Despite new restrictions on abortion, Roe and Casey`s fundamental principle – that the right to abortion is constitutionally protected – has been upheld. But that would soon change. 1ª. That it is necessary to avoid a serious risk to the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant woman and that this is indicated in an opinion given before the procedure by a doctor of the corresponding specialization program who is not the one by or under whose direction the abortion is performed. The principles of European medical ethics, proclaimed in 1987 by the conference of the International Council on Medical Regulations, stipulate in their first article that the vocation of the doctor is to protect the physical and mental health of the person and to alleviate his suffering with respect for his life and dignity, without discrimination on grounds of age, Race, religion, nationality, social status or political ideology or for any other reason, in time of peace or war. He adds to Article 17 that it is ethically acceptable for doctors to refuse to intervene in the reproductive process or in cases of abortion or abortion on the basis of their own beliefs, and calls on those concerned to seek the advice of other colleagues. But that doesn`t stop women from having abortions. Since the entry into force of the Act, the annual number of abortions has increased, as shown by the data published by the Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs pursuant to the Decree of 16 June 1986. There is a widespread feeling that not all abortions performed under Law 9/1985 are reported to the health authorities. The magazine Tribuna pointed out on the 9th of last year that for fiscal or other reasons, only a third of abortions performed are reported. Available data indicate that the number of abortions has stabilized at around 45,000 in recent years.
The enormous asymmetry between the number of abortions performed in hospitals – the logical place to evaluate and treat cases of therapeutic and eugenic indications – and those performed in private clinics is particularly striking. The first barely reaches a thousand, which is less than 3%. In an interpellation to Congress addressed to the Minister of Health and Human Services to confirm and explain these data, Griñán said that these figures were the result of data provided to the Ministry by autonomous governments, and that the legally required information did not contain data that could explain the massive public preference for private clinics. Abortion opponents are increasingly advocating that some or even all women who plan to have an abortion receive information about a fetus` ability to feel pain — information that is generally irrelevant to their situation and, in most cases, is not supported by scientific research. A recent review of the literature published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that the physical structures needed to perceive pain develop between the 23rd and 30th week of pregnancy. However, the review also concluded that the limited data available suggest that a fetus is unlikely to be able to transmit and interpret sensory information before the 29th week of pregnancy. In addition to federal regulations on the protection of the unborn, some national laws deal specifically with the rights of unborn children. One such law is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 2004, which focuses on protecting unborn children (i.e. conceptus, embryos and foetuses) from harmful external attacks. It clearly defines the terms unborn child as a child in utero and the terms child in utero and child who is in utero as a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development carried in the womb. This law states that a person who „causes the death or bodily harm of a child is guilty of a separate offence” and that „the offence does not require proof that the defendant intended to cause the death or bodily harm of the unborn child.” Clearly, Congress considered the unborn child to be a human person and a person who has a right to life, without harm from third parties, despite the apparently illogical exception (Roe) for the abortion act chosen by the mother of her child in utero. As Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, noted in 2016, „There are not too many taboos in global health anymore …
But abortion remains a forbidden word”, which underlines the high number of women who still die worldwide as a result of unsafe abortions [1]. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), between 4.7% and 13.2% of maternal deaths each year can be attributed to unsafe abortions [2]. Abortion-related deaths have been described as a „silent pandemic” and a neglected sexual and reproductive health issue [3]. This division can be properly characterized as the intersection between (1) responsibility for the well-being of the unborn offspring and (2) women`s personal freedom to end the life of their fetus in the first trimester. This division has rarely been so sharp or obvious. Indeed, the philosophical dichotomy challenges the moral code of everything that underpins our society and its legal structure. In recent years, a new level of involvement in safe abortion advocacy has emerged, based on an analysis of how existing laws affect women and girls and whether they are in line with international human rights standards. United Nations human rights bodies – namely the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Committee on Economic, Social and Political Rights, the Working Group on Discrimination against Women in Law and Practice and the Special Rapporteurs on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, Women`s rights in Africa and torture – have an increasingly visible role to play in the call for a 7 Minority groups may have the most to lose if the right to opt for abortion is not respected because they use a disproportionate share of abortion services. In Mississippi, for example, people of color make up 44 percent of the population, but 81 percent of those who have abortions.
Other states follow a similar pattern, leading some health activists to conclude that „abortion restrictions are racist.” Kennedy`s insinuation that the pre-abortion counseling process could, and perhaps should, be used as a forum to deter a woman from the procedure is widely seen as an invitation to states to reconsider their abortion-specific „consent policy.” In response, states could adopt policies requiring women to hear grim descriptions of various abortion procedures, similar to the lengthy rhetorical descriptions of the dilation and extraction procedure that Kennedy repeatedly used in his majority opinion. In addition, they could require (as several states already do) that women receive information about abortion and its physical and mental health consequences that is scientifically unsustainable or discredited – and perhaps do so with impunity, given the court`s new doctrine of respecting legislators rather than the weight of evidence. in case of medical disagreements. All of this could happen even if the use of the consent procedure in this way clearly violates the fundamental ethical principles that have long guided medical practice. However, this distinction is often not intended. Instead, the two terms are used interchangeably – that is, abortion can be legalized or decriminalized for some or all reasons. No one will be able to change this lack of terminological differentiation. Nevertheless, when recommending abortion law reform, it is crucial to be clear about what exactly is planned and what is not.
I will come back to this later in this article, having examined the complexity of the requested changes, whatever term is used. In Spain, in the ten years since abortion was decriminalized, there have been the only judicial convictions of doctors for performing abortions in few cases of gross incompetence in which the doctor has inflicted serious injury or even death on the pregnant woman. At this point, it is impossible to predict the effects of Roe and Casey`s overthrow. One thing is clear: the fight for abortion rights is far from over. In 2005, Ethiopia amended its abortion law to reduce high maternal mortality.