should abortion be legal essay brainly

The independent source for health policy research, polling, and news.

Abortion Experiences, Knowledge, and Attitudes Among Women in the U.S.: Findings from the 2024 KFF Women’s Health Survey

Ivette Gomez , Karen Diep , Brittni Frederiksen , Usha Ranji , and Alina Salganicoff Published: Aug 14, 2024

• Methodology

Key Takeaways

• Among women of reproductive age, one in seven (14%) have had an abortion at some point in their life. Larger shares of Black (21%) and Hispanic (19%) women report having had an abortion compared to 11% of White women. Across partisanship, similar shares of Republican women, Democratic women, and independents report having had an abortion.
• Nearly one in ten (8%) women of reproductive age personally know someone who has had difficulty getting an abortion since Roe v. Wade was overturned, including 11% of Hispanic women and 13% of women living in states with abortion bans.
• Among women of reproductive age who report knowing someone personally who has had difficulty getting an abortion since Roe v. Wade was overturned, many say they had to travel out of state for care (68%), did not know where to go (40%), and/or did not have the money to cover the cost (35%).
• More than six in ten women of reproductive age are concerned that they, or someone close to them, would not be able to get an abortion if it was needed to preserve their life or health (63%) and that abortion bans may affect the safety of a potential future pregnancy for themselves or someone close to them (64%).
• Less than half of reproductive age women in the United States are aware of the current status of abortion policy in their state (45%). Nearly a quarter describe the status incorrectly (23%) and a third are unsure about the status of abortion in their state (32%).
• One in four (26%) reproductive age women say if they needed or wanted an abortion they would not know where to go nor where to find information.
• Nearly one in five women (17%) of reproductive age report they have changed their contraceptive practices as a result of Roe being overturned. Actions taken include starting birth control, getting a sterilization procedure, switching to a more effective method, or purchasing emergency contraceptive pills to have on hand.
• While two-thirds of women have heard about medication abortion pills, only 19% of women say people in their state can get medication abortion pills online.
• Three in four reproductive age women in the United States think abortion should be legal in most or all cases (74%). The majority support a nationwide right to abortion (70%), oppose a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks (64%), and oppose leaving it up to the states to determine the legality of abortion (74%). This is the case for the majority of women who are Democrats and independents as well as smaller but still substantial shares of Republicans.

Introduction

In the two years since the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe and eliminated the federal standards that had protected the right to abortion for almost 50 years, the abortion landscape in the United States has drastically changed. Abortion is banned in 14 states and an additional six states have implemented early gestational limits between 6 and 15 weeks.

Abortion will likely be a key issue in the upcoming 2024 election . The Democratic and Republican parties have starkly different visions of what access to abortion in the U.S. should look like. Vice President and Democratic Nominee Kamala Harris has been an outspoken advocate of abortion rights and has thrown her support behind efforts to restore Roe v. Wade’ s abortion standards in all states. Former President Donald Trump endorses leaving abortion policy up to states, allowing full bans to stay in effect, although he has also previously said he would consider a 15 or 16-week national ban on abortion. At the state level, voters in up to 11 states will vote on abortion-related ballot initiatives that will shape access to abortion in their states.

This brief provides new information about women’s experiences with abortion, the fallout of overturning Roe v. Wade , women’s knowledge about abortion laws in their states including medication abortion, as well as their opinions on the legality of abortion. The 2024 KFF Women’s Health Survey was fielded from May 15 to June 18, 2024, before President Biden withdrew from the 2024 Presidential race, and was developed and analyzed by KFF staff. It is a nationally representative survey of 5,055 women and 1,191 men ages 18 to 64, and the findings in this brief are based on a sample of 3,901 women ages 18 to 49. See the methodology section for detailed definitions, sampling design, and margins of sampling error.

Women’s Experiences With Abortion

Among women of reproductive age, one in seven (14%) report having had an abortion at some point in their life. Larger shares of Black (21%) and Hispanic (19%) women report having had an abortion compared to 11% of White women ( Figure 1 ). A higher share of women with lower incomes had an abortion (17%) compared to women with higher incomes (13%).

Smaller shares of women living in rural areas report having had an abortion compared to those living in urban/suburban areas (7% vs. 15%, respectively). Many rural women face long travel distances to access abortion services.

Similar shares of Republican women (12%), independent women (15%), and Democratic women (14%) say they have had an abortion. Throughout this brief, partisans include independents who lean to either party, while independents are individuals who say they do not lean toward either political party. Nearly one in 10 women (8%) who currently identify as pro-life say they have had an abortion compared to almost one in five (17%) who currently identify as pro-choice.

Smaller shares of women living in states with abortion bans or gestational limits between 15 and 22 weeks have had an abortion compared to women living in states with gestational limits at or after 24 weeks or without any gestational limits. Even before the Dobbs decision, abortion access was very limited in many of the states that currently ban abortion or have gestational limits before viability. Most of these states had laws restricting access to abortion, including waiting periods, counseling and ultrasound requirements, and insurance coverage restrictions which resulted in the closure of many abortion clinics in the years preceding the Dobbs decision.

Among women who say they have ever wanted or needed an abortion, 15% (2% of all reproductive age women) report that at some point in their lives, they have wanted or needed an abortion that they did not get ( Figure 2 ). A larger share of Black women (24%) (5% of all Black women of reproductive age) who have ever been pregnant and have wanted or needed an abortion report that they have wanted or needed an abortion they did not get compared to White women (12%) (1% of all White women of reproductive age). When asked why they did not get a wanted or needed abortion, a third (33%) report access and affordability issues, with affordability issues making up the majority of the category. One in five women also identify religious, moral, or societal pressures as the reason why they did not get the abortion, and another 16% say they changed their mind or couldn’t go through with the abortion. One in 10 women say they were too far along to end the pregnancy. Among the women who report ever wanting or needing an abortion they did not get, 31% say they had an abortion at some other time (data not shown).

In their own words: There are many reasons why someone may not get an abortion. What was the reason you did not get the abortion(s)?

“Unable to afford the procedure and would be reaching [the] point where it would be too late to complete if able.”

“Was a day over the amount of days in order to have an abortion. I waited too long to get it.”

“Changed my mind. Decided to keep the baby but was initially scared and unsure of what to do.”

“I decided I wanted to keep and raise my child despite societal pressures that would advise against it (I was a minor).”

“My family made me feel like I couldn’t and I was scared so I followed through with my pregnancy.”

“I was intimidated by the child’s father showing up at the clinic.”

“I could not afford to go out of state and had no way out of [the] state.”

“Ended up miscarrying before proceeding with appointment.”

“I was too far along in the pregnancy when I found out I was pregnant”

“Religious reasons. We are Catholic and it’s not an option for us.”

“The service wasn’t easily accessible to me, and my partner’s family pressured me into having the child.”

“Guilt, moral compass”

“Nurse convinced me not to get it.”

“I could not afford it at the time and unsure if I really wanted to do it.”

“Family pressure, difficulty finding a place to perform an abortion.”

“I lived an hour and a half from the location and my ride didn’t show up.”

The Impact of Overturning Roe

Two years after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, 14 states have banned abortion, and 11 states have implemented gestational restrictions between 6 and 22 weeks LMP (last menstrual period). Nationally, 8% of reproductive age women say they personally know someone, including themselves, who has had difficulty getting abortion care since Roe was overturned due to the restrictions in their state ( Figure 3 ). Larger shares of Hispanic women (11%) than White women (8%) report knowing someone who has experienced difficulty getting an abortion. Similarly, larger shares of women living in states with abortion bans (13%) and women living in states with gestational limits between 6 and 12 weeks (11%) report knowing someone who has experienced difficulty compared to women living in states with gestational limits at or after 24 weeks or without gestational limits (6%). Even in states with few abortion restrictions, access to abortion services can be limited by lack of providers, poor coverage, and other factors.

Among those who say they know someone (including themselves) who had difficulty getting abortion care since Roe was overturned, the majority report they (or the person they knew) had to travel out of state (68%) ( Figure 4 ). Women with higher incomes who say they or someone they know had difficulty accessing abortion care are more likely to report that they or the person they know had to travel out of state compared to women with lower incomes (75% vs. 62%). Many abortion patients living in states with abortion bans or restrictions have to travel to neighboring states to get abortion care, while others may need to travel farther .

Among women who say they or someone they know had difficulty accessing abortion, four in ten women say they or a person they know did not know where to go when trying to get an abortion (40%), three in ten women say they could not afford the cost (35%), and nearly three in ten say they had to take time off work (28%).

When asked about women’s ability to get abortion services in their state, more than half of women residing in states with abortion bans (57%) and over four in ten women in states with gestational limits say it is difficult to access abortion care in their state (Figure 5). Notably, one in five (21%) women residing in states with gestational limits at or after 24 weeks or without gestational limits say it is difficult to get abortion services in their state. While abortion may not be restricted, limitations on Medicaid and insurance coverage of abortion, the scarcity of abortion providers in rural communities, stigma, and other factors (such as the need to take time off from work and childcare costs) are still barriers to abortion.

O ver six in ten reproductive age women in the U.S. (63%) are concerned that they or someone close to them would not be able to get an abortion if it was needed to preserve their life or health (Figure 6). While all states with abortion bans and abortion restrictions have an exception in their law to “prevent the death” or “preserve the life” of the pregnant person, six states with abortion bans or early gestational restrictions do not have health exceptions. In general, health exceptions have often proven to be unworkable except in the most extreme circumstances. The abortion policies in these states are generally unclear about how ill or close to death a pregnant person would have to be to qualify for the exception.

With the exception of Republican women, a majority of reproductive age women in all subgroups report that they are very or somewhat concerned about access to abortion if it was needed to preserve their life or health. Larger shares of Asian or Pacific Islander women (75%) than White women (61%) are concerned, and smaller shares of women residing in rural areas (52%) are concerned compared to those residing in urban/suburban areas (65%). Compared to Democratic women (78%), smaller shares of women who identify as independent (61%) are concerned that they or someone close to them would not be able to get an abortion if it was needed to preserve their life or health; however, less than half of Republican women report being somewhat or very concerned (41%).

Similarly, over 6 in 10 (64%) reproductive age women say they are concerned that abortion bans may affect the safety of a potential future pregnancy for themselves or someone close to them ( Figure 7 ). Across most subgroups—except across party affiliation— majorities of women say that they are somewhat or very concerned. Four in ten (39%) Republican women say they are concerned about the impact of abortion bans on the safety of potential pregnancies for themselves or someone close to them, compared to almost eight in 10 Democratic women and six in 10 independent women.

Nearly one in five women (17%) of reproductive age report they have changed their contraceptive practices as a result of Roe being overturned. Larger shares of Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and Hispanic women report they started to use birth control (9%, 10%, and 7%, respectively) compared to White women (3%) ( Table 1 ). A higher share of Asian or Pacific Islander women report that they have switched to a more effective method of birth control compared to White women (6% vs. 3%), and 7% of Hispanic women report that they have gotten emergency contraception to have on hand compared to 4% of White women.

Awareness of Abortion Availability and Policy

Nationally, most women of reproductive age are unaware of the status of abortion legality in the state they live in. While 45% can correctly describe the status of abortion in their state, 23% of reproductive age women could not answer correctly and another third (33%) say they are not sure ( Figure 8 ). Awareness is highest among women who live in states where abortion is fully banned (51%) or in states with gestational limits at or after 24 weeks or without bans (47%). Smaller shares of women living in states with gestational limits at 15 to 22 weeks (33%) and limits at 6 to 12 weeks (38%) are aware of the status of abortion in their state. Consistently across state abortion groupings, about a third of women say they are not sure on the status of abortion in their state.

One in four (26%) women of reproductive age in the U.S. report that if they needed or wanted an abortion in the near future they would not know where to go or where to find the information (Figure 9). A quarter of women say they would know where to go for an abortion and half (49%) say they would not know where to go, but would know where to find that information. Since the Dobbs decision, websites like abortionfinder.org and ineedana.com provide individuals seeking abortion services with directories of abortion clinics and services that provide medication abortion via telehealth.

Over a third of Hispanic women (37%) and a third of Black women (33%) report that if they wanted or needed an abortion in the near future, they wouldn’t know where to find information compared to 23% of White women. More women with lower incomes (37%) and women living in rural areas (35%) report they wouldn’t know where to go or find that information compared to women with higher incomes (19%) and women living in urban/suburban areas (25%). Over four in 10 (43%) women living in states where abortion is banned say they wouldn’t know where to find information compared to 17% of women in states with gestational limits at or after 24 weeks or without gestational limits. Women living in banned states seeking abortion services must either travel out of state or obtain medication abortion drugs from companies that will ship pills without requiring a clinician visit or from clinicians practicing in states with shield-laws, which offer clinicians a measure of legal protection from attempts by law authorities in abortion ban states to enforce bans in states that support abortion access.

In the United States, medication abortion is the most common abortion method. It involves taking two different medications, mifepristone and misoprostol, and it has been approved by the FDA to end pregnancies up to 10 weeks gestation. Two-thirds (67%) of women of reproductive age report that they have heard about medication abortion ( Figure 10 ). While still majorities, relatively smaller shares of Asian or Pacific Islander (62%), Black (64%), and Hispanic (59%) women report having heard about medication abortion compared to White women (72%). Similarly, smaller shares of women with lower incomes (60%) have heard about medication abortion compared to women with higher incomes (74%). Compared to women who identify as pro-choice (72%) and women who are Democrats (77%), smaller shares of women who identify as pro-life (56%) or are Republican/Republican leaning (62%) or independents (60%) report hearing of medication abortion.

The majority of women are unsure of the legal status of abortion in their state. While neither mifepristone nor misoprostol are explicitly banned in any state and the drugs can still be used for miscarriage management treatment, their use for abortion is banned in the 14 states with abortion bans. Medication abortion, for the purposes of abortion, is legal in all states with gestational restrictions as well as states without any limits, but is not legal to use for abortion after the state’s gestational limit (for example, after 6 weeks LMP in Iowa, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina).

The majority of women of reproductive age are unclear about the legal status of medication abortion in their state, regardless of the legal status of abortion in their state ( Figure 11 ). A larger share of women living in states with gestational limits at 24 weeks or without gestational limits (43%) report that medication abortion is legal in their state compared to women living in states with gestational limits between 6 to 12 weeks (19%) and gestational limits between 15 to 22 weeks (18%). Among women living in states where abortion is banned, 6% say medication abortion is legal in their state and 27% say it is illegal. Regardless of the status of abortion in their state of residence, majorities of women of reproductive age are not aware of the legal status of medication abortion in their state or have never heard of medication abortion.

Overall, only one in five (19%) women of reproductive age are aware that medication abortion pills are available online. Since state abortion bans and restrictions have gone into effect, new online services have been created that sell medication abortion pills through online organizations. Among women of reproductive age, 10% say individuals in their state cannot get medication abortion pills online and about three-quarter (71%) were unsure or had never heard of medication abortion ( Figure 12 ). Small shares of women living in states where abortion is banned or states with gestational limits know that people in their states can get medication abortion pills online compared to women living in states without any gestational limits or limits after 24 weeks.

Opinions on Abortion Policy

Three in four (75%) women of reproductive age in the United States, the age group that is most directly impacted by state abortion policies, think that abortion should be legal in most or all cases—38% say legal in all cases and 37% legal in most cases. Only 8% of women say that abortion should be illegal in all cases. This trend is consistent with prior polls which have found that the majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal.

Across various subgroups, except those who identify as Republican or pro-life, majorities of reproductive age women think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Among those ages 18 to 49, over eight in 10 Black women (83%) and Asian or Pacific Islander women (83%), and almost three-quarters of Hispanic women (73%) and White women (72%) think abortion should be legal ( Figure 13 ). In contrast, slightly less than half (48%) of Republican women of reproductive age think abortion should be legal, 36% say abortion should be illegal in most cases and 17% say abortion should be illegal in all cases. Not surprisingly, among women who identify as pro-life, 74% say that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, but one in four (25%) believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Seven in ten reproductive age women (70%) support a law guaranteeing a federal right to abortion, with half (50%) saying they strongly support this (Figure 17) . While similar shares of Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White reproductive age women support a nationwide right to abortion, support varies widely by income, urbanicity, and party affiliation ( Figure 14 ). Though still a majority, smaller shares of reproductive age women with lower incomes (64%) and women who live in rural communities (62%) support a nationwide right to abortion compared to their urban/suburban (71%) and higher income counterparts (74%). Support is strongest among Democratic (84%) women, but two thirds (64%) of women who identify as independents and nearly half of Republican women (48%) strongly or somewhat support establishing a federal right to abortion. More than three times as many Democrats (71%) than Republicans (22%) strongly support a law that would guarantee this right.

More than half of all women of reproductive age support a law establishing a nationwide right to abortion, regardless of the abortion status in their state of residence. While there are smaller shares of support among women who reside in states with bans and gestational limits before viability, over four in 10 women in these states strongly support a law guaranteeing a federal right to abortion.

On the issue of abortion, former President Trump has previously said he would consider a national ban at 15 or 16 weeks, a position also proposed by other Republican elected officials. Overall, six in ten women of reproductive age (63%) oppose a law that would establish a nationwide ban on abortion at 15 weeks ( Figure 15 ). While still a majority, smaller shares of those with lower incomes (58%) and those who reside in rural areas (55%) oppose a national abortion ban at 15 weeks. Six in ten women in states with abortion bans and gestational limits before viability oppose a national ban on abortion at 15 weeks.

Most recently, former President Trump announced he supports leaving abortion policy up to the individual states, allowing the current bans and restrictions to stay in effect across half the country. Overall, nearly three in four women of reproductive age (74%) oppose this approach ( Figure 16 ). Similar shares of Asian (72%), Black (75%), Hispanic (75%), and White (72%) reproductive age women oppose leaving abortion policy up to the states. Compared to their counterparts, larger shares of women with higher incomes (76%) and those who live in urban/suburban communities (74%) oppose having states decide whether abortion should be legal or illegal in their states.

At least half of all women oppose this approach regardless of party affiliation, but opposition is highest among Democratic women (88%). While there is slight variation in support/opposition by abortion status in a woman’s state of residence, over two thirds of those in states with abortion bans and gestational limits oppose leaving the legality of abortion up to individual states.

• Women's Health Policy
• Women's Health Survey
• Women and Girls/Gender
• Reproductive Health
• TOPLINE & METHODOLOGY

Also of Interest

• Women and Abortion in Florida: Findings from the 2024 KFF Women’s Health Survey
• Women and Abortion in Arizona: Findings from the 2024 KFF Women’s Health Survey
• Abortion in the United States Dashboard
• 2024 Women’s Health Survey

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Pro and Con: Abortion

To access extended pro and con arguments, sources, and discussion questions about whether abortion should be legal, go to ProCon.org .

The debate over whether abortion should be a legal option has long divided people around the world. Split into two groups, pro-choice and pro-life, the two sides frequently clash in protests.

A June 2, 2022 Gallup poll , 55% of Americans identified as “pro-choice,” the highest percentage since 1995. 39% identified as “pro-life,” and 5% were neither or unsure. For the first time in the history of the poll question (since 2001), 52% of Americans believe abortion is morally acceptable. 38% believed the procedure to be morally wrong, and 10% answered that it depended on the situation or they were unsure.

Surgical abortion (aka suction curettage or vacuum curettage) is the most common type of abortion procedure. It involves using a suction device to remove the contents of a pregnant woman’s uterus. Surgical abortion performed later in pregnancy (after 12-16 weeks) is called D&E (dilation and evacuation). The second most common abortion procedure, a medical abortion (aka an “abortion pill”), involves taking medications, usually mifepristone and misoprostol (aka RU-486), within the first seven to nine weeks of pregnancy to induce an abortion. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 67% of abortions performed in 2014 were performed at or less than eight weeks’ gestation, and 91.5% were performed at or less than 13 weeks’ gestation. 77.3% were performed by surgical procedure, while 22.6% were medical abortions. An abortion can cost from $500 to over $1,000 depending on where it is performed and how long into the pregnancy it is.

