ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
The Importance of the International Community in Protecting the Right to Abortion: The Cases of Malta and of the US Supreme Court.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mental health and beliefs about abortion access following changes to reproductive healthcare laws in 2022: findings from Oklahoma.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Socioeconomic inequalities of pregnancy termination among reproductive age women in Bangladesh: a decomposition analysis using demographic and health survey.BMC research notes · 2024Article
- Women's satisfaction with comprehensive abortion care services and associated factors in central Gondar zone public primary hospitals, northwest Ethiopia, 2023.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2024Article
- Public health and clinical implications of Dobbs v. Jackson for patients and healthcare providers: A scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), abortion is often necessary and is not a criminalizable medical act. Unfortunately, despite the global trend in recent years tending towards liberalization of abortion as a fundamental right of women in certain circumstances, it is still not guaranteed in all countries of the world in the same way. Moreover, the abortion debate is often characterized by unscientific opinions based on political and/or religious ideologies. Recently, a European episode has rekindled the debate on abortion: in Malta, a tourist was unable to have an abortion, with consequent risks, even serious ones, on her health. In addition, even in the United States a Supreme Court ruling created a considerable stir: the Roe v. Wade (1973) ruling that had legalized abortion at the federal level was revoked. After the ruling of the Supreme Court, each state of the USA can decide for itself whether and how to legalize abortion. These recent international developments are particularly worrying and make even more evident the need for abortion to be protected at an international level as an inalienable and fundamental human right, and therefore not to be limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.