https://www.hrw.

org/legacy/backgrounder/americas/argentina0605/
Q&A: Human Rights Law and Access to Abortion
Womens ability to access safe and legal abortions is restricted in law or in practice in most countries in the world. In fact, even
where abortion is permitted by law, women often have severely limited access to safe abortion services because of lack of proper
regulation, health services, or political will.
At the same time, only a very small minority of countries prohibit all abortion. In most countries and jurisdictions, abortion is allowed
at least to save the pregnant womans life, or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
Womens organizations have fought for the right to access safe and legal abortion for decades, and increasingly international human
rights law supports their claims.
On this page, we will answer the following essential questions related to human rights and abortion:
Why is abortion a human rights issue?

Right to life

Rights to health and health care

Rights to nondiscrimination and equality

Right to security of person

Right to liberty

Right to privacy

Right to information

Right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment

Right to decide the number and spacing of children

Right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress

Right to freedom of thought and religion

What are the health consequences of illegal and unsafe abortion?
Why are illegal abortions generally unsafe?
Does the right to life apply to a fetus?
What is Human Rights Watchs position on abortion?
Why is abortion a human rights issue?
The denial of a pregnant womans right to make an independent decision regarding abortion violates or poses a threat to a wide
range of human rights.
International human rights legal instruments and authoritative interpretations of those instruments by U.N. expert bodies (see box)
compel the conclusion that women have a right to decide independently in all matters related to reproduction, including the issue of
abortion. Where womens access to safe and legal abortion services are restricted, a number of human rights may be at risk.
Authoritative interpretations of international human rights law
The implementation of the main human rights treaties under the United Nations system is supervised by committeescalled treatymonitoring bodiesmade up of independent experts selected from countries that have ratified the respective treaties. The treaty
monitoring bodies include:
- The Human Rights Committee,
- The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
- The Committee on the Rights of the Child,
- The Committee against Torture, the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination,
- The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women,
- The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,
- The Committee for Migrant Workers
These committees receive periodic reports from states parties which they review in dialogue with the states. After reviews, the
committees issue conclusions and recommendationsgenerally called concluding remarks or observations regarding the
fulfillment of the rights protected by the conventions they monitor in that specific country.
The growing body of concluding observations issued by the committees provides an important guide for the committees thinking on
the concrete status and scope of the rights protected under the United Nations system. The committees also sometimes issue
conceptual guidelines on the implementation of a specific human rightcalled general comments or general recommendations,
which provide yet another source on the evolving authoritative interpretation of the human rights in question.
Right to life
Restrictive abortion laws have a devastating impact on womens right to life. Evidence suggests not only that restrictive abortion
laws drive women to unsafe abortion, but that women die from the consequences of such abortions. Approximately 13 percent of
maternal deaths worldwide are attributable to unsafe abortionbetween 68,000 and 78,000 deaths annually. These deaths are
largely preventable.
The U.N. Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women have repeatedly
expressed concern about the relationship between restrictive abortion laws, clandestine abortions, and threats to womens lives.
The committees have recommended the review or amendment of punitive and restrictive abortion laws.
Opponents of safe and legal abortions sometimes argue that the right to life of a fetus should take precedence over a womans
human rights, in particular the rights to nondiscrimination and health. Some opponents cite a supposed fetal right to life as an
argument even against the use of contraceptives that work after fertilization but before implantation of a fertilized ovum (the
medically accepted threshold for when pregnancy begins).
Most international human rights instruments are silent concerning the starting point for the right to life. Meanwhile, the negotiating
history of many treaties and declarations, international and regional jurisprudence, and most legal analysis suggest that the right to
life as spelled out in international human rights instruments is not intended to apply before the birth of a human being. See also
below.
<p>For more information on abortion and the right to life click here. [hyperlink to section on the right to life in regional overview (to
space-saver for now)]</p>
Top
Rights to health and health care
Where there is a lack of legal and safe abortion services and pervasive barriers to contraceptives and other reproductive health
services, there will be unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions. Both cause largely preventable physical and mental health
problems for women. In addition, clandestine abortion clinics and providers have no incentive to be concerned with womens health
and lives when they provide their illegal services.

