Talk:Abortion law/Archive 3

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)
 * per here . 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 . It is a de facto ban.  cookie monster  (2020)  755  02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


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


 * 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:, 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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 and the legal doc ("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, 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)

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 to the 1997 Law have been approved. 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. The amendment of 2021 allows it for fetal impairment with no limit and for social reasons up to 24 weeks. The amendment has not yet received royal assent, 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. If WHO 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. 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)

Sudan
In the Penal Code of 1991, two grounds for abortion are mentioned—among a few others: risk to life (no limit), and pregnancy of rape (90 days from conception). However, the Penal Code of 2003 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. In Sudan, the penal code of 1991 remains in force. Heitordp (talk) 04:48, 26 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)

Trinidad and Tobago
The Code Ethics in the Practice of Medicine 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)

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)


 * 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.
 * 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". 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)


 * 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)

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)

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

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:

United Kingdom
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)


 * 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." "The doctor can take into account your social and financial circumstances when considering the impact that continuing with the pregnancy would have on you." Accordingly, the UN/WHO and other sources classify the UK as allowing abortion for social reasons.
 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

Palestine
Some sources say that fetal impairment is another ground for abortion. They also say that it's extremely difficult to get one: "[W]hile it is technically legal in order to protect the life of the mother, 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)

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

Map 2
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)

Japan
As the table in the section "national laws" shows, the law in Japan is specific because it allows for threats to the life and health of the mother, rape and socio-economic reasons, but it does not allow for defects in the fetus and on demand. Can I add one more color and mark Japan dark green on the map instead of light green? Adijos08 (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Please, don't. Read again the map's legend, Japan is not the only country with these characteristics and that is marked with an asterisk (*). 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:302D:FBE0:FB9C:3FC1 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 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)

--Habitator terrae (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Good idea. Habitator terrae (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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. 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)
 * 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)


 * In the map, green means that the country allows abortion for social or economic reasons but not on request. The law of Germany allows abortion for risk to life or health and in case of rape, and it says that on request there is no penalty. But the law doesn't say anything about social or economic reasons, and I haven't seen any source that classifies Germany that way. So Germany should either be marked brown, considering only what the law explicitly allows, or blue, considering what it doesn't penalize. But the law was written that way only to satisfy a constitutional technicality, and in practice there is no difference, so I think that it would be very misleading to show Germany brown. There are also many other countries with laws like Germany, only saying that there is no penalty in some circumstances, and they are all marked as legal for those circumstances on the map, so it would be inconsistent to change Germany and not the others.
 * I prefer Habitator terrare's solution. Instead of "legal on request", we can say "law does not penalize abortion on request". Another alternative would be to add different colors for cases like Germany, but it would make the map excessively complex. I prefer to mention the legal complexity only in the notes in the table. Heitordp (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hungary and Mozambique
The gestational limits in Hungary and Mozambique 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)


 * Abortion in Hungary was not legal on request before 1992; in fact the 1992 law is more liberal than the previous one; here is a source:


 * In December 1992, the Hungarian Parliament revised the abortion law. The new law is in some ways more liberal than the former one. A woman can now have an abortion on demand within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, if she is in a "crisis situation". A compulsory consultation has also been introduced with a nurse who informs the women on issues of contraception, maternity allowance, etc. Under certain circumstances abortion is legal beyond the first trimester. These include for example misdiagnoses of the pregnancy, if the women is under 18 years, or in case of genetical or teratogenic risks. Abortion performed for medical reasons is free of charge. In other cases the fee is HUF 5000, the equivalent of US $60, which can be reduced according to the economical status of the family. In one way the new law can be considered more restrictive; previously, an abortion was free of charge for women who became pregnant with an IUD, whereas now the woman has to pay the abortion fee. 2A02:2F0F:B1FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:CA54 (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Legislative history in Hungary
I see here on talk a draft table (about timeline) that lists legalization of abortion in Hungary in 1953. This is not correct. The abortion law was changed three times during the communist regime: in 1953, 1956 and 1974. The 1953 law did not legalize abortion - quite on the contrary, it was a strict Stalinist inspired law (abortion was banned in USSR in 1936-1955); see here details. The 1956 law liberalized abortion, but this was changed in 1974, with a more restrictive law (source ). A new law was adopted in 1992; it is described as more liberal than the previous 1974 one (source ). Both the 1956-1974 period and the period from 1992 onward have been described as "abortion on demand", although strictly speaking this is not correct (although it is de facto correct). See also the discussion here: Talk:Abortion_law. 2A02:2F0F:B1FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:CA54 (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine
I looked at Ukrainian Wikipedia and the legislation available in Ukrainian on the Internet and read there about social and medical reasons. Is it possible to turn Ukraine into light green? There are many indications that abortion in Ukraine is not available on demand. Adijos08 (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Can you please provide any sources? Article 281.6 of the Civil Code is clear: "Artificial termination of pregnancy, if it does not exceed twelve weeks, may be carried out at the request of the woman." 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:C5FC:C717:7FD4:2E3C (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Abortion in Ukraine is legal on request during the first 12 weeks, and for social and medical reasons at later stages.2A02:2F0F:B1FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:CA54 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@2803:9800:9096:7ECF:C5FC:C717:7FD4:2E3C: You can see what I mean here: https://uk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%96%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D1%89%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83 In the section "legal status of abortion" everything is explained. According to what we can read there, abortion is allowed in Ukraine for medical and social reasons. Can I change it now and send a new map? Adijos08 (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No, you cannot "change it" because you have not offered a reliable source. Reliable sources say exactly what I stated above: :


