bhutan, I removed the note about the WHO source claiming no gestational limit for risk to life, because that sentence also seems to be wrong about Maldives (see below). I also marked risk to health as only mentioned in guidelines, not law.
• The source that you added for Laos mentioned abortion for rape, not fetal impairment. In any case, that source cited guidelines for health workers, which seem to permit abortion for all grounds, while the law still prohibits it for all grounds except risk to life. So we should either mark all grounds as permitted, or all except the first one as prohibited. I previously discussed this situation with another user, who insisted on marking Laos as prohibited (see archive 2 of this talk page).
• I removed the sources for Maldives that seemed incorrect or less accurate. According to the translation of the fatwa, Maldives allows abortion for risk to life without gestational limit, and for rape and fetal impairment up to 120 days. This source seems the most reliable as it contains the full text. The Sun article says that all grounds are only up to 120 days, and the WHO source seems to have an error in the figure showing economic/social reasons as permitted instead of fetal impairment. Heitordp (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify Maldives:

Law	risk to life	risk to health	rape	fetal impairment	economic or social	on request
Penal code	no limit	120 days	no limit	120 days	120 days	120 days
Fatwa	no limit	prohibited	120 days	120 days	prohibited	prohibited
Combined	no limit	prohibited	120 days	120 days	prohibited	prohibited

The fatwa permits less than the penal code. I think that we should explain each law in the note, and show the combined effect in the table. Heitordp (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility issue

This article's accessibility is in question. Colored background in some of the tables are the only method used to communicate important information. Screen readers can not read colors →   and  . Screen readers can not read these symbols → and . Please see the legend in summary tables. Screen readers can only read the text, they can not read the color boxes with symbols in them. And then look at the corresponding table below, see Abkhazia (for example), the only method used to communicate important information is a colored background with a symbol in it, screen readers can not read that, the row contains no text. Visually impaired readers must have equal access to Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I changed the symbols to text, so it should be accessible now. Heitordp (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Gestational limits map

The legend of the map says "Gestational limit in the first trimester" and "Gestational limit in the second trimester". This is rather misleading and for some countries it is incorrect. First, some counties like France, Belgium, measure from the time of conception, so the limit is in the second trimester (14 weeks). Also, in many countries the limit is immediately after the end of the first trimester so the formulations from the legend are actually confusing. You also have to be very careful about the exact meaning of the law in various countries, when it says "12 weeks" is it 11+6 days or 12+6 days. It depends on the exact text and interpretation of the law and WP:OR is not allowed. I suggest the map should be revised (it's also unsourced so fails WP:V). 2A02:2F0F:B0FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:E0BC (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

If the map is to show gestational limits (and that's a big if) a different formulation would be preferable such as:

• "before 10 weeks"
• "10 weeks - 12 weeks+6 days" (most countries fall in this category)
• "13 weeks - 16 weeks+6 days"
• "17 weeks or more"

Also, look at what our pregnancy article says on trimesters. It says this:

Trimesters

Pregnancy is divided into three trimesters, each lasting for approximately 3 months.[4] The exact length of each trimester can vary between sources.

The first trimester begins with the start of gestational age as described above, that is, the beginning of week 1, or 0 weeks + 0 days of gestational age (GA). It ends at week 12 (11 weeks + 6 days of GA)[4] or end of week 14 (13 weeks + 6 days of GA).[32]

The second trimester is defined as starting, between the beginning of week 13 (12 weeks +0 days of GA)[4] and beginning of week 15 (14 weeks + 0 days of GA).[32] It ends at the end of week 27 (26 weeks + 6 days of GA)[32] or end of week 28 (27 weeks + 6 days of GA).[4]

The third trimester is defined as starting, between the beginning of week 28 (27 weeks + 0 days of GA)[32] or beginning of week 29 (28 weeks + 0 days of GA).[4] It lasts until childbirth.''

I think therefore that measuring by trimester is not a good idea.2A02:2F0F:B0FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:E0BC (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The sources of the map are the sources of the table in the article. I don't think that this is OR, it's just a visual representation of the numbers in the table, like the maps in other articles like Legal status of same-sex marriage and Legal drinking age.

