Defining ‘Abortion’
A call for clarity
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21702362 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nicholas Colgrove (0000-0003-0506-353X, Augusta University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 137-175 |
| Publication date | 2025-04-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Metamedicine (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0166-2031 • E-ISSN: 1573-1200 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11017-025-09706-5 |
| PMID | 40120033 |
| OpenAlex | W4408743976 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 31 |
In Dobbs v. Jackson , the Supreme Court found that ‘the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.’ Rather, individual states must determine whether a right to abortion exists. Following Dobbs , state abortion laws have diverged significantly. This has generated confusion over what the law permits. Consequently, some pregnant women reportedly have not received timely treatment for life-threatening conditions. Clear guidance on abortion policy is essential, therefore, since continued confusion risks lives. Sweeping calls to improve patient access to abortion will not provide clear guidance, however, since ‘abortion’ is defined differently across jurisdictions. In fact, there are six variables to consider when defining ‘abortion’: (1) the definition of ‘pregnancy,’ (2) whether prescribing abortifacients counts as an abortion, (3) whether abortion successfully terminates pregnancy, (4) whether abortion has some characteristic intention, (5) whether providers must know that they likely will harm fetuses, and (6) whether providers must know that their patients are pregnant. States address each variable differently, so ‘abortion’ means different things across jurisdictions. One may respond that legislators are solely to blame for confusion here, since medical experts, by contrast, possesses a clear definition of ‘abortion.’ Not so. ‘Abortion’ is defined inconsistently throughout the medical literature too. As such, both legal and medical domains would benefit from careful discussions of ‘abortion.’ Attending to the six variables identified here is a good starting place. In this essay, I suggest how best to think about each and propose a definition of ‘abortion’ well-suited for developing clear abortion policy in a polarized society
Abortion · Abortion law · Alternative medicine · Blame · Confusion · Family medicine · Family planning · Harm · Medical abortion · Misoprostol · Philosophy of medicine · Political science · Population · Pregnancy · Psychiatry · Supreme court · Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse · Law · Medicine · Psychology · Reproductive Health and Contraception · Reproductive Health and Technologies
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2 |
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |