Talk:Abortion law

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abortion law article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

Abortion Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feminism High‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality High‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Abortion is not a criminal offence in Northern Territory.

Abortion is not a criminal offence in Northern Territory, the procedure was decriminalized just like it was in every other state and territory. These articles confirm that it is legal in every jurisdiction.

https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/eds-blog/national-milestone-as-abortion-officially-decriminalised-in-every-state-and-territory-in-australia/

https://theconversation.com/abortion-is-now-legal-across-australia-but-its-still-hard-to-access-doctors-are-both-the-problem-and-the-solution-216278

Mix Orange And Purple (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This also leads to Australia being inaccurately mentioned as a country that cannot appear on the table due to not having legalized it nationwide, although admittedly it would be difficult to pinpoint a date since they did it on a state by state basis with no single date that applies to the entire country. Mix Orange And Purple (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map is indeed inaccurate. The Northern Territory is shaded green whereas by the image's colour scheme it should be mid blue. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been discussed before, see here, here, here, here, here, as well as the notes and sources cited in the table in the section on national laws. The table and map follow the UN classification, which makes a distinction between abortion allowed for social reasons and abortion allowed merely on request from the pregnant woman. Abortion in the Northern Territory is not a criminal offence but the law still requires that a doctor consider it appropriate based on medical and social circumstances. In practice the doctors might accept almost any reason, but the government sources clearly say that the law is not considered to allow it "on request".[1][2] In this aspect it's similar to the law in Great Britain. The sources that you cited above don't say that the Northern Territory allows abortion "on request" or "on demand". Heitordp (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining Heitordp. You noted here that the actual difference "is very small (or none)". It's indeed none. But if you're colouring the map by the legaleses rather than how the procedure is actually provided I understand what you're saying, and also why this is causing so much confusion, and why it will continue to do cause confusion for the foreseeable future. If there's a way to pin one of these conversations to the talk page that might save you some time explaining things again the future. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I added a code to prevent archiving this thread. Heitordp (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal legislation

Should we point out that multiple federal countries such as the United States, Mexico, Canada, and Australia have no federal restrictions on abortion? This isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, although it's worth pointing out that even though some of these countries have some truly backwards states, the countries as a whole neither restrict nor protect abortion. The USA overturned RVW, which means it's now up to the states to decide. Meanwhile Mexico did the same thing, but in the opposite direction. Their supreme court overturned a federal law (similar to Canada a few decades earlier), which means it's entirely up to the states to decide for themselves. 71.51.187.175 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliably sourced content from disinterested editors, after a period of time with which to reach a consensus, can occasionally find its way into contentious articles, provided the content is without factual bias.

Bringing balance to an article is fine, provided the additions are from reliable sources.

Hope that clears it up. Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The USA has a bunch of completely worthless conservative states like Mississippi and Alabama and Arkansas that contribute absolutely nothing and don't do anything except hold the whole country back by receiving the same number of senators as California despite having less people than Los Angeles County (yes I'll admit the same is true for New England and Delaware vs Texas, let us just split California and Texas up and make things fair), and thus being able to prevent any basic things that the vast majority of people (including most conservatives except for white southern uneducated evangelical conservatives) want (such as gun control, universal healthcare, abortion rights, same sex marriage, etc.) and make us look like a bunch of right wing kooks despite most people in the USA being about as progressive as the Netherlands and Sweden. That's why there are multiple states in the USA where abortion is legally unrestricted and cannabis is legal and homosexual couples can marry, while there are southern states that want to make black people slaves again and take away women's rights to vote. If it wasn't for Washington and Oregon and Colorado and Minnesota paying federal taxes to prop those states up, they wouldn't even be able to keep their heads above water. Did I ever tell you how much those same conservatives really hate what they call "redistribution of wealth"? 71.51.187.175 (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your seem too close to the topic at hand to work on an online project requiring consensus from voices across the world and the political spectrum.

I understand your need to be heard and correct what you feel are mistakes, but forcing through your edits isn't constructive for most editors.

Cordially, Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Map is wrong

The map is wrong and unclear. UK allows abort up to 24 weeks for example and I suspect the rest of the map may be partially wrong as well.62.18.86.241 (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The map is correct. The UK allows abortions up to 24 weeks for socioeconomic reasons; though it does in effect allow abortions on demand, that is not technically the law. Just to be sure, I checked the map for any other errors, and I can confirm that it correctly shows what the table in the article says. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chihuahua and Maryland

Mexican news organizations have reported that the Supreme Court of Mexico has decriminalized abortion in Chihuahua. However, I do not know how to update the map.

I'm still skeptical about the situation in Maryland. The Wikipedia article says that abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy in Maryland, and a clinic in Bethesda, Maryland performs them on request in the third trimester. Did the referendum last November amend the law in any way? The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the news about Chihuahua. I updated the table and map.

Please see the note and references about Maryland in the table and the previous discussion here. The way that I read the law, I understand that it allows abortion after viability only in case of risk to health or fetal abnormality. It wouldn't make sense for the law to list these cases if it was allowed for any reason. This is also how all other sources described it until April 2024, when some sources inexplicably started saying that Maryland didn't have any limit for any reason. There was no change to the law.

The article Abortion in Maryland at the top says that it's legal at all stages, but it doesn't say for which reasons. Down in the section Facility type and location, it clarifies that the law allows it after viability only in case of risk to health or fetal abnormality.

I actually live near the clinic that you mentioned, and they say that "abortions after 28 weeks are done on a case by case basis".[3] This article says that they approve it only in case of risk to health or fetal abnormality, which matches the law. They might be lenient with what they consider risk to health, including mental health, but it's not merely on request.

The referendum only added an article to the constitution saying that the right to abortion cannot be denied "unless justified by a compelling state interest".[4] The courts ruled that protecting fetal life after viability is a compelling state interest,[5] so the article in the constitution doesn't invalidate the existing law. The referendum didn't directly change the law either. The referendum was rather symbolic, just to add to the state constitution what was previously considered to be in the federal constitution. Heitordp (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]