I meant trimester as 3 months, which are about 91.3 days or slighly more than 13 weeks, so I included in the first trimester up to Italy (90 days) and Guam (13 weeks), and in second trimester other countries up to 6 months as well as "viability". There are no countries with a limit after 6 months, other than "no limit". For more clarity, we can express the ranges as months, weeks or days, and use different ranges if they are more appropriate. But I think that splitting at 13 weeks, as currently done, is better because it's provides a similar number of countries in both groups, and it also avoids the need to interpret "weeks" in many jurisdictions because only Guam uses 13 weeks.

If some countries use 12 weeks from conception, we should change them to 14 weeks in the table, with a note, and also in the map. Heitordp (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The table (with all the problems that it currently has) lists the following limits:

There are:

• 43 countries/jurisdictions with a limit of 12 weeks (by far the most common limit)
• 9 countries/jurisdictions with a limit of 10 weeks
• 6 countries/jurisdictions with a limit of 14 weeks
• 3 countries/jurisdictions with a limit of 22 weeks
• 3 countries/jurisdictions with a limit of 24 weeks
• 2 countries/jurisdictions with a limit of "viability"
• 1 country/jurisdiction with a limit of 8 weeks
• 1 country/jurisdiction with a limit of 90 days
• 1 country/jurisdiction with a limit of 13 weeks
• 1 country/jurisdiction with a limit of 18 weeks
• 1 country/jurisdiction with a limit of 20 weeks
• 1 country/jurisdiction with a limit of "no limit"
• there are also 7 countries/jurisdictions where no specific limit is given (they are listed with "permitted" or "varies" because the limits vary within the country, are not clear, or there are other special circumstances)

I do not believe that the map does justice to this situation. If you look at the facts, most countries follow either a limit that is "at the turn of the trimesters" (that is at the end of the first trimester or at the beginning of the second trimester) or a limit that is around viability. So there seem to be two main "schools of thought" on abortion limits (with the first being the most common).

I do not believe the map should list the limits (due to problems discussed above in the previous posts). Instead the lede should contain a paragraph reading like: "Almost all countries which allow abortion on request have gestational limits for such terminations. The most common limit is around 12 weeks, while some counties set their limits around fetal viability. Other gestational limits exist too". I think this gives the reader a general idea about what the situation is. 2A02:2F0F:B0FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:E0BC (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You're right, the vast majority of limits are around 12 weeks or around viability, so a more appropriate split would be between them. I propose the following classification:

• limit in the first 17 weeks of gestation
• limit after the first 17 weeks of gestation
• no gestational limit
• unclear gestational limit

Since there are no jurisdictions at 17 weeks, I think that it avoids the problems that you described. I also think that it's useful to have a different color for no limit because it's an extreme, and one for unclear limit due to legal disputes such as in Texas. Or do you still prefer not to show the limits in the map at all?

Either way, I agree to add the paragraph that you suggested. Thank you for all your other contributions as well. Heitordp (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand that the trimester classification may be confusing, but I don't see any harm in adding this information in the map, actually I think it's quite useful [edit 1. even more now with Texas case]. Also, this is not OR, and as Heitordp pointed out, it is well referenced in the table. "...with all the problems that [the table] currently has" could you elaborate on this, please? 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:AC28:A89:6E0C:BCE9 (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Laos

Let me clarify. I don't know much about (international) law. According to sources I could find[5][6] and the legal doc[7] ("ວ່າດ້ວຍ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ການໃຫ້ຖືພາແທນ ແລະ ການໃຫ້ຫຼຸລູກ" dated 8 July 2021) I could barely translate via Lens, abortion was apparently legalized in certain circumstances up to 28 weeks:

1. Listed medical conditions in the woman
2. Listed medical conditions in the fetus
3. "Pregnancy in case of rape"
4. "Contraception failure"
5. "Have multiple children (over 4 children)"
6. "Poor families"
7. "Women who have not reached the age of majority"

Hope it helps :). 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:7855:7890:3242:BB80 (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for finding these sources. I found an English version of the penal code of 2017,[8] and after reading it more carefully I realized that it only prohibits "unlawful abortion", which is defined as abortion not authorized by a medical commission. The regulation of 2021 from the Ministry of Health (I used this OCR and Google Translate) mentions the penal code of 2017 and defines when abortion can be medically authorized, in the cases that you listed. The ground for risk to life can be considered included in risk to health or based on the general principle of necessity to save one's life, also mentioned in the penal code. So I suggest making Laos light green in the first five columns, with notes explaining the situation, and green on the map.

