Talk:Abortion law

Abortion is not a criminal offence in Northern Territory.

Abortion is not a criminal offence in Northern Territory, the procedure was decriminalized just like it was in every other state and territory. These articles confirm that it is legal in every jurisdiction.

https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/eds-blog/national-milestone-as-abortion-officially-decriminalised-in-every-state-and-territory-in-australia/

https://theconversation.com/abortion-is-now-legal-across-australia-but-its-still-hard-to-access-doctors-are-both-the-problem-and-the-solution-216278

Mix Orange And Purple (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This also leads to Australia being inaccurately mentioned as a country that cannot appear on the table due to not having legalized it nationwide, although admittedly it would be difficult to pinpoint a date since they did it on a state by state basis with no single date that applies to the entire country. Mix Orange And Purple (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The map is indeed inaccurate. The Northern Territory is shaded green whereas by the image's colour scheme it should be mid blue. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed before, see here, here, here, here, here, as well as the notes and sources cited in the table in the section on national laws. The table and map follow the UN classification, which makes a distinction between abortion allowed for social reasons and abortion allowed merely on request from the pregnant woman. Abortion in the Northern Territory is not a criminal offence but the law still requires that a doctor consider it appropriate based on medical and social circumstances. In practice the doctors might accept almost any reason, but the government sources clearly say that the law is not considered to allow it "on request". In this aspect it's similar to the law in Great Britain. The sources that you cited above don't say that the Northern Territory allows abortion "on request" or "on demand". Heitordp (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining Heitordp. You noted here that the actual difference "is very small (or none)". It's indeed none. But if you're colouring the map by the legaleses rather than how the procedure is actually provided I understand what you're saying, and also why this is causing so much confusion, and why it will continue to do cause confusion for the foreseeable future. If there's a way to pin one of these conversations to the talk page that might save you some time explaining things again the future. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I added a code to prevent archiving this thread. Heitordp (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

India

Abortion is permitted in India if the reason for abortion is "failure of contraceptive method". Before 12 weeks of gestational period, opinion of one medical practitioner is sufficient. After 12 weeks and before 20 weeks, opinions of two medical practitioners is needed. Why this is not equivalent to "Abortion on request before 20 weeks" ? --KoiRitwikHai (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The limits are actually 20 weeks with one medical practitioner and 24 weeks with two medical practitioners, since the law was amended in 2021.

This article follows the UN classification, which makes a distinction between abortion on request and for social reasons. To be considered allowed on request, the law must simply say that medical practitioners can perform abortions, without mentioning any reason, or require only the woman's request or consent, at least during some gestational period. If the law always restricts it to certain circumstances, even if they are very common, it's not considered to allow it merely on request. With this classification, the UN lists India as allowing abortion for social reasons but not on request, similar to the UK. I agree that in practice the difference is very small, and I've proposed merging the two categories here, but other users preferred to keep them separate. Heitordp (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying. Can we add this information on the main article?

"In some countries like India, failure of contraception is a legitimate reason to opt-in for abortion irrespective of marital status of the woman. No further evidence is required from the woman. Though this is practically equivalent to abortion on-request but this article follows the UN classification, which makes a distinction between abortion on request and for social reasons. To be considered allowed on request, the law must simply say that medical practitioners can perform abortions, without mentioning any reason, or require only the woman's request or consent" (I will paraphrase it formally)

--KoiRitwikHai (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The sentence above the table already says that it follows the UN data, and there is already a note in the row for India mentioning failure of contraception. If you want to clarify it, I suggest expanding these parts. Heitordp (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

i added 'failure of contraception' to the list of reasons, as that's not what 'socioeconomic' means — kwami (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Morelos

Although the Supreme Court of Mexico declared Morelos' abortion law unconstitutional last year, their government has refused to comply with the ruling. Every source I have looked at does not list Morelos as a state where abortion is legal on request. They do however, list Chihuahua, Tlaxcala, and Coahuila. Did the Supreme Court ruling actually repeal the law, or did it just order the government of Morelos to change it? The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The Supreme Court of Mexico issues different kinds of rulings. In a writ of amparo, which any person can request, the court grants relief from the law in question only for that person. In some cases of amparo the court can also decide to issue a general declaration of unconstitutionality, which invalidates the law for everyone, but it doesn't always do this. Another type of ruling is an action of unconstitutionality, which only certain government officials can request, and in this case the law ruled unconstitutional also becomes invalid for everyone.

