Reproductive Rights and Abortion Laws: A Global Perspective on Bodily Autonomy

Author: Adrija Dey, Heritage Law College

Mid-level providers or expectant mothers themselves can safely provide many aspects of abortion care in the early stages of pregnancy as outpatient services. However, non-evidence-based provider restrictions, that is, legal or regulatory limitations(PubMed Central, n.d.) on who can manage or provide all or some aspects of abortion care are enforced by certain states(PubMed Central, n.d.). These limitations do not typically reflect evidence-based decisions about who can perform abortions, and they are at odds with the World Health Organization’s support for the optimization of the roles of various health workers(Shasta College,2022). law to make sure that abortion regulations are reasonable and supported by evidence, and that any disproportionate effects are addressed. States must also take action to prevent women from having unsafe abortions(Adtalem Global Education, 2023), lower maternal morbidity and mortality, and adequately shield women and girls from the psychological and physical(Pace University, 2024) harm that comes with unsafe abortions. To guarantee this, states must amend their legislation. Laws that prohibit individuals who possess the necessary training and expertise from providing abortion care are essentially arbitrary and out of proportion, necessitating reform. Experts in reproductive health, law, policy, and human rights created this review, which looked at how provider restrictions affected both medical professionals and those seeking abortions.

Keywords: Reproductive rights, abortion laws, bodily autonomy, gender equality, Public Health, maternal health ,women’s rights

 Reproductive rights are increasingly being acknowledged as essential human rights by millions of people worldwide. It rests on the recognition of the basic rights of all the individuals to attain the highest number of sexual and reproductive health (Reproductive Rights, Wikipedia, 2025). It includes certain essential rights like the freedom from forced sterilization, right to abortion, rights to obtain high quality reproductive healthcare, protection from practices like female genital mutilation, education regarding STDs and many more. The twenty year ‘Cairo Programme of Action’ which was adopted in 1994 at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo asserted that the governments have a responsibility to meet the reproductive needs of the individuals (dokumen.pub, n.d.) instead of demographic targets. It suggested that the family planning services be offered alongside other reproductive health care services. The purpose of this research is to analyze the different dimensions and impact of abortion laws on women’s bodily economy. This paper will discuss the evolution of abortion laws globally, ethical and religious conflicts, policies and healthcare facilities that are needed to ensure safe and accessible abortion services, comparisons of different international approaches, future implications and so on. 

Individual well being is divided into subjective and objective well-being. Subjective well-being discusses  personal fulfillment and experiences(Dodge, Daly et al., 2012)and  assessment based on cognitive judgements and affective reactions of their own life (Das, Jones-Harrell et al., 2020). It encloses multiple, overlapping aspects, including social, psychological, and spiritual. Well-being research has a long history, and its meanings and understandings continue to evolve( Stoll, 2014). Diverse disciplinary approaches to well-being are reflected in a variety of methods for evaluating or measuring well-being (Gabrielli et al., 2021). Out of an estimated 250 million pregnancies worldwide (2015-2019), 48% were unplanned, and 29%, or 73 million, ended in an induced abortion (Bearak et al., 2020). Quality abortion care is crucial healthcare with implications for safety, agency, and good health, intersecting with fundamental capabilities like life, bodily health, and integrity (WHO, 2022). An estimated 45% of these were unsafe, and most least and less-safe abortions took place in legally restrictive settings (Ganatra et al., 2017). Abortion care encompasses informational sessions, abortion management (including induced abortion and pregnancy loss care), and post-abortion care (WHO, 2022). It can be categorized according to several factors , safety, legality, and provider. The processes and changes that take place over time for a pregnancy that ends in abortion, such as care that may be postponed, prevented, denied, or accessed, are unique to each abortion (Coast, Norris, Moore, & Freeman, 2018). The stigma associated with abortion is pervasive and affects the accessibility and caliber of abortion care that is offered and received (Kumar, Hessini, & Mitchell, 2009). Abortion is a prevalent reproductive health event that many pregnant people worldwide go through, and it is a significant health issue that is closely related to both subjective and objective well-being(Ernestina Coast et al., 2024). Numerous studies have emphasized the wider implications of abortion care for well-being and examined the effects of access to abortion beyond immediate health outcomes. The legalization of abortion has been found to have a positive impact on female educational attainment (Kalist, 2004) and labor force participation (Myers, 2017). Research has also demonstrated that abortion bans have a significant financial impact on individuals, households, and societies (Miller, Wherry, & Foster, 2023), with the financial fallout potentially lasting for years. Reviews have examined abortion and concepts related to well-being, such as the emotional reactions of women who terminate a pregnancy for medical reasons (González-Ramos et al., 2021), the psychosocial experiences of adolescents and young women in sub-Saharan Africa (Zia et al., 2021), the economic consequences of abortion, the psychological effects of abortion (Zareba et al., 2020), and the experiences of LGBTIQA+ individuals (Bowler et al., 2023). However, the wider implications of abortion care on well-being, such as denial or inaccessibility of care, have not been synthesized. Additionally, the conceptualization of abortion and well-being and their connections is surprisingly lacking (Ernestina Coast et al., 2024).

This research adopts a comparative legal methodology combining doctrinal analysis with empirical data to examine abortion laws across liberal restrictive and hybrid jurisdiction. It involves a detailed review of Legislative framework constitutional provisions and landmark judicial decisions and key rulings from across the world the secondary data is sourced from International organizations like who UN women and Amnesty International alongside National Health data bases and policy reports the study utilizers both qualitative and quantitative data analysis to assess the impact of legal restriction on access to abortion maternal health and socio economic outcomes content analysis is conducted on academy literature and policy documents to identify recurring themes and legal narratives.

1. 1847 ; Formation of American Medical Association:

Physicians united to form the American Medical Association in 1847. It evolved into the preeminent authority on medical practices, dominated by men. The obstetric services that midwives and nurses provided were phased out after the American Medical Association scrutinized reproductive health care providers. Members of the American Medical Association felt that they ought to have the authority to determine when an abortion was permissible. Physicians who were not specialists in pregnancy and reproductive health made up the American Medical Association at the time(St. Xavier University, 2024). AMA members launched a full-fledged criminalization campaign against abortion and female abortion providers. State legislatures moved to ban abortion(Historical Abortion Law Timeline, Planned Parenthood n.d.)

1880s: Criminalization and Criticism:

Roe v. Wade put an end to the “century of criminalization” that this backlash had sparked. Wade in 1973. Access to abortion became restricted by law. All states had laws prohibiting abortion by 1880, though some allowed exceptions if a doctor certified that the procedure was necessary for the patient’s treatment or life(Ottawa University,2025). Abortion became more stigmatized as it was made illegal.

2. 1910: Ban of Abortion Worldwide:

By 1910, every state in the nation had made abortion illegal at all stages of pregnancy, not just restricted. Only physicians, 95 percent of whom were men, had the authority to make exceptions(Franklin University,2022) to these abortion prohibitions in order to save the patient’s life. America had seen a surge in immigration for several decades by this point. Concerned about losing control of the nation, white men in positions of authority backed abortion restrictions as a means of encouraging white women from the upper class to have more children(University of Waikato, 2024).

3. 1962: Thalidomide:

Thalidomide was a medication used to treat pregnancy symptoms by thousands of expectant mothers in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The issue: It was discovered to result in serious birth abnormalities. A pregnant TV host who consumed thalidomide in 1962 was unable to legally get an abortion in the US(West Coast University,2023). 52 percent of Americans backed her, and the media followed her journey to Sweden to have an abortion. The fallout from thalidomide increased support for reforming abortion laws(Historical Abortion Law Timeline, Planned Parenthood n.d.)

4. 1966: Trial of the San Francisco Nine:

Nine well-respected doctors were sued in California for performing abortions on women who had been exposed to rubella, a disease known to cause birth defects. Doctors across the country came to the defense of the San Francisco Nine, including the deans of 128 medical schools. This resulted in one of the first abortion reform measures in the United States. California amended its prohibition on abortion to allow hospital committees to approve requests for abortion( Planned Parenthood, n.d.).

Non-surgical abortion has long been a safe and legal option for women in the US, but anti-women’s health activists have focused a lot of effort on erecting obstacles and limitations to prevent access. States ranging from Missouri and Mississippi to Arkansas and North Carolina are considering legislation that would limit non-surgical abortion. Some women who would have preferred a non-surgical abortion have been compelled to undergo surgery in states where these restrictions have been implemented. A non-surgical abortion allows a woman to terminate a pregnancy in a setting that is most comfortable for her, in a more private and potentially less intrusive manner. She determines with a medical expert when the abortion will begin, where it will take place, and who will accompany her during the procedure. Additionally, she has round-the-clock access to medical professionals in case she has any questions or concerns. This method is chosen by one in four women, and there are no risks to a woman’s future fertility if she follows the instructions. Furthermore, non-surgical abortion is just as safe and effective as surgical abortion, according to medical research(Planned Parenthood, n.d.).

