DOCSLIB.ORG

B1 Self Managed Abortion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

B1- Ensuring Support for and Access to Self-Managed Abortion 1 I. Title: Ensuring Support for and Access to Self-Managed Abortion 2 3 II. Author Identification 4 • Monique Baumont, Center for Reproductive Rights, 199 Water St, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 5 10038, [email protected], Member #10432693, Sexual and Reproductive Health 6 Section 7 • Bonnie K Epstein, unaffiliated, 4403 Riverview Ave, Englewood, NJ 07631, 8 [email protected]. Member #9855820, Sexual and Reproductive Health Section. 9 • Caitlin Phelps, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 409 12th Street, SW 10 Washington, DC 20024-2188, [email protected], Member #9847505, Sexual and Reproductive 11 Health Section 12 • Silpa Srinivasulu, Reproductive Health Access Project, P.O. Box 21191, New York, NY 10025, 13 [email protected], Member #10338166, Sexual and Reproductive Health Section 14 15 III. Co-Sponsorship: Sexual and Reproductive Health Section 16 17 IV. Collaborating Units: N/A 18 19 V. Endorsement: International Health Section 20 21 VI. Summary 22 Access to abortion care is essential to the health, well-being, and bodily autonomy of pregnant 23 people and their families. While the right to abortion is constitutionally protected in the U.S., restrictive 24 state and federal legislation and regulations have eroded this right. These policies have exacerbated 25 structural inequities to undermine and impede access to care, disproportionately affecting Black, 26 Indigenous, and people of color, those with lower incomes, immigrants, and people in rural areas. Due to 27 logistical and financial barriers to accessing abortion care, and some people’s personal preferences and 28 experiences of stigma and structural racism with respect to the medical system, there has been 29 considerable growth in demand for self-managed abortion in the U.S. Yet, some police and prosecutors 30 continue to misuse state laws to criminalize people who end their pregnancies outside of a medical 31 context or people who support them. Moreover, unnecessary restrictions and regulations prevent people 32 from having full access to safe and effective medications to self-manage their abortions. The desire to 33 stay at home throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and avoid potential virus exposure has heightened 34 interest in this care, making it particularly important to establish and strengthen the public health 1 B1- Ensuring Support for and Access to Self-Managed Abortion 1 community’s support for self-managed abortion. This policy statement recommends that APHA members, 2 public health professionals, clinicians, and elected officials denounce the criminalization of self-managed 3 abortion, including the criminalization of those who provide support, and work toward guaranteeing safe 4 and equitable access to the full-range of safe abortion care options, including self-managed abortion. 5 6 Relationship to Existing APHA Policy Statements 7 ● #20152: Restricted Access to Abortion Violates Human Rights, Precludes Reproductive Justice, 8 and Demands Public Health Intervention 9 ● #20083: Need for State Legislation Protecting and Enhancing Women’s Ability to Obtain Safe, 10 Legal Abortion Services Without Delay or Government Interference 11 ● #20112: Provision of Abortion Care by Advanced Practice Nurses and Physician Assistants 12 ● #201113: Call to Action to Reduce Global Maternal, Neonatal, and Child Morbidity and 13 Mortality 14 ● #20139: Renouncing the Adoption or Misapplication of Laws to Recognize Fetuses as 15 Independent of Pregnant Women 16 ● #20199: Preventing and Reducing the Harm of the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance 17 Policy in Global Health 18 ● #200314: Support for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in the United States and 19 Abroad 20 ● #20153: Universal Access to Contraception 21 22 VII. Rationale for Consideration 23 This is a new policy statement about public health and medical professionals’ responsibility to 24 support people’s rights to access the full-range of safe abortion care options free from criminalization or 25 unnecessary restrictions, including self-managed abortion. This policy statement does not replace or 26 update an existing one. APHA has identified the need to address self-managed abortion as demand for 27 this option came to the forefront during the COVID-19 pandemic. Self-managed abortion with medication 28 for those who prefer it is safe, effective, and enhances bodily autonomy. Over the last five years we have 29 witnessed increasingly restrictive state mandates on abortion leading to clinic closures, delays in care, and 30 logistical and financial barriers. Self-managed abortion would address these issues. Given accurate 31 information, self-managed abortion is as safe as clinic-based care. APHA has a long history of 32 recognizing access to safe abortion care as a public health issue and has demonstrated support for 33 reproductive justice, particularly pregnant people’s bodily autonomy. APHA has several abortion-related 34 policies, but none that specifically address self-managed abortion. 