Women's abortion seeking behavior under restrictive abortion laws in Mexico

Autoři: Fatima Juarez aff001;  Akinrinola Bankole aff002;  Jose Luis Palma aff003
Působiště autorů: El Colegio de México, Tlalpan, Ciudad de México, Mexico aff001;  Guttmacher Institute, New York, New York, United States of America aff002;  Investigación Salud y Demografia, S. C., Tlalpan, Ciudad de México, Mexico aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226522


Abortion is regulated in Mexico at the state level, and it is permitted under certain criteria in all 32 states, except in Mexico City where first-trimester abortion is decriminalized. Yet, more than a million abortions occur in Mexico each year. But most terminations occurring outside of Mexico City are clandestine and unsafe due to profound stigma against the procedure, lack of trained providers, lack of knowledge of where to find a safe abortion and poor knowledge of the laws. While this situation is moderated by the increasing use of misoprostol, a relatively safe method of abortion, the safety of the procedure cannot be assured in restrictive legal contexts. The purpose of this study is to explore women’s experiences with induced abortion in three federal entities with different legal contexts, and whether abortion seeking behavior and experiences differ across these settings. The study was carried out in three states, representing three different degrees of restrictiveness of abortion legislation. Queretaro with the “most restrictive” law, Tabasco with a “moderately restrictive” law, and Mexico state with the “least restrictive” law. We hypothesize that women living in more restrictive states will resort to the use of more unsafe and risky methods and providers for their abortion than their counterparts in less restrictive states. Women who recently obtained abortions were selected through snowball sampling and qualitative data were collected from them using semi-structured indepth interviews. Data collection took place between mid-2014 and mid-2015, with a final sample size N = 60 (20 from each state). Various themes involved in the process of abortion seeking behavior were developed from the IDIs and examined here: women’s knowledge of the abortion law in their state, reasons for having an abortion; the methods and providers used and women’s positive and negative experiences with abortion methods and providers used. Our results indicate that abortion safety is not associated with the restrictiveness of abortion legislation. Findings show that there is a new pattern of abortion service provision in Mexico, with misoprostol, a relatively safe and easy to use method, playing an important role. Nevertheless, while access to misoprostol tends to increase the safety of abortion, the improvement is moderated by women and their informants (relatives, friends and partners) not having accurate information on how to safely self-induce an abortion with misoprostol. On the other hand, some women manage to have safe abortion in illegal setting by going to Mexico City or with the support of NGOs knowlegeable on abortion. Findings demonstrate the importance of decriminalization of abortion, but meanwhile, harm reduction strategies, including promotion of accurate information about self-use of misoprostol where abortion is legally restricted will result in safe abortion.

Klíčová slova:

Children – Internet – Legislation – Medical doctors – Mexico – Midwives – Pregnancy – Termination of pregnancy


1. Juarez F, Singh S. Incidence of Induced Abortion by Age and State, Mexico, 2009: New Estimates Using a Modified Methodology. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2012 Jun;38(02):058–67.

2. GIREa. State legislation, Grupo de Información en Reproducción Elegida (GIRE) [Internet]. Vol. 4. 2018. Available from: https://gire.org.mx/consultations/causales-de-aborto-en-codigos-penales-estatales/?type=

3. G.I.R.E. Omisión e Indiferencia Derechos Reproductivos en México [Internet]. 2013. Available from: http://informe.gire.org.mx

4. Becker D, Olavarrieta CD. Decriminalization of abortion in Mexico City: the effects on women’s reproductive rights. American Journal of Public Health. 2013;103(4):590–3. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301202 23409907

5. Sorhaindo AM, Juárez-Ramírez C, Díaz Olavarrieta C, Aldaz E, Mejía Piñeros MC, Garcia S. Qualitative evidence on abortion stigma from Mexico City and five states in Mexico. Women Health. 2014;54(7):622–40. doi: 10.1080/03630242.2014.919983 25068848

6. Sorhaindo AM, Karver TS, Karver JG, Garcia SG. Constructing a validated scale to measure community-level abortion stigma in Mexico. Contraception. 2016 May;93(5):421–31. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.01.013 26825257

7. GIREb. Constituciones Locales que Protegen la Vida desde la Concepción,. 2018.

8. Clark W, Shannon C, Winikoff B. Misoprostol for uterine evacuation in induced abortion and pregnancy failure. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2007;2(1):67–108.