• Abortion is a safe medical procedure that protects lives.
• Abortion bans endangers healthcare for those not seeking abortions.
• Abortion bans deny bodily autonomy, creating wide-ranging repercussions.
• Life begins at conception, making abortion murder.
• Legal abortion promotes a culture in which life is disposable.
• Increased access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education would make abortion unnecessary.

This article was published on June 24, 2022, at Britannica’s ProCon.org , a nonpartisan issue-information source.

Abortion Access

The u.s. supreme court has ended the federal constitutional right to abortion — handing our power to control our own bodies to politicians., take action: bans off our bodies.

Politicians opposed to abortion rights have made it clear that their ultimate goal is to ban abortion nationwide. Join the fight for our right to make decisions about our bodies, lives, and futures!

3 Facts on Abortion

Abortion is health care.

No one is free unless they control their own body. Abortion is an essential part of sexual and reproductive health care. Both in-clinic and medication abortions are very safe.

Abortion Is Common

Nearly a fourth of women in America will have an abortion by age 45. Abortion has been practiced for thousands of years in cultures throughout the world.

Abortion Is a Basic Right

The ability to control your own personal medical decisions, including whether to end a pregnancy, is a fundamental human right. Restricting abortion access is dangerous and inhumane. 

You should have the right to control your own body.

And yet, on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade — the case that had recognized the federal constitutional right to abortion in 1973. The Supreme Court’s new ruling means that we have lost federal constitutional protection for abortion.

This devastating decision turns back the clock on reproductive rights 50 years. It gives politicians the authority to make decisions for you. And it lets them control what your future will look like.

Now, abortion bans will spread across much of the country.

But the abortion rights movement is strong, and we’re not backing down. Planned Parenthood Action Fund is fighting even harder for the rights of all people — and generations to come — to live the life they choose. We just need one thing: your support.

Join us in the fight for our right to make decisions about our bodies, lives, and futures!

Roe v. Wade

• Roe v. Wade: What We've Lost
• Roe v. Wade: Behind the Case

Abortion in U.S. History

Abortion's Deep Roots in America’s History

Abortion Law Historical Timeline: 1850 to Today

The Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade , the case that had recognized the constitutional right to abortion for 49 years.

Here’s what that means.

What Happened

The U.S. Supreme Court is now dominated by justices hostile to our freedom — and in June 2022, the court took away our federal constitutional right to abortion. This ruling robbed us of our power to make personal decisions about our own bodies, and gave that control to politicians.

This decision overturns nearly 50 years of precedent. And it goes against the will of the American people, 80% of whom believe that abortion should be legal.

What’s Next

Abortion bans have already taken effect in some states. In others, the Supreme Court’s outrageous decision is fueling efforts by narrow-minded politicians to ban abortion soon.

Abortion bans can trap people into inhumane situations, forcing them to remain pregnant or — if they have the resources — to travel hundreds or thousands of miles for a legal abortion.

But politicians who oppose abortion won’t stop with state bans. They ultimately want to ban abortion nationwide and make safe, legal abortion completely impossible.

What We’re Doing

We are outraged and ready to fight like hell.

No judge, no politician, no law should ever block your personal medical decisions or set the course for your life. Abortion access should not be based on your ZIP code, income level, or immigration status.

Types of State Restrictions on Abortion

"Personhood," insurance bans, waiting periods, biased counseling, and more

What are TRAP Laws?

Federal and State Bans and Restrictions on Abortion

• Hyde Amendment
• 20-Week Bans

Where Is Abortion Accessible?

Look up your state to find current abortion laws — and learn how your access to abortion may have changed now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade .

How We Got Here

Abortion bans began in America in the late 1800s and early 1900s, when men in power sought to strategically control the country’s women and reproduction. State bans caused abortion care to go underground. But advocates for the right to access abortion fought back. And in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized abortion as a constitutional right in its Roe v. Wade decision. 

In the decades since, abortion opponents stacked federal courts with anti-abortion judges ; passed abortion bans ; spread deceptions ; imposed arbitrary restrictions ; and waged one legal battle after another. Now, they have reversed Roe v. Wade .

Abortion Bans Harm People of Color

Abortion bans are a product of the historic and systemic barriers to health care that too many communities face every day.  

America’s legacy of racism and discrimination has already blocked access to care and opportunity — generation after generation — for Black, Latino, Indigenous, and other people of color. Abortion bans harm them the most.

Abortion bans and restrictions also fall hard on people with low incomes , for whom the cost of transportation, childcare, and time off work often conspire to put abortion out of reach — even where it is legal.

Blogs About Abortion

Outrage: u.s. supreme court takes away federal constitutional right to abortion.

On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade — throwing out the 1973 decision that recognized abortion as a constitutional right, and handing politicians across the country the power to make decisions about our bodies, our lives, and our futures.

Anti-abortion Members of Congress Proposing Nationwide Six-Week Ban

The Supreme Court plans to end the constitutional right to abortion — taking away our power to control our own bodies — and politicians aim to outlaw abortion across the United States, no matter where you live. We're fighting back.

Abortion Bans and Restrictions Mount in States Across the Country Just 2 Months Into 2022

Emboldened by a Supreme Court decision that could end the constitutional right to abortion this spring, politicians opposed to abortion rights have wasted no time advancing laws to harshly restrict abortion or ban it entirely. 

Planned Parenthood health centers are proud to continue providing safe, legal abortion.

No matter what, Planned Parenthood believes you deserve accurate information and access to the full range of reproductive health care services — including safe, legal abortion — so you can make your own, fully informed health-care decisions.

Abortion Access: Timeline of Attacks 2009–2022

Here are key attacks on abortion providers and abortion rights in the past decade.

See the full timeline

2009: Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider, is assassinated while attending church in Kansas

2010 : Swept up by hostility to health-care legislation, anti-abortion politicians win elections to Congress and state legislatures — and then use gerrymandering and voting restrictions to entrench themselves in office.

2011 : Thirty-six states enact a then-record 92 new abortion restrictions .

2012 : Nineteen states enact 43 new abortion restrictions .

2013 : Ignoring mass protests, anti-abortion Texas politicians enact sweeping abortion restrictions . In the following three years, half of Texas's approximately 40 abortion providers close , leaving many people to travel hundreds of miles or cross states lines to get an abortion

2014 : Fifteen states enact 26 new abortion restrictions , including two bans on abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy — bringing the total of states enacting 20-week abortion bans to 13 .

2015 : Anti-abortion extremists linked to the group that killed Dr. Tiller release misleading, deceptive smear videos to demonize abortion providers and smear Planned Parenthood.

2016 : Anti-abortion Justice Antonin Scalia dies, setting up a fight for the future of the U.S. Supreme Court.  In an unprecedented step, anti-abortion Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refuses to start the confirmation process to fill the vacancy. Then, despite running close to 3 million votes behind his opponent, Donald Trump wins enough electoral votes to become president-elect.

2017 : Trump attacks abortion access — and swiftly moves on his promise to name judges who would “automatically” overturn Roe v. Wade .

2018 : Trump appoints — and the Senate confirms — a second anti-abortion Supreme Court justice, Brett Kavanaugh.

2019:  The Trump-Pence administration issues a   Title X gag rule  in an attempt to ban providers in the  Title X program  from telling millions of patients  how they can safely and legally access abortion  — and “defund” Planned Parenthood health centers by making it impossible for Title X patients to obtain birth control there.

Some anti-abortion politicians seized on the COVID-19 pandemic to try to impose abortion bans.  See the timeline of the new coronavirus-based abortion bans and our fight against them.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies, and the U.S. Senate majority rushes to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett as Ginsburg’s replacement.

In one of the most extreme abortion bans this country has ever seen, politicians, neighbors, and even complete strangers can sue anyone who helps a person access an abortion in Texas after six weeks.

Other states follow Texas’s lead by introducing “copycat” legislation.

​​​​​​​ Abortion restrictions mount across the country, including restrictions on medication abortion . Unprecedented abortion bans become law in Florida , Oklahoma , Arizona , and Idaho .

The U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade , opening the floodgates for more states to ban abortion.

Related Content

77% of Americans Want Abortion to Remain Safe and Legal

What You Need to Know About Trump’s Lies About Abortions Later in Pregnancy

Don’t Call 6-Week Abortion Bans “Heartbeat” Bills. Here’s Why.

What You Need to Know About the Wave of Unconstitutional Abortion Bans in the States

This website uses cookies

Planned Parenthood cares about your data privacy. We and our third-party vendors use cookies and other tools to collect, store, monitor, and analyze information about your interaction with our site to improve performance, analyze your use of our sites and assist in our marketing efforts. You may opt out of the use of these cookies and other tools at any time by visiting Cookie Settings . By clicking “Allow All Cookies” you consent to our collection and use of such data, and our Terms of Use . For more information, see our Privacy Notice .

Cookie Settings

Planned Parenthood cares about your data privacy. We and our third-party vendors, use cookies, pixels, and other tracking technologies to collect, store, monitor, and process certain information about you when you access and use our services, read our emails, or otherwise engage with us. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device. We use that information to make the site work, analyze performance and traffic on our website, to provide a more personalized web experience, and assist in our marketing efforts. We also share information with our social media, advertising, and analytics partners. You can change your default settings according to your preference. You cannot opt-out of our Necessary Cookies as they are deployed to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting the cookie banner and remembering your settings, to log into your account, to redirect you when you log out, etc.). For more information, please see our Privacy Notice .

We use online advertising to promote our mission and help constituents find our services. Marketing pixels help us measure the success of our campaigns.

Performance

We use qualitative data, including session replay, to learn about your user experience and improve our products and services.

We use web analytics to help us understand user engagement with our website, trends, and overall reach of our products.

Abortion: What it is and why people disagree whether it should be legal

And why you’re hearing so much about it right now.

⭐️HERE’S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW⭐️

• A U.S. Supreme Court ruling has determined that states will get to decide how abortions are regulated.
• An abortion is a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy.
• This means in some American states, abortions will become illegal.
• Abortion is legal in Canada and not affected by the U.S. decision.
• Some people agree with this decision, but others say abortion should be a universal right for all who want it.
• Keep reading to understand the anti-abortion/pro-choice debate. ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️

On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a historic decision called Roe v. Wade.

The court’s new ruling limits a person’s right to have an abortion in the United States.

It’s expected to lead to abortion restrictions or outright bans in at least 13 U.S. states.

If you want to know more about the decision, read this article:

• Roe v. Wade was overturned. What does that mean?

If you want to know what an abortion is and why people disagree whether or not it should be allowed, keep reading.

Why are there different views on abortion?

Abortion can be controversial because not everyone agrees who should decide whether or not to end a pregnancy: the individual who is pregnant or the government.

Bernard Dickens, professor emeritus of health law and policy at the University of Toronto, has been studying the history of abortion and the laws relating to it for 50 years.

He says for some people who are pro-choice and support the right to abortion, the fact that the fetus is inside the individual's body means that they get to decide what happens to it.

Those who are anti-abortion oppose the decision to end a pregnancy with abortion and believe that the fetus is considered a person long before birth.

“From a religious or moral perspective, some people say that life begins earlier than birth, life begins at conception, when a woman becomes pregnant,” Dickens said.

Because those who are anti-abortion see the fetus as a living being, they believe that abortion is ending a life, and that the government should intervene to protect that life.

When do abortions happen?

In the U.S., federal statistics suggest that 94 per cent of abortions are performed at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy, which lasts about 40 weeks, or nine months.

Roughly 99 per cent of abortions are performed before 21 weeks of pregnancy (about four and a half months).

In Canada, the statistics are very similar.

Few health care providers in Canada or the U.S. perform abortions after 24 weeks (about five and a half months), unless the life of the person who is pregnant is at risk, if the fetus has serious complications, or in cases where a person has become pregnant as a result of a sexual assault.

Why do people have abortions?

According to Dickens, numerous factors can influence a person’s decision to have an abortion in the United States, including financial, medical and personal.

One of the common reasons is socioeconomic. In other words, some of the people who have had abortions said they couldn't afford to raise a child or add another child to their family.

According to a study done in 2014 by the Guttmacher Institute, a not-for-profit research organization that studies reproductive health:

• 59 per cent of people in the U.S. who chose abortions already have kids.
• 75 per cent of people who had had abortions lived below the poverty line of $15,730 US for a family of two. 

OK, now that you understand the background and you want to learn more about what led to the decision in the United States, read this article .

Have more questions? Want to tell us how we’re doing? Use the “send us feedback” link below. ⬇️⬇️⬇️

With files from The Associated Press

Was this story worth reading?

More stories you might like.

Should Abortion Be Legal?

This week marks the 47th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, as well as the 47th annual March for Life. Read pro and con quotes arguing for and against legal abortion.

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

Cite This Page

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• America’s Abortion Quandary

2. Social and moral considerations on abortion

Table of contents.

• 1. Americans’ views on whether, and in what circumstances, abortion should be legal
• Public views of what would change the number of abortions in the U.S.
• A majority of Americans say women should have more say in setting abortion policy in the U.S.
• How do certain arguments about abortion resonate with Americans?
• In their own words: How Americans feel about abortion 
• 3. How the issue of abortion touches Americans personally
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

Relatively few Americans view the morality of abortion in stark terms: Overall, just 7% of all U.S. adults say abortion is morally acceptable in all cases, and 13% say it is morally wrong in all cases. A third say that abortion is morally wrong in  most  cases, while about a quarter (24%) say it is morally acceptable most of the time. About an additional one-in-five do not consider abortion a moral issue.

There are wide differences on this question by political party and religious affiliation. Among Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party, most say that abortion is morally wrong either in most (48%) or all cases (20%). Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, meanwhile, only about three-in-ten (29%) hold a similar view. About four-in-ten Democrats say abortion is morally  acceptable  in most (32%) or all (11%) cases, while an additional 28% say abortion is not a moral issue. 

White evangelical Protestants overwhelmingly say abortion is morally wrong in most (51%) or all cases (30%). A slim majority of Catholics (53%) also view abortion as morally wrong, but many also say it is morally acceptable in most (24%) or all cases (4%), or that it is not a moral issue (17%). And among religiously unaffiliated Americans, about three-quarters see abortion as morally acceptable (45%) or not a moral issue (32%).

There is strong alignment between people’s views of whether abortion is morally wrong and whether it should be illegal. For example, among U.S. adults who take the view that abortion should be illegal in all cases without exception, fully 86% also say abortion is always morally wrong. The prevailing view among adults who say abortion should be legal in all circumstances is that abortion is not a moral issue (44%), though notable shares of this group also say it is morally acceptable in all (27%) or most (22%) cases. 

Most Americans who say abortion should be illegal with some exceptions take the view that abortion is morally wrong in  most  cases (69%). Those who say abortion should be legal with some exceptions are somewhat more conflicted, with 43% deeming abortion morally acceptable in most cases and 26% saying it is morally wrong in most cases; an additional 24% say it is not a moral issue. 

The survey also asked respondents who said abortion is morally wrong in at least some cases whether there are situations where abortion should still be legal  despite  being morally wrong. Roughly half of U.S. adults (48%) say that there are, in fact, situations where abortion is morally wrong but should still be legal, while just 22% say that whenever abortion is morally wrong, it should also be illegal. An additional 28% either said abortion is morally acceptable in all cases or not a moral issue, and thus did not receive the follow-up question.

Across both political parties and all major Christian subgroups – including Republicans and White evangelicals – there are substantially more people who say that there are situations where abortion should still be  legal  despite being morally wrong than there are who say that abortion should always be  illegal  when it is morally wrong.

Asked about the impact a number of policy changes would have on the number of abortions in the U.S., nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) say “more support for women during pregnancy, such as financial assistance or employment protections” would reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. Six-in-ten say the same about expanding sex education and similar shares say more support for parents (58%), making it easier to place children for adoption in good homes (57%) and passing stricter abortion laws (57%) would have this effect. 

While about three-quarters of White evangelical Protestants (74%) say passing stricter abortion laws would reduce the number of abortions in the U.S., about half of religiously unaffiliated Americans (48%) hold this view. Similarly, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say this (67% vs. 49%, respectively). By contrast, while about seven-in-ten unaffiliated adults (69%) say expanding sex education would reduce the number of abortions in the U.S., only about half of White evangelicals (48%) say this. Democrats also are substantially more likely than Republicans to hold this view (70% vs. 50%). 

Democrats are somewhat more likely than Republicans to say support for parents – such as paid family leave or more child care options – would reduce the number of abortions in the country (64% vs. 53%, respectively), while Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say making adoption into good homes easier would reduce abortions (64% vs. 52%).

Majorities across both parties and other subgroups analyzed in this report say that more support for women during pregnancy would reduce the number of abortions in America.

More than half of U.S. adults (56%) say women should have more say than men when it comes to setting policies around abortion in this country – including 42% who say women should have “a lot” more say. About four-in-ten (39%) say men and women should have equal say in abortion policies, and 3% say men should have more say than women. 

Six-in-ten women and about half of men (51%) say that women should have more say on this policy issue. 

Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say women should have more say than men in setting abortion policy (70% vs. 41%). Similar shares of Protestants (48%) and Catholics (51%) say women should have more say than men on this issue, while the share of religiously unaffiliated Americans who say this is much higher (70%).

Seeking to gauge Americans’ reactions to several common arguments related to abortion, the survey presented respondents with six statements and asked them to rate how well each statement reflects their views on a five-point scale ranging from “extremely well” to “not at all well.” 

The list included three statements sometimes cited by individuals wishing to protect a right to abortion: “The decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman,” “If legal abortions are too hard to get, then women will seek out unsafe abortions from unlicensed providers,” and “If legal abortions are too hard to get, then it will be more difficult for women to get ahead in society.” The first two of these resonate with the greatest number of Americans, with about half (53%) saying each describes their views “extremely” or “very” well. In other words, among the statements presented in the survey, U.S. adults are most likely to say that women alone should decide whether to have an abortion, and that making abortion illegal will lead women into unsafe situations.

The three other statements are similar to arguments sometimes made by those who wish to restrict access to abortions: “Human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights,” “If legal abortions are too easy to get, then people won’t be as careful with sex and contraception,” and “If legal abortions are too easy to get, then some pregnant women will be pressured into having an abortion even when they don’t want to.” 

Fewer than half of Americans say each of these statements describes their views extremely or very well. Nearly four-in-ten endorse the notion that “human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights” (26% say this describes their views extremely well, 12% very well), while about a third say that “if legal abortions are too easy to get, then people won’t be as careful with sex and contraception” (20% extremely well, 15% very well).

When it comes to statements cited by proponents of abortion rights, Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to identify with all three of these statements, as are religiously unaffiliated Americans compared with Catholics and Protestants. Women also are more likely than men to express these views – and especially more likely to say that decisions about abortion should fall solely to pregnant women and that restrictions on abortion will put women in unsafe situations. Younger adults under 30 are particularly likely to express the view that if legal abortions are too hard to get, then it will be difficult for women to get ahead in society.

In the case of the three statements sometimes cited by opponents of abortion, the patterns generally go in the opposite direction. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say each statement reflects their views “extremely” or “very” well, as are Protestants (especially White evangelical Protestants) and Catholics compared with the religiously unaffiliated. In addition, older Americans are more likely than young adults to say that human life begins at conception and that easy access to abortion encourages unsafe sex.

Gender differences on these questions, however, are muted. In fact, women are just as likely as men to say that human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights (39% and 38%, respectively).

Analyzing certain statements together allows for an examination of the extent to which individuals can simultaneously hold two views that may seem to some as in conflict. For instance, overall, one-in-three U.S. adults say that  both  the statement “the decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman” and the statement “human life begins at conception, so the fetus is a person with rights” reflect their own views at least somewhat well. This includes 12% of adults who say both statements reflect their views “extremely” or “very” well. 

Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to say both statements reflect their own views at least somewhat well (36% vs. 30%), although Republicans are much more likely to say  only  the statement about the fetus being a person with rights reflects their views at least somewhat well (39% vs. 9%) and Democrats are much more likely to say  only  the statement about the decision to have an abortion belonging solely to the pregnant woman reflects their views at least somewhat well (55% vs. 19%).

Additionally, those who take the stance that abortion should be legal in all cases with no exceptions are overwhelmingly likely (76%) to say only the statement about the decision belonging solely to the pregnant woman reflects their views extremely, very or somewhat well, while a nearly identical share (73%) of those who say abortion should be  illegal  in all cases with no exceptions say only the statement about human life beginning at conception reflects their views at least somewhat well.