A UN source cites guidelines for health workers from 2016, which seemed to allow abortion on request up to 12 weeks. But these guidelines were issued under the previous penal code, which didn't define "unlawful abortion", and the regulation of 2021 doesn't mention them, so I think that the last column should remain light red. Heitordp (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Mexico

Although abortion in case of rape is legal nationwide, each state stipulated a different gestational limit. In July the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional to impose a limit.[9][10]

I can't think how to add this info. Maybe "no limit" + a note explaining the situation. I can help finding each state's gestational limit—in case there's one.

Gestational limits stipulated in case of rape according to the respective penal codes (determined from conception):

• Aguascalientes: "Cuando el embarazo haya sido causado por hecho punible tipificado como violación en cualquier etapa del procedimiento penal iniciado al efecto, a petición de la víctima, la autoridad judicial podrá autorizar la realización del aborto..."
• Baja California: 90 days
• Baja California Sur: not indicated
• Campeche: not indicated
• Chiapas: 90 days
• Chihuahua: 90 days
• Coahuila: 12 weeks
• Colima: 3 months
• Durango: not indicated
• Guanajuato: not indicated
• Guerrero: not indicated
• Hidalgo: 90 days
• Jalisco: not indicated
• Mexico City: not indicated
• Mexico State: not indicated
• Michoacán: 12 weeks
• Morelos: not indicated
• Nayarit: not indicated
• Nuevo Léon: not indicated
• Oaxaca: 3 months
• Puebla: not indicated
• Querétaro: not indicated
• Quintana Roo: 90 days
• Sinaloa: not indicated
• Sonora: not indicated
• Tabasco: not indicated
• Tamaulipas : not indicated
• Tlaxcala: not indicated
• Veracruz: 90 days
• Yucatán: not indicated
• Zacatecas: not indicated Treesmelon (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Should I add a note to each state? or is it too much? Treesmelon (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for researching all the limits. I think that the current note for Mexico as a whole is enough, but I'm not opposed to repeating it for each state. Heitordp (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Palestine

Some sources say that fetal impairment is another ground for abortion.[11][12] They also say that it's extremely difficult to get one:[13] "[W]hile it is technically legal in order to protect the life of the mother,[14] in practice, according to experts, it is impossible to get such a procedure. Especially for those [...] who might want an abortion without the knowledge of their husbands"; "Even if one doctor decides that she should abort, she has to consult a committee of doctors and obtain a letter from the religious court." 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:D859:3AA:2FAB:9390 (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Since the law only mentions the ground to save the woman's life, I think it's better to keep the other grouns only as notes. Heitordp (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Heitordp: Seems correct. I modified Afghanistan following this criteria. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:302D:FBE0:FB9C:3FC1 (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Zambia

Shouldn't socioeconomic ground be green instead of light green? "The Termination of Pregnancy Act" is very clear on this topic (and UN can make mistakes). 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:D859:3AA:2FAB:9390 (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Previously only the UN source was cited, but now that there is a reference to the law I think that we can make it regular green. Heitordp (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Guernsey

Amendments[15] to the 1997 Law have been approved.[16] Gestational limit in case of fetal impairment has already been updated in the table but no note has been included (and the reference does not mention the amendments). July BBC source says "No date for implementation has been agreed. Before it becomes law it must be sent to the Privy Council for Royal Assent." but I couldn't find any updates :/ 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:D859:3AA:2FAB:9390 (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The table has not been updated, the law of 1997 already allows abortion for fetal impairment up to 24 weeks and for social reasons up to 12 weeks.[17] The amendment of 2021 allows it for fetal impairment with no limit and for social reasons up to 24 weeks.[18] The amendment has not yet received royal assent,[19] so until then I suggest mentioning it only in a note. Heitordp (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Gabon

I just updated Gabon's legal status.[20] If WHO[21] isn't making the same mistake it does with Angola (I don't think so), then please update the map as well! 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:D859:3AA:2FAB:9390 (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. The penal code of 2019 was officially published and took effect at that time, but it was replaced with another version in 2020.[22] The abortion articles remained the same but we should cite the newer version of the code. I'll update the map. Heitordp (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hungary and Mozambique