 * Abortion is allowed in Ukraine:
 * on request during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and
 * for medical and social reasons at later stages of pregnancy (second trimester)


 * With regard to the Ukrainian Wikipedia article you have cited:
 * 1) See Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
 * 2) The article cited by you does not even support what you're saying. It reads:


 * "Аборт при вагітності від 12 до 22 тижнів за соціальними і медичними показаннями може проводитись у випадках і в порядку, що встановлюється законодавством (стаття 50 Закону України «Основи законодавства України про охорону здоров'я» № 2801-XII, ст. 281 Цивільного кодексу України)."
 * Translation with Google Translate: Abortion during pregnancy from 12 to 22 weeks on social and medical grounds may be performed in cases and in the manner prescribed by law (Article 50 of the Law of Ukraine "Fundamentals of Legislation of Ukraine on Health" № 2801-XII, Article 281 of the Civil Code of Ukraine ). 2A02:2F0F:B2FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:CD11 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. Please do not modify the map or the table. You can find the sources on this thread and the table. 186.12.44.253 (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Benin
Can someone please update the map? Abortion was legalized for socioeconomic reasons a few days ago. Sources are on the table (however, the amendment has not been published yet). 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:E5E1:2FB6:AE87:6CA6 (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The law is not in force yet. The president has 15 days (until 5 November 2021) to publish it or return it to the parliament for reconsideration. I was going to wait after the law was in force to change the table and map, but I see that others have already changed them.
 * Next time, please edit the map as a text file, there are instructions in it. Editing with software like Inkscape adds a lot of unnecessary code and prevents future edits as text. Heitordp (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sierra Leone
The parliament of Sierra Leone passed a law allowing abortion on request, but the president refused to sign it so it didn't come into force. Heitordp (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Laos
What do you know about abortion in Laos. I heard two years ago, abortion had been almost totally banned in this country. I read a note about recommendation of health minister but I wonder when it was applied? In source is written that this decision was embraced after recomendations of WHO. But, I'm not concerned if abortion has been de facto or de iurre legalisted in this country because of,,lawful abortion" can not be defined in recommendation of the health ministry. Someone also metioned,that recommendations, haven't been broken into Laotion order's law yet. I thing liberalisation in this country is only formal and inconsequential change. The Wolak (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello,, have you read the 2021 decision of the Ministry of Health? 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:ECF3:6FE0:67D3:C758 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Test I have,however, i have domek doubts concerning if was IT about legalisation of abortion in many cases or IT was decriminalisation od IT? The Wolak (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Territories
If there is no information about the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, I don't think that it should be listed in the table at all. In addition, this territory is not permanently inhabited and it has no medical facilities. All permanently inhabited territories are already listed or included in their parent country. Heitordp (talk) 21:55, 7 November 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.

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)

Should we change "no limit" to the limits stipulated in each penal code and keep the note? 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:302D:FBE0:FB9C:3FC1 (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that in Mexico judicial decisions are not very automatic as they require an additional request to apply the precedent individually (amparo). So I think it's better to state the limits in each penal code and mention the judicial decision only in the note. Heitordp (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That's what I thought... I already made the changes. Could you please add that clarification in the note when you have time? Thanks. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:A1FA:C12F:9070:34D3 (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Baja California has legalize abortion but the map have not been changed yet. The table bellow in the article has already been change, and has the source added. FedericoAsc (talk) 02:06, 8 November 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.
 * Update opinion: I do not know if we should make an exception with North Korea or treat it like any other jurisdiction. What am I sure is that it should be removed from the current timeline because of outdated information (i.e., amendment of Criminal Code). About the table: I think we should mark all grounds light red because there is no legislation about it, just sources' opinions–cf. what we do with Afghanistan, Palestine. For consistency, black in the map; maybe—as an exception—grey. Any thoughts?
 * The law doesn't need to mention abortion to allow it. If the criminal code doesn't mention it, it means that it's not a crime. However, it could be restricted by other laws or regulations. The most recent information available is the report by the North Korean government to CEDAW in 2016, cited in the note, where it stated that abortion was legal in cases of risk to the woman's life or health or fetal impairment. So at least these circumstances should be marked as permitted, and the others as prohibited or unknown. On the map, it should be yellow or gray, but not black. Heitordp (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comparing to other countries, I decided I'm going to mark those grounds as permitted and the rest as prohibited. If no one objects, of course. Yellow in the map for consistency. Treesmelon (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Correction: It should be pink on the map, because the source doesn't mention in case of rape. Heitordp (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

When the abortion restrictions in NK was introduced? The Wolak (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently in 2015. In 2016 the government stated the circumstances when it was allowed. Heitordp (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Baja California legal
Baja California has legalized abortion but the map has not been corrected yet. FedericoAsc (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The congress of Baja California has passed the law but it still needs to be published by the governor to come into force. I plan to update the map after the law is in force. Heitordp (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * a lot of people citing this source but i cannot access to it lol. anyone? 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:655C:F9BC:9C6E:EFA (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. The law was published by the governor on pages 20–27, so this source can be cited in the table. Now the law is in force so I updated the map. Heitordp (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ireland
My entries were not publishing lol. The commencement date for Ireland is 1 January 2019, should we move it on the timeline? 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:843C:74F9:D38C:AEE9 (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, with a note similar to Argentina and Mozambique. Heitordp (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