When asked to describe whether they had any other additional views or feelings about abortion, adults shared a range of strong or complex views about the topic. In many cases, Americans reiterated their strong support – or opposition to – abortion in the U.S. Others reflected on how difficult or nuanced the issue was, offering emotional responses or personal experiences to one of two open-ended questions asked on the survey. 

One open-ended question asked respondents if they wanted to share any other views or feelings about abortion overall. The other open-ended question asked respondents about their feelings or views regarding abortion restrictions. The responses to both questions were similar. 

Overall, about three-in-ten adults offered a response to either of the open-ended questions. There was little difference in the likelihood to respond by party, religion or gender, though people who say they have given a “lot” of thought to the issue were more likely to respond than people who have not. 

Of those who did offer additional comments, about a third of respondents said something in support of legal abortion. By far the most common sentiment expressed was that the decision to have an abortion should be solely a personal decision, or a decision made jointly with a woman and her health care provider, with some saying simply that it “should be between a woman and her doctor.” Others made a more general point, such as one woman who said, “A woman’s body and health should not be subject to legislation.” 

About one-in-five of the people who responded to the question expressed disapproval of abortion – the most common reason being a belief that a fetus is a person or that abortion is murder. As one woman said, “It is my belief that life begins at conception and as much as is humanly possible, we as a society need to support, protect and defend each one of those little lives.” Others in this group pointed to the fact that they felt abortion was too often used as a form of birth control. For example, one man said, “Abortions are too easy to obtain these days. It seems more women are using it as a way of birth control.” 

About a quarter of respondents who opted to answer one of the open-ended questions said that their views about abortion were complex; many described having mixed feelings about the issue or otherwise expressed sympathy for both sides of the issue. One woman said, “I am personally opposed to abortion in most cases, but I think it would be detrimental to society to make it illegal. I was alive before the pill and before legal abortions. Many women died.” And one man said, “While I might feel abortion may be wrong in some cases, it is never my place as a man to tell a woman what to do with her body.” 

The remaining responses were either not related to the topic or were difficult to interpret.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Christianity
• Evangelicalism
• Political Issues
• Politics & Policy
• Protestantism
• Religion & Abortion
• Religion & Politics
• Religion & Social Values

Americans see many federal agencies favorably, but Republicans grow more critical of Justice Department

9 facts about americans and marijuana, nearly three-quarters of americans say it would be ‘too risky’ to give presidents more power, biden nears 100-day mark with strong approval, positive rating for vaccine rollout, biden begins presidency with positive ratings; trump departs with lowest-ever job mark, most popular, report materials.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Abortion — Why Abortion Should Be Legalized

Why Abortion Should Be Legalized

• Categories: Abortion Pro Choice (Abortion) Women's Health

About this sample

Words: 1331 |

Published: Jan 28, 2021

Words: 1331 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, why abortion should be legal.

• Gipson, J. D., Hirz, A. E., & Avila, J. L. (2011). Perceptions and practices of illegal abortion among urban young adults in the Philippines: a qualitative study. Studies in family planning, 42(4), 261-272. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1728-4465.2011.00289.x)
• Finer, L. B., & Hussain, R. (2013). Unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion in the Philippines: context and consequences. (https://www.guttmacher.org/report/unintended-pregnancy-and-unsafe-abortion-philippines-context-and-consequences?ref=vidupdatez.com/image)
• Flavier, J. M., & Chen, C. H. (1980). Induced abortion in rural villages of Cavite, the Philippines: Knowledge, attitudes, and practice. Studies in family planning, 65-71. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1965798)
• Gallen, M. (1979). Abortion choices in the Philippines. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/abs/abortion-choices-in-the-philippines/853B8B71F95FEBDD0D88AB65E8364509 Journal of Biosocial Science, 11(3), 281-288.
• Holgersson, K. (2012). Is There Anybody Out There?: Illegal Abortion, Social Work, Advocacy and Interventions in the Philippines. (https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A574793&dswid=4931)

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1067 words

2 pages / 893 words

2 pages / 963 words

3 pages / 1205 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Abortion

Abortion is a highly contentious issue that has been the subject of debate for many years. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is a deeply personal and often complex one, and it is important to consider the various pros and [...]

Abortion has been a controversial and hotly debated topic for decades, with strong opinions on both sides of the issue. One of the most fervently argued points against abortion is that it is considered murder. This essay will [...]

In America, abortion is the topic of heated debate in many women’s everyday life. Ever since the decision of Roe vs. Wade, protests have arisen against the uses of abortion. Those who protest against it were given the name [...]

Abortion is a controversial issue that has remained a topic of heated debate in the United States and other parts of the world. It is a medical procedure that involves terminating a pregnancy before the fetus is viable. While [...]

To discuss the topic of abortion pros and cons, this essay explores the heated debate surrounding the practice of terminating a pregnancy. Abortion has always been practiced since ancient times, bringing forth the idea of [...]

Abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy so that it does not result in the birth of a child. In order to have an abortion, women take the abortion pill or have a surgical abortion to remove the emyo or fetus and placenta from [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Health Hum Rights
• v.19(1); 2017 Jun

Abortion Law and Policy Around the World

Marge berer.

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.

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.

Toward a definition of decriminalization of abortion

In simple terms, the decriminalization of abortion means removing specific criminal sanctions against abortion from the law, and changing the law and related policies and regulations to achieve the following:

• not punishing anyone for providing safe abortion,
• not punishing anyone for having an abortion,
• not involving the police in investigating or prosecuting safe abortion provision or practice,
• not involving the courts in deciding whether to allow an abortion, and
• treating abortion like every other form of health care—that is, using best practice in service delivery, the training of providers, and the development and application of evidence-based guidelines, and applying existing law to deal with any dangerous or negligent practices.

Some history

Abortion was legally restricted in almost every country by the end of the nineteenth century. The most important sources of such laws were the imperial countries of Europe—Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, and Italy—who imposed their own laws forbidding abortion on their colonies.

According to the United Nations Population Division’s comprehensive website on abortion laws, legal systems under which abortion is legally restricted fall into three main categories, developed mostly during the period of colonialism from the sixteenth century onward:

• common law: the UK and most of its former colonies—Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, India, Ireland, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, the United States, and the Anglophone countries of Africa, the Caribbean, and Oceania;
• civil law: most of the rest of Europe, including Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain, and their former colonies, Turkey and Japan, most of Latin America, non-Anglophone sub-Saharan Africa, and the former Soviet republics of Central and Western Asia. In addition, the laws of several North African and Middle Eastern countries have been influenced by French civil law; and
• Islamic law: the countries of North Africa and Western Asia and others with predominantly Muslim populations, and having an influence on personal law, for example, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan. 1

Historically, restrictions on abortion were introduced for three main reasons:

• Abortion was dangerous and abortionists were killing a lot of women. Hence, the laws had a public health intention to protect women—who nevertheless sought abortions and risked their lives in doing so, as they still do today if they have no other choice.
• Abortion was considered a sin or a form of transgression of morality, and the laws were intended to punish and act as a deterrent.
• Abortion was restricted to protect fetal life in some or all circumstances.

Since abortion methods have become safe, laws against abortion make sense only for punitive and deterrent purposes, or to protect fetal life over that of women’s lives. While some prosecutions for unsafe abortions that cause injury or death still take place, far more often existing laws are being used against those having and providing safe abortions outside the law today. Ironically, it is restrictive abortion laws—leftovers from another age—that are responsible for the deaths and millions of injuries to women who cannot afford to pay for a safe illegal abortion.

This paper provides a panoramic view of current laws and policies on abortion in order to show that, from a global perspective, few of these laws makes any legal or public health sense. The fact is that the more restrictive the law, the more it is flouted, within and across borders. Whatever has led to the current impasse in law reform for women’s benefit—whether it is called stigma, misogyny, religion, morality, or political cowardice—few, if any, existing laws on abortion are fit for purpose.

Efforts to reform abortion law and practice since 1900

The first country to reform its abortion law was the Soviet Union, spurred by feminist Alexandra Kollantai, through a decree on women’s health care in October 1920. 2 Since then, progressive abortion law reform (the kind that benefits women) has been justified on public health and human rights grounds, to promote smaller families for population and environmental reasons, and because women’s education and improved socioeconomic status have created alternatives to childbearing. Perhaps most importantly, controlling fertility has become both technically feasible and acceptable in almost all cultures today. Yet despite 100 years of campaigning for safe abortion, the use of contraception has been completely decriminalized while abortion has not.

Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures if done following the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidance. 3 But it is also the cause of at least one in six maternal deaths from complications when it is unsafe. 4 In 2004, research by WHO based on estimates and data from all countries showed that the broader the legal grounds for abortion, the fewer deaths there are from unsafe abortions. 5 In fact, the research found that there are only six main grounds for allowing abortion apply in most countries:

• ground 1 – risk to life
• ground 2 – rape or sexual abuse
• ground 3 – serious fetal anomaly
• ground 4 – risk to physical and sometimes mental health
• ground 5 – social and economic reasons
• ground 6 – on request

With each additional ground, moving from ground 1 to 6, the findings show that the number of deaths falls. Countries with almost no deaths from unsafe abortion are those that allow abortion on request without restriction.

This is proof that that the best way to consign unsafe abortion to history is by removing all legal restrictions and providing universal access to safe abortion. But the question remains, how do we get from where things are now to where they could (and should) be?

Attempts to move from almost total criminalization to partial (let alone total) decriminalization of abortion have been slow and fraught with difficulties. Why? Because the best way to control women’s lives is through (the risk of) pregnancy. The traditional belief that women should accept “all the children God gives,” the recent glorification of the fetus as having more value than the woman it is dependent on, and male-dominated culture are all used extremely effectively to justify criminal restrictions. Nevertheless, the need for abortion is one of the defining experiences of having a uterus.

Globally, 25% of pregnancies ended in induced abortion in 2010–2014, including in countries with high rates of contraceptive prevalence. 6 Increasingly, thanks to years of effective campaigning, more and more women are defending the need for abortion, as well as the right to a safe abortion—and access to it if and when they need it. Moreover, a growing number of governments, in both the Global North and more recently the Global South, have begun to acknowledge that preventing unsafe abortions is part of their commitment to reducing avoidable maternal deaths and their obligations under international human rights law.

While some people still wish that this could be achieved through a higher prevalence of contraceptive use or post-abortion care alone, the facts are against it. Those facts include both the occurrence of contraceptive failure among those who do use a method and the failure to use contraception, both of which are common events and sexual behaviors.

The role of international human rights bodies in calling for law reform

A new layer of involvement in advocacy for safe abortion, based on an analysis of how existing laws affect women and girls and whether they meet international human rights standards, has emerged in recent years. United Nations human rights bodies—including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Committee on Economic, Social and Political Rights, the Working Group on discrimination against women in law and practice, and the Special Rapporteurs on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the rights of women in Africa, and torture—have played an increasingly visible role in calling for progressive abortion law reform. 7

Regional bodies such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) have been very active in this regard as well. The ACHPR called in January 2016 for the decriminalization of abortion across Africa, in line with the Maputo Protocol, and renewed that call in January 2017, making waves across the region. 8

Legalize or decriminalize: What’s in a word?

Interestingly, no human rights body has gone so far as to call for abortion to be permitted at the request of the woman, yet many have called for abortion to be decriminalized. This raises the question of what is understood in different quarters by the term “decriminalization.”

For many years, the abortion rights movement internationally has called for “safe, legal abortion.” More recently, calls for the “decriminalization of abortion” have also emerged. Do these mean the same thing? In simplistic terms, they might be differentiated like this: legalizing abortion means keeping abortion in the law in some form by identifying the grounds on which it is allowed, while decriminalizing abortion means removing criminal sanctions against abortion altogether.

In that sense, abortion is legal on one or more grounds (mostly as exceptions to the law) in all but a few countries today, while Canada stands out as the only country to date that, through a Supreme Court decision in 1988, effectively decriminalized abortion altogether. 9 No other country, no matter how liberal its law reform, has been willing to take abortion completely out of the law that delimits it.

However, this distinction is often not what is meant. Instead, the two terms are used interchangeably—that is, abortion may be legalized or decriminalized on some or all grounds. No one is likely to be able to change this lack of differentiation in terminology. Nevertheless, it is crucial when recommending abortion law reform to be clear what exactly is and is not intended. I will come back to this later in the paper, after exploring the complexity of the changes being called for, no matter which of the two terms is used.

The law on abortion in countries today

Criminal restrictions on the practice of abortion are contained in statute law—in other words, laws passed by legislatures, sometimes as part of criminal or penal codes, which consolidate a group of criminal statutes. In the UK, for example, abortion was criminalized in sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act of 1861, with one aspect further defined in the Infant Life Preservation Act of 1929, and then allowed on certain grounds and conditions in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland) in the 1967 Abortion Act, which was then amended further in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990. In the 1967 Abortion Act, legal grounds for abortion are set out as exceptions to the criminal law, yet the 1861 act is still in force and still being used to prosecute illegal abortions today. 10

Ireland, formerly a part of the UK, was also subject to the 1861 Offences against the Person Act and revoked sections 58–59 only in the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act of 2013, which imposed its own almost total criminalization of abortion. 11 Sierra Leone, a former British colony, also revoked the 1861 Offences against the Person Act in the Safe Abortion Act, passed in December 2015 and again a second time unanimously in February 2016. That act allows abortion on request during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and until week 24 in cases of rape, incest, or risk to health of the fetus or the woman or girl, but it was not finally signed into law. 12

At the end of the twentieth century, abortion was legally permitted to save the life of the woman in 98% of the world’s countries. 13 The proportion of countries allowing abortion on other grounds was as follows: to preserve the woman’s physical health (63%); to preserve the woman’s mental health (62%); in case of rape, sexual abuse, or incest (43%); fetal anomaly or impairment (39%); economic or social reasons (33%); and on request (27%).

The number of countries in 2002 that permitted each of these grounds varied greatly by region. Thus, abortion was permitted upon request in 65% of developed countries but only 14% of developing countries, and for economic and social reasons in 75% of developed countries but only 19% of developing countries. 14 Some countries permit additional grounds for abortion, such as if the woman has HIV, is under the age of 16 or over the age of 40, is not married, or has many children. A few also allow it to protect existing children or because of contraceptive failure. 15

These percentages, published in 2002, are out of date, but they have not changed dramatically. In late 2017, research updating the world’s laws on abortion and adding new information about related policies, conducted under the aegis of the Department of Reproductive Health and Research/Human Reproductive Programme at WHO, will be incorporated into the United Nations Population Division’s website. 16

Regulating abortion

There is much more to this story, however. In addition to statute law, other ways to liberalize, restrict, or regulate access to abortion, which also have legal standing, include the following:

• national constitutions in at least 20 countries, such as the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution (1983) in Ireland;
• supreme court decisions, such as in the United States (1973, 2016), Canada (1988), Colombia (2006), and Brazil (2012), as well as higher court decisions, such as in India (2016, 2017) allowing individual women abortions beyond the 20-week upper limit;
• customary or religious law, such as interpretations of Muslim law that allow abortion up to 120 days in Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates but do not allow abortion at all in other majority Muslim countries;
• regulations that require confidentiality on the part of health professionals on the one hand, but on the other hand require health professionals to report a criminal act they may learn of, for example, while providing treatment for complications of unsafe abortion;
• medical ethical codes, which, for example, allow or disallow conscientious objection; and
• clinical and other regulatory standards and guidelines governing the provision of abortion, such as reporting guidelines, disciplinary procedures, parental or spousal consent, and restrictions on which health professionals may provide abortions and where, who may approve an abortion, and which methods may be used—as adjuncts to (though not always formally part of) the law.

Reed Boland has found that the distinction between laws and regulations governing abortion is not always clear and that some countries, usually those where abortion laws are highly restrictive, have issued no regulations at all. In the most complex cases, there are multiple texts over many years which may contain conflicting provisions and obscure and outdated language. The upshot may be that no one is sure when abortion is actually allowed and when it isn’t, which may serve to stop it being provided safely and openly at all. 17

Uganda is a case in point. According to a recently published paper by Amanda Cleeve et al., Uganda’s Constitution and Penal Code conflict with each other, leading to ambiguous interpretations and lack of awareness of the fact that abortion is legal to protect women’s health and life. Moreover, while Uganda has a national reproductive health policy, it is not supported in law and is not being implemented. In 2015, in order to clarify this situation, the minister of health and other stakeholders developed Standards and Evidence-based Guidelines on the Prevention of Unsafe Abortion . These included details of who can provide abortions, and where and how, and assigned health service responsibilities, such as level of care and post-abortion care. However, the guidelines were withdrawn in January 2016 due to religious and political opposition. 18

Post-abortion care to treat the consequences of unsafe abortions has been instituted since it was approved in the International Conference on Population and Development’s Programme of Action in 1994, in countries where there was little or no prospect of law reform, as a stopgap measure, to save lives. But this has not been a success in African countries such as Tanzania, where, under the 1981 Revised Penal Code, it remains unclear whether abortion is legal to preserve a woman’s physical or mental health or her life, and where 16% of maternal deaths are still due to unsafe abortions. 19 Although the government has tried to expand the availability of post-abortion care, a 2015 study found that “significant gaps still existed and most women were not receiving the care they needed.” 20 In early 2016, according to a CCTV-Africa report, the newly appointed prime minister, in tandem with the president, threatened to dismiss and possibly imprison doctors performing illegal abortions following recent reports of doctors in both public and private hospitals accepting payments for doing abortions and a reported increase in cases of complications. 21

Sometimes, other laws unrelated to abortion create barriers. In Morocco, the abortion law was established in 1920 when Morocco was a French protectorate. In May 2015, following a public debate arising from reports of women’s deaths from unsafe abortion, a reform process to expand legal protections was initiated by a directive of the king. According to the Moroccan Family Planning Association, despite a consensus that abortion should be permitted within the first three months if the woman’s physical and mental health is in danger, and in cases of rape, incest, or congenital malformation, unmarried women would be excluded because it is illegal to have sex outside marriage. 22

In India, a very liberal abortion law for its day was passed in 1971, but it has been poorly and unevenly implemented, such that high rates of morbidity and mortality persist to this day. 23 Even 15 years ago, the process for clinic registration as an approved abortion provider was arduous, limiting the number of clinics. 24 Moreover, two other laws have led to restrictions on abortion access: the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, which forbids ultrasound for purposes of sex determination and has led to restrictions on all second-trimester abortion provision, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, which requires reporting of underage sex, so that minors who become pregnant cannot feel safe if they seek an abortion. 25

Restricting abortion without changing the law

Decent laws and policies can be sabotaged and access to abortion can be restricted without amending the law itself, but instead through policies pressuring women to have more children, public denunciation of abortion by political and religious leaders, or restricting access to services. Bureaucratic obstacles may be placed in women’s paths, such as requiring unnecessary medical tests, counselling even if women feel no need for it, having to get one or more doctors’ signatures, having to wait between making an appointment and having an abortion, or having to obtain consent from a partner, parent(s) or guardian, or even a judge.

In Turkey, for example, in 1983, in response to population growth, the government passed a law allowing fertility regulation, termination of pregnancy on request up to 10 weeks after conception, and sterilization. A married woman seeking an abortion was required only to obtain her husband’s permission or submit a formal statement of assumption of all responsibility prior to the procedure. 26 In recent years, however, President Erdogan has taken a pronatalist stance and urged Turkish couples to have at least three children. Since 2012, he has been calling abortion murder, expressing opposition to the provision of abortion services and threatening to restrict the law. Women protested against these threats in such large numbers in 2012 that to date there have been no changes to the law itself. But administrative changes were made in order to make the procedure for booking an appointment for an abortion—which is still primarily provided by gynecologists in hospitals—more difficult.

These changes have made it nearly impossible to obtain an abortion in a state hospital; indeed, some state hospitals have stopped providing abortions altogether. Although comparative data are not available, a 2016 study found that of 431 state hospitals with departments of obstetrics and gynecology, only 7.8% provided abortions without restriction as to reason, 78% provided abortions only if there was a medical necessity, and 11.8% did not provide abortions at all. Of the 58 teaching and research hospitals with departments of obstetrics and gynecology, only 17.3% provided abortion services without restriction as to reason, 71.1% only if there was a medical necessity, and 11.4% not at all. Overall, 53 of 81 provinces in Turkey did not have a state hospital that provided abortions without restriction as to reason, although this is permitted under the law. 27

Thus, the availability of safe abortion depends not only on permissive legislation but also on a permissive environment, political support, and the ability and willingness of health services and health professionals to make abortion available. In contrast to Turkey, Ethiopia is an example of the success of that support.

Law reform for the better—slowly but surely

In 2005, Ethiopia liberalized its abortion law. Previously, abortion was allowed only to save the life of the woman or protect her physical health. The current law allows abortion in cases of rape, incest, or fetal impairment, as well as if the life or physical health of the woman is in danger, if she has a physical or mental disability, or if she is a minor who is physically or mentally unprepared for childbirth. 28 This is a liberal law for sub-Saharan Africa, but for a long time, little was known about the extent of its implementation. In 2006, the government published national standards and guidelines on safe abortion that permitted the use of misoprostol, with or without mifepristone, in accordance with WHO guidance. A nationwide study in 2008 by the Guttmacher Institute estimated that within a few years, 27% of abortions were legal, though most abortions were still unsafe.

A 2011 study by Jemila Abdi and Mulugeta Gebremariam found that Ethiopian health care providers’ reasons for not providing abortions were mainly personal or due to lack of permission from an employer or the unavailability of services at their facility. Only 27% felt comfortable working at a site where abortion was provided. Reasons for not being comfortable were mainly religious, but also included personal values and a lack of training. Although 29% thought it should be a woman’s choice to have an abortion, 55% disagreed. The study also uncovered a lack of medical equipment and trained personnel, and bureaucratic problems at clinical sites. 29

Even so, major efforts were and are still being made to improve access at the primary level by constructing more health centers and training more mid-level providers. Between 2008 and 2014, the proportion of abortions provided in health facilities almost doubled. In 2014, almost three-fourths of facilities that could potentially provide abortions or post-abortion care did so, including 67% of the 2,600 public health centers nationwide, 80% of the 1,300 private or nongovernmental facilities, and 98% of the 120 public hospitals. The proportion of all abortion-related services provided by mid-level health workers increased from 48% in 2008 to 83% in 2014. While a substantial number of abortions continue to occur outside of health facilities, the proportion is falling, showing that change is possible but also that it takes time. 30

In recent decades in Latin America, a combination of legal reforms, court rulings, and public health guidelines have improved access to safe abortion for women. 31 These include allowing abortion on request in the first trimester of pregnancy, as in Mexico City (since 2007), and in Uruguay (since 2012). In Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, and Costa Rica, higher courts have been instrumental in interpreting the constitutionality and scope of specific grounds for abortion, though their judgments are not always implemented. In countries such as Peru, guidelines issued by hospitals or by governments at federal or state levels govern the enforcement of permitted grounds. 32 Additional steps needed constitute a huge task, as Ethiopia has shown—training providers and ensuring that services provide legal abortions, as well as informing women that these changes are taking place and that services are available.

Self-use of medical abortion in the absence of law and policy reform

In other Latin American countries, abortion laws have remained highly restrictive in spite of campaigns for women’s sexual and reproductive rights and human rights for more than 30 years. As a result, and thanks to the advent of new technology, women have begun to take matters into their own hands. An uncounted number of women, probably in the millions, has been obtaining and using misoprostol to self-induce abortion (widely available for gastric ulcers) from a range of sources—pharmacies, websites, black market—since its abortifacient effectiveness was first discovered in the late 1980s. This practice, begun in Brazil, has spread to many other countries and regions. In response, legal restrictions and regulations on access to medical abortion pills have been imposed by countries such as Brazil and Egypt in an effort to stop the unstoppable.

Moreover, in the past decade, feminist groups have set up safe abortion information hotlines in at least 20 countries, and health professionals are providing information and access to abortion pills via telemedicine, including Women Help Women, Women on Web, safe2choose, the Tabbot Foundation in Australia, and TelAbortion in the United States. 33

In Uruguay, which has hospital-based outpatient abortion care, Lilian Abracinskas, executive director of Mujer y Salud en Uruguay, said in a recent interview, “ In Uruguay, we don’t have doctors who do abortions. Abortion with pills is the only way and it isn’t possible to choose another method, such as manual vacuum aspiration. Health professionals are willing to be involved before and after, but not in the abortion.” 34 Thus, abortion service delivery has been reduced to providing information, prescribing pills, and conducting a follow-up appointment if the woman has concerns. It can be that simple (although it does restrict access to aspiration and surgical methods).

Abortion law as a political football and a weapon against women

While the overall trend globally is toward more progressive laws, some countries where the rightwing has taken power have gone backward. In Chile, from 1931 to 1989, the law allowed abortion on therapeutic grounds, described in the Penal Code as “termination of a pregnancy before the fetus becomes viable for the purpose of saving the mother’s life or safeguarding her health.” Pinochet, the dictator who overthrew the Allende government, banned abortion in 1989 as he left office, leaving no legal grounds at all. 35 It took until 2016 for Michelle Bachelet’s government, during her second term in office, to introduce a bill permitting three grounds for legal abortion—to save the woman’s life, in cases of rape or sexual abuse, and in cases of fatal fetal anomaly—which are more narrow than what was in place between 1931 and 1989 but are the best that its supporters think they can achieve today. 36

In Russia, the law has gone back and forth between permissive and restrictive with every change of political head of state. Stalin made abortion illegal when he took over from Lenin, and then after 1945, abortion was again permitted on broad grounds across the Soviet Union and in its satellite countries in Eastern Europe and West Asia, while under Vladimir Putin a long list of restrictions has been imposed, greatly reducing the number of grounds on which abortion is permitted. In January 2016, a bill aiming to “rule out the uncontrolled use of pharmaceutical drugs destined for termination of pregnancy” was tabled in parliament. It would have banned retail sales and limited the list of organizations permitted to buy medical abortion pills wholesale. It would also have banned abortions in private clinics and removed payment for them from state insurance policies. And it would not have allowed abortions to be covered by state health care unless the pregnancy threatened the woman’s life. The bill was withdrawn after strong public protest that was coordinated by the Russian Association for Population and Development; however, attempts at further restriction are likely to continue. 37

In a number of Central and Eastern European countries, the backlash against communist rule and the increasing influence of conservative religious figures has led to regular attempts to undermine permissive abortion laws. Poland has had the worst of it. In 1993, a liberal law was replaced by a very restrictive law that removed “difficult living conditions” as a legal ground for abortion, leaving only three grounds: serious threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman, as attested by two physicians; cases of rape or incest if confirmed by a prosecutor; and cases in which antenatal tests, confirmed by two physicians, demonstrated that the fetus was seriously and irreversibly damaged. 38 This law, in spite of an attempt to ban all abortions in 2016, remains in place due to months of national action by women’s groups, including a national women’s strike on October 3, 2016. However, in November 2016, the government approved a regulation offering pregnant women carrying a seriously disabled or unviable fetus a one-time payment of €1,000 to carry the pregnancy to term, even if the baby would be born dead or die soon after delivery. The package includes access to hospice and medical care, psychological counselling, baptism or a blessing and burial, and a person who will act as an “assistant to the family” and coordinate the support. The purported aim was to reduce the number of legal abortions on grounds of fetal anomaly. 39 This horrendous proposal, nasty anti-abortion propaganda, and systematic pressure on hospitals in Poland to stop doing abortions on medical grounds exemplify the right-wing extremism of the anti-abortion movement today, whose epicenter is in the United States and whose war on women sometimes feels relentless. 40

But this is not stopping women from having abortions.

Keeping laws and policies that benefit women in clear sight

Cuba was the first country in Latin America and the Caribbean to reform its abortion law in favor of women, with a law that remains unique. Since 1965, abortion has been available on request up to the tenth week of pregnancy through the national health system. The Penal Code, adopted in 1979, says that an abortion is considered illegal only if it is without the consent of the pregnant woman, is unsafe, or is provided for profit. 41

In Japan, the law allowing abortion, enacted in 1948, was initially based on eugenics but was a liberal law in practice. Under this law, abortion became the primary mode of birth control in the country. The law was reformed in 1996 to omit all references to eugenics. Abortion is now permitted to protect health, which includes socioeconomic reasons, and in cases of sexual offenses. Abortion was and remains the main form of fertility control. The great majority of abortions fall under the health protection indication. Nearly all abortions are in the first trimester. 42

In recent years in some countries, laws to legalize abortion are found in public health statutes, court decisions, and policies and regulations on sexual and reproductive health care, rather than as part of the criminal law. Uruguay’s 2012 law is an example of public health legislation that sets out procedures and health care standards for the provision of abortion services. 43

In December 2014, the parliament of Luxembourg voted to remove abortion from the Penal Code up to 12 weeks of pregnancy and said that the woman no longer had to show she was “in distress” due to her pregnancy. Regulations on who can provide abortions were also revised. 44 In France, in 2014, 2015, and 2016, the 1975 Veil Law was reformed to increase access to abortion and reduce barriers. Women no longer have to be in a “state of distress” in France either, but need only request an abortion. The required seven-day “reflection period” between the request for an abortion and the abortion itself was also dropped. Most recently, midwives are now permitted to provide medical abortion, and the costs for all abortions are now reimbursed. 45

Sweden’s law is among the most liberal, though abortion is not entirely decriminalized. The Swedish law was amended in 1938, 1946, 1963, 1975, 1995, 2007, and 2008. Abortion is available on request up to 18 weeks. After that, permission from the National Board of Health and Welfare is required and may not be granted if the fetus is viable. Appeal is not permitted. Regulations govern who provides abortions and where. Any person not authorized to practice medicine who performs an abortion on another person can be fined or imprisoned for up to a year. Abortion is subsidized by the government; 95% of abortions take place before 12 weeks, and almost none after 18 weeks. Most are medical abortions. 46

In Australia, each state and the Capital Territory have a different law, ranging from very liberal to very restrictive; several are in the process of change. 47 In the United States in 1973, the Supreme Court held that criminalizing abortion violated a woman’s right to privacy and said that abortion should be a decision between a woman and her doctor. However, the court also held that US states have an interest in ensuring the safety and well-being of pregnant women, as well as the potential of human life. This opened a door to restrictions that become greater as pregnancy progresses, opening a Pandora’s box for states to impose restrictions that are tying up state and federal courts to this day:

• first trimester: a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions;
• second trimester: a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant woman; and
• third trimester: the state’s interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the woman’s right to privacy, and the state may prohibit abortions unless abortion is necessary to save her life or health. 48

It is impossible not to think that no law is the best law when it comes to abortion, which brings us back to Canada, where abortion has not been restricted since 1988 and is available on request with no stipulations as to who must provide it or where. 49 Although abortion is not easily accessible in remote areas, and Canada was exceedingly slow to approve mifepristone, 50 opposition to abortion has never developed a foothold. The benefits for women of having no law are crystal clear. 51

Legalization or decriminalization: Closing the circle

Although recent calls for the decriminalization of abortion by human rights bodies, politicians, and some feminist groups aim to decriminalize only certain grounds and conditions related to abortion, these are far better than nothing. Thus, in Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, and Peru, where abortion is severely legally restricted, calls to “decriminalize abortion” include only three to four grounds—to protect the life and health of the woman, in cases of severe or fatal fetal anomalies, and as a result of rape or sexual abuse. While the great majority of abortions are not for these reasons, they are the only grounds that stand a chance of achieving majority approval through law reform in settings where “everything” is simply not in the cards.

In Africa, the Maputo Protocol is legally binding on the 49 states that have ratified it. The 2016 call by the ACHPR for the decriminalization of abortion across Africa is based on the Maputo Protocol, which calls for safe abortion to be authorized by states “in cases of sexual assault, rape, incest, and where the continued pregnancy endangers the mental and physical health of the mother or the life of the mother or the fetus.” 52 However, in January 2017, at the African Leaders’ Summit on Safe and Legal Abortion, the ACHPR went further, calling for safe, legal abortion as a human right, which by any definition surely exceeds the Maputo Protocol’s boundaries. 53

At bottom, the extent of decriminalization aimed for is a choice between the ideal and the practicable, and reflects the extent to which abortion is seen as a bona fide form of health care—not just by advocates for the right to safe abortion but also by politicians, health professionals, the media, and the public. The fact that abortion is still legally restricted in almost all countries is not just a historical legacy but indicative of the continuing ambivalence and negativity about abortion in most societies, no matter how old or where the law originally came from.

Some abortion rights supporters seem to have an underlying fear that without leaving something in the criminal law, “bad things” may start to happen. Canada proves this is not the case. Granted, not everywhere is Canada. But there are general criminal laws that allow the punishment of wrongdoing—such as forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, giving her medical abortion pills without her knowledge, or causing injury or death through a dangerous procedure. These are laws against grievous bodily harm, assault, or manslaughter, which can be applied without the need for a criminal statute on abortion.

Changing the law to benefit women

Successfully changing the law on abortion is the work of years. Advocates do not get a lot of chances to change the law and need to decide what they want to end up with before campaigning for it, with the confidence that whatever they propose has a chance of being implemented. Another chance may not come again soon.

Allies are crucial. Most important are parliamentarians, health professionals, legal experts, women’s groups and organizations, human rights groups, family planning supporters—and above all, women themselves. Achieving a critical mass of support among all these groups is key to successful law reform, as is defeating the opposition, which can have an influence beyond its numbers.

Those unable to contemplate no law at all must confront the fact that each legal ground for abortion may be interpreted liberally or narrowly, and thereby implemented differently in different settings, or may not be implemented at all. The challenge is to define which abortions should remain criminal and what the punishment should be. Even if only some grounds would be considered acceptable, the question of who decides and on what basis remains when reforming existing law.

Wording becomes critical to supporting good practice. For example, grounds which are based on risk are particularly tricky. The definition of “risk” is itself complex, and the extent of risk may be hedged with uncertainty. Risk to the woman’s life, health, or mental health and risk of serious fetal anomaly have been subjected to challenge and disagreement among professionals. As Christian Fiala, head of the Gynmed Ambulatorium in Austria, has noted, “There is only one way to be sure a woman’s life is at risk, that is—after she dies.” 54

Reed Boland explores the importance of wording in depth with regard to the health ground for abortion:

The wording of [the health] indication varies greatly from country to country, particularly given the range of languages and legal traditions involved. Sometimes … there must be a risk to health. Great Britain’s law, for example … allows abortion where “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 …” Sometimes … there must be a danger to health. Burkina Faso’s Penal Code permits abortions when “continuation of the pregnancy … endangers the health of the woman …” And in some countries there must only be medical or health reasons. In Vanuatu, there must be “good medical reasons”, in Djibouti “therapeutic reasons”, and in Pakistan a requirement of “necessary treatment”. These concepts are not necessarily the same. 55

Legislating on second-trimester abortions presents particular difficulties. Many laws say little or nothing about second-trimester abortions, which has a proscriptive effect. Second-trimester abortions constitute an estimated 10–15% of abortions globally, but as many as 25% in India and South Africa due to poor access to services. When they are unsafe, they account for a large proportion of hospital admissions for treatment of complications and are responsible for a disproportionate number of deaths. Hence, the law should protect second-trimester abortions assiduously. Yet social disapproval of these abortions can run high, and laws tend to be increasingly restrictive as pregnancy progresses, even laws that are liberal with regard to the first trimester. The mistaken belief that second-trimester abortions can be legislated away persists, despite the facts. 56

Restrictive abortion laws are being broken on a daily basis by millions of women and numerous abortion providers. Even in countries where the law is less restrictive, research shows that the letter of the law is being stretched in all sorts of ways to accommodate women’s needs. Yet opposition and a stubborn unwillingness to act continue to hamper efforts to meet women’s need for abortion without restrictions.

Conclusions

It should be clear that the plethora of convoluted laws and restrictions on 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 universally affordable and accessible. From this perspective, few existing laws are fit for purpose but merely repeat every possible permutation of the self-same restrictions.

The aim of this paper was not to provide answers or roadmaps, because in every country prevailing conditions must be taken into account. The aim was to motivate transformative thinking about whether any criminal law on abortion is necessary. Treating abortion as essential health care is a major step forward, and where the national setting insists on some sort of law, advocates could draft the simplest, most supportive law possible, placing first-trimester abortion care at the primary and community level, ensuring second-trimester services, involving mid-level providers, increasing women’s awareness of services and the law, aiming for universal access, integrating WHO-approved methods, and addressing social attitudes to reduce opposition. Space did not permit me to raise the issues of cost and public versus private services, but they are two major aspects that deserve priority consideration.

If it were up to me, all criminal sanctions against abortion would be revoked, making abortion available at the request of the only person who counts—the one who is pregnant. And as with all pregnancy care, abortion would be free at the point of care and universally accessible from very early on in pregnancy.

Canada has proved that no criminal law is feasible and acceptable. Sweden has proved that abortions after 18 weeks can effectively disappear with very good services, and WHO has shown that first-trimester abortions can be provided safely and effectively at the primary and community level by trained mid-level providers and provision of medical abortion pills by trained pharmacy workers. Finally, web- and phone-based telemedicine services are showing that clinic-based services are not required to provide medical abortion pills safely and effectively.

But to achieve these goals, or something close to them, it takes a strong and active national coalition, a critical mass of support, and—with luck and knowing what the goalposts are—less than 100 years of campaigning to make change happen on the ground.

Acknowledgments

This paper began as a presentation on the decriminalization of abortion at the FIAPAC Conference in Lisbon on October 13, 2016. I would like to thank the following individuals for information presented there that enriched this paper: Angela Dawson (information on Australia), Hamida Nkata (information on Tanzania), S. Sinan Ozalp (information on Turkey), Emily McLean (information on Ethiopia), Amanda Cleeve (information on Uganda), Joyce Arthur (information on Canada), and Amanda Huber (information on Laos). Much of the recent country-based information here was gleaned during my editing of the International Campaign for Women’s Right to Safe Abortion newsletter. 57 Many thanks to Sally Sheldon and Kinga Jelinska for helpful comments on a previous draft. Any errors are my own.

• Dissertation
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Book Report/Review
• Research Proposal
• Math Problems
• Proofreading
• Movie Review
• Cover Letter Writing
• Personal Statement
• Nursing Paper
• Argumentative Essay
• Research Paper
• Discussion Board Post

Why Abortion Should Be Legal – Essay Writing Tips & Tricks

Table of Contents

The topic of abortion legalization or criminalization has been topical in many countries recently. Even though technology and progress are fast-moving forward, pro-life advocates continue insisting on the fact that women do not possess the right to kill their embryos.

Thus, with the debate going on across multiple domains, you can receive an assignment to compose an essay on abortion at a Law, Medicine, or Politics course.

The key topics considering in essays on abortion today include:

• Whether the unborn fetuses can be considered human beings with the right to protection of their life by law.
• At which term of pregnancy a fetus can already be considered a living human being.
• What legal exceptions should be set in place to regulate women’s right to abortion.
• What countries have already established successful legal precedents to regulate the issue.
• Arguments of pro-and anti-abortion legislation advocates.
• Arguments of women for and against the right to conduct abortion.

Whether you’re for or against abortion in this debate, you can face a situation in which you’ll need to debate your point. That situation is a home assignment to write a why abortion should be made legal essay. And if you’re confused about this task and don’t know how to perform it quickly and easily, we’re here to help you out.

Why Abortion Should Be Legal: Our Thoughts

Here are some ideas for why abortion should be made legal essay that our writing experts share with students needing help. You can borrow any of these themes and examine them in more depth in your argumentative essay about abortion.

