Right-wing candidates have rallied against same-sex marriage, abortion, and ‘gender ideology’ in several recent Latin American elections, attracting socially conservative voters. Yet, these issues are largely irrelevant to voting decisions in other parts of the region. Drawing on theories explaining partisan shifts in the US and Europe, we argue that elite and social movement debates on sexuality politics create conditions for electoral realignment. When politicians take polarized positions on newly salient ‘culture war’ issues, the masses’ voting behaviour shifts. Using region-wide multilevel analysis of the AmericasBarometer and Latinobarómetro and a conjoint experiment in Brazil, Chile, and Peru, we demonstrate that the rising salience of sexuality politics creates new electoral cleavages, magnifying the electoral impact of religion and sexuality politics attitudes and shrinking the impact of economic views. Whereas scholarship on advanced democracies posits the centrality of partisanship, our findings indicate that sexuality politics prompts realignments even in weak party systems.

The Dobbs decision has precipitated renewed medical, political, and professional interest in the issue of abortion. Because this decision handed responsibility for regulation of abortion back to the states, and because the states are enacting or have enacted policies that tend to be very permissive or very restrictive, the result has been legal and professional confusion for physicians and their patients. Medical education cannot resolve either the legal or ethical issues regarding abortion. However, medical education must prepare future physicians for caring for patients seeking abortion-related services. Physicians must be prepared to interact appropriately (sensitively and with integrity) with patients or colleagues whose views on abortion differ significantly from their own. This essay describes our educational effort to achieve that objective. The motto that governed this exercise was “No Easy Answers.”

In the wake of the Dobbs decision withdrawing federal constitutional protection for reproductive rights, the United States is in the throes of federalist conflicts. Some states are enacting draconian prohibitions of abortion or gender-affirming care, whereas other states are attempting to shield providers and their patients seeking care. This article explores standard arguments supporting federalism, including that it allows for cultural differences to remain along with a structure that provides for the advantages of common security and commerce, that it provides a laboratory for confined experiments, that it is government closer to the people and thus more informed about local needs and preferences, and that it creates layers of government that can constrain one another and thus doubly protect rights. We contend that these arguments do not justify significant differences among states with respect to the recognition of important aspects of well-being; significant injustices among subnational units cannot be justified by federalism. However, as nonideal theorists, we also observe that federalism presents the possibility of some states protecting rights that others do not. Assuming that movement among subnational units is protected, those who are fortunate enough to be able to travel will be able to access rights they cannot access at home. Nonetheless, movement may not be readily available to minors, people without documentation, people with disabilities, people who lack economic resources, or people who have responsibilities that preclude travel. Only rights protection at the federal level will suffice in such cases.

Focusing on four jurisdictions where abortion facilities and providers faced violent attacks following the Morgentaler decision of 1988, this study compares provincial government responses to core feminist demands in the area of women's reproductive health: enhanced hospital access, public funding of clinic abortions and safe zone protections. Consistent with previous research on childcare and anti-violence policies, the study finds that in neoliberal times, the presence of left governing parties in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario generally favoured abortion rights interests while conservative regimes disadvantaged them. The article contributes valuable new insights in revealing (1) the importance of centrist leaders in Ontario and at the federal level to pro-choice policy changes, (2) the significance of feminist critical actors to these outcomes, and (3) major variation among New Democratic Party provincial governments on abortion policy. The conclusion discusses implications of these results and proposes directions for further research.

