Washington, D.C. Newsroom, May 7, 2024 / 17:00 pm (CNA).
United States abortion law is “far more permissive than the vast majority of the world,” according to a study recently released by the pro-life research group the Charlotte Lozier Institute.
Released on April 30, the study found that out of the nearly 200 members of the United Nations (U.N.), the U.S. is one of only eight with no federal limit on abortion. The study also found that the U.S. is one of just 15 countries to allow abortion past 15 weeks of pregnancy, the point at which a baby can feel pain.
This comes as the Biden administration has been criticizing pro-life state laws limiting abortion as “extreme” and “bizarre” while pushing for a federal law enshrining unrestricted abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
Mia Steupert, a research associate at Charlotte Lozier Institute, told CNA that “while pro-abortion activists disparage heartbeat protection laws, like in Florida, they turn a blind eye to the real global extremism in our own country.”
She pointed out that seven states plus Washington, D.C., allow abortion for any reason up to the ninth month of pregnancy. U.S. abortion law makes it “a global outlier in a shared category with human rights abusers like China and Vietnam,” Steupert said.
“We should be an international leader when it comes to the human right to life, but instead we are one of eight countries in the United Nations that allows abortion on demand without any gestational limits.”
What did the study find?
The Lozier Institute’s study found that with no federal limit on abortion, the U.S. is more permissive than over 95% of all U.N. member nations and on the same level as communist China and Vietnam.
According to the study, the “clear norm among countries that permit elective abortion is to limit abortion to before 20 weeks’ gestation, and elective abortion is more commonly limited to 12 weeks (the first trimester).”
Gestational age marks the duration of a pregnancy, measured from the first day of the mother’s last menstrual period, which occurs about two weeks before conception.
According to the study, only 70 U.N. countries allow abortion “on demand,” that is, for any reason. Of these, only the U.S., China, Vietnam, Australia, Canada, Guinea-Bissau, Mexico, and South Korea have no national limitation on abortion.
Of the 70 countries allowing abortion on demand, more than three-quarters — 55 nations — limit abortion to the first 15 weeks of gestation. Over half — 45 nations — do not allow abortion past 12 weeks.
The remaining 139 U.N. countries protect all unborn life at all stages of pregnancy and only allow abortion for specific reasons, ranging from the life of the mother to socioeconomic difficulties.
Based on these findings, the Lozier Institute concluded that a national 15-week abortion limit would “move the United States away from the fringe, ultra-permissive end of the spectrum.”
Prioritize a culture of life
Steupert told CNA that the study shows Americans need to prioritize creating a “culture of life” by supporting pregnancy resource centers, alternatives to abortion programs, and giving aid to mothers in need.
She said that the report demonstrates that with no federal abortion restrictions, the U.S. “has some of the most extreme abortion laws in the world.”
“This reality,” she said, “should alarm Americans and motivate them to protect life and push back against the radical, pro-abortion lobby that has infested our culture.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“Far more permissive”?
Hmh.
Do you mean “Far more deadly”?
Or, “Far more murderous”?
Or maybe even, “Far more horrifying”?
Unless things have changed recently, Canada has no laws whatsoever regulating feticides.
When the Supreme Court overturned Roe, via the Dobbs Decision, they made abortion an issue for the States, which it was pre Roe for most of our History. The overarching judicial philosophy of Originalism, accounts for this. Having kicked the issue back to the States, this Court is not going to approve a national ban. The author of this article does not seem to grasp this simple fact.
Perhaps not the current Supreme Court & perhaps not today but if things follow the same course that other human rights reform movements have followed, we can look forward to some sort of national ban in the future.
For now, state by state is much better than no reforms at all. Little by little, inch by inch.
Who knows what a Supreme Court 50 years in the future might do, but this current Court seems intent on States Rights and Originalism. Attempting a national ban now is a waste of time. Yes, state by state is what is happening in the foreseeable future.
There must be exceptions for life of the mother. She should not be in septic shock and almost dead, before proper treatment is provided. Some rabid red state legislators seem to want to define this as narrowly as possible. Ditto for proper treatment of ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages. We seem to have a problem with rabid red state legislators second guessing doctors. Many OB-GYN’s are leaving red states due to the insanity there.
No physician wants to lose their license nor face malpractice. Medical protocols must be followed to avoid those and there are protocols in place for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages.
Doctors are wary of some red state, rabid prosecutor itching to arrest a Doctor over a judgement call. Many OB-GYNs are leaving red states for this reason. Problem pregnancies are not as rare as right wing propagandists say, and rabid red state legislators should not be playing doctor.
Are the medical protocols in place sufficient to protect against grandstanding prosecutions?
Abortion is murder. It is only permissible (i.e. double effect) if necessary to safe the life of the mother that is in immediate danger. My understanding is that such circumstances are very rare. Still, it is doubtful that even indirect abortion is without negative health consequences.
Anything outside of the above isn’t law.
It is the duty of the civil authority to protect the rights of those within its jurisdiction against violations. For it to tolerate, such an evil is evil. It is complicity with murder.
Complicity with a wrong can even extend to a failure to provide information to law enforcement. I have seen a movie to this effect which illustrates this principle. It is “The Man Who Knew Too Much” (1956) LOD Rating: A-I.
Are you a board certified OB-GYN? You don’t know what you are talking about.
Dost thou?
I am not an OB-GYN, but I don’t spout right wing claptrap like Shawn.
Someday allmost all, if not all, States will legalize abortion in their individual Constitutions. Americans pride themselves (emphasis on pride) in doing all things well. Even death.
One way to reduce the number of abortions would be to insist on gender equality. The father of the unborn should have the very same rights as the mother. The baby is just as much his as it is the woman’s. The law should forbid killing the baby if either parent wants to save the baby. To do otherwise is clear sexual discrimination against males.
It is a myth and nonsense to say that men do not suffer because of the murder of their child. It is not uncommon that men can suffer the loss of their child for the rest of their life.