• Women’s right to have or not to have children is violated with laws regulating abortion. Such laws can cause serious socio-demographic problems as teenage girls often get pregnant because of their ignorance of birth control methods or lack of essential sexual education. Depriving them of a chance for abortion can ruin their life and health.
• Biological research suggests that a human fetus is not a living organism at the first couple of weeks of its development, which can be aborted. Besides, women typically commit abortion at the early stages of pregnancy, knowing that aborting a child at a later term is a psychologically traumatic experience equaling murder.
• Sometimes, pregnancy results from a crime; some women get pregnant because of a traumatic rape experience. Thus, they are totally reluctant to have a child from a rapist who committed violence against them and caused severe physical and psychological damage.
• In the process of pregnancy development, genetic screening can reveal serious genetic disorders or risks for the fetus. Parents who are not ready to bear the burden of caring for the disabled child should have the right to terminate such a pregnancy. It’s not a violation of disabled people’s rights (as the disabled community tends to claim); it’s natural for a parent to wish to avoid giving birth to a child if they know they will doom that person to suffering.
• In countries where abortion is illegal, shady medical practices of illegal abortions are flourishing. Women are ready to pay huge money and undergo medical manipulations in non-sterile environments to terminate their pregnancies, which is a serious legal and medical issue.
• Women have the right to decide what to do with their bodies. If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant and give birth to an unwanted child, she shouldn’t be urged by the law to go through this life-changing experience. Parenting should be a wanted, planned act so that children grow up in happy, welcoming families. Giving birth to an unwanted child may later lead to instances of home violence or abuse.

Any of these topics are suitable for why abortion should be made legal essay. We’ve just touched upon the theme broadly, outlining various ethical, medical, and legal issues surrounding this subject. You can take any perspective that speaks to you and develop it in more depth to craft a well-grounded essay to impress your tutor.

Pros and Cons of Abortion You Should Consider

When talking about abortion in academic works, students commonly face the challenge of evaluating the pros and cons of legalization. It’s a typical problem every researcher faces when dealing with evergreen debatable subjects, like marijuana and euthanasia legalization, ban on the death penalty and abortion, animal testing, etc.

Here are the key points you should include in your essay to show your competence in this topic.

Pros of Legal Ban on Abortion

• Women’s disability rates resulting from improper abortions will reduce.
• The post-abortion infertility rates will go down.
• Unborn children’s rights will be protected.
• The unethical practice of killing unborn children will be strictly regulated.
• A ban on abortions is compliant with Christian ethics.
• Birth control and sex education will be emphasized.

Cons of Legal Ban on Abortion

• Illegal abortions are likely to flourish.
• Raped women will have to undergo the trauma of giving birth to an unwanted child.
• Parents of children with severe genetic disorders will have to give birth to disabled children.
• The rate of abandoned children will rise because of unwanted infants’ abandonment in the birth hospitals.
• Many more families will become unhappier because of the economic and psychological burden of rearing unwanted children.
• Women will fight for their rights and feel the oppression of being not the masters of their bodies.

Follow Argumentative Articles on Abortion as Examples

Whenever you talk about sensitive subjects like abortion, the key to sounding competent and non-opinionated is to back your claims with reliable evidence.

In terms of abortion, there are hundreds of valuable sources written by competent professionals backing each side of the debate. Thus, to make your essay look professional and informed, you should first formulate your topic concisely and then conduct a library search for reliable evidence.

We recommend using professional databases for such search so that your arguments look convincing. It’s easy to say that you think that abortion should be made legal because it will be fair for women to make the final decision in this regard. But that argument is not enough for the readers to take your side.

Thus, you can follow this algorithm:

• Choose a perspective for your analysis (ethical, religious, political, medical).
• Find a database with credible academic sources in this area (e.g., for medical research, we strongly recommend using Google Scholar, CINAHL, or PubMed, while sources from HeinOnline or LOC can inform legal papers on abortion).
• Sort the sources you find by relevance to your argument and strength of argumentation, using only those that fit your content and support your point.
• It’s also vital to credit the other side of the debate (otherwise, you will sound biased). So, make sure to find sources supporting the opposite position as well, appealing to their arguments and rebating them in the process of your analysis.

Steps to Writing an Abortion Essay

Now, let’s proceed to the actual process of writing on abortion. As a rule, an essay should consist of three major parts – an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Once you get to the chosen topic, we advise completing a pre-writing exercise: making an outline for your essay. As soon as you have a couple of credible sources at hand and want to outline your significant argumentation points, use a simple outline template to do so.

OUTLINE INTRODUCTION – broad introduction of the subject. Setting the context. A thesis statement. BODY PARAGRAPH #1 – argument #1 (topic sentence). Supporting evidence. A transition to the next point. PARAGRAPH #2 – argument #2 (topic sentence). Supporting evidence. A transition to the next point. PARAGRAPH #3 – argument #3 (topic sentence). Supporting evidence. A transition to the concluding section. CONCLUSION – summary of your key points and a reference to the broader significance of the subject.

Main Difficulties When Discussing an Abortion Topic

You should keep in mind that abortion is a sensitive topic that touches the deepest strings of people’s hearts for various reasons. Some women debate the ban of abortion because of their unfortunate juvenile experiences with abortion leaving them infertile. Others want abortion to be legal because of women’s moral, ethical, and legal right to decide what to do with their bodies and lives.

Thus, whenever you write an abortion essay, make sure to choose words appropriately, use delicate, non-judgmental phrases, and not accuse anyone of right or wrong decisions regarding abortion.

Any Questions?

Having any troubles with your why abortion should be made legal essay? No panic, as our experts are always on standby to help you out. We can write a well-structured, interesting paper on this subject to cover your back and avoid delays in-home task submission.

So, if you have little time for home tasks or simply don’t want to dig into books this weekend, you can delegate the assignment to us. Talk to our managers today, and they’ll assign a competent legal or medical writer to handle an essay on abortion for you with ease.

Essay Writing Checklist

Anxiety essay: simple writing guide for an a+ result.

Advantages of Learning Foreign Language

Legalized Abortion and the Public Health: Report of a Study (1975)

Chapter: summary and conclusions.

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The legal status of abortion in the United States became a heightened national issue with the January 1973 rulings by the Supreme Court that severely limited states' rights to control the procedure. The Court's decisions on the historic cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton precluded any state interference with the doctor-patient decision on abortion during the first trimester (three months) of pregnancy. During the second trimester, a state could intervene only to the extent of insisting on safe medical practices "reasonably related to maternal health." And for approximately the final trimester of a pregnancy—what the Court called "the state subsequent to viability" of a fetus—a state could forbid abortion unless medical judgment found it necessary "for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." The rulings crystallized opposition to abortion, led to the intro- duction of national and state legislation to curtail or prohibit it, and generated political pressures for a national debate on the issue. Against this background of concerns about abortion, the Institute of Medicine in 1974 called together a committee to review the existing evidence on the relationship between legalized abortion and the health of the public. The study group was asked to examine the medical risks to women who obtained legal abortions, and to document changes in the risks as legal abortion became more available. Although there have been other publications on particular relationships between abortion and health, the Institute's study is an attempt to enlist scholars, researchers, health practitioners, and concerned lay persons in a more comprehensive analysis of the available medical information on the subject. Ethical issues of abortion are not discussed in this analysis, nor are questions concerning the fetus in abortion. The study group recog- nizes that this approach implies an ethical position with which some may disagree. The emphasis of the study is on the health effects of abortion, not on the alternatives to abortion.

Abortion legislation and practices are important factors in the relationship between abortion and health status. In order to examine legislation and court decisions that have affected the availability of legal abortion in the U.S., the study group classified the laws and practices into three categories: restrictive conditions, under which abortion is prohibited or permitted only to save the pregnant woman's life; moderately restrictive conditions, under which abortion is per- mitted with approval by several physicians, in a wider range of circumstances to preserve the woman's physical or mental health, prevent the birth of a child with severe genetic or congenital defects, or terminate a pregnancy caused by rape or incest; and non-restrictive conditions, under which abortion essentially is available according to the terms of the Supreme Court ruling. Before 1967, all abortion laws in the United States could be classified as restrictive. Easing of restrictions began in 1967 with Colorado, and soon thereafter 12 other states also adopted moderately restrictive legislation to expand the conditions under which therapeutic abortion could be obtained. In 1970, four states (Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington) removed nearly all legal controls on abortion. Non-restrictive conditions have theoretically existed throughout all fifty states since January 22, 1973, the date of the Supreme Court decision. There is evidence that substantial numbers of illegal abortions were obtained in the U.S. when restrictive laws were in force. Although some of the illegal abortions were performed covertly by physicians in medical settings, many were conducted in unsanitary surroundings by unskilled operators or were self-induced. In this report, "illegal abortion" generally refers to those performed by a non-physician or the woman herself. The medical risks associated with the last two types of illegal abortions are patently greater than with the first. A recent analysis of data from the first year of New York's non- restrictive abortion legislation indicates that approximately 70 percent of the abortions obtained legally in New York City would otherwise have been obtained illegally. Replacement of legal for illegal abortions also is reflected in the substantial decline in the number of reported complications and deaths due to other-than-legal abortions since non- restrictive practices began to be implemented in the United States. The number of all known abortion-related deaths declined from 128 in 1970 to 47 in 1973; those deaths specifically attributed to other-than-legal abortions (i.e., both illegal and spontaneous) dropped from 111 to 25 during the same period, with much of that decline attributed to a reduced incidence of illegal abortions. Increased use of effective con- traception may also have played a role in the decline of abortion-related deaths. Methods most frequently used in the United States to induce abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy are suction (vacuum aspiration) or dilatation and curettage (D&C). Abortions in the second trimester are usually performed by replacing part of the amniotic fluid that surrounds

the fetus with a concentrated salt solution (saline abortion), which usually induces labor 24 to 48 hours later. Other second trimester methods are hysterotomy, a surgical entry into the uterus; hysterectomy, which is the removal of the uterus; and, recently, the injection into the uterine cavity of a prostaglandin, a substance that causes muscular contractions that expel the fetus. Statistics on legal abortion are collected for the U.S. government by the Center for Disease Control. CDC's most recent nationwide data are for 1973, the year of the Supreme Court decision. Some of those figures are: — The 615,800 legal abortions reported in 1973 were an increase of approximately 29,000 over the number reported in 1972. These probably are underestimates of the actual number of abortions performed because some states have not yet developed adequate abortion reporting systems. — The abortion ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) increased from 180 in 1972 to 195 in 1973. — More than four out of five abortions were performed in the first trimester, most often by suction or D&C. — Approximately 25 percent of the reported 1973 abortions were obtained outside the woman's home state. In 1972, before the Supreme Court decision, 44 percent of the reported abortions had been obtained outside the home state of the patient, primarily in New York and the District of Columbia. — Approximately one-third of the women obtaining abortions were less than 20 years old, another third were between 20 and 25, and the remaining third over 25 years of age. — In all states where data were available, about 25 percent of the women obtaining abortions were married. — White women obtained 68 percent of all reported abortions, but non-white women had abortion ratios about one-third greater than white women. In 1972, non-white women had abortion rates (abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age) about twice those of whites in three states from which data were available to analyze. A national survey of hospitals, clinics, and physicians conducted in 1974 by The Alan Guttmacher Institute furnished data on the number of abortions performed in the U.S. during 1973, itemized by state and type of provider. A total of 745,400 abortions were reported in the survey, a figure higher than the 615,800 abortions reported in 1973 to CDC. The Guttmacher Institute obtains its data from providers of health services, while CDC gets most of its data from state health departments.

Risks of medical complications associated with legal abortions are difficult to evaluate because of problems of definition and subjective physician judgment. Available information from 66 centers is provided by the Joint Program for the Study of Abortion, undertaken by The Population Council in 1970-1971. The JPSA study surveyed almost 73,000 legal abortions. It used a restricted definition of major complications, which included unintended major surgery, one or more blood transfusions, three or more days of fever, and several other categories involving prolonged illness or permanent impairment. Although this study also collected data on minor complica- tions, such as one day of fever post-operatively, the data on major com- plications are probably more significant. The major complication rates published by the JPSA study and summarized below relate to women who had abortions in local facilities and from whom follow-up information was obtained. — Complications in women not obtaining concurrent sterilization and with no pre-existing medical problems (e.g., diabetes, heart disease, or gynecological problems) occurred 0.6 times per 100 abortions in the first trimester and 2.1 per 100 in the second trimester. — Complications in women not obtaining concurrent sterilization, but having pre-existing problems, occurred 2.0 times per 100 in the first trimester and 6.7 in the second. — Complications in women obtaining concurrent sterilization and not having pre-existing problems occurred 7.2 times per 100 in the first trimester and 8.0 in the second. — Women with both concurrent sterilization and pre-existing problems experienced complications approximately 17 times per 100 abortions regardless of trimester. The relatively high complication rates associated with sterilization in the JPSA study would probably be lower today because new sterilization techniques require minimal surgery and carry lower rates of complications. The frequency of medical complications due to illegal abortions cannot be calculated precisely, but the trend in these complications can be estimated from the number of hospital admissions due to septic and incomplete abortion—two adverse consequences of the illegal procedure.

The number of such admissions in New York City's municipal hospitals declined from 6,524 in 1969 to 3,253 in 1973; most restrictions on legal abortion in New York City were lifted in July of 1970. In Los Angeles, the number of reported hospital admissions for septic abortions declined from 559 in 1969 to 119 in 1971. Other factors, such as an increased use of effective contraception and a decreasing rate of unwanted pregnancies may have contributed to these declines, but it is probable that the introduction of less restrictive abortion legislation was a major factor. There has not been enough experience with legal abortion in the U.S. for conclusions to be drawn about long-term complications, particularly for women obtaining repeated legal abortions. Some studies from abroad suggest that long-term complications may include prematurity, miscarriage, or ectopic pregnancies in future pregnancies, or infertility. But research findings from countries having long experience with legal abortion are inconsistent among studies and the relevance of these data to the U.S. is not known; methods of abortion, medical services, and socio-economic characteristics vary from one country to another. Risks of maternal death associated with legal abortion are low—1.7 deaths per 100,000 first trimester procedures in 1972 and 1973—and less than the risks associated with illegal abortion, full-term pregnancy, and most surgical procedures. The 1973 mortality rate for a full-term pregnancy was 14 deaths per 100,000 live vaginal deliveries; the 1969 rate for cesarean sections was 111 deaths per 100,000 deliveries. For second trimester abortions, the combined 1972-73 mortality ratio was 12.2 deaths per 100,000 abortions. (For comparison, the surgical removal of the tonsils and adenoids had a mortality risk of five deaths per 100,000 operations in 1969). When the mortality risk of legal abortion is examined by length of gestation it becomes apparent that the mortality risks increase not only from the first to the second trimester, but also by each week of ges- tation. For example, during 1972-73, the mortality ratio for legal abortions performed at eight weeks or less was 0.5, and for those performed between nine and 10 weeks was 1.7 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions. At 11 to 12 weeks the mortality ratio increased to 4.2 deaths, and by 16 to 20 weeks, the ratio was more than 17 deaths per 100,000 abortions. Hysterotomy and hysterectomy, methods performed infrequently in both trimesters, had a combined mortality ratio of 61.3 deaths per 100,000 procedures. Some data on the mortality associated with illegal abortion are avail- lable from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and from CDC. In 1961 there were 320 abortion-related deaths reported in the U.S., most of them presumed by the medical profession to be from illegal abortion. By 1973, total reported deaths had declined to 47, of which 16 were specifi- cally attributed to illegal abortions. There has been a steady decline in the mortality rates (number of deaths per 100,000 women aged 15-44) associated with other-than-legal abortion for both white and non-white women, but in 1973 the mortality rate for non-white women (0.29) was almost ten times greater than that reported for white women (0.03).

Psychological effects of legal abortion are difficult to evaluate for reasons that include lack of information on pre-abortion psychological status, ambiguous terminology, and the absence of standardized measurements. The cumulative evidence in recent years indicates that although it may be a stressful experience, abortion is not associated with any detectable increase in the incidence of mental illness. The depression or guilt feelings reported by some women following abortion are generally described as mild and temporary. This experience, however, does not necessarily apply to women with a previous history of psychiatric illness; for them, abortion may be followed by continued or aggravated mental illness. The JPSA survey led to an estimate of the incidence of post-abortion psychosis ranging from 0.2 to 0.4 per 1,000 legal abortions. This is lower than the post-partum psychosis rate of one to two per 1,000 deliveries in the United States. Psychological factors also bear on whether a woman obtains a first or second-trimester abortion. Two studies in particular suggest that women who delay abortion into the later period may have more feelings of ambiva- lence, denial of the pregnancy, or objection on religious grounds, than those obtaining abortions in the first trimester. It is also apparent, however, that some second-trimester abortions result from procedural delays, difficulties in obtaining a pregnancy test, locating appropriate counseling, or arranging and financing the procedure. Diagnosis of severe defects of a fetus well before birth has greatly advanced in the past decade. Developments in the techniques of amniocen- tesis and cell culture have enabled a number of genetic defects and other congenital disorders to be detected in the second trimester of pregnancy. Prenatal diagnosis and the opportunity to terminate an affected pregnancy by a legal abortion may help many women who would have refrained from becoming pregnant or might have given birth to an abnormal child, to bear children unaffected by the disease they fear. Abortion, with or with- out prenatal diagnosis, also can be used in instances where there is reasonable risk that the fetus may be affected by birth defects from non-genetic causes, such as those caused by exposure of the woman to rubella virus infection or x-rays, or by her ingestion of drugs known to damage the fetus. Almost 60 inherited metabolic disorders, such as Tay-Sachs disease, potentially can be diagnosed before birth. More than 20 of these diseases already have been diagnosed with reasonaable accuracy by means of amniocentesis and other procedures. The techniques also can be used to identify a fetus with abnormal chromosomes, as in Down's syndrome (mongolism), and to discriminate between male and female fetuses, which in such diseases as hemophilia would allow determination of whether the fetus was at risk of being affected or simply at risk of being a hereditary carrier of the disorder.

In North America, amniocentesis was performed in more than 6,000 second-trimester pregnancies between 1967 and 1974. The diagnostic accuracy was close to 100 percent and complication rates were about two percent. Less than 10 percent of the diagnoses disclosed an affected fetus, meaning that the great majority of parents at risk averted an unnecessary abortion and were able to carry an unaffected child to term. There are many limitations to the use of prenatal diagnosis, especially for mass screening purposes. Amniocentesis is a fairly expensive procedure, and relatively few medical personnel are qualified to administer it and carry out the necessary diagnostic tests. Only a small number of genetic disorders can now be identified by means of amniocentesis and many couples still have no way to determine whether or not they are to be the parents of a child with genetic defects. Nevertheless, the avail- ability of a legal abortion expands the options available to a woman who faces a known risk of having an affected child. Abortion as a substitute for contraception is one possibility raised by the adoption of non-restrictive abortion laws. Limited data do not allow definitive conclusions, but they suggest that the introduction of non-restrictive abortion laws in the U.S. has not lead to any documented decline in demand for contraceptive services. Among women who sought abortion and who had previously not used contraception or had used it poorly, there is some evidence that they may have begun to practice contraception because contraceptives were made available to them at the time of their abortion. The health aspects of this issue bear on the higher mortality and mor- bidity associated with abortion as compared with contraceptive use, and on the possibility that if women rely on abortion rather than contraception they may have repeated abortions, for which the risk of long-term compli- cations is not known. The incidence of repeated legal abortions is little known because legal abortion has only been widely available in the U.S. for a few years. Data from New York City indicate that during the first two years of non-restrictive laws 2.45 percent of the abortions obtained by residents were repeat procedures. If those two years are divided into six-month periods, repeated legal abortions as a percent of the total rose from 0.01 percent in the first period to 6.02 percent in the last. Part of this increase is attributable to a statistical fact: the longer non-restrictive laws are in effect, the greater the number of women eligible to have repeated legal abortions. Perhaps, too, the reporting system has improved. In any case, some low incidence of repeated abortions is to be expected because none of the current contraceptive methods is completely failureproof, nor are they likely to be used with maximum care on all occasions.