The main United Nations expert body that supervises the implementation of the right to healththe U.N. Committee on Economic,
Social, and Cultural Rightshas consistently said that respecting womens right to health requires the decriminalization of abortion,
at least in some circumstances.
Some governments seek to defend their denial of access to abortion services with reference to their lack of resources. This is not
justifiable. It is generally much more expensive to treat complications from unsafe abortion than to provide medically safe
abortions. While abortion is generally a low-cost procedure, particularly early in the pregnancy when manual vacuum aspiration or
pharmaceutical techniques can be used, the costs of treating women for complications from unsafe abortions can be substantial.
Restrictive abortion laws affect womens health not only by limiting their access to safe abortion services, but also in other ways.
For example, the right to health is violated when women are arbitrarily denied treatment for incomplete abortions or when such
treatment is given, but available pain medication is withheld.
<p>For more information on abortion and the right to health click here. [hyperlink to section on the right to health in regional
overview (to space-saver for now)]</p>
Top
Rights to nondiscrimination and equality
Access to legal and safe abortion services is essential to the protection of womens rights to nondiscrimination and equality. Women
are in practice more likely than men to experience personal hardship as well as social disadvantage as a result of economic, career,
and other life changes when they have children. Where women are compelled to continue unwanted pregnancies, such
consequences forcibly put women at further disadvantage.
Abortion is a medical procedure that only women need. The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
has implied that the denial of medical procedures only women need is a form of discrimination against women. Therefore, restrictive
abortion laws may amount in certain cases to discrimination against women in and of themselves.
The committee has also clarified that states have an obligation not to put barriers in place that prevent womens access to
appropriate health care. As examples of such prohibited barriers, the committee has explicitly cited laws that criminalize medical
procedures only needed by women and that punish women who undergo these procedures.
The U.N. Human Rights Committee has also repeatedly established a clear link between womens equality and the availability of
reproductive health services, including abortion.
<p>For more information on abortion and the rights to nondiscrimination and equality, click here. [hyperlink to section on the right to
nondisc and equality in regional overview (to space-saver for now)]</p>
Top
Right to security of person
The right to security of person, including the right to physical integrity, is central to the issue of abortion and human rights. When a
pregnancy is unwanted, a legal requirement to continue the pregnancy may constitute a government intrusion on a womens body in
violation of this right.
<p>For more information on abortion and the right to security of person, click here. [hyperlink to section on the right to sec of person
in regional overview (to space-saver for now)]</p>
Top
Right to liberty
When women are sentenced to prison for having procured an abortion, this constitutes an assault on womens right to liberty,
because women essentially are jailed for seeking to fulfill their health needs.
The right to liberty is also threatened when women are deterred from seeking medical care if they fear being reported to police
authorities by doctors or other medical professionals who suspect unlawful behavior.
The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has repeatedly urged governments to review their laws to
suspend penalties and imprisonment for those who voluntarily procure or induce abortions.
<p>For more information on abortion and the right to liberty, click here. [hyperlink to section on the right to liberty in regional
overview (to space-saver for now)]</p>
Top
Right to privacy
Decisions about parenthood are deeply personal, and are precisely the type of interest that privacy rights should protect. A pregnant
womans right to privacy entitles her to decide whether or not to undergo an abortion. No women should have to make this decision
under threat of legal prosecution.
The right to privacy is also threatened when health care providers release confidential patient information about women who seek
abortions or post-abortion care.
The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has clarified that the release of confidential patient
information affects women differently than men because it may discourage women from seeking and getting treatment for
incomplete abortions. Such treatment is essential, and may in some cases be lifesaving. Likewise, not getting this treatment can be
fatal.
<p>For more information on abortion and the right to privacy, click here [hyperlink to section on the right to privacy in regional
overview (to space-saver for now)]</p>
Top
Right to information
Under international human rights law, states have an obligation to provide complete and accurate information that is needed to
protect and promote the right to health, including reproductive health. Where abortion is not punishable by law, such complete and
accurate information includes information about safe abortion options.
Women are disproportionately affected when information about safe abortion services is withheld or restricted. Therefore, restricting
or withholding abortion-related information may in some cases also constitute discrimination.
<p>For more information on abortion and the right to information, click here. [hyperlink to section on the right to information in
regional overview (to space-saver for now)]</p>
Top
Right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
The U.N. Human Rights Committee has indicated that restrictions on access to safe and legal abortion may give rise to situations
that constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. These situations include forcing a pregnant woman to carry an unwanted or
health-threatening pregnancy to term.
Evidence suggests that restrictions on abortion often lead to restrictions on post-abortion care. These restrictions can also be
incompatible with the right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. This could, for example, be the case where postabortion care is systematically denied, or where available pain medication is withheld. It could also be the case when women only
have access to necessary post-abortion care if they testify in criminal proceedings.
<p>For more information on abortion and the right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, click here. [hyperlink to
section on the right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in regional overview (to space-saver for now)]</p>

