Politics, policies, pronatalism, and practice: availability and accessibility of abortion and reproductive health services in Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Turkey has maintained liberal contraception and abortion policies since the 1980s. In 2012, the government proposed to restrict abortion; a bill limiting abortion was later drafted but never passed into law. Since the proposed restriction, women have reported difficulty accessing abortion services across Turkey. We aimed to better understand the current availability of abortion and reproductive health services in Istanbul and explore whether access to services has changed since 2012. In 2015, we completed 14 in-depth interviews with women and 11 semi-structured interviews with key informants. We transcribed all interviews and completed content and thematic analyses of the data. Key informants had good knowledge about the political discourse and the current abortion law. In contrast, women were familiar with the political discourse but had mixed information about the current status of abortion and were unsure about the legality of their own abortions. There was consensus that access to services has become more limited in the last five years due to the political climate, thus advocacy to prioritize reproductive health services, and abortion care in particular, in the public health system are needed.ResuméDepuis les années 80, la Turquie a maintenu des politiques libérales de contraception et d’avortement. En 2012, le Gouvernement a proposé de restreindre l’avortement ; un projet de loi limitant l’avortement a été préparé, mais n’a jamais été adopté. Depuis, les femmes ont signalé des difficultés pour avoir accès aux services d’avortement dans l’ensemble du pays. Nous souhaitions mieux comprendre la disponibilité actuelle de services d’avortement et de santé génésique à Istanbul et déterminer si l’accès aux services avait changé depuis 2012. En 2015, nous avons complété 14 entretiens approfondis avec des femmes et 11 entretiens semi-structurés avec des informateurs clés. Nous avons transcrit tous les entretiens et complété des analyses thématiques et de contenu des données. Les informateurs clés connaissaient bien le discours politique et la législation actuelle sur l’avortement. Par contre, les femmes étaient familiarisées avec le discours politique, mais possédaient des informations contradictoires sur la situation actuelle de l’avortement et elles n’étaient pas sûres de la légalité de leurs interruptions de grossesse. Tous s’accordaient à penser que le climat politique avait restreint l’accès aux services ces cinq dernières années. Des activités de plaidoyer pour donner la priorité aux services de santé génésique, et en particulier aux soins en cas d’avortement, dans le système de santé publique sont donc nécessaires.ResumenTurquía ha mantenido políticas liberales referentes a la anticoncepción y el aborto desde la década de los ochenta. En el año 2012, el gobierno propuso restringir el aborto; posteriormente se formuló un proyecto de ley para limitar el aborto, pero nunca fue promulgado como ley. Desde la restricción propuesta, las mujeres han informado dificultad para acceder a los servicios de aborto en toda Turquía. Nuestro objetivo fue entender mejor la disponibilidad actual de los servicios de aborto y slaud reproductiva en Istanbul y explorar si el acceso a los servicios ha cambiado desde 2012. En 2015, realizamos 14 entrevistas a profundidad con mujeres y 11 entrevistas semiestructuradas con informantes clave. Transcribimos todas las entrevistas y concluimos análisis de contenido y temáticos de los datos. Los informantes clave tenían buenos conocimientos del discurso político y la ley vigente referente al aborto. En cambio, las mujeres estaban familiarizadas con el discurso político pero tenían información divesa sobre el estado actual del aborto y no estaban seguras de la legalidad de sus propios abortos. Hubo consenso de que el acceso a los servicios se ha vuelto más limitado en los últimos cinco años debido al clima político; por lo tanto, se necesitan actividades de promoción y defensa para priorizar los servicios de salud reproductiva, y de aborto en particular, en el sistema de salud pública.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".