8 A recent study has suggested that one additional factor contributing to the incidence of repeated abortions is that abortion facilities may not routinely provide contraceptive services at the time of the procedure. This is of concern because of recent evidence that ovulation usually oc- curs within five weeks and perhaps as early as 10 days after an abortion. The conclusions of the study group: — Many women will seek to terminate an unwanted pregnancy by abortion whether it is legal or not. Although the mortality and morbidity . associated with illegal abortion cannot be fully measured, they are clearly greater than the risks associated with legal abortion. Evidence suggests that legislation and practices that permit women to obtain abortions in proper medical surroundings will lead to fewer deaths and a lower rate of medical complications than restrictive legislation and practices. —• The substantial differences between the mortality and morbidity associated with legal abortion in the first and second trimesters suggest that laws, medical practices, and educational programs should enable and encourage women who have chosen abortion to obtain it in the first three months of pregnancy. — More research is needed on the consequences of abortion on health status. Of highest priority are investigations of long-term medical complications, particularly after multiple abortions the effects of abortion and denied abortion on the mental health and social welfare of individuals and families the factors of motivation, behavior, and access associated with contraceptive use and the choice of abortion.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Health Tech
• Health Insurance
• Medical Devices
• Gene Therapy
• Neuroscience
• H5N1 Bird Flu
• Health Disparities
• Infectious Disease
• Mental Health
• Cardiovascular Disease
• Chronic Disease
• Alzheimer's
• Coercive Care
• The Obesity Revolution
• The War on Recovery
• Adam Feuerstein
• Matthew Herper
• Jennifer Adaeze Okwerekwu
• Ed Silverman
• CRISPR Tracker
• Breakthrough Device Tracker
• Generative AI Tracker
• Obesity Drug Tracker
• 2024 STAT Summit
• All Summits
• STATUS List
• STAT Madness
• STAT Brand Studio

Don't miss out

Subscribe to STAT+ today, for the best life sciences journalism in the industry

Abortion, shingles, extreme heat, and sudden cardiac arrest

By Theresa Gaffney Aug. 14, 2024

Want to stay on top of health news?  Sign up  to get our Morning Rounds newsletter in your inbox.

Good morning! See how I write these newsletter items? Very demure, very mindful. (If you don’t understand what I am referencing here, consider yourself blessedly more offline than me and many of my colleagues.)

advertisement

Can scientists improve the odds for surviving sudden cardiac arrest?

It’s the “sudden” in sudden cardiac arrest that makes it so scary — a seemingly healthy person can simply collapse. If they’re lucky, medical help is nearby and can restart their heart before it’s too late. But for decades, only about 10% of people who experience sudden cardiac arrest outside of a hospital have been lucky enough to survive.

There’s bystander CPR and automated external defibrillators. There are implantable cardioverter defibrillators that can shock a heart back to normal within eight to 10 seconds. And of course there are medications for people with heart failure. But none of it is enough.

“It affects a thousand Americans a day,” cardiologist Sumit Chugh told STAT’s Liz Cooney. “But if you look in the community it’s still rare. It’s not like high blood pressure or diabetes. It’s 50 people per 100,000 people.” Read Liz’s deep dive into the confounding condition and how scientists are working both to better understand the risk factors involved and to create better interventions like cell-based therapies.

Most reproductive-age women are worried about abortion access, survey says

One in seven reproductive-age women in the U.S. report that they’ve had an abortion, according to new data from KFF’s nationally representative Women’s Health Survey . Nearly 4,000 women ages 18 to 49 responded to the survey on abortion and reproductive health after the fall of Roe v. Wade. Here are a few takeaways that caught my eye:

• Most reproductive-age women (74%) believe that abortion policies should not be determined at the state level. This is true across political affiliations, with 54% of Republican, 86% of Democrat, and 73% of independent women in agreement.
• More than six in 10 survey respondents are concerned that either they or someone they’re close to would not be able to get an abortion if needed to save one’s life or preserve health.
• The report also looked specifically at Florida and Arizona , where voters may soon see abortion on the ballot. In Florida, only one in five respondents were aware that medication abortion is still legal in the state until the sixth week of pregnancy. In Arizona, just over one in 10 were aware that medication abortion is legal and can be obtained online.
• 17% of respondents in the U.S. reported changing their contraceptive practices as a result of Roe being overturned. This included starting or switching birth control, getting a sterilization procedure, or purchasing emergency pills to have on hand.

How to restore America’s confidence in vaccines

It was only two hours after receiving the second dose of the Covid vaccine that virologist Gregory A. Poland heard a sudden ringing in his ear while driving. “The shock of a sudden loud and high-pitched whistling nearly caused me to veer off the road,” he writes in a First Opinion essay. He’d had intermittent tinnitus before, but never like this. It got even worse after his third dose later that year, and the noise has continued to this day.

As someone who has studied vaccines for 40 years, Poland knows that all types of vaccines have saved millions upon millions of lives. But some number of people like him have also suffered unexpected effects on their health and well-being. Poland argues that understanding how this happens would not only be a first step toward reducing these rare risks, but it would help combat vaccine hesitancy. Read more .

Is ultra-processed food the tobacco of the 21st century?

Oncologist Nicholas DeVito says yes. Ultra-processed foods — which include packaged meals, snacks, candies, sodas and more — are more relevant to his work treating cancer than one might think. An estimated 40% of cancers in the U.S. are caused by risk factors that can be changed like using tobacco products, a sedentary lifestyle, and consuming ultra-processed food.

In a First Opinion essay, DeVito argues that, just like tobacco before it, ultra-processed foods have flooded onto our shelves due to a lack of regulation. And just like increased tobacco use over the 20th century was linked to lung cancer, these foods have emerged as a potential cause for gastrointestinal cancers. Read more .

Airport workers rally to protest dangerous heat conditions

Airport workers in Charlotte, N.C. and Phoenix held rallies yesterday to demand better workplace protections from extreme heat, including easy access to water, cool break rooms, and training on heat illness. Last summer was the hottest the northern hemisphere has seen in 2,000 years , and this year is already predicted to break records again.

“Workers like me have been risking our lives every day in brutal conditions, and we’re quite literally sick and tired,” Cecilia Ortiz, a passenger service agent at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, said in a press release.

Extreme heat can have serious detrimental health effects , especially when it comes to cardiovascular health . Earlier this summer, the Biden administration proposed a new rule for the country’s first-ever federal regulations around heat safety at work. The rule would require employers to evaluate heat risk, develop prevention plans for excessive heat, and to ensure workers have access to cool water and paid rest breaks.

Study: Getting shingles could increase risk of cognitive decline

It’s likely that you and just about everybody you know have either had chickenpox before or received the vaccine. Shingles is a reactivation of the same virus that causes chickenpox, which stays in your body, and can cause painful rashes. But the infection might be more than an unpleasant experience. A study published yesterday in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy found that getting shingles was associated with about 20% higher long-term risk for subjective cognitive decline (when someone’s memory gets worse or they are getting confused more often).

Researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital analyzed survey data from almost 150,000 people to assess the connection. It’s the first large study to look at shingles and the risk of subjective cognitive decline, the authors note. While previous research has shown mixed evidence on a link between shingles and dementia, the authors write that this may be due to study designs that used insurance claims or administrative diagnostic data, which only includes people who received medical attention for their shingles.

The authors don’t know exactly how the virus might be linked to cognition. The study also found that men (not women) who had gotten shingles and carry the APOE4 gene, a risk factor for dementia, had an even higher risk.

The Biden Cancer Moonshot’s next target is surgery

The president and first lady spoke in New Orleans at Tulane University in New Orleans yesterday, announcing $150 million dollars in ARPA-H awards to develop technologies that will improve cancer surgeries. Tulane University is one of the first eight grantees to receive one of these awards, and the funding will go towards the creation of methods that will allow surgeons to determine if a cancer surgery successfully removed all of a tumor in real time.

“There are no good technologies that can help determine during the surgery whether it has been successful, but rather days later when it is already too late to change the surgery,” J. Quincy Brown, a biomedical engineer at Tulane University, said in the moonshot announcement in New Orleans. “We should at least be able to give surgeons and patients the peace of mind and positive health benefits of a successful surgery every time. That’s the goal our team is working towards.”

This program will also require the new technology to be deployed in rural hospitals at the end of the project, Brown added during his remarks. “So, we can’t build a million-dollar device,” he said.

—  Angus Chen

What we’re reading

Hot summer threatens efficacy of mail-order medications, New York Times

California bill would require state review of private equity deals in health care, KFF Health News

• The politics of mifepristone in the 2024 election, STAT
• Her son died of an overdose in his dorm room. Where was the Narcan? NPR
• Illumina lays out plan to boost growth by helping scientists interpret sequencing data, STAT
• Following national funding cuts, ‘July was pure hell’ for abortion funds, Rewire News Group

About the Author Reprints

Theresa gaffney.

Morning Rounds Writer and Podcast Producer

Theresa Gaffney is the lead Morning Rounds writer and a podcast producer at STAT.

cardiovascular disease

White House

STAT encourages you to share your voice. We welcome your commentary, criticism, and expertise on our subscriber-only platform, STAT+ Connect

To submit a correction request, please visit our Contact Us page .

Recommended

Recommended Stories

Morning Rounds: The billionaire who wants you angry about the food supply

Morning Rounds: Getting healthier in the checkout aisle and the alcohol aisle

STAT Plus: Health Care's Colossus: How UnitedHealth turned a questionable artery-screening program into a gold mine

STAT Plus: Health Care's Colossus: How UnitedHealth harnesses its physician empire to squeeze profits out of patients

STAT Plus: The race to build better CRISPR delivery vehicles is heating up

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

162 lies and distortions in a news conference. NPR fact-checks former President Trump

Domenico Montanaro

Former President Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, speaks during a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on Aug. 8. Joe Raedle/Getty Images hide caption

There were a host of false things that Donald Trump said during his hour-long news conference Thursday that have gotten attention.

A glaring example is his helicopter emergency landing story, which has not stood up to scrutiny .

But there was so much more. A team of NPR reporters and editors reviewed the transcript of his news conference and found at least 162 misstatements, exaggerations and outright lies in 64 minutes. That’s more than two a minute. It’s a stunning number for anyone – and even more problematic for a person running to lead the free world.

Politicians spin. They fib. They misspeak. They make honest mistakes like the rest of us. And, yes, they even sometimes exaggerate their biographies .

The expectation, though, is that they will treat the truth as something important and correct any errors.

But what former President Trump did this past Thursday went well beyond the bounds of what most politicians would do.

Here’s what we found, going chronologically from the beginning of Trump’s remarks to the end:

1. “I think our country right now is in the most dangerous position it’s ever been in from an economic standpoint…” 

The U.S. economy has rebounded from the pandemic downturn more rapidly than most other countries around the world. Growth has slowed in recent months, but gross domestic product still grew at a relatively healthy annual clip of 2.8% in April, May and June – which is faster than the pace in three of the four years when Trump was president. — Scott Horsley, NPR chief economics correspondent

2. “…from a safety standpoint, both gangs on the street…”

We don’t have great, up-to-date data on gang activity in the U.S., but violent crime trends offer a good glimpse into safety in the country. Nationally, violent crime – that includes murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault – has been trending way down after a surge in 2020, according to the most recent data from the FBI . That data is preliminary and incomplete, covering around three-quarters of the country, but other crime analysts have found similar trends. Crime levels, of course, vary locally : murders are down in Philadelphia, for instance, but up in Charlotte, N.C. — Meg Anderson, NPR National Desk reporter covering criminal justice

3. “...and frankly, gangs outside of our country in the form of other countries that are, frankly, very powerful. They’re very powerful countries.”

The U.S. is not in the “most dangerous position” from a foreign-policy standpoint than ever before. Biden pulled troops out of Afghanistan in his first year in office — though the withdrawal itself was chaotic and a target of much criticism — and since then, U.S. troops have not been actively engaged in a war for the first time in 20 years. The U.S. is supporting Ukraine and Israel, of course, and has troops in Iraq and Syria, but they’re not fighting on any regular basis.

What’s more, however, FBI Director Christopher Wray has said the greatest threat to the country is domestic extremism . And beyond organized groups the very definition of extremism is changing, as fringe ideologies move into the mainstream, and radicalization takes hold amongst parts of the populace. Consider: the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol and the assassination attempt on Trump’s life, even with a motive that remains murky at best. Regardless, the call is coming from inside the house, domestic extremism experts warn. Many polls show a sobering degree of support for political violence to drive change. — Andrew Sussman, NPR supervising editor for national security

4-5. “ We have a lot of bad things coming up. You could end up in a Depression of the 1929 variety, which would be a devastating thing, took many years– took many decades to recover from it, and we’re very close to that.”

There is nothing to suggest that a 1930s style Depression is on the horizon for the United States. And the Depression did not take “many decades to recover from.” It ended during World War Two , in 1941. — Scott Horsley

6. “And we’re very close to a world war. In my opinion, we’re very close to a world war.”

No serious person thinks that the U.S., Russia and China are about to start a world war. Right now, Russia appears to be having a hard time defending Russia, given Ukraine’s recent incursions. While there are concerns about things like the potential for regional conflagrations in the Middle East, only Trump is talking about world war. — Andrew Sussman

7. “ Kamala's record is horrible. She's a radical left person at a level that nobody's seen.” 

It’s debatable how liberal Harris is. Some in California didn’t like her record on criminal justice and thought she was not progressive enough. She’s clearly liked by progressives and her voting scores as a senator are on the liberal end of the spectrum, but is she “radical left” and “at a level that nobody’s seen”? There are plenty of people alive and in history who would be considered far more liberal and more radical.

8. “She picked a radical left man.”

Few, if any, reasonable people would say Walz is a “radical left man.” He had a progressive record as governor with a Democratic legislature, but the things passed are hardly radical – free school lunch, protecting abortion rights, legalizing marijuana, restricting access to certain types of guns. All of these things have majority support from voters. What’s more, that “progressive” record ignores Walz’s first term as governor when he worked with Republicans because Democrats didn’t control the legislature. And it ignores Walz’s time as a congressman when he was considered a more moderate member given that he was from a district that had been previously held by a Republican.

9. “He's going for things that nobody's ever even heard of. Heavy into the transgender world.” 

Last year, Walz championed and signed a bill that prevented state courts of officials from complying with child-removal requests, extraditions, arrests or subpoenas related to gender-affirming health care that a person receives or provides in Minnesota. “Heavy into the transgender world” is vague and misleading.

10. “He doesn't want to have borders. He doesn't want to have walls.”

Walz has never called for having no borders. He has voiced opposition to a wall because he doesn't think it will stop illegal immigration. He told Anderson Cooper on CNN , for example, that a wall "is not how you stop" illegal immigration He called for more border-control agents, electronics and more legal ways to immigrate.

11. “He doesn't want to have any form of safety for our country.”

Trump himself praised Walz’s handling of the aftermath of the George Floyd murder at the hands of a police officer. And it’s certainly hyperbole to say he “doesn’t want any form of safety for our country.” Walz served in the U.S. National Guard for 24 years, so clearly, he’s interested in the country having national security. And domestically, he’s never been a “defund the police” advocate. Walz opposed a ballot measure that would have gotten rid of minimum police staffing levels, for example. That angered advocates. He signed police reforms into law , but that does not prove wanting no safety.

12. “He doesn't mind people coming in from prisons.”

Walz has not said he wants people coming in from prisons. Trump is trying to tie his claim that other countries are sending prisoners to the United States to Democrats’ immigration policies.

13. “And neither does she, I guess. Because she's not, she couldn't care less.”

Harris has said a lot to the contrary of not caring about the levels of migrants coming across the border, let alone people coming in from prisons. In fact, when in Guatemala, she said her message for people thinking of immigrating to the United States was: " Do not come. Do not come ."

14. “She's the border czar. By the way, she was the border czar, 100%. And all of a sudden, for the last few weeks, she's not the border czar anymore, like nobody ever said it.”

Harris was never appointed “border czar.” That’s a phrase that was used incorrectly by some media outlets. Biden tasked Harris with leading the “ diplomatic effort ” with leaders in Central American countries, where many migrants are coming from.

Biden said he wants Harris “to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border.” He added that Harris “agreed to lead our diplomatic effort and work with those nations to accept — the returnees, and enhance migration enforcement at their borders — at their borders.”

Harris herself that day spoke of “the need to address root causes for the migration that we’ve been seeing.”

15. “We have a very, very sick country right now. You saw the other day with the stock market crashing. That was just the beginning. That was just the beginning.”

The stock market did not “crash.” The stock market fell sharply at the end of last week as investors fretted about a softening job market. This was amplified on Monday when Japan’s stock market tumbled 12%, sparking a selloff around the world. Stocks in Japan and elsewhere have since regained much of this ground, however. The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 683 points on the day of Trump’s news conference. — Scott Horsley

16. “Fortunately, we've had some very good polls over the last fairly short period of time.”

Most good polls have shown Harris gaining not just nationally, but also in the swing states, though these same polls show a very close race.

17. “Rasmussen came out today. We're substantially leading.” 

Trump is not substantially leading, and Rasmussen is viewed as one of the least credible pollsters in the country.

18. “And others came out today that we're leading, and in some cases, substantially, I guess, MSNBC came out, or CNBC came out also, with a poll that was, you know, has us leading.” 

Polls have not shown substantial leads. CNBC had Trump leading by 2, unchanged from his 2-point lead in July.

19. “And leading fairly big in swing states. In some polls, I'm leading very big in swing states… .”

Again, polls in swing states have shown a tightened race.

20. “But as a border czar, she's been the worst border czar in history, in the world history.”

Vice President Harris was never asked to lead immigration policy. That’s the job of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Again, the term “border czar” was used inaccurately by some media outlets, and it’s a term conservatives have been using to attack her, in part, because she has only visited the Southern U.S. border a few times since 2021. But in reality, Harris was tapped by President Biden to address the root causes of migration . Her approach has focused on deterrence. She’s told migrants to not come to the U.S., and she has been able to secure more than $5 billion in commitments from private companies to help boost the economy in Central American countries. — Sergio Martínez-Beltrán, NPR immigration correspondent based in Texas 

21. “I think the number is 20 million, but whether it's 15 or 20, it's numbers that nobody's ever heard before. 20 million people came over the border in the last– during the Biden-Harris administration. Twenty-million people. And it could be very much higher than that. Nobody really knows what the number is.”

It’s unclear where Trump is getting this number from. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection , since 2021 agents have had more than 7.3 million encounters nationwide with migrants trying to cross into the country illegally. Under Biden, unlawful crossings hit an all-time high last year, but that number has decreased significantly, in part, due to Biden’s asylum restrictions at the Southern U.S. border. An April report from the Office of Homeland Security Statistics found there’s nearly 11 million unauthorized migrants in the country. — Sergio Martínez-Beltrán

22. “Just like far more people were killed in the Ukraine-Russia war than you have reported.”

Neither Russia nor Ukraine is revealing its own casualty figures, so there are only very broad estimates. — Andrew Sussman 

23. “A lot of great things would have happened, but now you have millions and millions of dead people. And you have people dying financially, because they can't buy bacon; they can't buy food; they can't buy groceries; they can't do anything. And they're living horribly in our country right now.”

Grocery prices actually jumped sharply during Trump’s last year in office, as pandemic lockdowns disrupted the food supply chain and Americans were suddenly forced to eat more of their meals at home. Grocery inflation in June 2020 hit 5.6%. This was masked, however, by a plunge in other prices, as the global economy fell into pandemic recession.

As the economy rebounded, prices did, too. Inflation began to rise in 2021, and spiked in 2022 after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent food and energy prices soaring. Inflation has since moderated, falling from a peak of 9.1% in June 2022 to 3% in June 2024 . (July’s inflation figures will be released next week.) Grocery prices have largely leveled off in the last year, although they remain higher than they were before the pandemic – a potent reminder of the rising cost of living.

Economists have warned that Trump’s proposed import tariffs and immigration restrictions could result in higher inflation in the years to come. Researchers from the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimate the tariffs alone would cost the typical family about $1,700 a year . — Scott Horsley

24. “We've agreed with NBC, fairly full agreement, subject to them, on Sept. 10th.”

This is ABC, not NBC.

25. “She can't do an interview. She's barely competent and she can't do an interview.” 

Harris hasn’t done interviews since getting into the campaign, but she has done them in the past, so saying “she can’t do” one or that she is “barely competent” are just insults. Trump tends to revert to questioning the intelligence of Black women who challenge him. In fact, Trump did it nine times in this news conference, saying either Harris is not that “smart” (five times) "incompetent” (three times) or “barely competent,” as he did here.

