Abortion Policies in the US, Sweden, Dominican Republic, and Israel

Introduction

Over the years, abortion has been a controversial issue in the world. Countries like the US, Israel, Dominican Republic, and Sweden have formulated abortion policies. Sweden has authorized abortion as a social welfare system. For example, the Abortion Act of 1974 states that all Swedish women have the right to an abortion.¹ A woman has the right to choose whether or not to have a child under this policy. In addition, like in the US, the decision to allow abortion was based on the need to safeguard women’s rights and make abortion safe. However, Dominican Republic has completely restricted all women from performing an abortion regardless of any situation. This is different from Israel, where the policy allows women to abort under conditions such as the threat of life. Therefore, the US, Israel, Dominican Republic, and Sweden have formulated different abortion policies.

The Level of Development

The extent of development of a country is among the determinants of liberalism of abortion policies. Most states have legalized abortion in the US after the supreme court ruling. However, in 2022, the supreme court overturned the previous ruling.² The legality of abortion is now dependent on each state in the US. Pro-abortion have argued that abortion is a woman’s right and should not be infringed. In addition, the authorization of abortion is due to economic and social reasons. The primary method of measurement that can be used in the US is the national surveys of abortion providers.² This technique is used to document the views and experiences of the providers with regard to abortion. Therefore, all the states in the US have a right to decide whether to legalize abortion or not.

Sweden is among the developed countries that have legalized abortion. The Swedish Abortion Act of 1974 gives all women the right to abortion.³ With this policy, a woman has the right to decide whether to have a child or not. Like the US, the authorization of abortion was informed by the need to protect women’s rights and provide safe abortions. Additionally, most of the people who support this initiative believe that with the modernization of medical equipment, a woman has the ability to undergo a safe abortion. Similar to the US, the survey of abortion providers is an important measure because it provides information on the effect of having an enabling policy toward abortion.³ Thus, abortion is considered a right that all women should have.

Contrary to most developed countries across the globe, Israel has restricted abortion. By Israeli law, women do not have an automatic right to an abortion. However, they must ask permission from a committee consisting of three people from the hospital or clinic that would do the procedure.³ Based on this, pro-abortion in the country have termed the practice as backwardness giving an example of the first decision of the US supreme court. The main reason for the restriction is to protect the life of women. As a result, one of the measures that can be used in this country is postabortion care statistics. This helps evaluate the adoption of postabortion care programs and progress in lowering maternal mortality. In addition, the information can assist in understanding the effect of abortion on women’s health.

The Dominican Republic is among the countries where abortion is not allowed under any circumstances. The main reason for this legislation is the protection of unborn children. Unlike Israel, which only allow abortion on certain condition, this country does not see any reason that can warrant abortion.⁴ This shows that a woman can die even when an abortion can be done to save her life. Some of the measures of this legislation are the level of satisfaction with the status quo. The main source of this is the general population surveys. For example, it would be possible to determine whether women still do abortions and the possible consequences. Therefore, although abortion is completely prohibited in the Dominican Republic, there is a possibility that some women do it illegally.

Decision-Makers Perspective

The formulation of abortion policies in the countries is influenced by different perspectives. This point of view can be religious, feminist, social, libertarian, and many more. These aspects relate to the political ideologies and belief systems that guide their values and practice. Nevertheless, most of the abortion policies formed by the US, Israel, Sweden, and the Dominican Republic are informed by the central ideology that defines its operations.⁴ For example, from a social perspective, abortion is defined by rights given by the welfare state. Thus, countries that care about the well-being of their citizens tend to take a social view that sees abortion as a service provided by the government as part of its larger social mission.

Sweden is one of the states that use social welfare perspective. Legalizing abortion as a right for women is considered a social welfare policy. In addition, it was formulated as a technique for assisting society in coping after a short economic crisis by relieving individuals from economic responsibility⁵. The right to decide to give birth to a child depended on a woman. In this state, having children is considered a private matter, and the state does not have a right to interfere. To measure the effectiveness of this policy, it would be important to determine whether the general public is supporting it or not.⁶ Based on this, the source of this information would be interviewing the citizens. As a state driven by a social perspective, abortion policy is social welfare.