Top
Right to decide the number and spacing of children
The right of women to decide on the number and spacing of their children without discrimination can only be fully implemented
where women have the right to make decisions about when or if to carry a pregnancy to term without interference from the state.
For this right to be fulfilled, women must also have access to all safe, effective means of controlling their family size, including
abortion as part of a full range of reproductive health care services.
In country-specific concluding comments, the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has recognized
that, in some circumstances, abortion will be the only way for a woman to exercise the right to decide the number and spacing of
children. This is particularly the case if the woman became pregnant through rape or contraceptive failure or if family planning
services are unavailable where she lives.
<p>For more information on abortion and the right to decide on the number and spacing of children, click here. [hyperlink to section
on the right to decide on the number and spacing of children in regional overview (to space-saver for now)]</p>
Top
Right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress
The right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress applies to reproductive health and rights. This right may be threatened where
women are denied access to new medical technology and drugs that are effective for safe abortions or humanized post-abortion
care.
This right also be at risk when women are subjected to painful post-abortion caresuch as curretage, the scraping of a womans
uterus with a sharp instrumentwithout the use of available pain-medication.
<p>For more information on abortion and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress, click here. [hyperlink to section on the
right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress in regional overview (to space-saver for now)]

from the moment of conception. In the vast majority of cases, these proposals have been rejected. [hyperlink to regional overview
(to space-saver for now)]
The American Convention on Human Rights is the only international human rights instrument that contemplates the application of
the right to life from the moment of conception, though not in an unqualified manner. In 1981, the body that monitors the
implementation of the human rights provisions in the American regional systemthe Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
was asked to establish whether or not the right-to-life provisions in this convention and in the American Declaration on the Rights
and Duties of Man are compatible with a womans right to access safe and legal abortions. The commission concluded that they
are.
Top
What is Human Rights Watchs position on abortion?
Human Rights Watch believes that decisions about abortion belong to a pregnant woman without interference by the state or others.
The denial of a pregnant womans right to make an independent decision regarding abortion violates or poses a threat to a wide
range of human rights. Any restriction on abortion that unreasonably interferes with a woman's exercise of her full range of human
rights is unacceptable.
Governments should take all necessary steps, both immediate and incremental, to ensure that women have informed and free
access to safe and legal abortion services as an element of womens exercise of their reproductive and other human rights.
Government responsibilities relating to womens access to abortion that are founded on economic, social, and cultural rights must be
implemented according to the principle of progressive realization to the maximum of available resources.
Abortion services should be in conformity with international human rights standards, including those on the adequacy of health
services.
Governments have an obligation to protect the full range of human rights for all women.