26-27. “Why is it that millions of people were allowed to come into our country from prisons, from jails, from mental institutions, insane asylums, even insane asylums, that's a– it's a mental institution on steroids. That's what it is.”

Immigration experts have said they have not been able to find any evidence of this. Adam Isacson, director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America, told FactCheck.org : “It’s hard to prove a negative — nobody’s writing a report saying, ‘Ecuador is not opening its mental institutions’ — but what I can say is that I work full-time on migration, am on many coalition mailing lists, correspond constantly with partners in the region, and scan 300+ RSS feeds and Twitter lists of press outlets and activists region wide, and I have not seen a single report indicating that this is happening. … As far as I can tell, it’s a total fabrication.”

Notably, a version of this did happen in 1980 during the Mariel boatlift from Cuba . The Washington Post noted three years later: “Back in 1980, it seemed to be a humanitarian and patriotic gesture to accept provisionally, without papers or visas, all those fleeing from the port of Mariel. More than 125,000 came. Most were true refugees, many had families here, and the great majority has settled into American communities without mishap. But the Cuban dictator played a cruel joke. He opened his jails and mental hospitals and put their inmates on the boats too.”

Without a question, some migrants who have come into the U.S. have committed crimes, but the data show the vast majority do not. According to Northwestern University , immigrants are less likely to commit a crime than U.S.-born people and certainly at no higher rates that the population writ large. (Trump goes on to repeat this claim minutes later in the news conference as well, so it is included in our count here.)

28. “We have a president that's the worst president in the history of our country.”

Trump may have this opinion, but he says it as if it’s fact, and a 2022 survey of historians ranked Biden in the top half of presidents. Trump, on the other hand, was No. 43. The two below Trump were James Buchanan, who did little to stop the impending U.S. Civil War, and the impeached and nearly convicted Andrew Johnson.

29. “We have a vice president who is the least admired, least respected, and the worst vice president in the history of our country.” 

A recent rating of vice presidents did not show this. Harris was in the bottom half of vice presidents, but Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, Henry A. Wallace and were toward the bottom of the list.

30. “The most unpopular vice president.”

This might have been true about a year ago or so, but not anymore. An NBC poll then showed Harris had the lowest favorability rating of any modern VP they’d tested. But her numbers have turned around. The NPR poll had Harris with a 46%/48% favorable to unfavorable rating, which was higher than Trump’s and his running mate, JD Vance, who is among the least popular running mates in recent history .

31. “Don't forget, she was the first one defeated. As I remember it, because I watched it very closely, but she was the first one.”

Harris was not “defeated,” because she dropped out of the Democratic presidential race before Iowa. But even if one considers her dropping out on Dec. 3, 2019, a defeat, she was not the first of the Democratic candidates in that primary campaign to do so. At least 10 others dropped out sooner .

32-34. “And I'm no Biden fan, but I'll tell you what, from a constitutional standpoint, from any standpoint you're looking at, they took the presidency away. … And they took it away.” 

There’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution about picking presidential candidates. This is a party process, and everything has been done within party rules. And, again, the presidency wasn’t taken away: Biden is still president.

35. “They said they're going to use the 25th Amendment.”

This was never floated as a possibility to get Biden to withdraw from the race. Biden’s Cabinet members are all people he appointed and who are loyal to him. In addition, the 25th Amendment outlines a procedure for removing a sitting president from office, not from running for a second term.

36-39. "They're going to hit you hard. ‘Either we can do it the nice way. I heard, I know exactly, because I know a lot of people on the other side, believe it or not. And, they said, ‘We'll do it the nice way, or we'll do it the hard way.’ And he said, ‘All right.”

This was not said; he did not hear; no Democrats in the know are talking to Trump; and this dialogue is made up.

40. “We're leading, we're leading.”

The race is statistically tied in national polls and in the states. In some national polls, Harris leads. In some, Trump does.

41-42. “I'm saying it's a–, for a country with a Constitution that we cherish, we cherish this Constitution to have done it this way is pretty severe, pretty horrible. … But to just take it away from him, like he was a child.”

Again, this is Trump talking about how Biden stepped aside, and there’s nothing in the Constitution about how the political parties should pick candidates. And nothing was taken away.

43-46. “And he's a very angry man right now, I can tell you that. He's not happy with Obama, and he's not happy with Nancy Pelosi. Crazy Nancy, she is crazy, too. She's not happy with any of the people that told him that you've gotta leave. He's very unhappy, very angry, and I think he, He also blames her. He's trying to put up a good face, but it's a very bad thing in terms of a country when you do that. I'm not a fan of his, as you probably have noticed, and he had a rough debate, but that doesn't mean that you just take it away like that.” 

Trump can’t speak to Biden’s state of mind; all evidence is that Nancy Pelosi is perfectly sane – see her recent multiple rounds of interviews about her book, including with NPR ; again, Trump doesn’t know Biden’s state of mind; and again, nobody took it away.

47-51. “She's trying to say she had nothing to do with the border. She had everything. She was appointed to head the border. And then they said border czar. Oh, she loved that name. She loved that name. But she never went there. She went to a location once along the border, but that was a location that you would love to go and have dinner with your husband or whoever. That was a location that was not part of the problem. That was not really going to the border. So I– essentially she never went to the border.”

(1) As previously noted, she was not put in charge of the border and certainly did not have “everything” to do with it; (2) she was not appointed to head the border; (3) if “they” is the White House, then “they” did not call her “border czar”; (4) Trump doesn’t know what Harris might have thought about the term; (5) Harris did not go to a place at the border “you would love to go and have dinner with your husband or whoever.”

In 2021, Harris toured border patrol facilities in El Paso, Texas, visited an area where asylum seekers were screened, and met with migrants. Republicans criticized her at the time for not going to the Rio Grande Valley.

52. “Now we have the worst border in the history of the world.” 

World history is filled with cases where one country has crossed a border and invaded a neighboring country.

53. “She destroyed San Francisco. She destroyed California as the A.G. But as the D.A. She destroyed it. She– San Francisco. … She destroyed– no cash bail, weak on crime, uh, she's terrible.”

As San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011, and then California’s attorney general until 2017, it’s true that Kamala Harris was deeply connected to how crime was prosecuted during that particular period. However, no single person is responsible for destroying any city or state, not to mention that both are not destroyed.

There are just too many factors that contribute to why crime rises and falls. What’s more, according to the FBI , both violent and property crime rates in California more or less mirrored national trends during her tenures. As a prosecutor, Harris was largely seen as aligning more with law-and-order tendencies, though she has supported some progressive reforms, like offering certain criminal defendants drug treatment instead of going to trial. She also tweeted support for a Minnesota bail fund after the 2020 protests of George Floyd’s murder. — Meg Anderson

During her campaign for the 2020 nomination, she rolled out a plan that would have phased out cash bail , and she pledged to eliminate it as president because “no one should have to sit in jail for days or even years because they don’t have the money to pay bail.” But in the same campaign, during a debate, former Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard criticized Harris for keeping cash bail in place as district attorney.

54. “And yet they weaponized the system against me.” 

The justice system was not weaponized against Trump. Biden went through pains to not show any interference with the Justice Department. And Trump was found guilty by a jury of his peers in New York in a state case.

55-58. “I won the big case in Florida. I won the big case. … Nobody even wrote about it. The big case.” 

(1) Trump did not “win” the classified documents case against him in Florida; (2) this was not “the big case” against him; (3) there was plenty of coverage of it; and (4) he goes on to repeat that he won the case later.

For context: the judge in the case controversially dismissed it, claiming the special counsel was unconstitutionally appointed despite Supreme Court decisions upholding independent counsels. The Justice Department has signaled it will appeal by the end of August but by the time the decision comes back, the election will be over.

Trump had four criminal cases against him including the classified documents case – the fraudulent business practices case in New York, for which he was convicted on 34 felony counts; an election interference case in Georgia; and the other federal case dealing with Jan. 6. If there was a biggest case, it was the last one.

59. “The judge was a brilliant judge, and all they do is they play the ref with the judges. But this judge was a fair but brilliant judge.”

There has been lots of criticism of the judge in the case, Aileen Cannon, who Trump appointed. She had very little experience as a trial judge, made several decisions that were questioned by legal experts and early in this case, had a ruling, in which she called for a special master to review classified documents first, overturned by the 11th Circuit.

60. “Now Biden lost it because he didn't have presidential immunity. He didn't have the Presidential Records Act. He lost it.”

This was not “Biden’s case.” It was to be tried by special counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. The Biden White House has made efforts to keep an arms-length distance from the investigation. Biden often declined to comment on the Justice Department’s and state investigations into Trump when it would likely have been politically advantageous for him to talk about it on the campaign trail.

61. “But the– I call it prosecutors, special counsel, special prosecutor to me. He–, appointed by him and appointed by Garland. He said the man's incompetent. He can't stand trial, but he can run for president.” 

This appears to be a misrepresentation of what special counsel Robert Hur said of Biden in a report he released investigating the president’s handling of classified documents. Hur said he wouldn’t be charging Biden, called the president “an elderly man with a poor memory" and said a jury might find sympathy with him because of it. He did not say Biden was incompetent and could not stand trial.

62. “She couldn't pass her bar exam.”

This is false. Harris passed her bar exam on the second try . She failed on first attempt, which is not unusual for California’s bar exam given its difficulty.

63. “I was doing very well with Black voters, and I still am. I seem to be doing very well with Black males. This is according to polls, as you know. 

Trump was not doing “very well” with Black voters. Biden was not doing as well with Black voters as he did in 2020, according to most surveys, but that didn’t mean Black voters were moving heavily toward Trump. Many seemed more likely not to vote. There were signs that Trump was doing better with Black men, but there wasn’t much good evidence to support this in polling, considering most national polls have such high margins of error with voter groups. A typical national survey might have 1,000 voters and 100 or so Black voters, give or take. That’s typically a margin of error upward of +/- 10 percentage points, meaning results could be a whopping 10 points higher or lower.

64. “Extremely well with Hispanic.”

Like with Black voters, it’s difficult to tell in most national surveys exactly how well a candidate is doing with Latino voters because of high margins of error. “Extremely well” depends on how it’s defined, but this is an exaggeration.

65. “Jewish voters, way up.”

Jewish voters traditionally vote roughly 2-to-1 for Democrats in presidential elections, so this seems more like a hope than reality.

66. “White males, way up. White males have gone through the roof. White males, way up.” 

It’s just not the case that Trump is “way up.” NPR polling finds that while Trump is doing as well as ever with white men without college degrees, Harris – and Biden before her – is actually leading with white men with college degrees, a group Trump won in 2020, according to exit polls .

67. “It could be that I'll be affected somewhat with Black females. Well, we're doing pretty well. And I think ultimately they'll like me better, because I'm gonna give them security, safety and jobs.”

Trump is not doing well with Black females. Black women are a key pillar Democratic voting group, and Black voters have moved more in Harris’ favor since she’s gotten in.

69. “We have a very bad economy right now. We could, we could literally be on the throes of a depression. Not recession, a Depression. And they can't have that. They can't have that.”

This is not the case. See earlier fact check. (He repeats this again later in the press conference, so it is included here in the count.)

70. “I know Josh Shapiro. He's a terrible guy. And he's not very popular with anybody.” 

A Fox News poll last month showed Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a finalist to be Harris’ running mate, had a 61% approval rating in the state. Other polls also found him with a net-positive rating, though, not quite as high.

71. “Listen, I had 107,000 people in New Jersey. You didn't report it.”

It was reported that the numbers come from faulty information about the size of a crowd at Trump’s rally. More accurate estimates appear to be anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 . Still, a very large crowd, but Trump is exaggerating here.

72-77. “What did she have yesterday? 2,000 people? If I ever had 2,000 people, you'd say my campaign is finished. It's so dishonest, the press. … When she gets 1,500 people, and I saw it yesterday on ABC, which they said, ‘Oh, the crowd was so big.’ … I have 10 times, 20 times, 30 times the crowd size. And no, they never say the crowd was big. … I think it's so terrible when you say, ‘Well she has 1,500 people, 1,000 people,’ and they talk about, oh, the enthusiasm.” 

(1-3) Trump gave at least three incorrect estimates here, downplaying Harris’ crowd sizes (2,000, 1,500 and 1,000); (4) He also far overestimated how big his crowd sizes are compared to Harris’; (5-6) He twice said the press is dishonest about her crowd size and about his.

For context, the Harris campaign’s estimate was 10,000 or more at each rally. What the exact number is might be unclear — as is often the case with crowd-size estimates — but they were bigger than 2,000 and 1,500. Reporters have often commented on the size of Trump’s crowds. Frequently, they are very large, certainly larger than ones that Hillary Clinton drew in 2016 or Joe Biden this year, but Trump also regularly exaggerates their sizes.

78. “If I were president, you wouldn't have Russia and Ukraine, where it never happened. Zero chance. You wouldn't have had Oct. 7th of Israel.”

This is speculation, and that there is simply no way to know what would have happened in either case if he'd been reelected.

79. “You wouldn't have had inflation. You wouldn't have had any inflation because inflation was caused by their bad energy problems.” 

Again, this is speculative. Energy and food prices jumped sharply around the world following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting sanctions on Russian energy. Gasoline prices in the U.S. hit a record high topping $5 a gallon. But domestic energy production has not suffered during the Biden administration. In fact, U.S. oil and natural gas production hit record highs last year. AAA reports the average price of gasoline today is $3.45/gallon. — Scott Horsley

80. "I don't know if you know, they're drilling now because they had to go back because gasoline was going up to $7, $8, $9 a barrel."

Oil and gas production has largely been determined by energy companies. They were disciplined about not expanding production when prices were low but have become more aggressive as prices climbed. While Kamala Harris opposed “fracking” for oil and gas during her 2019 presidential campaign, she now says she would not try to outlaw the practice – which is important in battleground states such as Pennsylvania. — Scott Horsley

81. “Everybody's going to be forced to buy an electric car, which they're not going to do because they don't want that. It's got a great market. It's got a market. It's really a sub market.”

The Biden administration has set a goal of having 50% of new vehicle sales be electric by 2030 . It has primarily tried to achieve this through carrots rather than sticks, offering incentives to make electric cars more affordable, encouraging the development of electric charging stations and using the federal government’s own purchasing power to create demand. — Scott Horsley

82. “We don't have enough electricity. We couldn't make enough electricity for that.”

A shift to electric vehicles will require a rapid updating and expansion of the U.S. power grid, according to the Electric Power Research Institute . However, as EVs become more efficient, the increased demand could be reduced by as much as 50% per mile traveled over the next three decades. — Scott Horsley

83. “The weight of a car, the weight of a truck, they want all trucks to be electric. Little things that a lot of people don't talk about. The weight of a truck is two-and-a-half times, two-and-a- half times heavier.” 

Electric vehicles are typically heavier than gasoline-powered vehicles, because of the batteries. But the weight difference is about 30% , not 250% as Trump said. What’s more, American vehicles have been getting heavier for decades, long before the move to EVs, thanks to the popularity of pickup trucks and SUVs.

84. “You would have to rebuild every bridge in this country, if you were going to do this ridiculous policy.”

While many bridges and other transportation infrastructure need improvement , the additional weight of EVs is just one of many factors that will need to be considered. Another challenge is that bridges and highways are typically funded through gasoline taxes. The shift to EVs, which don’t use gasoline, will require an alternate source of highway funding.

85-90. “So, but on crowd size in history, for any country, nobody's had crowds like I have, and you know that. And when she gets 1,000 people and everybody starts jumping, you know that if I had a thousand people would say, people would say, that's the end of his campaign. I have hundreds of thousands of people in, uh, South Carolina. I had 88,000 people in Alabama. I had 68,000 people. Nobody says about crowd size with me, but she has 1,000 people or 1,500 people, and they say, oh, the enthusiasm's back.”

There were at least six different misstatements here – (1) Trump has had large crowds, but “in history,” there certainly there have been people with larger crowds, from Barack Obama and others; (2, 3) her crowds have been larger than 1,000, which he repeats twice; (4) no serious analysts have said this is the end of Trump’s campaign. This race is very close; (5) there’s no evidence for crowds of the size Trump notes in South Carolina and Alabama; (6) people do talk about Trump’s crowd sizes.

91. “They wanna stop people from pouring into our country, from places unknown and from countries unknown from countries that nobody ever heard of.”

Someone has likely heard of whatever the unnamed country is.

92-93. “We're leading in Georgia by a lot. We're leading in Pennsylvania by a lot.”

The races in Georgia and Pennsylvania are within the margin of error, according to an average of the polls.

94. “So I won Alabama by a record. Nobody's ever gotten that many votes. I won South Carolina by a record. You don't win Alabama and South Carolina by records and lose Georgia. It doesn't happen.”

It does, and here’s why. Demographically, Georgia has become very different from South Carolina and Alabama. Georgia’s population is now majority-minority, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Alabama and South Carolina are 64% and 63% white, respectively.

Georgia’s Black population is also significant politically — 33% of the state’s population is Black. By comparison, Alabama is 27% Black, South Carolina 26%. Latinos also make up 11% of Georgia’s population and Asian Americans are 5%, both of which are higher than Alabama and South Carolina. And Georgia’s population is marginally younger — 15% of Georgia’s population is older than 65% compared to 18% in Alabama and 19% in South Carolina.

95. “If we have honest elections in Georgia, if we have honest elections in Pennsylvania, We're gonna win them by a lot.”

Winning them by a lot is highly unlikely, considering how close the states have been in recent elections, but perhaps more pressing is Trump’s insinuation that there were voting problems in the two states, which there were not. That’s why Trump is upset with Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, for example, because he upheld the valid 2020 election results even in the face of pressure from Trump.

96. “Of course there'll be a peaceful transfer. And there was last time.”

This wholly ignores the Jan. 6 siege on the Capitol, which took place because of Trump’s election lies.

97. “Because I'm leading by a lot.”

Again, this is a very close race.

98. “We have commercials that are at a level I don't think that anybody's ever done before.”

This is false. Since Super Tuesday, Democrats have outspent Trump’s campaign and outside groups supporting him by more than double, according to data provided by AdImpact and analyzed by NPR — $373.5 million to $150.6 million.

99. “She's not smart enough to do a news conference.”

There is plenty of evidence that Harris is “smart enough to do a news conference,” as she has done in the past.

100. "We're in great danger of being in World War III. That could happen." 

Again, no serious analyst believes this.

101. “I think those people were treated very harshly, when you compare them to other things that took place in this country where a lot of people were killed.”

The Justice Department investigation into the events of Jan. 6, 2021, is the largest and most complex federal criminal probe in U.S. history, the attorney general has said. More than 140 law enforcement officers were injured that day, in what U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves has described as the biggest mass casualty event involving police. It’s hard to find any comparable event in recent American history.

As of Aug. 6, 2024, according to Graves’s office, prosecutors have charged more than 160 people with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. Prosecutors have also secured convictions on the rarely-deployed charge of seditious conspiracy, or attempting to overthrow the government by use of force, against top leaders of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.

Even so, only a small number of Jan. 6 defendants have been held in federal custody while they await trial. Mostly, these are the rioters who allegedly used the most violence on that day more than three years ago. Republican members of Congress have toured the jail facilities and decried conditions there, expressions of support that defendants facing ordinary charges in D.C. have not received. — Carrie Johnson, NPR national justice correspondent

102. “Nobody was killed on Jan. 6th.” 

Conservatives were upset at the time that one of the rioters, Ashli Babbitt, was killed when she was shot by police, as she was trying to force her way into the Speaker’s Lobby of the Capitol, which leads to the House chamber, with a crowd of others. Many officers were injured that day; one died of a stroke as a result of Jan. 6; and others later died by suicide that their families say was also a result of Jan. 6.

103-105. “And, you know, it's very interesting, the biggest crowd I've ever spoken to. … The biggest crowd I've ever spoken before was that day. … The biggest crowd I've ever spoken. … I've spoken to the biggest crowds. Nobody's spoken to crowds bigger than me.” 

It was not the biggest crowd he’s ever spoken to. His inauguration would have topped that. And others have had bigger crowds, as noted earlier.

106. “I said peacefully and patriotically.”