2 B1- Ensuring Support for and Access to Self-Managed Abortion 1 VIII. Problem Statement 2 In the past decade, abortion access has become increasingly restricted in the U.S. Since 2011, 3 nearly 500 abortion restrictions have been enacted, including laws banning abortion in certain 4 circumstances and laws that impose medically unnecessary requirements on abortion care (1). Studies of 5 multiple states, like Texas, Georgia, and Ohio, have demonstrated adverse impacts of restrictive state- 6 level laws on access to abortion care, including delays in accessing care due to increased travel distance; 7 economic burdens from lost wages, childcare, and travel costs; increased stigma; and reduced abortion 8 rates (2-5). These barriers disproportionately impact Black, Indigenous, and people of color, low-income 9 people, immigrants, people with disabilities, members of the LGBTQ community, and people living in 10 rural and medically underserved areas (4). Despite the constitutional right to abortion, for many, state 11 restrictions interact with structural inequities to place abortion care entirely out of reach. 12 Self-managed abortion represents an alternative to clinical care for individuals facing barriers due 13 to abortion restrictions or who prefer this method. Self-managed abortion occurs when an individual 14 performs their own abortion outside of a formal medical setting or without clinical supervision and can 15 include ingesting herbs, using mifepristone and misoprostol or misoprostol only (known as medication 16 abortion), inserting objects into the vagina, or other methods (6). 17 Researchers have documented considerable demand for self-managed abortion in the U.S. 18 Approximately 7% of U.S. women will self-manage abortion at some point in their lives, using a variety 19 of methods (7). A study of requests from U.S. residents for self-managed medication abortion through the 20 online telemedicine abortion service Women on Web from October 15, 2017 to August 15, 2018 21 identified 6,022 requests, three-quarters of which were from individuals living in states hostile to abortion 22 (8). Barriers to accessing abortion care during the COVID-19 pandemic have led to further increases in 23 demand. Based on data from the online medication abortion service Aid Access, there was a statistically 24 significant increase of 27% in the rate of requests for self-managed medication abortion from March 20, 25 2020 to April 11, 2020 compared to before the pandemic (8). Since these studies only measured a single 26 pathway to self-managed abortion, actual demand is likely much higher. 27 In exploring reasons for self-management, qualitative research identified that some individuals 28 seek self-managed abortion due to financial and logistical barriers to accessing clinical care, while others 29 prefer the privacy, comfort, and convenience offered by self-managed abortion (9). Subsequent 30 quantitative research similarly found that the majority of people report seeking self-managed abortion due 31 to both barriers and preferences, with cost, distance, inability to locate a clinic, and legal restrictions all 32 cited as barriers to clinical care, particularly in states hostile to abortion (7, 8). A nationally representative 33 study found that the prevalence of self-managed abortion was nearly three times higher among Black 34 women than White women and elevated among Hispanic individuals, indicating that they may face 3 B1- Ensuring Support for and Access to Self-Managed Abortion 1 heightened barriers to accessing clinical care or have a stronger preference for self-managed abortion due 2 to experiences of stigma, discrimination, and structural racism (7). 3 Despite considerable demand for self-managed abortion among pregnant people who prefer this 4 method or are unable to access clinical care due to state restrictions, numerous barriers, including threat of 5 criminalization and restrictions on the availability of medication, prevent people from self-managing their 6 abortion safely and with support. 7 Risk of Prosecution 8 State laws have been misapplied by police and prosecutors to punish people for self-managing 9 their abortion or for supporting those who self-manage, creating stigma and fear. As of 2020, five states 10 had antiquated laws criminalizing self-managed abortion despite the constitutionally protected right to 11 abortion (10). Due to stigma and anti-abortion political motivations, police and prosecutors
Recommended publications
  • 1 Introduction

