Talk:Abortion law

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

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

Article policies

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

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

Abortion Top‑importance

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

Death High‑importance

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

Feminism High‑importance

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

Human rights Top‑importance

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

Sexology and sexuality High‑importance

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

Women's Health High‑importance

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

Women's History High‑importance

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

Law Mid‑importance

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

Medicine Mid‑importance

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

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance

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

Mid

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

Politics Mid‑importance

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

Abortion is not a criminal offence in Northern Territory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When will the new law go into effect in Norway?

I found out about the limit for on-request abortion being moved from 12 weeks to 18 weeks from seeing that someone had edited this article to say that but been reverted because the law isn’t in force yet, and I’m wondering when it will be. I know that we’re still waiting for Denmark’s law that was passed months ago to go into effect, but that law has a set date for going into effect, and all of the articles about the new Norwegian law (like https://www.newsinenglish.no/2024/12/03/norway-extends-abortion-rights/ and https://thestreetjournal.org/norway-raises-legal-abortion-limit-to-18-weeks-in-landmark-policy-shift/) seem to be saying that the law already is in effect and don’t say anything about any future dates when it actually will be (and the latter link was the most recent article I could find about it). 2600:100A:B1C8:54D4:C409:BD2C:A304:D79F (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The law in Norway is set to enter into force on 1 June 2025. This date was just specified yesterday.[3] I updated the note in the table.

The law in Denmark was not passed months ago, in fact it hasn't even been introduced in the parliament yet. In May 2024 there was only an agreement among the political parties, and in October 2024 the Ministry of Health submitted a draft for consultation. The draft specifies an effective date of 1 June 2025 but it could still change. Heitordp (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danish abortion law

I see that the article was recently edited to say that Denmark does have a viability limit for abortion in cases of rape and socioeconomic issues, but I cannot for the life of me find any source that doesn’t say that authorization can be given for any abortion after 12 weeks in cases of rape. I’ve tried my best to comb through the new reference that was posted, but I couldn’t find what part of it referred to abortion, so I would appreciate having that pointed out.

Frankly, this seems to me like another misunderstanding of availability vs. legality like what was recently corrected for Canada. It may be unlikely for an abortion to be granted after viability even in cases of rape, but it seems to me like it would be perfectly legal for it to be granted, so I can’t see any justification for putting “viability” instead of just “permitted” or “no limit” when there’s no mention of a gestational limit for those cases in the law.

Again, maybe every source out there except for this one is wrong about the contents of the law, but, if so, I would really appreciate having that pointed out, because I’m feeling a lot of doubt right now. 2600:100A:B1C6:340F:8D59:1EB2:F18:7D3 (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited is the health law,[4] and the reference already points out the relevant part, "Articles 92 to 103". Article 92 says that abortion is allowed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy simply by the woman's request. Article 93 says that abortion is allowed after 12 weeks in case of risk to life or health, without having to request permission. Article 94 says that permission may be granted after 12 weeks in several cases: 1. risk to health; 2. rape or incest; 3. fetal impairment; 4/5/6. inability to care for the child due to health, age, social and economic circumstances. But the end of this article says that if the fetus is viable, permission may only be granted for no. 3 (fetal impairment). In sum, abortion is allowed for risk to life, health or fetal impairment without gestational limit; for rape, incest, social and economic circumstances before the fetus is viable; and for any reason in the first 12 weeks.

All these conditions are specified in the health law, it's not just a matter of availability like in Canada.

In the government's explanation of the proposal to increase the gestational limit for abortion on request to 18 weeks, section 2.1.2.2 clearly says that the current law allows abortion in case of rape or incest only before the fetus is viable; section 2.1.3 clearly says that the current law allows abortion after viability only for risk to life, health and fetal impairment; and section 2.3.3 says that the proposal would also allow it after viability only in these same circumstances.[5] Heitordp (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal legislation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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