A series of attacks by out-of-touch politicians in states across the nation have placed politicians in the middle of private, personal medical decisions that belong to women(Planned Parenthood, n.d.) their families, and their faith after consulting with their doctors. This strategy forces a woman to undergo humiliating and time-consuming procedures before she can get a safe, legal abortion. Among these bills are ones that would require waiting periods of up to 72 hours following a woman’s first consultation with her physician before an abortion. Before allowing women to have abortions, ultrasounds should be required. Even victims of rape and incest are occasionally subjected to this onerous rule. Under certain ultrasound mandates, doctors must make a woman watch the ultrasound and make politically charged remarks to her, even if she chooses not to. Make physicians give their patients ideologically mandated scripts from the state. Mandate that unlicensed, unaccredited, and unregulated “crisis pregnancy centers” provide women with biased counseling. According to an analysis of Texas’s 2011 biased counseling law, it creates needless obstacles for women who want to make private medical decisions rather than improving access to health information(Planned Parenthood, n.d.).

Access to reproductive health care should be equal for all. However, limitations on that care disproportionately affect immigrants, women of color, and LGBTQ+ individuals (particularly those whose identities intersect). Many people cannot afford birth control or an abortion because of their financial situation, place of residence, or employer’s opposition. Planned Parenthood Action Fund Donates Back to Issues Health Care Equity The lives of those seeking medical attention are severely impacted by the relentless and unprecedented assaults on reproductive health and rights. For this reason, political and advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood work to safeguard everyone’s access to reproductive health care. Inequality in Access to Health Care Reproductive health care should be equally available to all. However, limitations on that care disproportionately affect immigrants, women of color, and LGBTQ+ individuals (particularly those whose identities intersect). Many people cannot afford birth control or an abortion because of their financial situation, place of residence, or employer’s opposition. Fact: The combined impact of racial and anti-transgender prejudice on Black transgender individuals is striking: according to a national survey, 31% of Black transgender individuals and 19% of transgender and gender nonconforming individuals reported not having health insurance. In addition to having less access to reproductive health care, historically marginalized communities also have different needs.

Worldwide, there are an estimated 80 million unwanted pregnancies annually, which lead to 34 million unwanted births and 42 million induced abortions. In India, unintended or unwanted births by women account for 21% of all recorded births during the previous five years. Unwanted pregnancy may arise from failure to use contraception or from not using it at all. “No contraceptive method is 100% effective, and millions of women and men either lack access to appropriate contraceptive methods or lack the knowledge and assistance necessary to use them effectively. Numerous studies have looked into the unmet need for family planning, which is the reason why some women choose not to use contraception despite not wanting to get pregnant. However, 76 percent of pill users and 49 percent of condom users reported using methods inconsistently, while 13 percent of pill users and 14 percent of condom users reported using them correctly(Blue Mountain clinic,n.d.). Additionally, 46 percent of women who sought abortions did not use any form of birth control during the months they became pregnant( East Tennessee State University, 2012). Of these women, 33% thought they were not at high risk of getting pregnant, 32% were worried about the methods of contraception, 26% had unplanned sex, and 1% had been coerced into having sex(Ohio University, 2024). Eleven percent are responsible for about half of unwanted pregnancies.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has changed the game for women by giving millions more people access to birth control and health coverage. Millions of women were denied insurance coverage prior to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) due to alleged “pre-existing conditions,”( Berkeley College Woodland Park,2023) such as breast cancer, pregnancy, or domestic violence; some were required to pay more for insurance simply because they were female; and some were only permitted limited plans(East Carolina University,2022) that did not cover any pre-existing medical conditions. Additionally, each person had a lifetime cap on the amount of coverage they could use, meaning that one serious illness could result in bankruptcy. The Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit, which guaranteed that nearly 63 million women now have access to birth control without a copay and helped women save an estimated $1.4 billion on the pill in the ACA’s first year alone(Planned Parenthood,n.d.), was one of the most immediate changes for reproductive health. 

Legal and Human Rights Centre and Center for Reproductive Rights v. United Republic of Tanzania (2022):

Center for Reproductive Rights and Legal and Human Rights Center v. United Republic of Tanzania (2022) The African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC) recommended(Reproductive Rights,n.d.) that Tanzania change its educational policies after ruling that the practice of removing pregnant students from school violated the human rights of adolescent girls(Virtual High School (Ontario), 2025). The Center for Reproductive Rights and the Legal and Human Rights Centre of Tanzania (LHRC) filed the lawsuit on behalf of all Tanzanian girls(Reproductive Rights,n.d.)as well as six teenage girls who were expelled from school due to their pregnancy. It contested the government’s policy of requiring girls to get pregnant tests at public schools and permanently removing them if they were found to be pregnant, depriving thousands of girls of the chance to finish their formal education(University of Pretoria,2023). Given that more than 50 nations have ratified the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, the ACERWC’s decision(Reproductive Rights, n.d.) also represents a win for millions of teenage girls throughout the continent. Go here to learn more about the ACERWC decision.

Syed & Others v. Province of Sindh & Another (2015):

It was the first case in Pakistan to seek recognition that the common occurrence of obstetric fistula, a condition that is easily preventable, violated women’s fundamental rights to life and dignity under the Pakistani Constitution. Because of this case, government hospitals in Pakistan’s Sindh Province now offer obstetric fistula repair services to women( Reproductive Rights, n d.). After the Sindh government announced that it had made great strides in hiring gynecologists for government hospitals and setting up fistula repair centers that offer free fistula repair surgeries, the Sindh High Court issued its final court order in the obstetric fistula petition on December 15, 2021(Reproductive Rights, n.d.). An obstetric fistula is a hole that forms between the birth canal and the bladder or rectum, causing an uncontrollable continuous flow of feces, urine, or both(Reproductive Rights, n.d). The main reason is obstructed labor, which is not adequately treated by prompt emergency obstetric care. Low-income Pakistani women are more likely to develop obstetric fistulas because they frequently give birth without access to medical facilities or trained birth attendants.

Mellet v. Ireland (2016); Whelan v. Ireland (2017):

The United Nations Human Rights Committee found in two historic decisions that Ireland’s stringent abortion prohibition subjected women to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The Committee acknowledges, for the first time in response to a single complaint, that criminalizing and outlawing abortion(Reproductive Rights, n.d) is a violation of human rights, including the rights to privacy, equality, and nondiscrimination(Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca,n.d.), as well as the freedom from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The Committee directed Ireland to legalize abortion and guarantee access to abortion care in Ireland in order to stop future infractions(Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium, 2017).

Access to high-quality abortion may be impacted by provider restrictions, according to the evidence presented in this review. The evidence from this review indicates that provider restrictions compromise the availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of health care facilities, goods, and services(Institutional Repository, University of Pretoria, n.d.) which states are required to provide in order to uphold the right to sexual and reproductive health. Furthermore, there are frequently inadequacies in abortion training offered in obstetrics and gynecology training contexts, and while there are some exceptions, the rate at which doctors and other healthcare professionals typically take advantage of opportunities for abortion training when they are available is low(PubMed Central, n.d.). Additionally, abortion training is not always a prerequisite for qualification. Because of this, any regulatory measures that could decrease the number of willing providers and have predictable effects on the accessibility and availability of abortion necessitate strong state justification and raise concerns about human rights compliance. In practice, this means that abortion regulations must not endanger women’s lives or subject women or girls to physical or mental pain or suffering(Pubmed Central,n.d.). This is because international human rights law requires states to take action to ensure women do not have to undergo unsafe abortions, to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality, and to effectively protect women and girls from the physical and mental risks associated with unsafe abortions(White Rose Research Online, n.d.).

Evidence of how provider restrictions affect both abortion providers and those looking to obtain one was found during this review. When paired with international human rights law, this evidence made it abundantly evident that there are detrimental effects on human rights, health systems, and health outcomes. This is particularly true given that the WHO’s international guidelines for the provision and management of abortions outline best practices and make it abundantly evident that excessive provider restrictions are not warranted based on the complexity and nature of abortion. When evidence-based regulation is mandated by international human rights law, provider restrictions should be implemented to optimize human rights enjoyment, health outcomes, and the effectiveness of the health system.

1. Centre for Reproductive Rights, https://reproductiverights.org/maps/worlds-abortion-laws/ ( last visited Apr 4, 2025).

2. Planned Parenthood, https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/abortion-central-history-reproductive-health-care-america/historical-abortion-law-timeline-1850-today ( last visited Apr 3, 2025).

3. P B linton & Am J Law Med, Roe v. Wade and the history of abortion regulation, Pubmed, ( Apr 3, 2025, 11:30AM), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2690604/ .

4. Ernestina Coast et al., Abortion and well-being: A narrative literature review, 7 QRH, 2667-3215(2024).

5. Wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights#:~:text=Reproductive%20rights%20rest%20on%20the,of%20social%20and%20 reproductive%20health ( last visited April 2, 2025).

6. Enze Xing, Abortion rights are health care rights, PubMed, (Apr 4, 2025, 5:40PM) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10393219/ .

7. Syed & Others v. Province of Sindh & Another, Const. P. 6171/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi(2015).

8. Mellet v. Ireland CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013(2016).

9. Whelan v. Ireland CCPR/C/119/D/2425/2014(2017).

10.  Legal and Human Rights Centre and Center for Reproductive Rights v. United Republic of Tanzania ,Communication No: 0012/Com/001/2019, Decision No 002/2022.

11.  Fiona de Londras et al., The impact of provider restrictions on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence, BMC( Apr 3, 2025, 6:30 PM) https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12978-022-01405-x .

12.  Bearak et al., Unintended pregnancy and abortion by income, region, and the legal status of abortion: Estimates from a comprehensive model for 1990–2019, LGH 8(9), 1152-1161(2020).

13.  B Ganatra et al., Global, regional, and subregional classification of abortions by safety, 2010–14: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model, TL, 390, 2372-2381(2017).

14.  World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/ (last visited Apr 3, 2025).

15.  Coast et al., Trajectories of women’s abortion-related care: A conceptual framework, SSM, 119-210(2018).

16.  Kumar et al., Conceptualising abortion stigma,CHS 11(9),625-639(2009).

17.  Ananat et al., Abortion and selection, TRES, 124-136(2009).

18.  Miller et al., The economic consequences of being denied an abortion, 15(1) AEJ, 394-437(2023).

19.  González-Ramos et al., The emotional responses of women when terminating a pregnancy for medical reasons: A scoping review, MW, 103(2021).

20.  Zia et al., Psychosocial experiences of adolescent girls and young women subsequent to an abortion in sub-saharan Africa and globally: A systematic review, 3 FRH(2021).

21.  Zareba et al., Psychological effects of abortion. An updated narrative review, 25(3) EJM,477-483(2020).

22.  Bowler et al., Understanding the experiences and needs of LGBTIQA+ individuals when accessing abortion care and pregnancy options counselling: A scoping review, 49(3) BMSRH, 192-200(2023).

23.  Dustin Costescu et al., MIFEPRISTONE READY: UPTAKE OF MIFEPRISTONE MEDICAL ABORTION TRAINING IN CANADA,41 JOGC, 715(2019).

24.  Kayla N. Rasmussen et al., Expanding access to medication abortion through pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone: Primary care perspectives from Illinois,104, CJ, 98-103(2021).

25. R. Dodge et al., The challenge of defining wellbeing, 2(3), IJW, 222-235(2012).

26.  D. E. Kalist et al., Abortion and female labor force participation: Evidence prior to Roe v. Wade, 25(3), JLR, 503-514(2004).

27. K. V. Das et al., Understanding subjective well-being: Perspectives from psychology and public health, 41, PHR, 1-32(2020).

28. L Stoll et al. A short history of wellbeing research, WCRG, 1-19(2014).

29. United Nations Human Rights, https://juris.ohchr.org/casedetails/2376/en-US (last visited Apr 4, 2025).

30. Republic of Estonia, Ministry of Education and Research, https://www.hm.ee/en (last visited, Apr 6, 2025).

31. White Rose Research Online, https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ (last visited Apr 6, 2025).

32. University of Waikato, https://www.waikato.ac.nz/int/ (last visited Apr 6, 2025).

33. West Coast University, https://westcoastuniversity.edu/ (last visited Apr 6, 2025).

34. University of Ottawa, https://www.uottawa.ca/en (last visited Apr 6, 2025).

35. Shasta College, California, https://www.shastacollege.edu/ (last visited Apr 6, 2025).

36. Berkeley College, https://berkeleycollege.edu/campuses/woodland-park/index.html ( last visited Apr 6, 2025).

37. Blue Mountain clinic, https://www.bluemountainclinic.org/ ( last visited Apr 6, 2025).

38. East Carolina University, https://www.ecu.edu/ ( last visited Apr 6, 2025).

39. Ohio University, https://www.ohio.edu/ ( last visited Apr 6, 2025).

40. East Tennessee State University https://www.etsu.edu/pharmacy/?utm_source=Nexstar&utm_medium=CPC&utm_campaign=Search+7.1.22+thru+12.31.22-SEM&gad_source=1 (last visited Apr 6, 2025).

41. University of Pretoria, https://www.up.ac.za/ ( last visited Apr 6, 2025).

42. Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca, https://air.unimi.it/ ( last visited Apr 6, 2025).

43. Franklin University, https://www.franklin.edu/ ( last visited Apr 6, 2025).

44. Adtalem Global Education, https://www.adtalem.com/ ( last visited Apr 6, 2025).