    1 Introduction

    1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 ABORTION WORLDWIDE Abortions have been available in all cultures since ancient times (1, 2). Nowadays, an estimated 43.8 million abortions are carried out worldwide each year. About one in five pregnancies ends in an abortion (3). Each year, approximately 21.6 million women worldwide still undergo an unsafe abortion, resulting in an estimated 47000 deaths, largely among the most vulnerable women, such as poor, unmarried and young women in particular. Apart from the deaths caused by unsafe abortions, another 5 million women per year have to deal with temporary or permanent disabilities and are accompanied by huge financial and social costs to themselves, their families and the health care systems (4, 5). Goal 5 of the Millennium Development Goals is to reduce the maternal mortality ratio in 25 years by 75% and to achieve universal access to reproductive health care by 2015 (6). Unsafe abortion is one of the main causes of maternal mortality and could be prevented. Complications from unsafe abortion accounted for an estimated 13% of all maternal deaths worldwide (7). The definition of unsafe abortion by the World Health Organization (WHO) is: a procedure for terminating a pregnancy that is performed by an individual lacking the necessary skills, or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both. Recently, the WHO added the following: “The persons, skills, and medical standards considered safe in the provision of abortion are different for medical and surgical abortion, and also depend on the duration of pregnancy. What is considered “safe” should be interpreted in line with the current WHO technical and policy guidance” (8).
  • The Impact of Northern Ireland's Abortion Laws on Women's Abortion Decision-Making and Experiences

    The Impact of Northern Ireland's Abortion Laws on Women's Abortion Decision-Making and Experiences

    Downloaded from http://srh.bmj.com on January 16, 2019 - Published by group.bmj.com Research The impact of Northern Ireland’s abortion laws on women’s abortion decision-making and experiences Abigail R A Aiken,1,2 Elisa Padron,3 Kathleen Broussard,2,4 Dana Johnson1 1LBJ School of Public Affairs, ABSTRACT University of Texas at Austin, Key messages Background In Northern Ireland, abortion is Austin, Texas, USA 2 Population Research Center, illegal except in very limited circumstances to ► Women in Northern Ireland still University of Texas at Austin, preserve a woman’s life or to prevent permanent experience multiple barriers to travelling Austin, Texas, USA or long-term injury to her physical or mental 3College of Natural Sciences, to access abortion care even though University of Texas at Austin, health. Abortions conducted outside the law are abortions are now provided free in Great Austin, Texas, USA a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. Britain. 4Department of Sociology, We assessed the impacts of Northern Ireland’s ► Self-managed medication abortion using University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA abortion laws on women's decision-making and online telemedicine may be preferred experiences in accessing abortion. over travel due its convenience and Correspondence to Methods Between April 2017 and February safety, but the experience is dominated Dr Abigail R A Aiken, LBJ School 2018 we interviewed 30 women living in by fear and isolation due to the risk of of Public Affairs, University Northern Ireland who had sought abortion prosecution. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78713, USA; araa2@ utexas.
  • State Grant Aid and Its Effects on Students' College Choices

    State Grant Aid and Its Effects on Students' College Choices

    Integrating Higher Education Financial Aid and Financing Policy State Grant Aid and Its Effects on Students’ College Choices June 2007 Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education PO Box 9752 Boulder, CO 80301-9752 Supported by a grant from Lumina Foundation for Education 303.541.0200 www.wiche.edu State Grant Aid and Its Effects on Students’ College Choices Patricia M. McDonough Shannon M. Calderone William C. Purdy June 2007 Supported by a grant from Lumina Foundation for Education The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) is an interstate compact created by formal legislative action of the states and the U.S. Congress. Its mission is to work collaboratively to expand educational access and excellence for all citizens of the West. Member states are: Alaska Idaho Oregon Arizona Montana South Dakota California Nevada Utah Colorado New Mexico Washington Hawaii North Dakota Wyoming WICHE’s broad objectives are to: • Strengthen educational opportunities for students through expanded access to programs. • Assist policymakers in dealing with higher education and human resource issues through research and analysis. • Foster cooperative planning, especially that which targets the sharing of resources. This publication was prepared by the Policy Analysis and Research unit, which is involved in the research, analysis, and reporting of information on public policy issues of concern in the WICHE states. This report is available free of charge online at http://www.wiche.edu/Policy/Changing_Direction/ Pubs.asp. For additional inquiries, please contact the Policy Analysis and Research unit at (303) 541-0248 or [email protected]. Copyright © June 2007 by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education P.O.
  • Ireland, Abortion Access and the Movement to Remove the Eighth Amendment