The gestational limits in Hungary[23] and Mozambique[24] varies in some grounds. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:D859:3AA:2FAB:9390 (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the variation in notes. I also realized that the WHO classifies Hungary as allowing abortion for social reasons but not on request. The law restricts it to a "serious crisis situation", meaning "one that causes physical or mental upheaval or social impossibility". So I changed the last column to prohibited, and also removed Hungary from the timeline. However, because Hungary allowed abortion on request for a few decades before the law of 1992, the cumulative number of countries showed during that time seems misleading. To solve this issue and other marginal cases like Australia, and since the ground for social reasons in practice works almost as on request, I propose changing the timeline to include abortion for social reasons as well. Heitordp (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I am not very sure about this move... but I don't find any other way to solve this problem. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:D859:3AA:2FAB:9390 (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Sudan

In the Penal Code of 1991,[25] two grounds for abortion are mentioned—among a few others: risk to life (no limit), and pregnancy of rape (90 days from conception[26]). However, the Penal Code of 2003[27] only mentions the ground to save the woman's life and no gestational limit is stipulated. Treesmelon (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The penal code of 2003 was a proposal for New Sudan, which eventually became South Sudan.[28] In Sudan, the penal code of 1991 remains in force. Heitordp (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Australia

I see that Australia was removed from the list of countries where abortion is legal, but this conflicts with information contained in the article 'Abortion in Australia', in particle as concerns the Northern Territory. Can someone provide sources about NT laws? I think we should clarify this here and remove the inconsistency. Finedelledanze (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The sources are in the table, inside the notes in the row of Australia and in the row of the Northern Territory (click on "subdivisions" to expand). The law says that the doctor decides whether to perform an abortion considering "all relevant medical circumstances; the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances; and professional standards and guidelines". This is different from the laws in the other states, which say that the doctor may perform the abortion simply with the woman's consent. Multiple sources, including one from the government of New South Wales, classify the law of the Northern Territory as not allowing abortion on request. The article 'Abortion in Australia' merely says that abortion there is "legal" and "accessible", which is vague and doesn't use the distinction between on request and social reasons. However, I agree that in practice the difference is very small (or none), so I propose including in the timeline also the countries that allow abortion for social reasons (see section on Hungary above).

By the way, the law that the parliament of South Australia passed in March has still not entered into force. Should we keep showing it as allowing abortion on request, or revert and wait until the law is in force? I don't know how longer it will take. Heitordp (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for retrieving all this pieces of legislation! I read the 2017 bill and this useful analysis (https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2017-03-28/australia-northern-territory-parliament-passes-bill-to-decriminalize-abortion-improve-access/) and commentary (https://theconversation.com/decriminalisation-in-the-nt-signals-abortion-is-part-of-normal-health-care-74992). Compared to the UK Bill of 1967, still in force, which still keeps abortion on the penal code, the NT law doesn't do that (it's a crime only for unqualified practitioners to perform abortion). The law mandates the medical practitioner to perform a medical screening of the applicant woman and ascertain her intentions (Art. 7 'having regard of her psychological circumstances'). In no way the practitioner can deny a woman her right to have an abortion: in case of conscientious objection, they shall direct the woman to a non-objecting practitioner. There is no mention of whatsover 'risks to mental health' that in some countries are used as a loophole for getting abortions that would otherwise be denied: these risks, if ever, don't need to be measured or ascertained. According to NT law, the practitioner's opinion of 'appropriateness' seems to me equivalent to a screening (is the woman allergic? does she really want an abortion or she'd be fine with having the pregnancy and then give the cilf for adoption? does she know her rights and options?) that carry no penal consequences. These considerations and the media description of the bill as 'legalising abortion on demand up to 24 weeks' induce me to think that all of Australia has abortion on demand, and that NT is no exception. I'd revert to the original situation. Finedelledanze (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

On SA: no royal consent yet or is it that we have no evidence of it? maybe we should see if there is some debate ongoing about it (delays, political resistance) or if it is just slow bureaucracy.Finedelledanze (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Finedelledanze: The sources that you mentioned don't actually say that the Northern Territory allows abortion "on demand", "on request", or merely with the woman's consent. Meanwhile, multiple sources clearly say that it doesn't, including one from a state government, which I added to the article. In fact, it seems to me that the legislators in the Northern Territory wrote the law this way precisely to say that it doesn't allow abortion on request. For example, a critic of the law said that it was "really a cover for abortion on demand", implying that formally it's not supposed to be.[29]

In New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, the law simply says that a doctor "may perform" an abortion before 22 or 24 weeks, without listing any condition or with only the woman's "informed consent". After 22 or 24 weeks, they allow it considering "all relevant medical circumstances; and the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances". So there must be a difference between the two, and the sources say that the latter is not "on request".[30][31] In the Northern Territory, the law uses exactly the same text for abortion before 23 weeks, so we need to treat it the same way as what the other states allow after 22 or 24 weeks.