South Ossetia
Can someone please add South Ossetia to the map? I could not find better sources, but at least 2 hint that South Ossetia has a separate legislation from Georgia. I will keep searching. Thanks. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:41ED:A7BF:E3C3:B8B1 (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia
Czechoslovakia was dissolved in 1993. I am not sure if a single law was implemented in 1987 in the entire country, or two different laws were implemented in each territory, that's why I pluralized in the note on the timeline. However, here's some useful info., Slovakia's doc says the same and it can be found on the External links section. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:41ED:A7BF:E3C3:B8B1 (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Nepal
The gestational limits listed in the current source for Nepal contradicts the National Code (p. 379), I think we should cite the latter? 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:618F:B8B0:B6AC:D0F2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The code that you cited is no longer in force today. It has been replaced .2A02:2F0F:B3FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:D8C3 (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: For those who are confused, the code cited above (the former code that was in force until 2018) used the Hindu calendar - it is cited as the Act No. 67 of 2019 (1963) (ie. year 2019 in Hindu calendar, and 1963 in Western calendar). 2A02:2F0F:B3FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:D8C3 (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

China
Recently, I have read about changes in abortion law and it is good that China on the map has changed its color. However, can I change the color of China on the map to green? I would not mark China with yellow, but I read that the current Chinese law restricts abortion for non-medical reasons, so I think green would be appropriate color. Adijos08 (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You can't change anything without sources. And don't confuse restrictions on abortion for non-medical reasons at later stages of pregnancy with restrictions of this kind at all stages (including early stages). 2A02:2F0F:B3FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:D8C3 (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Here are some examples of sources I've read: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/9/27/china-restricts-abortions-for-non-medical-purposes https://amp.ft.com/content/823378bf-af1f-41bd-b228-354b274d1542 As I wrote, marking China in yellow, even now after the changes in the abortion law, would be inappropriate. But green color is something to consider. Adijos08 (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The first source does not explain what restrictions are to be put in place; it is very vague, and actually talks about government guidelines. The second source requires subscription and I can't read it. This CNN source is similarly vague; it's unclear what the government intends to do; it seems it's more a general aim of the government to reduce abortions rather than concrete legal change. So right now the map should stay the way it is. 2A02:2F0F:B3FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:D8C3 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to read a little more about these changes, maybe there is more information to the Chinese pages. After all, I would still not rule out marking China in green, but nothing more. Adijos08 (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Canada
The map indicates that Canada has gestational limits in place that vary by province/territory. This is not true and numerous reliable sources indicate that Canada has no legislation governing abortion (for example: https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/22-Late-term-Abortions.pdf). Canada has public free healthcare provided by the government, and I think the misconception might be because the different provincial/territorial healthcare systems may only usually provide (free) abortion on demand within the gestational limits which the map indicates, and since people in Canada cannot access many healthcare services by paying extra for private services therefore this is the only option available, but this is not because there is a law or piece of legislation that actually has placed a legal ban on the procedure after that point. As far as 'abortion law' is concerned, I think the whole of Canada should be covered as without gestational limits. Reesorville (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Gestational limits in Canadian provinces and territories are specified by their regulations on health professionals. I find this similar to other countries that have removed abortion from criminal law but still restrict it under other laws or regulations. Heitordp (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I may be mistaken, but I am under the impression that what you are citing is the regulations made internally by the provincial/territorial medical associations themselves... or in other words, this is not regulation from the government, either federal or provincial. The medical associations can make rules for their own members in order to be licensed with them, but that is not the same as a 'law', since they would theoretically be capable of changing those gestational limits for abortions at their leisure without any laws in place from the government that prevent them from doing so. I am not sure how the map is being covered in other cases about this kind of point, but if the article is specifically referring to 'abortion law', then I think it shouldn't rely on that. If I could make a comparison: suppose there was some region where you only had one or a few clinics that did abortions, but they decided on their own professionally that they would only do it to 20 weeks, even if the law permitted them to do it 24 weeks, but those clinics were the only ones in the region that had the legal right to operate and do abortions... would it make sense to then mark the 'abortion law' in that place as limited to 20 weeks? I could be mistaken, but I think that is the sort of situation that exists in Canada, where there are no laws at any level restricting abortion access.Reesorville (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The law of each province or territory prohibits the practice of medicine without a licence, and specifies only one association that can issue such licence and that can make regulations that its licensed members must follow. So although these regulations are not made directly by a legislative assembly, they are made by a single entity that has been delegated such power by law, so I think that we should still consider them as legal restrictions. Professionals that violate the regulations can lose their licence, and without a licence they can't legally practise the profession.
 * For example, the College of Physicians of Quebec says that abortions after 23 weeks are reserved to exceptional cases, and that it regularly verifies whether its members are following its abortion guidelines. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta specifies a limit of 20 weeks for abortion not done in hospitals, and Alberta Health Services, which is part of the provincial government and administers hospitals, limits abortion after 21 weeks to certain circumstances. Heitordp (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point and I agree that you could look at it that way. But there is one small issue I would point out: if a woman in Canada got an abortion in one of these provinces/territories using medication or using a coat hanger or some other tool/method, she wouldn't actually be breaking any laws or regulations by doing this, because those rules only apply to members of the medical association and not to the general public. I am not sure how that compares to other jurisdictions that have gestational limits on when abortions can legally occur? Reesorville (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In some other jurisdictions, such as Ireland, New Zealand and some Australian states, the law says that the restrictions do not apply to a woman for aborting her own pregnancy. But this is an exceptional situation, so I think that it's more reasonable for the table and map to reflect the restrictions on medical professionals. Heitordp (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I still think the way the map shows Canada is misleading. The article is about "Abortion law", and medical association guidelines aren't law. I know that there are barriers to abortion in parts of Canada, but they aren't legal barriers. Either change all of Canada to "Allowed on request, with no gestational limit," or clarify that the map reflects non-legal barriers in addition to legal ones. Robnorth (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The note below the map says that it reflects laws and regulations. The medical associations in Canada are regulatory bodies specified by law, and their guidelines are mandatory to maintain a licence to practise medicine, so I think that they should be considered regulations and thus indirect legal barriers. Heitordp (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