Unlike Sweden, the US is a libertarian perspective state due to its focus on individual freedom and dignity. Abortion is a legal and ethical issue that has attracted diverse opinions and perspectives.⁵ It was illegal in the US until the supreme court decision legalized abortion. This decision was individualized due to the constant rejection of the congress and supreme court of federal responsibility. Although some social welfare programs exist, the need to regulate public initiatives has risen. With the influence of the politicians taking center stage, it is challenging for the government to promote social welfare programs.⁵ As a result, there is no conducive social environment to support the legalization of abortion.

Israel’s abortion policy shows how religion plays a big role in the country’s politics. Judaism does not ban abortions. The ancient Jewish law posits that a fetus has no legal status because it is seen as a part of its mother, not as a separate person.⁵ The basic Jewish principle also says that abortion is not murder, even though it may be the same as killing. Based on this, situations make a difference between the two concepts. For example, contrary to the Dominican Republic, Israel allows abortion when a mother’s life is at risk. Although it is allowed to some extent, it is not considered a right of women. The decision to do an abortion rests not on a woman but on an established panel in the healthcare system.

The main determinant of abortion policy in the Dominican Republic is the influence of Roman Catholicism. This is the leading religious group that constitutes more than three-quarters of the entire population.⁷ Like Israel, religion is integral to the country’s decision-making process. Catholic doctrine posits that the fetus is a living human being from the moment of conception, with all the genetic parts present. The abortion policy is influenced by the fact that women have a moral responsibility to bear children. Contrary to Sweden, where freedom originates from being able to abort, Dominican Republicans believe that true liberty comes from the vocational fulfillment of motherhood.

The principle behind the formulation of the abortion policy

As a democratic country, Sweden is using an enabling principle to formulate an abortion policy. In its initial abortion act of 1938, abortion was illegal and only allowed in some instances.⁸ However, this changed, and an enabling policy legitimizing abortion was established. This was based on the idea that each person should be able to make their own decisions. For example, a woman has the right to decide how many children she wants. Even though everyone knew preventing pregnancy was better and abortion should only be used as a last resort, the principle stayed the same. Based on this, the measurement method used in this case is to determine the safety of abortions. Therefore, the Swedish abortion policy is considered enabling because it gives women the right to make their own decision regarding their health.

On the contrary, Dominican Republic’s abortion policy is restrictive. It does not give people an opportunity to make a choice. The legislation allows the government to determine what people want and make it happen.⁹ The right to privacy is denied without a doubt. The Dominican Republic is the best example of a modern democratic country with a strict rule on abortion. The parliament’s vote to pass the antiabortion amendment strengthened the state’s commitment to a pro-life policy and placed the country at the end of the anti-choice policy. The parliamentary declaration made it clear that the state is committed to denying women any choice about how to have children.¹⁰ As a result, the abortion policy is considered restrictive because it fails to give women an opportunity to decide.

The US abortion policy is hindering because the government understands an individual’s right to make a decision. However, the country has failed to make this right a reality since there is no clear policy supporting the action. The US abortion policy is varied because each state was given the power to determine its legitimacy after the second ruling of the supreme court¹¹. Based on this, some states have authorized abortion, while there are others where it is illegal. The difference in legislation in the country hindered women from enjoying the right to choose, especially in the area of abortion policy. Therefore, the US’s combination of individual choice and lack of state involvement has hurt mostly women who rely on public resources to get abortions.

Israel’s abortion law is considered an intrusive policy since it restricts an individual’s choice. The government uses whatever choice is available to carry out the law. An intrusive law tends to treat its people like children and get in the way of their private lives by looking at and approving each person’s choices.¹² The country’s policy on abortion limits people’s freedom of choice in different ways. Firstly, the legislation is partially restrictive because abortion is allowed in medical conditions. Abortion is still a crime unless it is allowed under different specific circumstances. Secondly, the social provision was based on subjective metrics based on how the women saw their environment. Although Israel’s abortion policy is intrusive, it still limits women’s decision-making freedom.

The Strategic Influence of Women

Politics of integration influenced the Swedish abortion policy. The women in the country gained much influence in the political environment. Since Swedish women got the right to vote, many steps have been taken to include them in all parts of politics. Women are now represented in formal government bodies, and the political elite has taken over the leadership of women’s interest groups. With this influence, the women were able to lobby the formulation of a law to legalize abortion. Most of the Swedish women’s objectives were taken up by the system and made into government policies. Sweden is happy that it was the first country to make men and women equal. Therefore, the integration of women influenced the authorization of abortion.

