Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that the current abortion regulation by Law 194/1978 is an inadequate basis for the provision of good quality abortion care and must be reformed. First, the paper explains why Law 194/1978 creates a hyper-regulatory regime that is inconsistent with the best clinical evidence and practices in the field as well as relevant international human rights law, as outlined in the World Health Organization's (WHO) 2022 Abortion Care Guideline. Second, it highlights gaps between what the law says and what happens in practice, pointing out how the everyday life of Law 194/1978, especially in the practices of gynecologists, is far removed from international standards of quality abortion care and has yet to comply with international human rights law. Third, it sets out some alternative routes to abortion access "outside" Law 194/1978. Finally, it concludes with some suggestions for a change in the practice of gynecology and a call for the reform of Law 194/1978, in favor of a bodily autonomy model of regulation grounded on decriminalization, demedicalization, dehospitalization, and self-management to ensure compliance with the WHO standards and international human rights law.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".