India
The note you added for India applies to Jammu and Kashmir as well? Treesmelon (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The original Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971 didn't apply to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, and a separate Jammu and Kashmir Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1974 was made for that state. However, when the state of Jammu of Kashmir was reorganised as the territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the territory of Ladakh in 2019, many laws of the state of Jammu and Kashmir were repealed, including its Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, and the equivalent federal laws were amended to apply to the new territories. See the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of 2019, page 39, line 60, and page 46, line 84. Since then, the federal Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and its later amendments such as the one in 2021 apply to the whole country.
 * I suggest removing the note about Jammu and Kashmir in the table, and replacing the reference to the federal law with this reference, which shows the law currently in force including all amendments. Heitordp (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and sorry for the mistake. I removed the note and replaced the reference. Have you read my entry about Nepal? I do not know whether replace the gestational limits for those stipulated in the National Code. Treesmelon (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Czech Republic & Slovakia
It seems we're having some problems of interpretation with these two countries. I made some corrections, please let me know what you think &  Treesmelon (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your edit is clearly incorrect and I am going to revert it. You probably misunderstood the cited law, because the text you inserted is regarding the contraindication of abortion on request if the woman underwent abortion in the last 6 months and has nothing to do with abortion for medical reasons or with time limits for it. My edit is based on the law of both countries cited in the references and also includes translations of the relevant parts of it which specify the time limits. --Human. (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed repetitive information and simplified wording, nothing else. Thank you Treesmelon (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Belarus and Turkey
Should Belarus and Turkey be green on the map? See ‎File talk:Abortion Laws.svg.--Gelutheranger (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Abortion in Belarus and Turkey is legal on request up to 12 and 10 weeks, respectively. Sources in National laws section. Treesmelon (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * About Belarus: "The 1987 law allows abortion for the traditional reasons of harm or death to the fetus and/or mother, rape and incest, as well as:

the death of the husband during pregnancy, a jail sentence for either the mother or father, a court order stripping the pregnant woman of parental rights, if a household already exceeds five children, if the relationship between mother and father ends in divorce, or a family history which includes mental or physical disabilities". All of this falls under "socioeconomic reasons".--Gelutheranger (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * These are the reasons for which abortion is allowed in Belarus up to 22 weeks of gestation. But up to 12 weeks, it's also allowed for any reason, merely on request. See article 27 of this law: Heitordp (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Cook Islands
The Crimes Bill 2017 cited in the table has not yet been approved by the parliament. The law in force is still the Crimes Act 1969, which prohibits abortion except for risk to life, and it is also permitted for risk to health by judicial decision from the parent country. Heitordp (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Germany
Please explain your unexplained reverts (12) of the two reasoned edits. (12). For further information see also the consistent explenation at Federal Constitutional Court. Habitator terrae (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

For the first edit I understand now, because of the note at the end, but the second, which more explicitly mentioned the explenation, it is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habitator terrae (talk • contribs) 00:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my bad. I reverted it! Treesmelon (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

New abortion law in Iran
According to some sources Iran passed some new law restricting lsw to abortion:. I found this law online:. According to this news site this law went into effect on 31 November 2021 and eliminated woman's health and fetal deformations ground for abortion according to what I understand from Google Translate. Borysk5 (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Australia - NT SA
After the 2021 reform (https://legislation.nt.gov.au/api/sitecore/Bill/APDF?id=19223) of the 2017 bill (https://legislation.nt.gov.au/api/sitecore/Act/PDF?id=12350) and in light of media commentary (here is an example: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-01/abortion-laws-nt-parliament-passes-changes-to-legislation/100663858), I’d say that NT allows abortion upon request until week 24.

Section 7 mandates a doctor to assess the woman’s intentions and background (maybe she is pressured against her will) and evaluate her medical conditions to determine if a procedure is medically appropriate. Section 11 (conscientious objection) mandates a doctor to refer the woman to another professional in case of objection. This makes it totally impossible to deny an abortion upon woman’s request in Northern Territory.

Considering that South Australia has passed a reform legalizing abortion on demand (in force after receiving royal assent- although we have no evidence of implementation), I see no strong case for keeping these two states green and not move Australia to the list of countries with full access to abortion services. Finedelledanze (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * We already had this conversation in late September and—as far as I know—nothing has changed since then. I think the article should remain the same. Treesmelon (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

In December NT passed an abortion reform. This and new media commentaries suggest that your interpretation of the law is wrong: abortion is fully decriminalized and available on demand in NT. The legislation is not comparable with the UK that still explicitly forbids abortion on demand

