Introduction
Abortion is a complex worldwide problem because it is at the nexus of individual choice, public health, and social values. This article explores a comparative policy study of abortion laws in China and the United States, two powerful countries. Both nations negotiate the challenges of informed consent, access to safe medical treatments, and the creation of comprehensive reproductive health regulations, emphasizing a global policy framework that recognizes the sensitive nature of reproductive decisions (Wang & Jiang, 2022). The analysis will highlight common themes while dissecting unique strategies, highlighting the target audience by age, which is mostly young individuals with unwanted pregnancies. This research illuminates the underlying motives of Social Risk and Social Justice policies by examining the causal theory of these policies. In addition, resolutions that seek to create a more equitable and inclusive global reproductive health policy by balancing the individual’s rights with the interests of society will be put up.
Global Policy Identification
The international policy that forms the foundation for the comparative analysis of abortion laws in the U.S. and China centres on the recognition of the complex role that abortion plays in the larger context of reproductive health (Berer, 2017). This acknowledgement emphasizes a dedication to obtaining informed consent, making safe medical treatments easily accessible, and encouraging the creation of all-encompassing reproductive health policy. These common values are emphasized by the Council on Foreign Relations (2022) as essential elements that both countries should adhere to while regulating reproductive choices.
Similarities to U.S. Policy/China Policy
Analyzing the parallels between China’s and the United States’ abortion laws reveals that both nations struggle with the complexity of this delicate subject. Both countries exhibit a sophisticated awareness of the many aspects impacting reproductive decisions, highlighting the need of negotiating these complexity with caution and thoughtfulness. A shared characteristic is the use of legal frameworks to control abortion, acknowledging the need to strike a balance between the demands of society and individual liberties in the context of reproductive rights (Lattof et al., 2020).
Both countries use legislation as a tool to govern abortion practices, demonstrating a commitment to addressing the moral, social, and health-related aspects of reproductive decisions. This shared focus on legislative actions is an attempt to provide a controlled and regulated setting that takes into account the many viewpoints and concerns related to abortion. Moreover, the recognition of the need of striking a balance in the formulation of policies suggests a mutual comprehension that the rights to procreate are linked to wider social factors. China and the United States struggle with how to create laws that protect individual liberty while taking society as a whole into account (Rigdon, 1996). The world policy that has been identified acknowledges the delicate nature of abortion in the context of reproductive health, and China and the United States share a common commitment to informed consent, safe medical treatment access, and the creation of comprehensive reproductive health policies (Wang & Jiang, 2022). A universal understanding of the need to tread carefully while navigating the complex terrain of reproductive rights and a dedication to striking a balance between social and individual demands is shown by the shared focus on legal frameworks.
Differences to U.S. Policy/China Policy
The degree of government engagement and regulation is the main point of divergence between abortion laws in China and the United States. The One-Child Policy, which was enacted in 1979 and subsequently loosened, represents a rigid, authoritarian system that places strict restrictions on the number of families. This strategy, which included sterilizations and forced abortions, was an extreme approach to control population increase. In order to address more general worries about overpopulation, the government intervened extensively, placing a strong emphasis on governmental control over individual reproductive decisions (Leng & Kang, 2022). The famous 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, however, represents the more permissive and decentralized approach to abortion legislation that the United States takes (SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 2022). This legal framework, which emphasizes individual rights and reproductive autonomy, provides a woman’s basic right to choose (Doan & Schwarz, 2020). State-specific rules indicate a commitment to adjusting policies to local situations and varying cultural norms, while the federal government establishes the constitutional framework.
Causal Theory Addressed by Both Policies
The complex interplay between social risk and social justice is the causal hypothesis that both countries’ abortion laws attempt to solve. The anticipated socioeconomic dangers of overpopulation, such as resource shortages, environmental degradation, and pressure on social services, led to the development of China’s One-Child Policy. By putting policies in place to guarantee more equal resource allocation and sustainable development, the policy sought to avert social discontent (Kang et al., 2022). In the U.S., the emphasis on women’s autonomy and reproductive rights is consistent with the goal of social justice. The policy aims to reduce the risks to society that come with limiting women’s autonomy over their bodies by protecting their rights. This viewpoint recognizes the past battles for gender parity and imagines a society free from harassment and discrimination when it comes to women’s reproductive health decisions. Overall, the United States places a strong emphasis on social justice and individual rights while negotiating the complications of reproductive autonomy, whereas China’s strategy indicates a top-down, authoritarian approach to tackling overpopulation issues (Rodgers et al., 2021). Both countries struggle with creating laws that balance individual liberty and society demands within the frameworks of social justice and social risk, even if they do it in different ways.
Target Audience
Women in the reproductive age range are primarily the target audience for abortion laws, with a focus on young people dealing with unintended pregnancies. Policies like the demand for parental engagement have a big influence on this group in the U.S. The need that expectant females notify their parents when seeking abortion services complicates the process of making decisions for young people (Gao, 2023. This group has particular difficulties, such as resolving complicated family relationships, possible stigma, and budgetary constraints. A comprehensive grasp of these issues is necessary to create successful abortion restrictions that are both legally sound and considerate of the practical and emotional realities that young women face (Redd et al., 2023). Policymakers may create more comprehensive and supportive frameworks that protect reproductive rights and address the unique situations of young people suffering unintended pregnancies by taking into account the unique demands of this target group.