Induced abortion is closely associated with maternal morbidity, mortality, and reproductive rights of women and thus continues to draw research interest. This study assesses the reasons for abortion and their predictors using India’s National Family Health Survey-5 (2019–21) data. The sample of women aged 15–49 who had terminated their last pregnancy by induced abortion in the five years preceding the survey (n=5835) was considered for analysis. Multinomial logistic regression was used to check the adjusted effects of the socioeconomic predictors on the reasons for abortion. Stata (v16.0) was used for the data analysis. Women were more likely to abort their pregnancy at home/other than in the public health sector if unintended pregnancies (RR: 2.79; CI: 2.15–3.61) and sex-selective abortions (RR: 2.43; CI: 1.67–3.55) rather than life risk. The study found unintended pregnancy as the primary contributor to induced abortion. However, some women undergo the procedure due to medical reasons and the undesired gender of the unborn child. Unintended pregnancies that end in abortion are strongly correlated with gestational age, method of abortion, place of abortion, number of surviving children, religion, place of residence, and region. Again, there is a strong association between the sex-selective reason for abortion and the gestational age, method of abortion, place of abortion, number of surviving children, proper knowledge of the ovulatory cycle, religion, wealth quintile, and region. Women had abortions mainly due to unintended pregnancies, and there was socioeconomic, demographic, and geographic variation in the reasons for abortion in India. Sex-selective abortions continue to exist, especially among women of higher parity, poorest households and from the central, eastern, and north-eastern regions. The key to reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions is raising the understanding of contraception and empowering women in reproductive decisions. Reducing unintended pregnancies will contribute to lower induced abortion and thus improve women’s health.

This multi-method study uses statistical and comparative-historical investigations to find that abortion values shape genetic counseling practices across societies. Genetic counselors and genetically interested social scientists have long questioned, but never systematically demonstrated, whether this relationship exists. Genetic counseling data are drawn from cross-national surveys of genetic counselors (n = 2,906) from the mid-1990s, the key historical moment after this profession was globally established but before potentially confounding transnational professional effects. Data focus on Trisomy 21, severe open spina bifida, and Huntington’s chorea. Abortion data are drawn from a new comparative-historical investigation of abortion attitudes in 36 countries based on law, frequency of policy debate, incidence rates, and public opinion polling. The key overall finding is that the more controversial abortion is within a society, the less directive genetic counselors are willing to be, whereas the less controversial abortion is, the more directive the counseling. Polynomial regressions, t-tests, likelihood ratios, and Wald tests provide statistical evidence for the relationship observed through qualitative clustering.

Is ethics all about rights and duties, or is it about living a happy, flourishing life? For millennia in the West, ethics was about the way to flourish as an individual and a community. The qualities that enable people to live that way are the virtues, and that style of ethics is called Virtue Ethics. In the early modern period, Virtue Ethics went out of fashion and ethics began to focus on right and duties, where rights and duties are demands made against others. In this article I argue that the language of rights and duties has made it almost impossible for people on opposing sides of public policy issues to come to agreement. I defend the return of Virtue Ethics in philosophy, and propose that if it can be adopted by ordinary people, we will have a better chance at overcoming our deep divisions.

The intrusive state has long viewed women as fetal containers. The Dobbs decision goes further, essentially causing women to vanish when fetuses are abstracted from their relationships to pregnant persons. The ways in which women are first controlled and then made invisible are clearly connected with the move from obedience to omission that has historically affected black Americans. When personal decisionmaking and participation in democracy are regarded as threats, those threatened restrict decisional freedom and political power, deepening structural injustices relating to sex, race, and poverty. Fear of Dobbs has health effects on conditions unrelated to pregnancy and connects with erasures of human value that are not health-related. We reaffirm solidarity as a countering influence. Taking account of the richly relational context in which issues like abortion and political representation arise should lead to better, more meaningful policies, making so many people impossible to unsee.

This paper provides an overview of the development and the sociopolitical background of legislation pertaining to abortion in Finland from the nineteenth century to the current day. The first Abortion Act came to force in 1950. Before that, abortions were handled under criminal law. The 1950 law was restrictive and allowed abortions in very limited circumstances only. Its main aim was to reduce the number of abortions and especially illegal abortions. It was not very successful in reaching these goals, but, significantly, it moved abortions from the realm of the criminal law to the hands of medical professionals. The birth of the welfare state and the prenatal attitudes of 1930s and 1940s Europe played their part in shaping the law. By late 1960s, with the rise of the women’s rights movement and other changes in society, there was pressure to change the outdated law. The new 1970 Abortion Act was broader and allowed abortions for limited social reasons too but left very limited, if any, room for a woman’s right to choose. After a citizen’s initiative in 2020, the year 2023 will see a significant amendment to the 1970 law; during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, an abortion can be performed on the woman’s request alone. However, there is still a long way to go in terms of women’s rights and abortion laws in Finland.