In South Australia, the law received royal assent a few days after it was passed, but it still needs a proclamation to establish when it will come into force. I've been checking often for over 6 months, there have been several proclamations (usually on Thursdays) but none about the abortion law yet. Heitordp (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

On South Australia: Yes, it received royal assent, but—as far as we know—did not enter into force yet. So I suggest to mark "rape" and "on request" cells regular red, and keep the note beside the jurisdiction; we don't treat other territories this way. On the other hand, I suggest—as we did with Zambia—to turn "economic and social" cell regular green, the law is very clear in this aspect.
On the timeline: I do not think it's a good idea to include countries that allow abortion on social reasons... it's just not the same. I think we should find the way to include countries that legalized abortion on request, prohibited it, and legalized it again—Soviet Union, Romania—and those where it was once legal but it is not anymore—Hungary. Treesmelon (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You're right, the current law in South Australia has that sentence about "foreseeable environment", which is understood to cover social reasons. I'll change it as you suggested, and also to green on the map, until the law takes effect. Heitordp (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Map

Honestly I'm against maps showing subnational jurisdictions, as they overengineer the degree of complexity. I'd rather have a color code for 'varies by state' where this is the case (Mexico and, maybe, Australia). I would also revert to use a single color for 'legal on demand' while leaving more details in the table contained in the article. If a reader wants to know more about subnational peculiarities, one can get this information from the relevant page (eg. 'Abortion in the USA'). To make these more accessible, we could hyperlink the country names in the table, just as we did for the Timeline of legalisation. Any thoughts? Thanks Finedelledanze (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think showing subnational jurisdictions make the map any difficult to read; there are a few countries showing them and they are big territorially speaking. I don't think it's a good idea to have a single color for a country whose law on this topic varies by subdivision. About the color for gestational limit: weak [I] oppose to revert[ing]; I already gave my opinion on a previous entry. I think hyperlinking the country names could be a good idea :) I can make it if we're all agree! 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:D859:3AA:2FAB:9390 (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A color for "varies by state" does not provide any information. Other maps like File:Age of Consent - Global.svg, File:Map-of-world-cannabis-laws.svg and File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg also show subnational jurisdictions. I think that the borders should be between the jurisdictions with different laws, regardless of whether the border is international or internal.

The suggestion to show gestational limits on the map was originally made because of Texas due to its very short limit (see above), but another user disagreed saying that legally the limit in Texas was still longer, so as a compromise I ended up marking it with a color meaning "unclear". But maybe the additional colors have made the map too complicated. I suggest making a request for comments on whether to recombine the colors for abortion on request.

I also think it's a good idea to add the links to the country names. Heitordp (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I respect the majority's view but two wrongs don't make a right. Condensing too much information in one map for the sake of precision makes it less easy to read. Many people don't even know where countries are, even big ones like Mexico, and we split them into federal entities. If the question is 'is abortion legal on demand in Mexico?' the answer 'it depends on the state, Mexico regulates abortion at sub-federal level' is the correct one. If you want to know more, you go to the table or to the Mexico article where you can find a larger, clear map showing the situation by state. These are both accessible from the Abortion law main page. You must be a geography expert to even tell where Mexico ends.. is that Oaxaca or Guatemala? Belize or Yucatan?

Same situation as regards the 'gestation limit'. What is the main point in the international feminist debate that you want to see clarified by the map in a snapshot? Where is abortion on demand legal or not? the first term is universally acknowledged as the minimum common denominator, while regulation varies considerably beyond that point. What benefit is further color-coding adding to map information and what costs is it briging? We should always reason in these terms, IMHO Finedelledanze (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

"Many people don't even know where countries are, even big ones like Mexico". Well... it's a map... Otherwise you can consult the table or the "Abortion in Mexico" article, which, as you said, it's accessible from this article. As Heitordp pointed out, it's not the only map showing subnational entities; mixing then to one color would just seem arbitrary and misleading, as it is not specific whatsoever. It would mean, for instance, to paint Mexico and Nigeria with the same color. Also, taking a step back and condensing all countries that allow abortion on request would also seem misleading, as reality is more complex (that doesn't mean the map so is) and the situation of Texas is not the same as that of China, for example. Treesmelon (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Finedelledanze: If you open the map file in your browser and move the pointer to an area, a little tag will show up with the area's name, so you can know whether it's a Mexican state or another country. Heitordp (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I just added the links. There's a problem with District of Columbia and Washington that I don't know how to solve, can someone please take a look? Thanks! Treesmelon (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the problem using a different template. Heitordp (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

San Marino

The referendum in San Marino has not automatically legalized abortion on request. The parliament still has to change the law, which may take several months. Heitordp (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Correct, but in San Marino referendums are binding, Parliament shall abide by this vote. The result is equivalent to a law being passed without being in force yet or without the necessary accompanying measures regulating procedures on a practical level. I'd say this was the case in South Korea for a while and may be the case in South Australia. Finedelledanze (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Timeline

Should we add notes in the timeline for countries that legalize abortion, prohibit it and legalize it again like post-soviet states [I meant Soviet Union] or Romania? Treesmelon (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Treesmelon: To make the cumulative number of countries more accurate, I think that we should add a line for every change, when a country legalized or prohibited abortion on request, and also when a country became independent or was dissolved. I suggest something like this:

Year	Added	Removed	Annual	Cumulative
1920	Soviet Union		1	1
1936		Soviet Union	-1	0
1950	North Korea		1	1
1953	Hungary		1	2
1955	Soviet Union		1	3
1957	Romania		1	4
1965	Cuba		1	5
1967		Romania	-1	4
...
1991	Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Estonia Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Moldova Russia Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan	Soviet Union	14	...
...

Heitordp (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Heitordp: I think that's a very good idea. The current timeline is partial. Be careful: even though Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991 and almost all the countries declared their independence that year, Lithuania did it in 1990, for example. Treesmelon (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Serbia and Montenegro are missing here:

Year legalised	Added	Removed	Annual	Cumulative
1920	Soviet Union[32][However, source says "This law was introduced first in Russia, then on 5 July 1921 in Ukraine, and finally in the whole of the Soviet Union."[33] p. 42]		1	1
1936		Soviet Union[34]	–1	0
1950	North Korea		1	1
1953	Hungary		1	2
1955	Soviet Union Source 1 Source 2		1	3
1957	Romania		1	4
1965	Cuba		1	5
1967		Romania	–1	4
1973	Denmark Tunisia  United States		3	7
1974	Singapore  Sweden		2	9
1975	Austria  France  Vietnam		3	12
1977	Yugoslavia		1	13
1978	Italy  Luxembourg		2	15
1979	China  Norway		2	17
1983	Turkey		1	18
1984	Netherlands		1	19
1986	Cape Verde Czechoslovakia  Greece		3	22
1988	Canada		1	23
1989	Mongolia		1	24
1990	Belgium  Bulgaria  Lithuania  Romania		4	28
1991	Armenia  Azerbaijan  Belarus  Croatia  Estonia  Georgia  Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan  Latvia  Moldova  North Macedonia  Russia  Slovenia Tajikistan Turkmenistan  Ukraine Uzbekistan	† Soviet Union	16	44
1992	Bosnia and Herzegovina  Germany	Hungary †Yugoslavia	0	44
1993	Czech Republic  Slovakia	†Czechoslovakia	1	45
1995	Albania  Guyana		2	47
1997	Cambodia  South Africa		2	49
2002	Nepal  Switzerland		2	51
2007	Portugal		1	52
2010	Spain		1	53
2012	São Tomé and Príncipe  Uruguay		2	55
2015	Mozambique		1	56
2018	Cyprus  Ireland		2	58
2019	Iceland		1	59
2020	New Zealand		1	60
2021	Argentina  South Korea  Thailand		3	63

Trinidad and Tobago

The Code Ethics in the Practice of Medicine[35] says: "The common law doctrine of necessity, however, recognizes that an abortion can be lawfully performed by a physician, in a medically appropriate setting, if the procedure is performed in good faith to preserve the life or health (including the mental health), of the mother." Treesmelon (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Germany

Abortion on request isn't legal in Germany, because of constitutional reasons (2 BvF 2/90). It only go unpunished. How could this be explained in the section? Habitator terrae (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Treesmelon and Heitordp: --Habitator terrae (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Habitator terrae: Many countries write their law this way, criminalizing abortion in general and only removing the penalty in certain circumstances. In this case, I suggest marking it in light green in the main table with a note explaining the legal complexity. The same note can be added next to Germany in the timeline. Heitordp (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Heitordp: Good idea. Habitator terrae (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Adijos08: The main source of the table is the UN source at the top, so the table must say the same information as that source unless a better source is added specifically for that country. Please do not make changes without adding a source that supports your conclusion.