    Ireland, Abortion Access and the Movement to Remove the Eighth Amendment

    “#Repealthe8th”: Ireland, Abortion Access and the Movement to Remove the Eighth Amendment SINÉAD KENNEDY*1 Abstract Abortion is illegal in almost all circumstances in Ireland, permitted only where there is a risk to the life of the woman due to the eighth amend- ment to the Irish Constitution. While abortion is banned, women living in Ireland do access abortion; they do so legally by travelling abroad, and illegally within Ireland by accessing the abortion pill online. This access is highly mediated by race, class and migration status. This article will consider the politics of Ireland’s abortion ban through the prism of public debates around abortion, reflecting on the discursive devices employed to both chal- lenge and uphold the status quo on abortion. This conclusion will focus on different dimensions of the “Repeal” movement; a movement that pro- pelled Ireland to finally face up to the reality of abortion and change it laws through removing the eighth amendment from the constitution. Keywords: Abortion; Migration; Repeal; Movement; Ireland On Friday 25th May 2018 the Irish electorate voted by two to one majority to remove Article 40.3.3, the prohibition on abortion, from the Irish Con- stitution. While opinion polls had suggested that those who campaigned to remove the ban on abortion would win, it was predicted to be a close result; no one predicted the sheer scale of the victory and the support from every section of society, young and old, urban and rural. In the immediate aftermath of the referendum the result was heralded as nothing short of revolutionary by journalists and activists alike who understood it to be part of a major gender and generational shift in Irish political life.
  • Chemical Abortion July 2021 Edition Edited by Mary Szoch, M.Ed

    Chemical Abortion July 2021 Edition Edited by Mary Szoch, M.Ed

    Issue Analysis July 2021 | No. IS19L02 The Next Abortion Battleground: Chemical Abortion July 2021 Edition Edited by Mary Szoch, M.Ed. Key Points Summary While the overall number of abortions continue to decline in he number of abortions being carried out in the U.S., the number of the United States continues to decline. The chemical abortions have risen CDC reports that between 2009 and 2018, dramatically, increasing by 73 percent between 2008 and abortions have declined 24 percent. 2017. TMeanwhile, chemical abortions are at an all-time high, increasing by 73 percent between 2008 to 2017. This rapid increase in chemical abortions is Despite the serious health risks part of the abortion industry’s long-term strategy the abortion pill regimen to make abortions “self-managed” and imposes on women, including unrestricted—despite the profound dangers such severe bleeding, infection, retained fetal parts, and death, poorly supervised medical care poses to women’s the abortion industry is actively health. working to shift the burden of risk to women. Making the abortion pill an OTC drug has radical implications for women’s health and safety, especially as it pertains to intimate partner violence, sexual abuse and sex trafficking, accurate patient assessment, and more. This report can be read online at frc.org/chemicalabortion 801 G. St. NW Washington, D.C. 20001 | frc.org | (202) 323-2100 The Next Abortion Battleground: Chemical Abortion July 2021 | No. IS19L02 Introduction The number of abortions being carried out in the United States continues to decline. According to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data, the abortion rate has declined 24 percent between 2009 and 2018.1 However, the chemical abortion rate is at an all-time high.
  • The World Health Organization's Abortion Overreach

    The World Health Organization's Abortion Overreach

    International Organizations Research Group • White Paper • Number 13 The World Health Organization’s ByAbortion Rebecca Oa, Ph.D. Overreach A Program of Center for Family & Human Rights International Organizations Research Group • White Paper • Number 13 The World Health Organization’s Abortion Overreach By Rebecca Oas, Ph.D. A Program of Center for Family & Human Rights © 2020 Center for Family and Human Rights P.O. Box 4489 New York, NY 10163-4489 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ................................................................. v Introduction .............................................................. 1 The World Health Organization’s Internal Abortion Hub ...................5 The WHO Undermines Norms Set by Sovereign States ..................... 7 Taking Orders from Powerful Lobbies and Giving them Moral and Institutional Cover ....................................................... 11 The Problem of Entrenched Bureaucratic Interests: The World Health Organization’s Collaborations with other UN agencies .................... 17 What of the women and children? ........................................ 21 Implications and Recommendations for U.S. Foreign Policy .............. 23 Biography ................................................................ 38 Cover image: Freedom House (cc) 1/7/2014 FOREWORD In April 2020, President Donald J. Trump halted funding to the World Health Organization for mishandling the novel coronavirus crisis, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the aftermath of that deci- sion, policy analysts focused
  • Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: in Search of Decriminalization Marge Berer

    Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: in Search of Decriminalization Marge Berer

    HHr Health and Human Rights Journal HHR_final_logo_alone.indd 1 10/19/15 10:53 AM Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: In Search of Decriminalization marge berer Abstract The aim of this paper is to provide a panoramic view of laws and policies on abortion around the world, giving a range of country-based examples. It shows that the plethora of convoluted laws and restrictions surrounding abortion do not make any legal or public health sense. What makes abortion safe is simple and irrefutable—when it is available on the woman’s request and is universally affordable and accessible. From this perspective, few existing laws are fit for purpose. However, the road to law reform is long and difficult. In order to achieve the right to safe abortion, advocates will need to study the political, health system, legal, juridical, and socio-cultural realities surrounding existing law and policy in their countries, and decide what kind of law they want (if any). The biggest challenge is to determine what is possible to achieve, build a critical mass of support, and work together with legal experts, parliamentarians, health professionals, and women themselves to change the law—so that everyone with an unwanted pregnancy who seeks an abortion can have it, as early as possible and as late as necessary. Marge Berer is international coordinator of the International Campaign for Women’s Right to Safe Abortion, London, UK, and was the editor of Reproductive Health Matters, which she founded, from 1993 to 2015. Please address correspondence to Marge Berer. Email: [email protected].
  • Eliminating the Initial In-Person Medical Abortion Visit☆ ⁎ Elizabeth G

    Eliminating the Initial In-Person Medical Abortion Visit☆ ⁎ Elizabeth G

    Contraception 92 (2015) 190–193 Commentary Reaching women where they are: eliminating the initial in-person medical abortion visit☆ ⁎ Elizabeth G. Raymonda, , Daniel Grossmanb,c, Ellen Wiebed, Beverly Winikoffa aGynuity Health Projects, 15 E 26th Street, Suite 801, New York, NY, 10010, USA bIbis Reproductive Health, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA cDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA dDepartment of Family Practice, University of British Columbia and Medical Director, Willow Women's Clinic, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Received 28 May 2015; revised 22 June 2015; accepted 23 June 2015 Abstract The requirement that every woman desiring medical abortion must come in person to a clinical facility to obtain the drugs is a substantial barrier for many women. To eliminate this requirement in the United States, two key components of the standard initial visit would need to be restructured. First, alternatives to ultrasound and pelvic exam would need to be identified for ensuring that gestational age is within the limit for safe and effective treatment. This is probably feasible: for example, data from a large study suggest that in selected patients menstrual history is highly sensitive for this purpose. Second, the Food and Drug Administration would need to remove the medically unwarranted restriction on distribution of mifepristone. These two changes could allow provision of the service by a broader range of providers in nontraditional venues or even by telemedicine. Such options could have profound benefits in reducing cost and expanding access to abortion. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Telehealth: an Opportunity to Increase Access to Early Medical Abortion for Australian Women

    Telehealth: an Opportunity to Increase Access to Early Medical Abortion for Australian Women

    Perspectives Telehealth: an opportunity to increase access to early medical abortion for Australian women Telehealth offers an opportunity to address limited access to early medical abortion during COVID-19 and beyond ccess to early medical abortion (EMA), using mifepristone followed by misoprostol to end Aan early pregnancy, remains a challenge in Australia, especially for women from vulnerable groups and those living in rural and regional areas.1 Low numbers of general practitioner providers, lack of peer networks to support the establishment and ongoing provision of EMA services, and stigma are real barriers as is a broader lack of knowledge regarding medical abortion among health professionals.2,3 Many women are also unaware of the availability of EMA and the current gestational limit of 63 days.4 They also face difficulties navigating the health system to find an EMA provider, particularly when they encounter conscientious objections.4,5 them from being able to undergo an EMA.5,7 Not only Women can also face other barriers such as needing does the telehealth delivery of EMA reduce the need to travel to access services, take time off work or find for patients to travel but it also increases the capacity of childcare, and many need to source financial support existing providers to deliver services to women from a to meet the costs.5 larger geographical area.5,8 The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID- 19) The availability of Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) pandemic has further highlighted existing barriers telehealth item numbers, introduced as part of the to accessing EMA services in Australia.
  • Woman-Centered, Comprehensive Abortion Care Reference Manual

