Perils and possibilities of health exception laws: A narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forty-seven of the 203 countries with abortion laws detailed by the Center for Reproductive Rights have a health exception (HE) clause, inconsistent in both wording and implementation, even within countries. This narrative review sought to determine the understanding and implementation of the legally permissible HE in different countries, or states, to provide clarification and guidance for strategies that will maximize permitted access to safe abortion within the law and avoid undue delays that harm the lives and health of women and their families. A multimethod approach was used. The literature search for countries with HE laws, including physical, mental, and social health, and exceptions for threat to life, rape, incest, and fetal anomaly, returned sparse results. The review of emblematic cases that had reached regional courts on the grounds of human rights violation for failure to obtain legal abortion under the country's HE clause included some examples qualifying on multiple grounds. We interviewed 15 physician advocates from 14 countries about use of the HE in their countries. Informants from Latin America interpreted the HE to refer to physical, psychological, and social health. HE laws are common but confusing, with significant opportunities to improve access through clarification and implementation. Where multiple grounds permit ending a pregnancy, the least onerous exception for the patient is the most ethical. Examples of progress in Colombia and Ghana demonstrate successful approaches to broader HE implementation.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".