Top
Right to freedom of conscience and religion
Like abortion itself, religious faith is a highly personal issue. The human right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion cannot
be limited under any circumstances, and applies to established and non-established religions, as well as to the right not to have a
religion.
Freedom of religion includes freedom from being compelled to comply with laws designed solely or principally to uphold doctrines of
religious faith. It includes the freedom to follow ones own conscience regarding doctrines of faiths one does not hold.
With regard to abortion, women cannot be compelled to comply with laws based solely or principally on religious doctrines, which
many abortion restrictions are. Likewise, where abortion is legalized, women who do not wish to have an abortion for religious or
other reasons should not be forced to have one.
Freedom of religion and conscience is often invoked by health practitioners opposed to abortion, claiming a conscientious
objection to providing certain services, notably abortions. While the human rights framework allows for conscientious objection in
some cases, there are limits. For example, conscience cannot justify the refusal to perform a lifesaving abortion when there is no
other suitable alternative treatment for the pregnant woman.
The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has explicitly stated that womens human rights are
infringed where hospitals refuse to provide abortions due to the conscientious objection of doctors. The Committee has also
expressed concern about the limited access women have to abortion due to conscientious objections of practitioners. The
Committee has expressly, in the context of legal abortion, recommended that public hospitals provide abortion services.
<p>For more information on abortion and the right to freedom of conscience and religion, click here. [hyperlink to section on the right
to freedom of conscience and religion in regional overview (to space-saver for now)]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/12/02/is-abortion-a-human-right

Top
What are the health consequences of illegal and unsafe abortion?
Every year, as many as 78,000 women worldwide die as a direct result of illegal and unsafe abortions. An unknown number of
others suffer serious and sometimes permanent health complications from the some 20 million illegal abortions performed worldwide
each year.
Common complications of unsafe abortions include infertility, serious infections that may lead to the need for a hysterectomy,
hemorrhaging and severe blood-loss, uterine perforation, pelvic inflammatory disease, and difficulties in retaining later pregnancies.
Illegal and unsafe abortions do not always involve complications, and are not always life threatening. Nonetheless, complications
are potentially life threatening when women do not have access to fast, effective, and adequate medical attention.
Top
Why are illegal abortions generally unsafe?
The criminalization of abortion contributes to it being unsafe for women for three main reasons: 1) unsafe abortion methods; 2) lack
of medical accountability; and 3) discouraging post-abortion care.
First, where abortion is illegal, women who are unable to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term are driven to desperate measures.
Some women attempt to abort by inserting knitting needles or other sharp objects into their uterus, with a high possibility of severe
infections of hemorrhaging as a result. Other women resort to abortive medicines that can seriously compromise their health if
taken without proper medical supervision.
Second, where abortion is illegal, clandestine abortion clinics escape government regulation and oversight. As a consequence,
these clinics can operate with little regard for womens health and lives.
Third, where abortion is illegal, women who fear criminal proceedings may not seek necessary and lifesaving post-abortion care.
Top
Does the right to life under international human rights law apply to a fetus?
While one regional treaty protects the right to life, in general, from the moment of conception, the negotiation history of core
international human rights treaties and authoritative interpretations of these treaties suggest that the right to life as spelled out in
international human rights instruments is not intended to apply from the moment of conception.
All but one of the international human rights treaties are silent on the issue of whether the right to life applies to a fetus.
International legal experts who have followed and documented the development of the international bill of rights have indicated that
certain interpretations of the right to life could apply to the fetus from the moment of viabilityand not conceptionbut that in any
case such right would have to be balanced against the rights of the pregnant women. The pregnant womans rights are clearly
established in international law, and include those indicated above.
Other international legal experts have asserted that the historical understanding is that the right to life, as protected by the
international bill of rights, begins when a human being is born. This interpretation is supported by the negotiation history of
international human rights treaties.
During the negotiation processes leading up to the adoption of several international and regional human rights documents, a small
number of governments proposed adding language to the provisions on the right to life, that would have protected the right to life

Is Abortion a Human Right?