The politics of separation in the US is the primary cause of varied abortion policies. In the US, women’s groups have access to many resources and power. Feminism and movements to free women have their roots in the country. ¹³A strong and successful women’s movement has come about because of the importance of groups in politics and the tradition of caring about specific issues. However, American policymakers failed to define the abortion issue from the perspective of a feminist. As a result, women have not been able to get abortion rights due to social norms about women’s sexuality and the rules of decentralization. Thus, the separation strategy used by the US government is among the reasons for the two sides in the right to abortion.

The Dominican Republic and Israel used the politics of cooptation to create abortion policies. In both countries, abortion policies are restrictive because they deny women the right to make a choice with regard to reproduction. People think that Israel’s law on abortion is invasive because it limits people’s freedom of choice.¹² The government carries out the law in any way possible. An overbearing law does not treat its people with dignity and respect and gets in the way of their private lives by looking at and approving each person’s choices.

Conclusion

Abortion policies are established by different nations to protect women’s rights and welfare. Countries like the United States, Israel, the Dominican Republic, and Sweden have laws supporting and abolishing abortion. However, as a form of social welfare, Sweden has made abortion legal. For instance, according to the policy, every woman in Sweden has the right to have an abortion. Under this policy, a woman has the right to choose whether or not to have a child. Also, like in the US, the decision to allow abortion was based on the need to protect women’s rights and make abortion safe. However, Dominican Republic has made it illegal for any woman to have an abortion, no matter what. This is different from Israel, where the law lets women have abortions if their lives are in danger.

Bibliography

Blofield, Merike, and Christina Ewig. “The left turn and abortion politics in Latin America.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 24, no. 4 (2017): 481-510.

Guillaume, Agnès, Clémentine Rossier, and Paul Reeve. “Abortion around the world. An overview of legislation, measures, trends, and consequences.” Population 73, no. 2 (2018): 217-306.

Yishai, Yael. “Public ideas and public policy: abortion politics in four democracies.” Comparative Politics (1993): 207-228.

Footnotes

1. Yael Yishai. “Public Ideas and Public Policy: Abortion Politics in four Democracies.” Comparative Politics (1993): 207-228. Web.
2. Agness Guillaume, Rossier Clémentine, and Reeve Paul. “Abortion around the World. An overview of Legislation, Measures, Trends, and Consequences.” Translated by Paul Reeve. Population 73, no. 2 (2018): 217-306. Web.
3. Yael Yishai. “Public Ideas and Public Policy: Abortion Politics in four Democracies.” Comparative Politics (1993): 207-228. Web.
4. Yael Yishai. “Public Ideas and Public Policy: Abortion Politics in four Democracies.” Comparative Politics (1993): 207-228. Web.
5. Yael Yishai. “Public Ideas and Public Policy: Abortion Politics in four Democracies.” Comparative Politics (1993): 207-228. Web.
6. Agness Guillaume, Rossier Clémentine, and Reeve Paul. “Abortion around the World. An overview of Legislation, Measures, Trends, and Consequences.” Translated by Paul Reeve. Population 73, no. 2 (2018): 217-306. Web.
7. Merike Blofield, and Ewig Christina. “The Left Turn and Abortion Politics in Latin America.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 24, no. 4 (2017): 481-510. Web.
8. Yael Yishai. “Public Ideas and Public Policy: Abortion Politics in four Democracies.” Comparative Politics (1993): 207-228. Web.
9. Merike Blofield, and Ewig Christina. “The Left Turn and Abortion Politics in Latin America.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 24, no. 4 (2017): 481-510. Web.
10. Agness Guillaume, Rossier Clémentine, and Reeve Paul. “Abortion around the World. An overview of Legislation, Measures, Trends, and Consequences.” Translated by Paul Reeve. Population 73, no. 2 (2018): 217-306. Web.
11. Yael Yishai. “Public Ideas and Public Policy: Abortion Politics in four Democracies.” Comparative Politics (1993): 207-228. Web.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Yael Yishai. “Public Ideas and Public Policy: Abortion Politics in four Democracies.” Comparative Politics (1993): 207-228. Web.