The case of Chihuahua was a writ of amparo where the court also issued a general declaration of unconstitutionality, and the cases of Coahuila and Tlaxcala were actions of unconstitutionality, so in all these cases the law became invalid for everyone. But for Morelos, the case was only a regular writ of amparo without a general declaration of unconstitutionality, so the ruling only applied to the plaintiffs. The ruling ordered the government of Morelos not to enforce the prohibition of abortion and to provide abortion services, but "únicamente a las quejosas". So for everyone else, the law remains in force until the congress of Morelos changes it.

Thank you for mentioning this case. I corrected it in the article. Heitordp (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the same might also be true for Tlaxcala. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

For Tlaxcala it was an action of unconstitutionality, which makes the law invalid for everyone. Heitordp (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Haiti

In January, Haiti is apparently going to legalize abortion on request up to 12 weeks in the article according to this article. However, the one source in the article that is WP:PRIMARY is from 2020. The other source talking about the amendment from 2025 appears to have been cited to an unreliable blog, but it has been taken down, so I don't know for sure. Other sources say that it is only going to be allowed up to 8 weeks gestation under limited circumstances. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

There have been conflicting sources about this. When the penal code was published in 2020, some sources claimed that it would allow abortion in case of risk to health, rape or incest without gestational limit, and for any reason up to 12 weeks, while other sources claimed that the code required both conditions together, so it would allow abortion only for those specific reasons while under 12 weeks. The way that I read the code, I agree with the former interpretation, and I think that the latter misunderstood the text.

The government issued a decree amending the code on 24 June 2025. A few days later, the Haitian government reported to the UN (page 16) that the code of 24 June 2025 would allow abortion in case of risk to health, rape or incest without gestational limit, and for any reason up to 12 weeks, just like I had understood the version from 2020. In addition, a post published by a Haitian lawyer, claiming to have been written by a Haitian judge, also said that the code of 24 June 2025 allowed abortion in these terms.

The blog that I cited is from a Haitian jurist so I find it reliable. It contained what it claimed to be the full text of the penal code including the amendments from 2025. The link is no longer live, but I remember that the text had some articles different from 2020, indicating that it was indeed amended, but the abortion articles were identical. Combined with the government's report and the post apparently written by the judge, I concluded that the decree of 2025 didn't amend the abortion articles of the code of 2020.

However, some sources claimed that the decree of 2025 did change the abortion articles, some repeated the apparently misunderstood interpretation that the code required both the reasons and the gestational limit together, some mentioned the limit of 12 weeks and others mentioned 8 weeks. The best way to clarify this subject would be to read the actual text of the decree of 2025, but I couldn't find it anywhere. I hope that it will be eventually available online before it enters into force, which the government currently intends for January 2027 but it might be delayed again. In the meantime, I think that it's better to rely on the government's report to the UN and the posts by the Haitian legal professionals. Heitordp (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Wrong Information Regarding Chile - No limit

Since it cannot be edited, I ask anyone who have the access to change the status of my country, Chile, for Abortion under: National Law - Risk to Life from current No Limit to Permitted. There's no source to verify that there is factually "No Limit". I couldn't even find it on bcn.cl. So, it's irresponsible to state "no limit", without verified source. I remind you that abortion in Chile is only allowed under very strict three casuals, besides those it remains strongly illegal. Thank you. ~2026-45920-21 (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing this up. You're right that the abortion law itself does not specify whether there is a gestational limit. However, the Global Abortion Policies Database specifies that there is no limit in cases of risk to life, citing a Ministry of Health standard. I think we should consider the Global Abortion Policies Database to be accurate unless there's a reason to state otherwise. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)