    Woman-Centered, Comprehensive Abortion Care Reference Manual

    Second Edition Woman-Centered, Comprehensive Abortion Care Reference Manual Disclaimer: The regularly updated Clinical Updates in Reproductive Health (www.ipas.org/clinicalupdates) provides Ipas’s most up-to-date clinical guidance, which supersedes any guidance that may differ in Ipas curricula or other materials. ISBN: 1-882220-87-0 © 2005, 2013 Ipas. Produced in the United States of America. Ipas. (2013). Woman-centered, comprehensive abortion care: Reference manual (second ed.) K. L. Turner & A. Huber (Eds.), Chapel Hill, NC: Ipas. Ipas is a nonprofit organization that works around the world to increase women’s ability to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights, especially the right to safe abortion. We seek to eliminate unsafe abortion and the resulting deaths and injuries and to expand women’s access to comprehensive abortion care, including contraception and related reproductive health information and care. We strive to foster a legal, policy and social environment supportive of women’s rights to make their own sexual and reproductive health decisions freely and safely. Ipas is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All contributions to Ipas are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Cover photo credits: © Richard Lord Illustrations: Stephen C. Edgerton The illustrations and photographs used in this publication are for illustrative purposes only. No similarity to any actual person, living or dead, is intended. For more information or to donate to Ipas: Ipas P.O. Box 9990 Chapel Hill, NC 27515 USA 1-919-967-7052 [email protected] www.ipas.org Printed on recycled paper. Ipas Woman-Centered, Comprehensive Abortion Care: Reference Manual Acknowledgments - Second edition This second edition of Ipas’s Woman-Centered, Comprehensive Abortion Care: Reference Manual was revised by the following Ipas staff and consultants: Katherine L.
  • A Roadmap for Research on Self-Managed Abortion in the United States

    A Roadmap for Research on Self-Managed Abortion in the United States

    A roadmap for research on self-managed abortion in the United States August 2018 Introduction Media coverage and research data show a growing awareness of the option to self-manage (or self- induce or self-source) abortion outside of the formal health care system; we are learning more about people’s experiences with self-managed abortion, and how often people choose this option in the United States. Recent evidence indicates between one and seven percent of abortion patients (see below) have taken or done something to try to end their current pregnancy. In addition, in 2015, there were more than 700,000 Google searches using terms related to self-induced abortion in the United States.1 The reasons women attempt to self-manage an abortion are varied, but they are often related to barriers accessing clinic-based care, as well as a preference for self-care.2 At the same time, many in our field recognize that facility-based provision of medication abortion in the United States is overly medicalized, although it has certainly become less medicalized over the 17 years since mifepristone was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For example, protocols now allow for women to take both mifepristone and misoprostol at home. But medication abortion could be even further demedicalized through pharmacy dispensing and expansion of telemedicine models—or even making it available over the counter (OTC)—which have the potential to expand access greatly. We are now seeing a groundswell of interest among advocates and clinicians in efforts to make progress on two different but complementary goals.
  • Why Self-Managed Abortion Is So Much More Than a Provisional Solution for Times of Pandemic

    Why Self-Managed Abortion Is So Much More Than a Provisional Solution for Times of Pandemic

    Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/zrhm21 Why self-managed abortion is so much more than a provisional solution for times of pandemic Mariana Prandini Assis & Sara Larrea To cite this article: Mariana Prandini Assis & Sara Larrea (2020) Why self-managed abortion is so much more than a provisional solution for times of pandemic, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 28:1, 1779633, DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2020.1779633 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2020.1779633 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 30 Jun 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 192 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=zrhm21 COMMENTARY Why self-managed abortion is so much more than a provisional solution for times of pandemic Mariana Prandini Assis ,a Sara Larrea b a Postdoctoral Fellow in Harm Reduction as Public Policy, Schulich Law School, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. Correspondence: [email protected] b Research Coordinator at Women Help Women, Amsterdam, the Netherlands and PhD Candidate in Biomedicine at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain Keywords: abortion access, COVID-19, self-managed abortion The COVID-19 pandemic is striking health care sys- While advocates in the field of reproductive tems around the world through an unprecedented health and rights have celebrated the UK’s decision increase in demand. In responding to this crisis, and are encouraging governments across the world governments and health care providers face the to follow suit, the new regulation is temporary.