28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Theorizing Time in Abortion Law and Human Rights

      research-article
      , JD, LLM
      Health and Human Rights
      Harvard University Press

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The legal regulation of abortion by gestational age, or length of pregnancy, is a relatively undertheorized dimension of abortion and human rights. Yet struggles over time in abortion law, and its competing representations and meanings, are ultimately struggles over ethical and political values, authority and power, the very stakes that human rights on abortion engage. This article focuses on three struggles over time in abortion and human rights law: those related to morality, health, and justice. With respect to morality, the article concludes that collective faith and trust should be placed in the moral judgment of those most affected by the passage of time in pregnancy and by later abortion—pregnant women. With respect to health, abortion law as health regulation should be evidence-based to counter the stigma of later abortion, which leads to overregulation and access barriers. With respect to justice, in recognizing that there will always be a need for abortion services later in pregnancy, such services should be safe, legal, and accessible without hardship or risk. At the same time, justice must address the structural conditions of women’s capacity to make timely decisions about abortion, and to access abortion services early in pregnancy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems

          (2012)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence.

            Proposed federal legislation would require physicians to inform women seeking abortions at 20 or more weeks after fertilization that the fetus feels pain and to offer anesthesia administered directly to the fetus. This article examines whether a fetus feels pain and if so, whether safe and effective techniques exist for providing direct fetal anesthesia or analgesia in the context of therapeutic procedures or abortion. Systematic search of PubMed for English-language articles focusing on human studies related to fetal pain, anesthesia, and analgesia. Included articles studied fetuses of less than 30 weeks' gestational age or specifically addressed fetal pain perception or nociception. Articles were reviewed for additional references. The search was performed without date limitations and was current as of June 6, 2005. Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks' gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. For fetal surgery, women may receive general anesthesia and/or analgesics intended for placental transfer, and parenteral opioids may be administered to the fetus under direct or sonographic visualization. In these circumstances, administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement, prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses, and induction of uterine atony. Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Physicians, abortion provision and the legitimacy paradox

              Physicians who provide abortion care are targets of stigma, harassment and violence. As a result, many providers do not speak openly about their work. We hypothesize that stigma and silence produce a vicious cycle: when abortion providers do not disclose their work in everyday encounters, their silence perpetuates a stereotype that abortion work is unusual or deviant, or that legitimate, mainstream doctors do not perform abortions. This contributes to marginalization of abortion providers within medicine and the ongoing targeting of providers for harassment and violence. This reinforces reluctance to disclose abortion work, and the cycle continues. We call this phenomenon a "legitimacy paradox." The paradox is that although many highly trained, legitimate physicians provide abortion care, abortion providers continue to be depicted as illegitimate, deviant or substandard doctors. The legitimacy paradox has adverse consequences for abortion human resources, for women's experiences of abortion care and for abortion law and policy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Hum Rights
                Health Hum Rights
                hhr
                Health and Human Rights
                Harvard University Press (USA )
                1079-0969
                2150-4113
                June 2017
                : 19
                : 1
                : 29-40
                Affiliations
                [1]The MacBain Chair in Health Law and Policy at the Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
                Author notes
                Please address correspondence to Joanna Erdman. Email: joanna.erdman@ 123456dal.ca .

                Competing interests: None declared.

                Article
                hhr-19-01-029
                5473036
                28630539
                c5307ee2-4f78-426e-a110-a50556161941
                Copyright © 2017 Erdman

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                Categories
                Research-Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article