In South Australia the government needs to pass some implementing acts. Finedelledanze (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the news about the Northern Territory. Previously, the law there allowed abortion up to 14 weeks of gestation with the approval of one doctor, up to 23 weeks of gestation with the approval of two doctors, and with no gestational limit in case of risk to the woman's life. After the reform, which came into force on 16 December 2021, the law allows abortion up to 24 weeks of gestation with the approval of one doctor, and with no gestational limit with the approval of two doctors or in case of risk to the woman's life. However, in both cases, the law still says that the doctor(s) must agree that the abortion is appropriate, taking into account "the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances". The gestational period only matters for the number of doctors required, but the criteria is exactly the same. So we should mark the Northern Territory as allowing abortion with no gestational limit in the first 5 columns in the table, and either mark the last column also as no limit or prohibited, but not 24 weeks.
 * The news article that you cited is not entirely correct. The article says that the reform legalises abortion after 24 weeks "for medical reasons", but that's not what the law says. Again, the only difference in the law between before and after 24 weeks is the number of doctors required, not the criteria. And in any case, nowhere in the article does it say that the law allows abortion "on demand" or "on request", it only talks about "easier access". Meanwhile, for all other reasons that I mentioned in our previous discussion (based on more reliable sources from Australian state governments, which clearly do not classify the Northern Territory as allowing abortion "on request", and for consistency with very similar laws in other states), I still think that we should keep the last column as "prohibited", and green on the map.
 * I agree that in practice the difference between social reasons and "on request" is minimal, which is why I've proposed merging these two categories, but if we're going to maintain them separately like the WHO does, I still think that the Northern Territory should not be considered "on request".
 * The Northern Territory has not "fully decriminalized" abortion, its criminal code still prohibits it if not done by a medical professional. And the UK law doesn't "explicitly forbids abortion on demand", it just doesn't mention it as a reason for which abortion is allowed.
 * Regarding South Australia, the law is not yet in force. Unlike the recent law in the Northern Territory, which said that it would come into force on the day after its assent, the law in South Australia says that it will come into force on a date established by a proclamation, and such proclamation has not yet been issued. In this case, the assent is not enough for the law to come into force. This news article from September 2021 also says the law there was not yet in force: I've been checking the list of proclamations almost every week and it's still not there. Heitordp (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You've been very convincing, Heitordp. I agree that the NT bill is not written in an unambiguous fashion like other abortion laws worldwide. Although I'm not entirely convinced about the legal interpretation of the bill wording, I rest my case upon the Australian federal report on abortion, which lists NT as not making abortion available on demand. Still, I see a big difference between NT and UK laws. In NT a doctor cannot deny an abortion but MUST counsel about the appropriateness of the procedure given other considerations (the woman could be acting against her own will, the woman may seek an abortion not knowing about other alternatives, the woman's health or life could be harmed by the medical procedure, and so on). Like in most countries, abortion is criminalised if it is performed by people who are not doctors - but this is the only consideration that makes it illegal. Here is where the UK law diverges, in UK it is the opposite: the 1967 act states that abortion is always illegal by default unless certain conditions are met: the socio-economic factors and the other considerations ('a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when...etc.'). We all know that in UK the law is not applied ad litteram, but in theory the law allows a doctor to turn down an abortion request if they believe that 'the pregnant woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable environment' is not incompatible with a pregnancy (eg. the woman has the material means to have a baby and/or would face no social stigma). This does not happen simply beacause the wording 'injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family' is interpreted extensively and equals being denied an abortion with receiving a blow to one's own mental health (which I agree, but it is a bit of a stretch, legally speaking). All of this is not present in the NT bill: 'having regard to the woman's psychological circumstances' means that if the woman wants the abortion, she must have it, the doctor cannot turn her request down. If they dont want to perform the termination, they can make a conscientious objection, but then the woman can get the abortion somewhere else. This is what the NT law says. What the UK law says is instead that an abortion without 'good' reasons is unlawful.
 * I agree that in practice there is not much distiction between countries with abortion on demand and situations like NT and UK. Still, I believe that the wording of the laws is important as they reflect the social and political circumstances when such laws were passed. And principles still matter. That is why feminists in UK and Finland, for instance, are trying to change the existing laws to establish abortion on demand also as a principle and not only as a matter of fact. Finedelledanze (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Timeline
Is it okay if I make a separate table for autonomous jurisdictions? It'd simplify the note at the beginning. I can also add countries with limited recognition to the existing table. 186.158.132.93 (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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) 21:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Unenforced law
Could this article mention about unenforced law or symbolic law anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.47.12 (talk) 18:22, 30 August 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:302D:FBE0:FB9C:3FC1 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"Judicial decisions" section
What is the criteria of using whether "Yes" or "Partially"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:E5E1:2FB6:AE87:6CA6 (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Center for Reproductive Rights Map
The map here - https://reproductiverights.org/maps/worlds-abortion-laws/ - has discrepancies with the map. In the case, where there is footnote about general legal principle this source can confirm. A WP:BOLD edit has been made on Philippines referencing this map. There could be other nations. Thoughts? Manabimasu (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and the Center for Reproductive Rights is not very reliable regarding some countries. In the case of the Philippines, the Center cites the law that prohibits abortion without explicitly mentioning any exception, and it also cites the constitution that says "It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception." but concludes that abortion is not allowed in any circumstance in the Philippines. However, the Philippine government itself, in its report to CEDAW in 2021, cited in the table, says that abortion is allowed in case of risk to the woman's life. The government mentions the Supreme Court case Imbong v. Ochoa, which says "Exception: Life Threatening Cases. All this notwithstanding, the Court properly recognizes a valid exception set forth in the law. While generally healthcare service providers cannot be forced to render reproductive health care procedures if doing it would contravene their religious beliefs, an exception must be made in life-threatening cases that require the performance of emergency procedures. In these situations, the right to life of the mother should be given preference, considering that a referral by a medical practitioner would amount to a denial of service, resulting to unnecessarily placing the life of a mother in grave danger."
 * When a government source clearly says something different from an external source, we should rely on the government source since it's the one that actually implements the law. There are also other sources from the Philippines that say that therapeutic abortion is legal there. Heitordp (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert my changes but add those sources as these are clearer than the current sources. Also the second source does mention Principle of Double effect