The German penal code says that abortion is allowed without criminal penalty in the first 12 weeks if the woman merely "requests the termination" and has obtained counselling.[36] I'll change Germany back and add this source. Heitordp (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

there is nothing about "allowed", only "not deemed fulfilled" of the prior paragraph. Habitator terrae (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

See also the next "Absatz", where arbortion because of risk to health is explicit "not unlawful". Habitator terrae (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Only as an clear formulation by the Federal Court: "§ 218 a Abs. 1 StGB klammert zwar den Schwangerschaftsabbruch unter den dort bestimmten Voraussetzungen aus dem Straftatbestand aus. Dies bedeutet aber lediglich, daß er nicht mit Strafe bedroht ist (BVerfG, Urteil vom 28. Mai 1993 - 2 BvF 2/90, 4/92, 5/92 - BVerfGE 88, 203, 273 ff. ). Ein Rechtfertigungsgrund ist damit nicht gegeben. Die Beratungsregelung hat lediglich zur Folge, daß die Frau, die ihre Schwangerschaft nach einer Beratung abbricht, straflos eine von der Rechtsordnung nicht erlaubte Handlung vornimmt (BVerfG aaO)." Habitator terrae (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Habitator terrare: I think it is best to mark Germany in light green on the map. I have already done it myself, but at the same time I misread the UK regulations and that is why my edition has been withdrawn. Adijos08 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Adijos08: But this leaves place for misunderstanding, because it is "de-facto-legal" (and dejure illegal), means without punishment. Therefore I think the easiest way is to change the decription to "legal or without punishment" is the best solution. Habitator terrae (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Can I still send a file with a world map in which Germany is marked in light green? I've been reading a lot about abortion laws in Germany recently, and I wouldn't say that they mean legal abortion on demand. Also, in some circumstances, abortion there may be criminalized according to these laws, so I think that a light green color for Germany would be a better solution. Here are two links I can add here on the Wikipedia page on abortion law: http://rw22big3.jura.uni-sb.de/BGBl/TEIL1/1992/19921402.1.HTML#GL12 https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv088203.html Adijos08 (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Heitordp: Please read my last comment. I hope that I can still send the map with Germany marked in light green and add the two links that I included in my comment. Adijos08 (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

United Kingdom

@Adijos08: The UK has an abortion law applicable in Great Britain and another law in Northern Ireland. If you click on "subdivisions" next to the UK in the table, the subdivisions will appear with a reference for each law.

In Great Britain, the law allows abortion with no gestational limit in case of risk to the woman's life, "grave permanent injury" to her health, or for fetal impairment. It also allows abortion up to 24 weeks of gestation if "the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family", and is says that "account may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment". The WHO and other sources classify "existing children" and "foreseeable environment" as social reasons, not just for Great Britain but also for a few other countries with similar laws.

In Northern Ireland, the law allows abortion in the same cases as Great Britain, in addition to on request up to 12 weeks of gestation. Heitordp (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I know there is a different law in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain so I have not changed it. Earlier, when there was a health risk, it was written "no limit", but this limit lasts 24 weeks, as you mentioned, so I decided to correct it. I've been reading a lot about UK regulations recently and about this law from many years ago, and I haven't read anything about socio-economic reasons, and for example in the laws for Japan or Finland, I found such reasons in the abortion laws. Adijos08 (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Adijos08: Section 1.1.b of the law says "that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman", with no limit. So for risk to health there is no limit.

