As one of his first acts as President of the United States, Donald Trump signed an executive order reinstating a version of the global gag rule. Under this rule, US grantees are barred from receiving global health funding if they engage in abortion-related work: not only abortion services, but also abortion referrals and counseling or advocacy for the liberalization of abortion laws. Critics of the Trump global gag rule generally raise three classes of objections: (1) that the rule fails to accomplish its presumed objective of reducing the number of abortions; (2) that it negatively affects the health and well-being of individuals and populations in affected countries; and (3) that it interferes with governments' ability to meet their international obligations. In this commentary, we examine the scientific and policy bases for these criticisms.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights recently adopted General Comment No 2 to interpret provisions of Article 14 of the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights Women. The provisions relate to women's rights to fertility control, contraception, family planning, information and education, and abortion. The present article highlights the General Comment's potential to promote women's sexual and reproductive rights in multiple ways. The General Comment's human rights value goes beyond providing states with guidance for framing their domestic laws, practices, and policies to comply with treaty obligations. General Comment No 2 is invaluable in educating all stakeholders-including healthcare providers, lawyers, policymakers, and judicial officers at the domestic level-about pertinent jurisprudence. Civil society and human rights advocates can use the General Comment to render the state accountable for failure to implement its treaty obligations.

For many people seeking abortion during the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine abortion is the safest and most acceptable method, posing lower risk of exposure to the virus. In addition, by reducing in-person visits with health care providers, increased use of telemedicine for abortion can reduce pressure on overburdened health systems. Given the benefits of telemedicine during the pandemic, government agencies in several countries took measures to temporarily allow telemedicine abortion. We conducted key-word English-language searches to identify examples of government action to remove regulatory barriers to the practice of telemedicine abortion in response to the pandemic. We found instances of government agencies in eight countries taking steps to ease regulatory barriers to telemedicine abortion. Telemedicine abortion is safe, cost-effective, and may be the preferred method of abortion during acute periods of COVID-19 transmission, as well as after the pandemic has abated. As one step to expanding access to abortion with medicine where abortion is legal, health agencies and other regulatory bodies can take steps to remove barriers specific to telemedicine abortion.

No abstract

Reproductive rights have been the focus of United Nations consensus documents, a priority for agencies like the WHO, and the subject of judgments issued by national and international courts. Human rights approaches have galvanised abortion law reform across numerous countries, but human rights analysis is not designed to empirically assess how legal provisions regulating abortion shape the actual delivery of abortion services and outcomes. Reliable empirical measurement of the health and social effects of abortion regulation is vital input for policymakers and public health guidance for abortion policy and practice, but research focused explicitly on assessing the health effects of abortion law and policy is limited at the global level. This paper describes a method for Identifying Data for the Empirical Assessment of Law (IDEAL), to assess potential health effects of abortion regulations. The approach was applied to six critical legal interventions: mandatory waiting periods, third-party authorisation, gestational limits, criminalisation, provider restrictions and conscientious objection. The IDEAL process allowed researchers to link legal interventions and processes that have not been investigated fully in empirical research to processes and outcomes that have been more thoroughly studied. To the extent these links are both transparent and plausible, using IDEAL to make them explicit allows both researchers and policy stakeholders to make better informed assessments and guidance related to abortion law. The IDEAL method also identifies gaps in scientific research. Given the importance of law to public health generally, the utility of IDEAL is not limited to abortion law.