A Northern Ireland judge thinks so and Amnesty International hopes the rest of the world will agree.
The abortion wars in America are typically cast as a battle between choice and life, with one side arguing that a woman's decision
about her own body is paramount, and the other, that a developing baby's life trumps all.
But in Northern Ireland where abortion laws are among the strictest in Europe a judge has attached new rhetoric to the
procedure: human rights. And Amnesty International, which argued for the change in policy, hopes the limited ruling issued earlier
this week will lead to a new approach to the issue in the law and in public opinion. Women's rights, says Tarah Demant, senior
director of the Identity and Discrimination Unit for Amnesty International USA, ought to be seen as human rights.
"It's a sad statement that human rights have not become extremely politicized," with both political parties in the U.S. working to
advance human rights around the world. Instead, "women's rights have been politicized. That's an indictment of our political climate
here," she says.
The British parliament passed a law in 1967, The Abortion Act, which made the procedure legal up to 28 weeks' gestation. But the
law did not extend to Northern Ireland, even though it is part of the United Kingdom. Until the decision this week by a Belfast judge,
abortion in Northern Ireland was legal only to save the life and health (including the mental health) of the pregnant woman or girl.
Those who perform illegal abortions face up to life in prison, while the patients can be sentenced to 14 years behind bars.
In his ruling this week, judge Mark Horner bemoaned the lack of action by Northern Ireland legislators, and said denying abortions to
female who are victims of rape or incest or who are carrying fetuses with fatal abnormalities represented a "gross interference
with her personal autonomy." Further, he said, the law violated the European Convention on Human Rights, which stipulates
baseline rights for signatory nations.
"In the case of a [fatal fetal abnormality], there is no life to protect. When the fetus leaves the womb, it cannot survive independently.
It is doomed. There is no life to protect," Horner ruled.
Ann Scheidler, vice president of the Chicago-based antiabortion group Pro-Life Action League, says the notion of human rights has
been terribly twisted in the Northern Ireland case, ignoring, she says, the rights of the child-to-be.
"It is a sad fact that courts in both the United States and in European countries do not consider the unborn child a human being
worthy of protection under the Human Rights provisions of the various nations," Scheidler remarks. "The courts have chosen to take
these children's dignity away by rulings that permit the killing of the child either because he does not reach a particular bar of health
or development or because his father is a criminal. This is grossly unfair. The life of a child in the womb should be protected by laws
aimed at preserving human rights."
The Republic of Ireland has its own ban on abortion, with the procedure allowed only when the female's life is threatened (including
being at risk of suicide). That has led at least 163,514 women and girls, between January 1980 and December 2014, to travel to
another country to get an abortion, according to the Irish Family Planning Association. Those numbers are likely underreported, the
group says, since patients may claim UK residence to get the procedure paid for by the National Health Service, or may hide their
Irish addresses for privacy reasons.
The Belfast ruling does not ease the law in neighboring Republic of Ireland, but theoretically might make it less onerous for an Irish
woman to travel for an abortion, says Gemma Murphy of the Royal College of Midwives. But "it's a huge cultural and professional
change for midwives and women in Northern Ireland," Murphy says. "Midwives in Northern Ireland have said they will now be able to
treat pregnant women with the 'appropriate care and support' without fear of prosecution, following this landmark ruling."
Amnesty International clarified its position on abortion in 2007, Demant says, to say that the procedure should be decriminalized and
allowed when a female's health or human rights are in danger. The group did not endorse universal access to abortion. That
announcement drew a rebuke from the Vatican, which urged followers not to contribute to Amnesty International anymore.
In the United States, pro-abortion rights activists have not pushed the "human rights" moniker, largely because all American states,
while having varying abortion laws, meet the base standard advocates want for abortion rights.
But abortion rights supporters are asking for another politically loaded phrase to be added to the debate: domestic terrorism. Several
reproductive rights groups have asked the Department of Justice to conduct a "domestic terrorism" investigation of the recent
incident in Colorado springs, where a man is accused of opening fire in a Planned Parenthood clinic, killing three and wounding nine
people.
"We're hoping the investigation will not only bring justice [in] this specific shooting .. but also reframe the way we talk about these
atrocities in our society," Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told reporters in a conference call.
Planned Parenthood is under fire on Capitol Hill, where mostly Republican lawmakers are seeking to deprive the family planning