"Principle of Double-Effect. - May we please remind the principal author of the RH Bill in the House of Representatives of the principle of double-effect wherein intentional harm on the life of either the mother of the child is never justified to bring about a 'good' effect. In a conflict situation between the life of the child and the life of the mother, the doctor is morally obliged always to try to save both lives. However, he can act in favor of one (not necessarily the mother) when it is medically impossible to save both, provided that no direct harm is intended to the other. If the above principles are observed, the loss of the child's life or the mother's life is not intentional and, therefore, unavoidable. Hence, the doctor would not be guilty of abortion or murder. The mother is never pitted against the child because both their lives are equally valuable.238

Accordingly, if it is necessary to save the life of a mother, procedures endangering the life of the child may be resorted to even if is against the religious sentiments of the medical practitioner. As quoted above, whatever burden imposed upon a medical practitioner in this case would have been more than justified considering the life he would be able to save." However, the second source is a claim by a women's group not the government but the reference to therapeutic abortion could be double effect abortion from the second source. prohibited similar to Malta could be accurate for Philippines. The Center for Reproductive rights does not specify Principle of double effect for nations.Manabimasu (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW Egypt, as well as Philippines, should be black by that logic. The only source which says that abortion may be legal is an article in the beginning of the Penal Code, which has nothing in common with abortion itself and speaks about crimes in general. Many Penal Codes have an article which says that a crime is not a crime if done for a higher purpose or something like this (e.g while defending during an assault), but this action remains a crime. Thus, if abortion under any circumstances is a crime, it is banned, and the opportunity that you will be acquitted for doing it or not prosecuted altogether doesn't decriminalize it (as there is no guarantee that you will be forgiven, having provided those extenuating circumstances).


 * There are some other countries which ban abortions completely, but we don't paint them black due to "general principle": Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Palau, San Marino (until the legalizing law comes into force), Senegal, Somalia, Suriname, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago. If not concerning "general principle" they all should be black. If concerning, Philippines should be red, and so should be Andorra, Dominican Republic and Madagascar. Note that countries whose laws directly say about exceptions in abortion which is banned, like Laos, Oman or Sierra Leone, should not be black, and Malta should be black as it allows only "indirect abortion" (see recent discussion about Bangladesh). Afghanistan and Brazil are in question as their laws have no legalization of abortion, but penalty for some exception(s) is removed.--Gelutheranger (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Constitutional Court of Colombia decriminalizes abortion until 24 weeks gestation

 * https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/21/world/colombia-court-abortion
 * https://washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/21/colombia-decriminalize-legal-abortion/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.90.140.182 (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2022
change *Laws on Abortion in the Second Trimesters, The International Consortium for Medical Abortion (ICMA) to
 * Laws on Abortion in the Second Trimesters, The International Consortium for Medical Abortion (ICMA) MisteriusG (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The link you provided is no longer available whereas the link given in the article shows what was once on that page Terasail [✉️] 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

== Donetsk People Republic: current entry reports abortion as permitted. Source link is dead. DPR constitution states human rights are protected FROM CONCEPTION (which indicates obstacles to abortion): Source needs to be fixed, or entry amended, or entry removed. ==

The entry for DPR has a dead link. The constitution of the DPR as found here https://www.worldstatesmen.org/Donetsk-cons14.docx defends human rights "FROM CONCEPTION". Hence the Donetsk People Republic entry should be amended: abortion is not permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:143F:D1D0:6C78:8C8B:BE8F:6D64 (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

What you’re saying has nothing to do with whether abortion is legal or not. Whether they grant human rights to zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses doesn’t matter, because no human has the right to take away a woman’s human rights by forcing her to bear a pregnancy against her will. Women have the right to be free from that violation of their bodily autonomy and torturous slavery that causes them to be mutilated and forced to deal with all sorts of other health issues and struggles from the strain that’s put upon their bodies without proper medical care and is more likely to leave them crippled or dead. What you’re saying is concerning, but it’s not yet a definitive sign that the DPR is committing the grave and horrendous human rights abuses against women that you’re accusing them of. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "no human has the right to take away a woman’s human rights by forcing her to bear a pregnancy against her will" this is a fact, and something I fight for, but it is in no way indication that abortion *is* permitted in DPR. The fact we found their laws aberrant does not affect whether those laws exist or not.
 * facts:
 * 1) The current entry has a dead link as source. There is no indication or proof that abortion is permitted in the DPR
 * 2) The constitution of the DPR https://www.worldstatesmen.org/Donetsk-cons14.docx states:
 * Article 3 
 * Man, his rights and freedoms are the highest value. Their recognition, observance, respect and protection are the responsibility of the Donetsk People's Republic, its state bodies and officials and are guaranteed from the moment of conception of a person. 
 * Article 12 
 * [...]
 * 2. Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and belonging to each person from the moment of conception.
 * These statements are not open to interpretation. Conception is the word chosen and we both know what it is meant by that
 * 3) a cursory search of other sources yelds more indications: a women's right activist, Nadya Tolokonnikova, states that abortion is forbidden in Donetsk people republic. https://www.vice.com/en/article/bnpvaz/pussy-riots-nadya-tolokonnikova-on-the-fight-for-abortion-rights-in-russia
 * 4) These facts are consistent with further statements found in the DPR constitution:
 * Article 9 
 * [...]
 * 2. In the Donetsk People's Republic, the Orthodox faith (Faith Christian Orthodox Catholic of Eastern Confession), professed by the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), is the predominant and dominant faith.
 * 3. Historical experience and the role of Orthodoxy of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) are recognized and respected, including as system-forming pillars of the Russian World.
 * The russian orthodox church is actively pushing anti-abortion legislation, as referred also in the link in point (3), with further sources.
 * Further indication of the ultraconservative line of the DPR (at odd with abortion rights) can be found in
 * Article 31 
 * 1. Paternity, motherhood, the rights of parents and childhood, as well as the family as a union of a man and a woman registered in accordance with the law, are under the protection of the state.
 * 2. Caring for children, their upbringing is the equal right and duty of both parents: men and women.
 * 3. No forms of perverted unions between people of the same sex in the Donetsk People's Republic are recognized, not sanctioned and prosecuted by law.[likely a translation error: they are, in fact prosecuted https://adcmemorial.org/wp-content/uploads/lgbtENG_fullwww.pdf]
 * This last point is only circumstantial evidence, but is consistent with the other facts presented.
 * Thus, the DPR entry should either be removed for insufficient proof, or be amended to show that abortion is banned in DPR. Its present form is misleading and source-less, and this is a fact. 139.18.89.238 (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC) abel 139.18.89.238 (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that Donetsk should be removed for now. GenuineArt (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m very tired, so I hope this makes sense: I agree with GenuineArt. What I meant was that I don’t think we can change it to say that abortion is banned in Donetsk without definitive proof from Donetsk specifically addressing abortion or whether or not women’s rights can be taken away there by an fertilized egg. Because even though granting human rights to fertilized eggs imperils women’s rights, strictly speaking, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it takes away women’s rights automatically, because there’s never been a recognized human right to take away the established rights of other humans. I only take issue with you implying that a fertilized egg being granted the same rights as a person would ban abortion, because, as far as I’m aware, rape—being inside of another person’s body without their consent—is illegal everywhere, even in Donetsk. I am for removing Donetsk from the article completely since we have no official sources. The fact that we don’t have any official legal sources that definitively state the current laws on abortion is surely sufficient grounds for simply removing Donetsk from the article. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The only bit that makes sense is concurring on the need to remove an unsourced entry (about an unrecognized nation nonetheless) that conflicts with the only available information. Glad there is agreement. Can anyone get on it?
 * I quote you: "I only take issue with you implying that a fertilized egg being granted the same rights as a person would ban abortion, because, as far as I’m aware, rape—being inside of another person’s body without their consent—is illegal everywhere".
 * This makes absolutely no sense.
 * 1) I am not "implying" anything: that is what "from conception" means. The fact that you and me find it aberrant and inhumane does not change that fact. We are talking about a ultrahortodox state. The position of conservative Christianity on abortion is well known and should not surprise you.
 * 2) for as much as unwanted pregnancies are a horrible experience, an embryo is not "raping" the body it is in. And even if we were to take your definition- then it is not "illegal everywhere", because unfortunately there are many countries that limit or forbid abortion
 * 3) You should stop mixing up your wishful thinking with the matter at hand, that is, whether abortion is legal or not in DPR. We agree it SHOULD be, but this is irrelevant. You d be better off looking up the issue and try to determine whether there are further sources.
 * 4) The CONSTITUTION stating REPEATEDLY that life is protected from CONCEPTION and that Orthodox patriarchy is state religion is a strong indication that abortion is forbidden, consistent with declaration of a women's rights activist. Both these sources are posted in this thread. On these basis:
 * a) the currently false information should be removed
 * b) further information should be acquired on the matter.
 * Abel 2A02:810A:143F:D1D0:AD90:637B:21F9:14EF (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Abel, everything I’ve said makes perfect sense. You’re just not getting what I’m saying. 1) That is not what “from conception” means—even in the likely event that the Donetsk government interprets it that way, that is still not what those words actually mean, because being granted human rights would not grant an embryo the right to occupy a woman’s body against her will, because there is no such thing as a human right to avoid being removed from someone else’s body when that person doesn’t want you to be inside of them. 2) If an embryo is recognized as a person that has a right to occupy a woman’s body against her will, then embryos have to be regarded as people committing rape in those instances. Even though embryos have no brains and no will, right-to-lifers state that it must be assumed that any embryo would want to be born, which means that, going by what they say, it must be assumed that any embryo would choose be a rapist, because that is what an unwanted pregnancy that results in an unwanted birth is, an assault on the sexual organs of a woman without her consent. 3) I’m not “mixing up” any “wishful thinking”—all I’m doing is insisting that words be used correctly and not misinterpreted. I’m refusing to just assume what Donetsk may well want people to assume, because you can’t assume the meaning of words in a legal context, it must be clear, and the words they’re using do not explicitly ban abortion. I’ve explained why the words they use, interpreted objectively, would not ban abortion. Unfortunately, you probably are correct that Donetsk would not interpret them objectively and would instead use them as a sneaky way to deny women human rights. And I already have looked and could not find any sources. 4) Please stop repeating yourself. I’m well aware that it’s a strong indication of Donetsk committing this grave violation of human rights. But an indication is not the same as an explicit law that defines when abortion is and is not legal, which we don’t have. I don’t know why no one has come along to remove Donetsk from the article yet. Please be civil instead of making false accusations against me. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If anyone knows someone who has permission to edit this article in order to completely remove Donetsk from it in light of the fact that we have no official sources on the legality of abortion there, please contact them and get them to do so so that the article is no longer making unsourced statements about it. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven’t been able to confirm that the cited link is dead. I’m not willing to do a download of it, as that seems dangerous. It looks like the user who added Donetsk to the article was someone called Treesmelon, and it was less than four months ago. I think we should ask them about it. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ve left a message on the talk page of this Treesmelon editor who added Donetsk to this article as well as the suspicious cited link. Hopefully I or we will hear back from them soon and get a better source if there is one or get the person who added Donetsk to the article to agree with the three of us who are already here that Donetsk should be removed from the article. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed Donetsk from the article myself since this thread has been on the talk page for more than a week now and no one else has acted except for GenuineArt agreeing that it should be removed and I’m very concerned about the possibility of people being misinformed. I don’t think it was wrong for me to do that despite not being able to check the link myself, considering the consensus reached here. I hope this problem is solved, although I’m now concerned that there may be other issues with this article if the statements about Donetsk were indeed false. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Someone reverted the edit. I downloaded the original source document and I am getting it translated by a russian speaker. Arbler (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The policy of WP:OR should not be violated. The fact that the constitution states that people's rights are protected from conception and that Orthodoxy is the state religion cannot be used to conclude that abortion is illegal. It is necessary to have reliable sources that state explicitly the legal status of abortion in Donetsk. If such sources cannot be found, then Donetsk must be removed from the article. 2A02:2F0F:B0FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:DCF6 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade overturned
Roe v. Wade has now been overturned, so the map should be changed, because some US states have Trigger laws. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-ending-50-years-of-federal-abortion-rights/ar-AAYPAtD?ocid=uxbndlbing https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0 https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-overturned-by-supreme-court-ending-federal-abortion-rights.html JoeSmoe2828 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Uk
Main article doesn’t appear to list up date or Canada of allowing Abortion in table 2A01:CB00:38E:3C00:D8BF:274E:86BB:9ECB (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

China: Showing abortion legality differences by region.
Here is excerpt from Guardian article:

China: new rules to prevent sex-selective abortions raise fears https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/22/china-new-rules-jiangxi-province-prevent-sex-selective-abortions

> “Jiangxi province issued guidelines last week stipulating that women more than 14 weeks pregnant must have signed approval from three medical professionals confirming an abortion is medically necessary before any procedure.”

- Jiangxi province only allows non-medically necessary abortions after 14 weeks of pregnancy.

> “In 2004, Guizhou was the first province to enact such a ban. Other Chinese provinces such as Jiangsu, Hunan, Qinghai, Anhui, Henan, and the city of Shanghai have followed suit with varying restrictions on abortions after 14 weeks.”

Guizhou province enacted a ban on non-medically necessary abortions after 14 weeks of pregnancy.

Less clear: Jiangsu province, Hunan province, Qinghai province, Anhui province, Henan province, and the city of Shanghai which have all enacted some form of restriction on abortion after 14 weeks.

Excerpt from New York Times article:

China’s Vow to Reduce Abortions Sparks Public Worries https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/world/asia/china-abortion-limits.html

> “Obtaining an abortion can already be a somewhat cumbersome process in China. Because of many families’ longstanding preference for boys over girls, sex-selective abortions are illegal, and many regions require women to produce certificates of medical necessity. In Jiangxi Province, for example, women who are more than 14 weeks pregnant must obtain three signatures from medical personnel.”

From the International Campaign for Women's Right to Safe Abortion (SAWR) [www.safeabortionwomensright.org]:

CHINA – Jiangxi province has restricted abortion after the 14th week of pregnancy because of the sex ratio imbalance https://www.safeabortionwomensright.org/news/china-jiangxi-province-has-restricted-abortion-after-the-14th-week-of-pregnancy-because-of-the-sex-ratio-imbalance/

> “Jiangxi province’s Health and Family Planning Commission recently issued a notice saying that women who are over 14 weeks pregnant who seek an abortion must have the signed approval of three medical professionals to confirm the abortion is medically necessary, according to the provincial government’s news site jxnews.com. The provincial authorities say this is to help to balance the sex ratio.”

(The Chinese gov’t site they mentioned: jxnews.com) Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

People’s Republic of China Wikipedia page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_China

Abortion in China is legal and generally accessible[1][2][3], while being subject to different regulations depending on the rules of the province or city, with some provinces prohibiting non-medical abortions after fourteen weeks of pregnancy.[4][5][6] Sex-selective abortions are illegal nationwide. In 2021, China's State Council as well as the non-governmental organization responsible for family planning announced policy guidelines with the goal of reducing non-medically necessary abortions.[7][8][9][10] Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

delete picture in beginning
the picture in the beginning has outdated data on the usa. until the pic is changed the pic should be deleted. wrong information is worse than missing information. (my edit was reverted) Taramalan (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Abortion law in South Australia
Laws legalizing abortion on request has been passed, received royal assent and has been given the date that it comes into force, the 7th of July, with details given in the hyperlinks on the table. The picture at the top of the page should be changed to reflect this, as though it is not July 7th yet it will be soon. Gorillainacoupe (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Fix map
@Heitordp @NuclearVacuum Hello map makers, fix the map 64.53.212.155 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Your abortion map is wrong.
There is no 17 week gestational limit for abortions in Canada. There is no limit on abortions for Canadian women. The abortion law was struck down by the Canadian Supreme Court in 1988 and no law was proposed after. There is no law on the books in Canada about abortion. Abortions can be obtained at any time during pregnancy for any reason. It is considered to be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. 2A02:C7F:14F3:CD00:F8A8:2F55:C786:B540 (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no abortion law in Canada, but its subdivisions and professional bodies have abortion regulations including gestational limits. The table and map include the effect of regulations since they are also indirect legal restrictions. This is explained in a note and references in the table and it has already been discussed in more detail here. It's not true that abortions can be obtained in Canada during the entire pregnancy for any reason. Heitordp (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)