Sam Rowlands

Anti-abortion protestors situated near premises providing abortion services create barriers and hurdles to accessing abortion services, which violates the right of pregnant people to seek sexual and reproductive health services. There has been shown to be a need for Safe Access Zones (SAZs) to guarantee physical access to abortion services without obstruction. SAZs usually operate within a prescribed radius around premises providing abortion services and set out what behaviour is prohibited. The objective of this paper is to present a summary of the international experience of introducing and implementing SAZ laws, and to explain the lessons to be learned from this experience. SAZ legislation has been successfully enacted internationally in 22 jurisdictions (USA excluded). Countries with SAZ laws include Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and parts of Canada. Despite the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe calling for the introduction of SAZs in 2022, only two European Union (EU) countries have implemented this recommendation so far. On the basis of the medical and legal insights gained from the functioning of SAZs to date, it is the authors' opinion that it would be feasible for the 25 EU countries that do not yet have such zones to legislate for SAZs.

Spousal authorisation for abortion (SA) is in direct conflict with the right to bodily autonomy. The World Health Organisation guideline on abortion specifically recommends that abortion should be available on request without third-party authorisation. The objectives of this study were to: a) determine which countries insist by law on SA, b) describe shared characteristics of these countries, c) assess the impact of such legislation on access to abortion and d) evaluate the chances of repeal of such laws. Interrogation of known databases on global abortion laws. Grouping of countries with SA laws according to their characteristics. A literature review of material on how mandatory SA relates to reproductive rights. Fifteen countries were found to require SA. Nine of these countries have low freedom and democracy scores. Three South Eastern Asian countries, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, have high freedom and democracy scores and no dominant religion. Broader studies on third-party authorisation for abortion show delayed access to abortion and emphasise the general principle that it is the healthcare seeker alone whose consent should be required for a health intervention. A qualitative study from Türkiye showed specifically how SA requirements could impair access to abortion. Twelve of the countries do not appear to have the necessary government or societal conditions necessary for abortion law modernisation in the near future. In contrast, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are prime candidates for immediate liberalisation of their abortion laws.

Purpose: This paper aims to draw attention to the global infringement of reproductive rights of Indigenous and racialised Peoples. Design/methodology/approach: Narrative literature review. Description and comparative analysis of examples of forced sterilisation. Findings: Large-scale sterilisation campaigns were identified in three different regions of the world: North America, Latin America and Europe. Within these, hundreds of thousands of Indigenous and racialised Peoples have been forcibly sterilised as part of state-sponsored procedures, predominantly aimed at women and gestating people. These abuses are continuing in the 21st century and have origins in “racial science” theory. The exact nature of the abuses is identified alongside the long-term health and wellbeing implications. Professional attitudes and behaviours that condoned such practices within healthcare settings are identified. The psychological, social and cultural impact of such practices, including on Indigenous body sovereignty and self-determination, are demonstrated. Practical implications: These are twofold: firstly to eradicate any future practice of forced sterilisation and secondly to provide reparations to those affected. Originality/value: The analysis brings together scholarship from Indigenous studies alongside that of health and social sciences.

Misoprostol was initially licensed in the 1980s solely for the treatment of peptic ulceration and its use in reproductive health since then has been widely off-label. It has become the prostaglandin of choice for early medical abortion (EMA) (abortion at less than 10 weeks’ gestation) even though the product licence still does not include this indication.5

I found this a fascinating book – written by a sociologist and an anthropologist, covering their disciplines and a fair amount of politics too. It should be accessible to the general SRHM journal r...

There has been overuse of the term ‘reproductive coercion’, with a potential for confusion and weakening of messaging. This opinion paper proposes a classification for the many and varied types of interference with, and abuse of, sexual and reproductive health and rights. It also stresses the need for accurate portrayal of behaviours, however uncomfortable this may be for survivors or perpetrators. There are a range of abuses including denial of access to services, control, pressure, threats, coercion and violence. Violence may consist of neglect, mistreatment, exploitation or sexual assault. Abuses are categorised sociologically, according to micro, meso and macro levels of influence. Many types of behaviour at meso and macro level contain elements of racism. It is concluded that the term reproductive coercion and abuse should refer only to micro level behaviour. Healthcare professionals should ascertain that no practices that could be considered abusive are taking place in their workplace.