clinic of federal funds after videos highly edited, Planned Parenthood says show a group official discussing the price for the
transport of fetal tissue to research centers. Under existing law, no federal funds can be used for abortions, but critics say the videos
show criminal activity selling human body parts by Planned Parenthood, a charge the group vehemently denies.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court agreed last month to hear its first major abortion case since 2007, a challenge to a Texas law that
requires, among other things, that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Foes of the law say it
places too onerous a burden on doctors, greatly limiting access to abortion.
http://www.may28.org/the-denial-of-the-right-to-access-safe-and-legal-abortion-service/
The denial of the right to access safe and legal abortion services
The systemic denial of womens right to access safe and legal abortion services, and/or the criminalization of abortion is one of the
most severe examples of institutional violence in regards of sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Womens right to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, including abortion, is rooted in international human rights
standards, which guarantee the rights to life, health, privacy and non-discrimination. These rights are seriously violated when
governments make abortion services inaccessible to women who need them. According to international legislation, governments
can be held accountable for highly restrictive abortion laws and for failure to ensure access to abortion when it is legal. When
women are forced to resort to unsafe abortions, governments are responsible for the high death rates and the dangerous health
consequences.
Womens ability to access safe and legal abortions is restricted in law or in practice in a significant number of countries in the world.
In fact, even where abortion is legal, women often have limited access to safe abortion services due to lack of proper regulation,
health services, stigma and/or political will.
When women are forced by restrictive abortion laws to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy or one that puts their health and life at
risk, they are subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as stated by various Human Rights Bodies (such as the Human
Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, The Committee Against Torture, and so on.
This especially concerns the countries that prohibit abortion on all grounds including when a womans life and health are in danger
or even in cases of rape or incest, subjecting them to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, particularly if women are then
criminalized and incarcerated. Such is the case in countries like El Salvador, Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras, Haiti, Suriname and
Malta.
Some governments seek to defend their denial of access to abortion services with reference to lack of resources. This is not
justifiable. It is generally much more expensive to treat complications from unsafe abortion than to provide medically safe
abortions. While abortion is generally a low-cost procedure, particularly early in the pregnancy when manual vacuum aspiration or
pharmaceutical techniques can be used, the costs of treating women for complications from unsafe abortions can be substantial.
The U.N. Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women have repeatedly
expressed concern about the relationship between restrictive abortion laws, clandestine abortions, and threats to womens lives.
The committees have recommended the review or amendment of punitive and restrictive abortion laws.
One of these salient cases due to the number of imprisoned women for abortion related charges is El Salvador. El Salvador has
criminalized abortion in all circumstanceseven when necessary to save a womans lifeimposing harsh criminal penalties on both
women and physicians. The ban has resulted in the wrongful imprisonment of numbers of women who have suffered pregnancyrelated complications and miscarriages. They have been charged for having an abortion and wrongfully convicted of homicide. This
constitutes institutional violence, since it is the State perpetuating and condoning violence against women, and an assault on
womens right to liberty.
The right to liberty is also threatened when women are deterred from seeking medical care if they fear being reported to police
authorities by doctors or other medical professionals who suspect unlawful behavior.
In February 2011, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women emphasized that the El Salvadors absolute
ban on abortion puts women and adolescent girls at risk, because many of them, when facing the need to end a pregnancy, may
resort to illegal and clandestine abortions. This data on abortion, however, is only an estimategiven that the procedure is illegal, it
is impossible to obtain reliable data.

Approximately 13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide are attributable to unsafe abortionaround 47000 deaths annually. Millions
of women suffer chronic complications. [1]
Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. The abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age
in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin Americaregions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of
countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.[2]
Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is generally unsafe. Low
and mid-income countries with relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from abortion
than countries with highly restrictive laws.[3]