9. Juarez F, Singh S, Garcia SG, Olavarrieta CD. Estimates of induced abortion in Mexico: what’s changed between 1990 and 2006? Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2008 Dec;34(4):158–68. doi: 10.1363/ifpp.34.158.08 19201676

10. Billings DL, Walker D, Mainero del Paso G, Clark KA, Dayananda I. Pharmacy worker practices related to use of misoprostol for abortion in one Mexican state. Contraception. 2009 Jun;79(6):445–51. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.12.011 19442780

11. Wilson KS, Garcia SG, Lara D. Misoprostol use and its impact on measuring abortion incidence and morbidity. In: Singh S, Remez L, Tartaglione A, editors. Guttmacher Institute; and Paris: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP). New York; 2010. p. 191–201.

12. Lara D, Garcia S, Jurez F, Singh S. Using multiple data sources to understand the impact of misoprostol on reports of abortion complications in Mexican hospitals. In 2008.

13. Pick S. Pharmacists and market herb vendors: abortifacient providers in Mexico City, in: Mundigo A and. In: Indriso C, eds, Abortion in the Developing World. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 293–310.

14. Juarez F, Singh S, Maddow-Zimet I, Wulf D. Unintended pregnancy and induced abortion in Mexico: Causes and consequences (Embarazo no planeado y aborto inducido en México: Causas y consecuencias). New York. 2013.

15. AMAI Niveles Socio Económicos [Internet]. Available from: http://nse.amai.org/nse/, accessed January 2018.

16. Lieblich A, Tuval-Mashiach R, Zilber T. Narrative research: reading, analysis, and interpretation. Applied Social Research Methods Series. 1998;47.

17. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006 Jan 1;3(2):77–101.

18. Nájar A. BBC, ¡Bésalo, pídele perdón! ¡Tú lo mataste!": el drama de las 700 mujeres presas por aborto en México, muchas veces espontáneo. Mundo, México: BBC; 2016.

19. G.I.R.E. Maternidad o castigo. La criminalización del aborto en México, [Internet]. 2018. Available from: http://criminalizacionporaborto.gire.org.mx/#/

20. Renner R-M, Jensen J, Li H, Edelman A. Paracervical Block for Pain Control in First-Trimester Surgical Abortion: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2012 May;119.

21. World Health Organization (WHO). The Prevention and Management of Unsafe Abortion: Report of a Technical Working Group. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1993.

22. World Health Organization (WHO). Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems [Internet]. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012. Available from: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/9789241548434/en

23. World Health Organization (WHO). Health. Worker roles in providing safe abortion care and post-abortion contraception. 2015 Jan;4.

24. Ganatra B, Tunçalp O, Johnston H, Gülmezoglu A, Temmerman M. From concept to measurement: operationalizing WHO’s definition of unsafe abortion. Bull World Health Organ. 2014(92):155.

25. Singh S, Remez L, Sedgh G, Kwok L, Ondo T. Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2018.

26. Cohen SA. Access to Safe Abortion in the Developing World: Saving Lives While Advancing Rights. Guttmacher Institute, New York. 2012;15(4):5.

27. Bankole A, Oye-Adeniran BA, Singh S, Adewole IF, Wulf D. Unwanted Pregnancy and induced abortion in Nigeria: causes and consequences. 2006.

28. Singh S, Juarez F, Cabigon J, Ball H, Hussain R, Nadeau J. Unintended Pregnancy and Induced Abortion in the Philippines. Guttmacher Institute, New York. 2006;29:2014.

29. Chae S, Desai S, Crowell M, Sedgh G. Reasons why women have induced abortions: a synthesis of findings from 14 countries. Contraception. 2017 Oct 1;96(4):233–41. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.06.014 28694165

30. Ramos S. Investigación sobre aborto en América Latina y El Caribe: una agenda renovada para informar políticas públicas e incidencia, compiler Silvina Ramos, Consorcio Latinoamericano contra el Aborto Inseguro (CLACAI), Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad-CEDES. Mexico: DF: Population Council; 2015.

31. Erviti J. El aborto entre mujeres pobres: sociología de la experiencia. 1. ed. Cuernavaca, Morelos: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias; 2005: 1–420.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12
Nejčtenější tento týden