While Trump did utter those words, it is misleading. Trump also said the word “fight” multiple times , and he told the already angry crowd because of the election lies he fed them: “We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Trump aides testified that he “refused” to tweet the word “peaceful” in the days leading up to the rally because he thought it might discourage people from being there, and he was concerned about his crowd size.

107-108. “If you look at Martin Luther King, when he did his speech, his great speech, and you look at ours, same real estate, same, everything, same number of people. If not, we had more. …You look at the picture of his crowd, my crowd, uh, we actually had more people.”

First, the speeches did not take place at the “same real estate.” Trump spoke from a position just south of the Ellipse. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial

Second, the crowds were not the same size and Trump’s was certainly not larger. It is an extraordinary claim and shows just how much Trump cares about crowd size.

109. “We have a Constitution. It's a very important document, and we live by it. She has no votes.” 

Again, there’s nothing in the Constitution about how parties should pick their presidents.

110-111. “They said, ‘You're not going to win, you can't win, you're out.’ And at first they said it nicely, and he wasn't leaving, and then you, you know, the, you know it better than anybody. … At first, they were going to go out to another vote, they were going to go through a primary system, a quick primary system, which it would have to be. And then it all disappeared, and they just picked a person.”

As explained earlier, this is not how Biden wound up stepping aside. The story is yet another Trump invention. He also lies here in saying that “they were going to go through a primary system” and “it would have to be” a quick primary system.” There’s no requirement that a primary is held. In fact, for many years, candidates’ selection as party nominees had nothing to do with primaries, and they were not as prevalent as today.

112-113. “That was the first out. She was the first loser, OK? So, we call her the first loser. She was the first loser when– during the primary system, during the Democrat primary system, she was the first one to quit. And she quit.”

As explained earlier, Harris was not the first one out in the 2020 Democratic primary race. And “first loser” appears to be a name Trump made up at this news conference, as Harris has not been referred to that way as a result of her run for the 2020 nomination.

114. “She did, obviously, a bad job. She never made it to Iowa. Then for some reason, and I'm, I know he regrets it, you do too, uh, he picked her, and she turned on him too. She was working with the people that wanted him out."

Once again, this is a false conspiracy invented by Trump.

115. “She was the first one out.” 

Trump repeats this false line again.

116. “I think the abortion issue is written very much tempered down, and I've answered I think very well in the debate, and it seems to be much less of an issue, especially for those where they have the exceptions.”

Abortion rights as a political and social issue has certainly not “tempered down.” There are millions of women, especially across the South, who do not have access to abortion and women who have experienced pregnancy losses with the inability to access medications for those necessary procedures.

117. “As you know, and I think it's when I look for 52 years, they wanted to bring abortion back to the states. They wanted to get rid of Roe v. Wade and that's Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and everybody. Liberals, conservatives, everybody wanted it back in the states. And I did that.”

Everybody absolutely did not want that. It was actually quite unpopular for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe . And he again repeats that it has become less of an issue.

118-119. “I think that abortion has become much less of an issue. It's a very small.” 

“I think it's actually going to be a very small issue. What I've done is I've done what every Democrat and every Every Republican wanted to have done.” 

“I think the abortion issue has been taken down many notches. I don't think it's of– I don't think it's a big factor anymore, really.”

Minutes apart from each other, he repeats these three false claims. Abortion rights is not a “very small” issue for millions of voters. Democrats are organizing around it, and it has been seminal to Biden and Harris’ campaigns.

120. “Previous to [Virginia Gov.] Glenn [Youngkin], the governor, he said the baby will be born, we will put the baby aside, and we will decide with the mother what we're going to do. In other words, whether or not we're going to kill the baby.”

This is a distortion Republicans continue to push about what former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said. This has been fact-checked by others multiple times .

121-122. “I think the abortion issue has been, uh, taken down many notches. I don't think it's of, uh, I don't think it's a big factor anymore, really.”

“Everybody wanted it in the states.”

“But that issue has is very much subdued.”

He once again returns to the issue of abortions, which remains a “factor,” not everybody wanted it in the states, the issue is not “very much subdued.”

123-124. “ She wants to take away everyone's gun.” 

Harris has not proposed taking away all guns. She has proposed banning assault-style weapons, something that was in place for a decade. Some surveys had shown majority support for this. Others show a split. (Trump makes this case later, as well, so that is also included in the count.)

125. “Some countries have actually gone the opposite way. They had very strong gun laws and now they have gone the opposite way, where they allowed people to have guns, where in one case they encouraged people to go out and get guns, and crime is down 29%.”

It’s difficult to compare gun violence and gun laws in the United States to other countries, simply because of the staggering amount of guns we have here. Although the U.S. has less than 5% of the world’s population, it holds almost 40% or more of the world’s civilian-owned guns. And it has “the highest homicide-by-firearm rate of the world’s most developed nations,” per the Council on Foreign Relations . Norway, Canada and Australia all tightened their gun restrictions after shootings. — Meg Anderson

126. “On July 4th, 117 people were shot and 17 died. The toughest gun laws in the United States are in the city of Chicago. You know that. They had 117 people shot. Afghanistan does not have that.” 

Though Trump didn’t get the numbers exactly right, Chicago did have an incredibly violent July 4th holiday weekend this year. According to Mayor Brandon Johnson, more than 100 people were shot and 19 of those people died. Chicago does have strict gun laws, in part because its state does: Everytown For Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for gun control, ranks Illinois third in the nation for the strength of its gun-control laws. However, no state or city exists within a bubble, and Illinois is surrounded by states with much weaker laws, including Indiana, which is just a short drive from Chicago. — Meg Anderson

127. “For 18 months, not one American soldier was shot at or killed, but not even shot at.” 

This is, to put it charitably, misleading. It appears that he’s actually referencing the period when the Trump administration signed the deal with the Taliban, in advance of U.S. troops leaving. The deal said the U.S. would be out in 14 months, and in exchange the Taliban wouldn’t harbor terrorists and would stop attacking U.S. service members. Needless to say, the deal didn’t hold. But as the AP notes , “There was an 18-month stretch that saw no combat, or ‘hostile,’ deaths in Afghanistan: from early February 2020 to August 2021.” – Andrew Sussman

128. “Kamala is in favor of not giving Israel weapons. That's what I hear.”

Harris does not support an Israel weapons embargo. A Biden administration official posted on social media that Harris "has been clear: she will always ensure Israel is able to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups.” A leader of the uncommitted movement said Harris “expressed an openness” to a meeting about an embargo, but the Biden administration official said Harris "will continue to work to protect civilians in Gaza and to uphold international humanitarian law,” not that she would support an embargo.

129. “She's been very, very bad to Israel, and she's been very bad and disrespectful to Jewish people.”

Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, is Jewish. The couple has hosted Passover Seders.

130. “Well, I know Willie Brown very well. In fact, I went down in a helicopter with him. We thought maybe this is the end. We were in a helicopter going to a certain location together and there was an emergency landing.”

This claim has not held up to scrutiny. Politico reported that Trump did have to make an emergency landing in a helicopter with a Black California politician decades ago, but it wasn’t Willie Brown, the former San Francisco mayor and state assembly speaker. It was Nate Holden, a former Los Angeles city councilman and state senator.

131-132. “This was not a pleasant landing, and Willie was— he was a little concerned. So I know him. I know him pretty well. I mean, I haven't seen him in years. But he told me terrible things about her.”

“He was not a fan of hers very much at that point.”

This is something Trump repeated twice, minutes apart from each other. Brown strongly denies having been on a helicopter with Trump or telling Trump negative things about Harris, whom he dated in the mid-1990s and supports now for president. The relationship ended in 1995.

133. “Our tax cuts, which are the biggest in history… .”

The 2017 tax cuts were not the biggest in history. As a share of the economy, they barely make the top 10 . They were big enough, however, to blow a big hole in the federal budget, which is why Trump was overseeing a nearly $1 trillion dollar annual deficit before the pandemic. — Scott Horsley

134. “It'll destroy the economy.”

This is what Trump said will happen if his tax cuts are not renewed. But The 2017 tax cut did not deliver the economic boom that its supporters promised, and there’s no reason to think reversing a portion of the cut would cause economic destruction. — Scott Horsley

135. “I've never seen people get elected by saying, 'We're going to give you a tax increase.'”

Vice President Harris has echoed President Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000. However, Biden has called for raising taxes on wealthy individuals and raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% – halfway back to where it was before the 2017 cut. — Scott Horsley

136. “These guys get up, think of it. ‘We're going to give you no security.’ …”

No Democratic presidential candidate has advocated “no security.”

137. “We're going to give you a weak military… .’ ”

An analysis by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, showed a “review of historical defense budget trends shows there is more at play in determining overall investments in defense than just which party is in the White House.” Indeed, since the year 2000, U.S.-led wars overseas have resulted in a surge of spending by both Democratic and Republican administrations.

138-139. “…We're going to give you no walls, no borders, no anything.”

Harris, Walz and the Democratic Party have never said they want “no borders.” They certainly oppose Trump’s wall/fence along the entire U.S.-Mexico border, citing the exorbitant cost and its relative ineffectiveness, they say, compared to using other methods. (Trump later says that Harris wants “open borders,” so that’s included in the count here.)

140. “...We're going to give you a tax increase.”

Again, this is misleading and suggests Harris wants to increase taxes across the board when they have consistently talked about increasing taxes only on the wealthy. In Harris’ view, those making more than $400,000 a year .

141. “They're gonna destroy Social Security.”

Democrats have consistently advocated for keeping Social Security and making it solvent.

142. “They've weaponized government against me. Look at the Florida case. It was a totally weaponized case. All of these cases, by the way, the New York cases are totally controlled out of the Department of Justice. They sent their top person to the various places. They went to the A.G.'s office, got that one going, then he went to the D.A.'s office, got that one going, ran through it. No, no, this is all politics, and it's a disgrace.”

In congressional testimony this year, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers that President Biden had never called him to discuss any of the cases against Trump. Garland also had aides review Justice Department leaders’ email for any correspondence with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. In a letter to Congress in June 2024, the Justice Department said it had found no such contacts.

In that same letter, Justice Department legislative affairs chief Carlos Uriarte said the department did not “dispatch” former acting Associate Attorney General Matthew Colangelo to New York to join Bragg’s team prosecuting Trump. “Department leadership was unaware of his work on the investigation and prosecution involving the former president until it was reported in the news,” Uriarte wrote. — Carrie Johnson

143. “Any time you have mail-in ballots, you're gonna have problems. ... We should have one-day voting; we should have paper ballots; we should have voter ID; and we should have proof of citizenship.” 

Trump continues to spread baseless claims about mail ballots. There’s no proof of widespread fraud with the voting method. When it comes to paper ballots, they're standard. One estimate found that in the 2024 general election, "nearly 99% of all registered voters will live in jurisdictions where they can cast a ballot with a paper record of the vote."

The proof of citizenship comment echoes a Republican push on the issue , though studies have shown voting by non-U.S. citizens in federal elections to be exceedingly rare. The GOP-led House has passed a bill to require such documentary proof, but it’s likely to go no further in a Senate led by Democrats who are opposed to adding new voting restrictions. — Ben Swasey, voting editor

144. “The polls have suggested, there are some polls that say we're going to win in a landslide.” 

There are no polls that suggest Trump will win in a landslide. By all accounts, this is a very close race.

145. “...they're paying 50, 60, 70 percent more for food than they did just a couple of years ago.”

The rise in grocery prices is a common complaint , but Trump exaggerates the scale of the increase. According to the Consumer Price Index, grocery prices have risen 25% since before the pandemic and 21% since President Biden took office. (At the same time, average wages have risen 23% since before the pandemic and 17% since President Biden took office.)

146-149. The Strategic National Reserve is “virtually empty now. We've never had it this low.”

“He's sucked all of the oil out.”

“Essentially the gasoline to keep the, to keep the price down a little bit. … But you know what? We have no strategic national reserves now. He's emptied it. It's almost empty. It's never been this low.”

“They've just, for the sake of getting some votes, for the sake of having gasoline–. You know, that's meant for wars. It's meant for, like, tragedy. It's not meant to keep a gasoline price down, so that somebody can vote for Biden or, in this case, Kamala.” 

The strategic oil reserve is actually up in the past year . Biden has since repurchased about 32 million barrels of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. As of this month, the reserve held about 376 million barrels of oil. The reserve was lower when Trump left office than when he got in.

150. “I see it right now, I see her going way down on the polls now.”

The opposite is true. Harris has continued her momentum since getting into the race.

151-152. “...now that people are finding out that she destroyed San Francisco, she destroyed the state of California.” 

As addressed earlier, Harris is not entirely responsible for San Francisco or the state of California. Crime trends there were similar to national crime trends during her time as district attorney in San Francisco and as the state’s attorney general. What’s more, preliminary data for this year indicates that many cities in California, including San Francisco, are seeing murder rates falling. (Trump repeats the claim one more time later in the news conference, so it is included in the count here.) — Meg Anderson

153. “She was early, I mean, she was the first of the prosecutors, really, you know, now you see Philadelphia, you see Los Angeles, you see New York, you see various people that are very bad, but she was the first of the bad prosecutors, she was early.”

Although Harris did refer to herself in her 2019 memoir as a “progressive prosecutor,” her legacy has largely been seen as tougher on crime. She has supported some progressive reforms, such as pretrial diversion, which offers certain criminal defendants things like drug treatment instead of going to trial. — Meg Anderson

154. “You know, with Hillary Clinton, I could have done things to her that would have made your head spin. I thought it was a very bad thing – take the wife of a president of the United States, and put her in jail. And then I see the way they treat me. That's the way it goes. But I was very protective of her. Nobody would understand that. But I was. I think my people understand it. They used to say, lock her up, lock her up. And I'd say, just relax, please.”

Trump called for Clinton’s imprisonment multiple times , including going along with crowd chants of “lock her up.”

155. “Don't forget, she got a subpoena from the United States Congress, and then after getting the subpoena, she destroyed everything that she was supposed to get. 

Clinton aides requested emails be deleted months before the subpoena, and the FBI said there’s no evidence the messages were deleted with a subpoena in mind. — Carrie Johnson

156. “I thought it was so bad to take her, and put her in jail, the wife of a president of the United States. And then, when it's my turn, nobody thinks that way.”

The Justice Department closed an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct some State Department business in 2016. Then-FBI Director Jim Comey gave a press conference to explain his reasoning in July of that election year. Comey said, “We did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information,” but he criticized Clinton and her aides for being “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” that flowed through the server.

By contrast, prosecutors in the Florida case against former President Donald Trump said Trump had flouted requests from the FBI and a subpoena for highly classified materials he stored in unsecure spaces like a ballroom and a bathroom at his Mar-a-Lago resort. The indictment in that case accuses Trump of unlawfully retaining government secrets and of intentionally obstructing justice with the help of an aide who moved boxes of materials and otherwise allegedly thwarted the FBI probe. Trump and his co-defendants pleaded not guilty. The Justice Department says it is appealing the district court’s decision to toss the case on constitutional grounds. — Carrie Johnson

157. “A lot of the MAGA, as they call them, but the base. And I think the base is, I think the base is 75% of the country, far beyond the Republican Party.”

Rounding up, Trump won 46% of the vote in 2016 and 47% of the vote in 2020. He has a high floor, but a low ceiling politically. Majorities continue to say they have an unfavorable rating of Trump, which has been consistent for years. No American presidential candidate has ever gotten 75% of the vote in this country, dating back to 1824 since data was kept for popular votes. Lyndon B. Johnson got 61% in 1964, Richard Nixon slightly less than 61% in 1972, Ronald Reagan 59% in 1984. Since then, Barack Obama got nearly 53% in 2008 and 51% in 2012, the first candidate since Eisenhower to win at least 51% of the vote twice.

158. “My sons are members, and I guess indirectly I'm a member, too.”

Trump here is talking about membership in the National Rifle Association. Another family member being an NRA member does not make someone else an NRA member “indirectly.”

159. “She served 24 years for being on a phone call having to do with drugs. You know who I'm talking about. She was great. And she had another 24 years to go. And it was largely about marijuana, which in many cases is now legalized, OK?”

Presumably, Trump is talking about Alice Marie Johnson, who had been convicted on cocaine conspiracy and money laundering charges . Kim Kardashian advocated for Johnson and won a pardon for her from Trump.

160. “They're either really stupid, and I don't believe they're stupid, because anybody that can cheat in elections like they cheat is not stupid.”

More than 60 court cases proved there was not widespread fraud or cheating that would have made any difference in any state.

161. “Lately I've seen where they're trying to sign these people up to vote. And they have to stop. They cannot let illegal immigrants vote in this upcoming election.”

This is a conspiracy not based in fact. Immigrants in the country illegally cannot vote in presidential elections, and there’s no evidence there is an intentional effort to sign them up in mass numbers to sway elections.

162. “If you go to California, and you ask the people of California, do they like the idea of sanctuary cities? They don't like it.”

The subject of sanctuary cities actually mostly splits Californians. Slim majorities have actually said that they favor the sanctuary-state law and are against their cities opting out of the law. Of course, this breaks down along party lines, and since California is heavily Democratic, those results might not be surprising. But it’s more divided than Trump suggests.

• 2024 presidential election

California finalizes deal to give its own bar exam

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Karen Sloan

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Karen Sloan reports on law firms, law schools, and the business of law. Reach her at [email protected]

Read Next / Editor's Picks

Industry Insight

Luc Cohen, Susan Heavey

David Thomas

Mike Scarcella, David Thomas

Karen Sloan

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Catholic Converts Like JD Vance Are Reshaping Republican Politics

By Matthew Schmitz

Mr. Schmitz is a founder and an editor of the online magazine Compact.

Despite institutional decline and internal conflict, Catholicism retains a surprising resonance in American life — especially in certain elite circles. It has emerged as the largest and perhaps the most vibrant religious group at many top universities . It claims six of the nine Supreme Court justices as adherents. It continues to win high-profile converts, and its social teaching exerts an influence (often unacknowledged) on public debates, inspiring political thinkers who seek to challenge both the cultural left and the laissez-faire right.

The Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance, who converted to Catholicism after attending Yale Law School, exemplifies this phenomenon. When he was baptized into the church in 2019, he joined an influential group of conservative converts, including the legal scholars Erika Bachiochi and Adrian Vermeule, the political scientist Darel Paul, the Times Opinion columnist Ross Douthat, the theologian R.R. Reno and the writer and editor Sohrab Ahmari, one of my colleagues at the online magazine Compact. (I am also a convert to Catholicism, and I work or have worked with many of these figures.)

Such thinkers disagree, sometimes sharply, on important matters, not least the value of populism and the merits of Donald Trump. But all share a combination of social conservatism and a willingness to question many of the free-market orthodoxies of the pre-Trump Republican Party. In doing so, they can claim justification from Catholic social teaching, a body of thought that insists on a traditional understanding of the family while embracing a living wage and trade unions as means of promoting “the common good.” See, for example, Mr. Vance in 2019 : “My views on public policy and what the optimal state should look like are pretty aligned with Catholic social teaching.”

This group’s economic thinking distinguishes its members from an earlier cohort of conservative Catholic intellectuals such as William F. Buckley Jr. and Michael Novak. Those men laid a stress on free markets, in part because the threat of Soviet Communism had led Catholic thinkers to emphasize the relative virtues of a liberal and capitalist system that had long been subject to Catholic critique.

By contrast, for Mr. Vance and others like him, Catholicism seems to be a resource for pushing back against the excesses of cultural and economic liberalism. As for so many converts before them, the church represents an alternative to the dominant ethos of the age. During the Romantic period, intellectuals like Chateaubriand and Friedrich Schlegel were drawn to Catholicism in reaction to what they saw as a tidal wave of rationalism associated with the Enlightenment. In the 20th century, the writer Evelyn Waugh, another convert, described Catholicism as a welcome foil for what he saw as the “materialistic, mechanized state.”

Many of today’s converts look to resist the left-right fusion of libertarian cultural attitudes and free-market economics that has reshaped Western society over the past three or four decades. But rather than precipitating a radical overhaul of society, as some fear and others hope, they have exerted a subtler influence that is nonetheless significant: altering how the Republican Party approaches policy, and in some cases helping build a new consensus across party lines.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .