The impact of third-party authorization requirements on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
This review synthesizes legal and health evidence to demonstrate the health and human rights impacts of third-party authorization requirements (TPAs) on abortion seekers.Results
The synthesized evidence substantiates the pre-existing position in international human rights law that requirements that abortion be authorized by third parties like parents, spouses, committees, and courts create barriers to abortion, should not be introduced at all, or should be repealed where they exist.Conclusions
The review establishes that rights-based regulation of abortion should not impose TPAs in any circumstances. Instead, the provision and management of abortion should be treated in a manner cognizant with the general principles of informed consent in international human rights law, presuming capacity in all adults regardless of marital status and treatment sought, and recognizing the evolving capacity of young people in line with their internationally-protected rights.
SUBMITTER: de Londras F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10591342 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The impact of third-party authorization requirements on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence.
de Londras Fiona F Cleeve Amanda A Rodriguez Maria I MI Farrell Alana A Furgalska Magdalena M Lavelanet Antonella F AF
BMC public health 20231023 1
<h4>Objectives</h4>This review synthesizes legal and health evidence to demonstrate the health and human rights impacts of third-party authorization requirements (TPAs) on abortion seekers.<h4>Results</h4>The synthesized evidence substantiates the pre-existing position in international human rights law that requirements that abortion be authorized by third parties like parents, spouses, committees, and courts create barriers to abortion, should not be introduced at all, or should be repealed whe ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Where abortion is legal, it is often regulated through a grounds-based approach. A grounds-based approach to abortion provision occurs when law and policy provide that lawful abortion may be provided only where a person who wishes to have an abortion satisfies stipulated 'grounds', sometimes described as 'exceptions' or 'exceptional grounds'. Grounds-based approaches to abortion are, prima facie, restrictive as they limit access to abortion based on factors extraneous to the preferences of the pregnant person. International human rights law specifies that abortion must be available (and not 'merely' lawful) where the life or health of the pregnant woman or girl is at risk, or where carrying a pregnancy to term would cause her substantial pain or suffering, including but not limited to situations where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or the pregnancy is not viable. However, international human rights law does not specify a grounds-based approach as the way to give effect to this requirement. The aim of this review is to address knowledge gaps related to the health and non-health outcomes plausibly related to the effects of a grounds-based approach to abortion regulation. The evidence from this review shows that grounds have negative implications for access to quality abortion and for the human rights of pregnant people. Further, it shows that grounds-based approaches are insufficient to meet states' human rights obligations. The evidence presented in this review thus suggests that enabling access to abortion on request would be more rights-enhancing than grounds-based approaches to abortion regulation.
| S-EPMC9092771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many components of abortion care in early pregnancy can safely be provided on an outpatient basis by mid-level providers or by pregnant people themselves. Yet, some states impose non-evidence-based provider restrictions, understood as legal or regulatory restrictions on who may provide or manage all or some aspects of abortion care. These restrictions are inconsistent with the World Health Organization's support for the optimization of the roles of various health workers, and do not usually reflect evidence-based determinations of who can provide abortion. As a matter of international human rights law, states should ensure that the regulation of abortion is evidence-based and proportionate, and disproportionate impacts must be remedied. Furthermore, states are obliged take steps to ensure women do not have to undergo unsafe abortion, to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality, and to effectively protect women and girls from the physical and mental risks associated with unsafe abortion. States must revise their laws to ensure this. Where laws restrict those with the training and competence to provide from participating in abortion care, they are prima facie arbitrary and disproportionate and thus in need of reform. This review, developed by experts in reproductive health, law, policy, and human rights, examined the impact of provider restrictions on people seeking abortion, and medical professionals. The evidence from this review suggests that provider restrictions have negative implications for access to quality abortion, contributing inter alia to delays and recourse to unsafe abortion. A human rights-based approach to abortion regulation would require the removal of overly restrictive provider restrictions. The review provides evidence that speaks to possible routes for regulatory reform by expanding the health workforce involved in abortion-related care, as well as expanding health workers' roles, both of which could improve timely access to first trimester surgical and medical abortion, reduce costs, save time, and reduce the need for travel.
| S-EPMC9014563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review follows an established methodology for integrating human rights to address knowledge gaps related to the health and non-health outcomes of mandatory waiting periods (MWPs) for access to abortion. MWP is a requirement imposed by law, policy, or practice, to wait a specified amount of time between requesting and receiving abortion care. Recognizing that MWPs "demean[] women as competent decision-makers", the World Health Organization recommends against MWPs. International human rights bodies have similarly encouraged states to repeal and not to introduce MWPs, which they recognize as operating as barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive healthcare. This review of 34 studies published between 2010 and 2021, together with international human rights law, establishes the health and non-health harms of MWPs for people seeking abortion, including delayed abortion, opportunity costs, and disproportionate impact. Impacts on abortion providers include increased workloads and system costs.
| S-EPMC9210763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGestational age limits (GLs) are common in abortion laws and policies. They restrict when lawful abortion may be accessed by reference to the gestational duration of a pregnancy, in some cases specifying that abortion is a criminal offense after, but not before, the GL. This synthesis of legal and health evidence addresses knowledge gaps on the health and non-health outcomes plausibly related to the effects of GLs on abortion-related outcomes.MethodsThis paper synthesizes the results of a systemic review with the identification and application of relevant international human rights standards. A search strategy was drawn up to capture public health, international human rights law, and policy evidence related to the impacts of GLs. We limited our search to papers published in English since 2010, including quantitative studies (comparative and non-comparative), qualitative and mixed-methods studies, reports, PhD theses, and economic or legal analyses. Only studies that undertook original data collection or analysis were included. Review of treaties, opinions, interpretations, general comments, and special procedures of UN human rights bodies identified relevant human rights standards, which were then synthesized with the extracted data to create a comprehensive evidence synthesis.ResultsGLs do not prevent people from seeking abortion but do operate as a regulatory barrier that can result in people seeking abortion outside of the formal health system or unwillingly continuing pregnancy. In many jurisdictions, they interact with the criminalization of abortion, with significant health and non-health impacts. GLs impact most on people who are least able to access abortion because of later detection of pregnancy, lack of access to abortion provision, and lack of access to the resources required to avail of abortion.ConclusionsAlthough paradigmatic in abortion law, GLs are not based on evidence of either the safety or effectiveness of abortion or the needs and preferences of pregnant people. They produce rights-limiting impacts for pregnant people and, in some cases, result in arbitrary and disproportionate violations of legally protected rights. The persistence of GLs as part of the regulatory framework for abortion provision cannot be said to ensure an enabling environment for quality abortion care.
| S-EPMC11789293 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9459905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The persistence of virtually every single species depends on both the presence of other species and the specific environmental conditions in a given location. Because in natural settings many of these conditions are unknown, research has been centered on finding the fraction of possible conditions (probability) leading to species coexistence. The focus has been on the persistence probability of an entire multispecies community (formed of either two or more species). However, the methodological and philosophical question has always been whether we can observe the entire community and, if not, what the conditions are under which an observed subset of the community can persist as part of a larger multispecies system. Here, we derive long-term (using analytical calculations) and short-term (using simulations and experimental data) system-level indicators of the effect of third-party species on the coexistence probability of a pair (or subset) of species under unknown environmental conditions. We demonstrate that the fraction of conditions incompatible with the possible coexistence of a pair of species tends to become vanishingly small within systems of increasing numbers of species. Yet, the probability of pairwise coexistence in isolation remains approximately the expected probability of pairwise coexistence in more diverse assemblages. In addition, we found that when third-party species tend to reduce (resp. increase) the coexistence probability of a pair, they tend to exhibit slower (resp. faster) rates of competitive exclusion. Long-term and short-term effects of the remaining third-party species on all possible specific pairs in a system are not equally distributed, but these differences can be mapped and anticipated under environmental uncertainty.
| S-EPMC9632822 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ability to survive within a cooperative society depends on impartial third-party punishment (TPP) of social norm violations. Two cognitive mechanisms have been postulated as necessary for the successful completion of TPP: evaluation of legal responsibility and selection of a suitable punishment given the magnitude of the crime. Converging neuroimaging research suggests two supporting domain-general networks; a mentalizing network for evaluation of legal responsibility and a central-executive network for determination of punishment. A whole-brain voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping approach was used in conjunction with a rank-order TPP task to identify brain regions necessary for TPP in a large sample of patients with penetrating traumatic brain injury. Patients who demonstrated atypical TPP had specific lesions in core regions of the mentalizing (dorsomedial prefrontal cortex [PFC], ventromedial PFC) and central-executive (bilateral dorsolateral PFC, right intraparietal sulcus) networks. Altruism and executive functioning (concept formation skills) were significant predictors of TPP: altruism was uniquely associated with TPP in patients with lesions in right dorsolateral PFC and executive functioning was uniquely associated with TPP in individuals with lesions in left PFC. Our findings contribute to the extant literature to support underlying neural networks associated with TPP, with specific brain-behavior causal relationships confirming recent functional neuroimaging research.
| S-EPMC4733334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn Nepal, abortion is legal on request through 12 weeks of pregnancy and up to 28 weeks for health and other reasons. Abortion is available at public facilities at no cost and by trained private providers. Yet, over half of abortions are provided outside this legal system. We sought to investigate the extent to which patients are denied an abortion at clinics legally able to provide services and factors associated with presenting late for care, being denied, and receiving an abortion after being denied.MethodsWe used data from a prospective longitudinal study with 1835 women aged 15-45. Between April 2019 and December 2020, we recruited 1,835 women seeking abortions at 22 sites across Nepal, including those seeking care at any gestational age (n = 537) and then only those seeking care at or after 10 weeks of gestation or do not know their gestational age (n = 1,298). We conducted interviewer-led surveys with these women at the time they were seeking abortion service (n = 1,835), at six weeks after abortion-seeking (n = 1523) and six-month intervals for three years. Using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression models, we examined factors associated with presenting for abortion before versus after 10 weeks gestation, with receiving versus being denied an abortion, and with continuing the pregnancy after being denied care. We also described reasons for the denial of care and how and where participants sought abortion care subsequent to being denied. Mixed-effects models was used to accounting clustering effect at the facility level.ResultsAmong those recruited when eligibility included seeking abortion at any gestational age, four in ten women sought abortion care beyond 10 weeks or did not know their gestation and just over one in ten was denied care. Of the full sample, 73% were at or beyond 10 weeks gestation, 44% were denied care, and 60% of those denied continued to seek care after denial. Nearly three-quarters of those denied care were legally eligible for abortion, based on their gestation and pre-existing conditions. Women with lower socioeconomic status, including those who were younger, less educated, and less wealthy, were more likely to present later for abortion, more likely to be turned away, and more likely to continue the pregnancy after denial of care.ConclusionDenial of legal abortion care in Nepal is common, particularly among those with fewer resources. The majority of those denied in the sample should have been able to obtain care according to Nepal's abortion law. Abortion denial could have significant potential implications for the health and well-being of women and their families in Nepal.
| S-EPMC10030013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Economic exchange between strangers happens extremely frequently due to the growing number of internet transactions. In trust situations like online transactions, a trustor usually does not know whether she encounters a trustworthy trustee. However, the trustor might form beliefs about the trustee's trustworthiness by relying on third-party information. Different kinds of third-party information can vary dramatically in their importance to the trustor. We ran a factorial design to study how the different characteristics of third-party information affect the trustor's decision to trust. We systematically varied unregulated third-party information regarding the source (friend or a stranger), the reliability (gossip or experiences), and the valence (positive or negative) of the information. The results show that negative information is more salient for withholding trust than positive information is for placing trust. If third-party information is positive, experience of a friend has the strongest effect on trusting followed by friend's gossip. Positive information from a stranger does not matter to the trustor. With respect to negative information, the data show that even the slightest hint of an untrustworthy trustee leads to significantly less placed trust irrespective of the source or the reliability of the information.
| S-EPMC4755612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The question of how cooperation evolves and is maintained among nonkin is central to the biological, social, and behavioral sciences. Previous research has focused on explaining how cooperation in social dilemmas can be maintained by direct and indirect reciprocity among the participants of the social dilemma. However, in complex human societies, both modern and ancient, cooperation is frequently maintained by means of specialized third-party enforcement. We provide an evolutionary-game-theoretic model that explains how specialized third-party enforcement of cooperation (specialized reciprocity) can emerge. A population consists of producers and enforcers. First, producers engage in a joint undertaking represented by a prisoner's dilemma. They are paired randomly and receive no information about their partner's history, which precludes direct and indirect reciprocity. Then, enforcers tax producers and may punish their clients. Finally, the enforcers are randomly paired and may try to grab resources from each other. In order to sustain producer cooperation, enforcers must punish defecting producers, but punishing is costly to enforcers. We show that the threat of potential intraenforcer conflict can incentivize enforcers to engage in costly punishment of producers, provided they are sufficiently informed to maintain a reputation system. That is, the "guards" are guarded by the guards themselves. We demonstrate the key mechanisms analytically and corroborate our results with numerical simulations.
| S-EPMC10268577 | biostudies-literature