Section 1.1.a of the law says "that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family". Section 1.1.2 says "In determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to health as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of this section, account may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment." Section 1.1.a is not just about risk to health (which is already included in 1.1.b), it's a much lower standard that only requires a risk greater than if the pregnancy is terminated, and it also includes "existing children" and "foreseeable environment", which are not health reasons. These sources explain it clearly: "Is it legal to terminate a pregnancy because of a woman's social or financial circumstances? Yes. This is provided by Section 1 (2) of the Abortion Act, which states that doctors may take account of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment when making a decision about the impact of the continuance of a pregnancy on a woman's health."[37] "The doctor can take into account your social and financial circumstances when considering the impact that continuing with the pregnancy would have on you."[38] Accordingly, the UN/WHO and other sources classify the UK as allowing abortion for social reasons.[39][40]

I'll add a note with these sources. If you still want to change it, please make a request for comments here so others can provide their opinion as well. Heitordp (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Argentina

I suggest, per article 16 of law no. 27,610, to mark the first three grounds as "no limit". Please see also this case: a doctor was released after being arrested for performing an abortion of a 22-weeks-and-two-days-pregnancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:D14E:5BF6:E1D5:7445 (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Somaliland

Yesterday I added Somaliland to the National laws table. However, the table is about "all United Nations member states and United Nations General Assembly observer states and some countries with limited recognition." Somaliland is not recognized by any other state. Should we maintain it? Thank you. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:508:EA02:8B1D:4C8D (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that we can list any state from the list of states with limited recognition, but only if it has a different abortion law. Somaliland uses the same penal code as Somalia, so I think that we should mention it only in a note. Heitordp (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me! 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:302D:FBE0:FB9C:3FC1 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan

I suggest to paint risk to health ground light green. Penal Code says "Whoever, causes woman with child whose organs have not been formed, to miscarry, if such miscarriage is not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, or providing necessary treatment to her, is said to cause isqat-i-haml." (Italics are mine). It says "or" and not "and", so they're talking about different grounds; but is unclear whether "necessary treatment" means to save woman's life or also to preserve her health.

About gestational limit: "organ formation" is ok but I think we should add a note about organizations' interpretations on this. Guttmacher Institute, citing the UN, says "Islamic scholars have usually considered the fetus's organs to be formed by the fourth month of gestation." WHO, citing the Punjab Guidelines, says "Abortion is legal in Pakistan for expanded indications in early pregnancy, generally accepted by Islamic legal scholars as up to 120 days of pregnancy, when the abortion is caused in good faith to save the woman’s life and to provide "necessary treatment". After 120 days of pregnancy, abortion is legal only to save a woman’s life." 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:508:EA02:8B1D:4C8D (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the law is unclear. It specifies a gestational limit except to save the woman's life, so it means that saving life is not the only circumstance where abortion is allowed.

I added a note about the different interpretations of the gestational limit. Heitordp (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Heitordp: Now that I think about it, yes, I think you're right. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:302D:FBE0:FB9C:3FC1 (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

North Korea

Given the situation, I suggest to remove North Korea from the current timeline (or add a note), and to mark all grounds light green and repeat the current note in the table. Nothing is clear. The year 1950 refers to the Criminal Code "allowing" it, but it seems it has been amended because now there's no mention of it. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:302D:FBE0:FB9C:3FC1 (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

El Salvador

Can someone please add a note about the current legal situation of El Salvador? In July a proposal of reform of the Penal Code, issued in 2016, which included allowing abortion on four grounds (risk to life and health, pregnancy after rape, and fetal impairment) was archived; in September, the president excluded allowing therapeutic abortion from proposed constitutional reforms—by changing article 1. Thank you. I think it is important as El Salvador is one of the few countries that do not allow abortion—at least by law—under any circumstance. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:302D:FBE0:FB9C:3FC1 (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Oman

Article 243 of the 1974 Penal Code mentions risk to life as a legal ground for abortion. Articles 315–20 of the 2018 version do not. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:302D:FBE0:FB9C:3FC1 (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Map 2

@Heitordp: 1. Can I ask, why did you draw a line between the northern and southern states of Nigeria? 2. Should we draw a line between Somalia and Somaliland as they have different jurisdictions? Thanks. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:302D:FBE0:FB9C:3FC1 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Northern and southern Nigeria have different penal codes, while Somalia and Somaliland use the same penal code. I drew the borders in the map between areas with different abortion laws, not necessarily different jurisdictions. Heitordp (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct, thanks. Can you please add Artsakh and Transnistria to the map? 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:302D:FBE0:FB9C:3FC1 (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Added. Heitordp (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Globalize "National laws" section

This section has two subsections dedicated to continents Europe and North America—even countries Canada and the U.S.!— and ignores the rest of the world, despite having a very comprehensive table. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:302D:FBE0:FB9C:3FC1 (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)