Resolution Strategies
A fundamental tactic for providing correct information about reproductive health to people, particularly young adults, is comprehensive sex education. Age-appropriate and comprehensive sex education programs may help societies create a culture of responsibility and awareness by giving people the information and tools they need to make educated choices (Kang et al., 2022). These courses need to include consent, communication, and contraception in addition to the biology components of reproduction.
In order to encourage responsible family planning and avoid unwanted births, access to contraception is essential. Making a range of contraceptive options easily accessible improves people’s capacity to make decisions that are in line with their reproductive objectives, which in turn decreases the need for abortions (Ambast et al., 2023). This approach emphasizes how proactive preventative actions may be in treating the underlying issues that lead to abortion-related worries.
Public awareness campaigns are essential for de-stigmatizing conversations about abortion and reproductive health. These efforts help to break down the social taboos that are often associated with the subject by encouraging honest and open dialogue. People dealing with unintended pregnancies might benefit from a more tolerant and compassionate public climate, which can motivate them to look for help and make choices in a less critical setting.
Legal safeguards are essential to ensure that legal frameworks protect against coercion and harmful practices while also prioritizing autonomy and reproductive rights (Romero et al., 2021). These protections assist establish an atmosphere where people can make choices about their reproductive health without fear of legal ramifications, promoting confidence in the healthcare system by carefully balancing individual rights with social considerations.
Generally, these conflict resolution techniques add up to a thorough strategy that tackles the many facets of the abortion problem. Societies may combine legal protections, education, access to contraception, awareness campaigns, and education to create a climate that respects personal autonomy, upholds reproductive rights, and reduces the necessity for abortion in unfavorable situations.
Conclusion
In summary, the examination of abortion laws in China and the United States shows both parallels and divergences, indicating different approaches to the intricate matter. The causal theory of social justice and social risk emphasizes that, while different approaches are needed, tackling societal dangers is a common aim. Proposed resolutions stress education, access to contraceptives, public awareness, and legal protections in order to promote a more equitable and inclusive global reproductive health policy, with a focus on young people as its major audience. It is crucial to give careful thought to the past, present, and future while developing laws that protect individual rights and solve social issues.
References
Ambast, S., Atay, H., & Lavelanet, A. (2023). A global review of penalties for abortion-related offenses in 182 countries. BMJ Global Health, 8(3), e010405. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-010405
Berer, M. (2017). Abortion law and policy around the world: in search of decriminalization. Health and human rights, 19(1), 13.
Council on Foreign Relations. (2022, July 1). How the U.S. compares with the rest of the world on abortion rights. PBS NewsHour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-the-u-scompares-with-the-rest-of-the-world-on-abortion-rights
Doan, A. E., & Schwarz, C. (2020). Father Knows Best:“Protecting” Women through State Surveillance and Social Control in Anti‐Abortion Policy. Politics & Policy, 48(1), 6-37.
Gao, X. (2023, November 4). Comparison of Women’s Abortion Rights between China and the United States. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4623354
Kang, L., Liu, J., Ma, Q., Jing, W., Wu, Y., Zhang, S., & Liu, M. (2022). Prevalence of induced abortion among Chinese women aged 18–49 years: Findings from three cross-sectional studies. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 926246.
Lattof, S. R., Coast, E., Rodgers, Y. V. D. M., Moore, B., & Poss, C. (2020). The mesoeconomics of abortion: A scoping review and analysis of the economic effects of abortion on health systems. PloS one, 15(11), e0237227.
Leng, A., & Kang, F. (2022). Impact of two-child policy on female employment and corporate performance: Empirical evidence from Chinese listed companies from 2010 to 2020. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01472-2
Oberman, M. (2022). What will and won’t happen when abortion is banned. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 9(1), lsac011. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsac011
Redd, S. K., AbiSamra, R., Blake, S. C., Komro, K. A., Neal, R., Rice, W. S., & Hall, K. S. (2023). Medication Abortion “Reversal” Laws: How Unsound Science Paved the Way for Dangerous Abortion Policy. American Journal of Public Health, 113(2), 202-212.
Rigdon, S. M. (1996). Abortion law and practice in China: An overview with comparisons to the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 42(4), 543–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00173-5
Rodgers, Y. V. D. M., Coast, E., Lattof, S. R., Poss, C., & Moore, B. (2021). The macroeconomics of abortion: A scoping review and analysis of the costs and outcomes. PLoS One, 16(5), e0250692.
Romero, M., de Leon, R. G. P., Baccaro, L. F., Carroli, B., Mehrtash, H., Randolino, J., … & Carroli, G. (2021). Abortion-related morbidity in six Latin American and Caribbean countries: findings of the WHO/HRP multi-country survey on abortion (MCS-A). BMJ Global Health, 6(8), e005618.
Singh, S. (2018, December 14). Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access. Guttmacher Institute. https://www.guttmacher.org/report/abortion-worldwide2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. (2022). Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Wang, T., & Jiang, Q. (2022). Recent trend and correlates of induced abortion in China: evidence from the 2017 China Fertility Survey. BMC Women’s Health, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-02074-5
write