Health system reform and safe abortion: A case study of Mongolia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unsafe abortion serves as a marker of global inequity as it is concentrated in the developing world where the poorest and most vulnerable women live. While liberalisation of abortion law is essential to the reduction of unsafe abortion, a number of challenges exist beyond this important step. This paper investigates how popular health system reforms consonant with neoliberal agendas can challenge access to safe abortion. We use Mongolia, a country that has liberalised abortion law, yet, limited access to safe abortion, as a case study. Mongolia embraced market reforms in 1990 and subsequently reformed its health system. We document how common reforms in the areas of finance and regulation can compromise the safety of abortions as they foster challenges that include inconsistencies in service delivery that further foment health inequities, adoption of reproductive health programmes that are incompatible with the local sociocultural context, unregulated growth of the private sector and poor enforcement of standards and technical guidelines for safe abortion. We then discuss how this case study suggests the conversations that reproductive health policy-makers must have with those engineering health sector reform to ensure access to safe abortion in a liberalised environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".