Country or Region | |
---|---|
Micronesia (Federated States Of) |
No data
Read more On requestNo data found see note WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Grounds-based approaches to restricting access to abortion should be revised in favour of making abortion available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends against laws and other regulations that restrict abortion by grounds. The guideline recommends abortion be available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person.
Additional notesThe Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands states in Section 51: "Every person who shall unlawfully cause the miscarriage or premature delivery of a woman, with the intent to do so, shall be guilty of abortion and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned for a period of not more than five years. "
In 1970, the Trial Division of the High Court, Yap District, considered the case of a woman charged with having unlawfully caused her own abortion. The court held that the section of the Trust Territory Code pertaining to abortion was so vague and indefinite that its attempted enforcement in the case in question constituted a denial of due process to the defendant and it was therefore invalid.
More generally, the court found that under the abortion section of this Code the persons liable are determinable by inference only and such indefiniteness and vagueness constitutes a denial of due process. It stated that criminal punishment was due only in cases where the intent to cause an abortion was present, precluding punishment for abortion by accident.
The court found that abortion statutes by their terms are applicable to the person causing the abortion and do not apply, without specific provision to the pregnant woman who is the victim of the act. Unless the abortion statute expressly makes the woman responsible, it is generally held, although the statute reads any "person," that she is not liable to any criminal prosecution, whether she solicits the act or performs it upon herself.
No law replacing Section 51 of the Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands could be found. Related documents: |
Country | Economic or social reasons |
Foetal impairment |
Rape |
Incest |
Intellectual or cognitive disability of the woman |
Mental health |
Physical health |
Health |
Life |
Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Micronesia (Federated States Of) |
![]() Economic or social reasonsNo data found see note WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Health grounds shall reflect WHO’s definitions of health, which entails a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. Abortion Care Guideline § 2.2.2.
Additional notesThe Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands states in Section 51: "Every person who shall unlawfully cause the miscarriage or premature delivery of a woman, with the intent to do so, shall be guilty of abortion and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned for a period of not more than five years. "
In 1970, the Trial Division of the High Court, Yap District, considered the case of a woman charged with having unlawfully caused her own abortion. The court held that the section of the Trust Territory Code pertaining to abortion was so vague and indefinite that its attempted enforcement in the case in question constituted a denial of due process to the defendant and it was therefore invalid.
More generally, the court found that under the abortion section of this Code the persons liable are determinable by inference only and such indefiniteness and vagueness constitutes a denial of due process. It stated that criminal punishment was due only in cases where the intent to cause an abortion was present, precluding punishment for abortion by accident.
The court found that abortion statutes by their terms are applicable to the person causing the abortion and do not apply, without specific provision to the pregnant woman who is the victim of the act. Unless the abortion statute expressly makes the woman responsible, it is generally held, although the statute reads any "person," that she is not liable to any criminal prosecution, whether she solicits the act or performs it upon herself.
No law replacing Section 51 of the Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands could be found. Related documents: |
![]() Foetal impairmentNo data found see note WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Grounds-based approaches to restricting access to abortion should be revised in favour of making abortion available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends against laws and other regulations that restrict abortion by grounds. The guideline recommends abortion be available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person.
Additional notesThe Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands states in Section 51: "Every person who shall unlawfully cause the miscarriage or premature delivery of a woman, with the intent to do so, shall be guilty of abortion and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned for a period of not more than five years. "
In 1970, the Trial Division of the High Court, Yap District, considered the case of a woman charged with having unlawfully caused her own abortion. The court held that the section of the Trust Territory Code pertaining to abortion was so vague and indefinite that its attempted enforcement in the case in question constituted a denial of due process to the defendant and it was therefore invalid.
More generally, the court found that under the abortion section of this Code the persons liable are determinable by inference only and such indefiniteness and vagueness constitutes a denial of due process. It stated that criminal punishment was due only in cases where the intent to cause an abortion was present, precluding punishment for abortion by accident.
The court found that abortion statutes by their terms are applicable to the person causing the abortion and do not apply, without specific provision to the pregnant woman who is the victim of the act. Unless the abortion statute expressly makes the woman responsible, it is generally held, although the statute reads any "person," that she is not liable to any criminal prosecution, whether she solicits the act or performs it upon herself.
No law replacing Section 51 of the Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands could be found. Related documents: |
![]() RapeNo data found see note WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Grounds-based approaches to restricting access to abortion should be revised in favour of making abortion available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends against laws and other regulations that restrict abortion by grounds. The guideline recommends abortion be available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person.
Additional notesThe Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands states in Section 51: "Every person who shall unlawfully cause the miscarriage or premature delivery of a woman, with the intent to do so, shall be guilty of abortion and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned for a period of not more than five years. "
In 1970, the Trial Division of the High Court, Yap District, considered the case of a woman charged with having unlawfully caused her own abortion. The court held that the section of the Trust Territory Code pertaining to abortion was so vague and indefinite that its attempted enforcement in the case in question constituted a denial of due process to the defendant and it was therefore invalid.
More generally, the court found that under the abortion section of this Code the persons liable are determinable by inference only and such indefiniteness and vagueness constitutes a denial of due process. It stated that criminal punishment was due only in cases where the intent to cause an abortion was present, precluding punishment for abortion by accident.
The court found that abortion statutes by their terms are applicable to the person causing the abortion and do not apply, without specific provision to the pregnant woman who is the victim of the act. Unless the abortion statute expressly makes the woman responsible, it is generally held, although the statute reads any "person," that she is not liable to any criminal prosecution, whether she solicits the act or performs it upon herself.
No law replacing Section 51 of the Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands could be found. Related documents: |
![]() IncestNo data found see note WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Grounds-based approaches to restricting access to abortion should be revised in favour of making abortion available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends against laws and other regulations that restrict abortion by grounds. The guideline recommends abortion be available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person.
Additional notesThe Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands states in Section 51: "Every person who shall unlawfully cause the miscarriage or premature delivery of a woman, with the intent to do so, shall be guilty of abortion and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned for a period of not more than five years. "
In 1970, the Trial Division of the High Court, Yap District, considered the case of a woman charged with having unlawfully caused her own abortion. The court held that the section of the Trust Territory Code pertaining to abortion was so vague and indefinite that its attempted enforcement in the case in question constituted a denial of due process to the defendant and it was therefore invalid.
More generally, the court found that under the abortion section of this Code the persons liable are determinable by inference only and such indefiniteness and vagueness constitutes a denial of due process. It stated that criminal punishment was due only in cases where the intent to cause an abortion was present, precluding punishment for abortion by accident.
The court found that abortion statutes by their terms are applicable to the person causing the abortion and do not apply, without specific provision to the pregnant woman who is the victim of the act. Unless the abortion statute expressly makes the woman responsible, it is generally held, although the statute reads any "person," that she is not liable to any criminal prosecution, whether she solicits the act or performs it upon herself.
No law replacing Section 51 of the Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands could be found. Related documents: |
![]() Intellectual or cognitive disability of the womanNo data found see note Additional notesThe Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands states in Section 51: "Every person who shall unlawfully cause the miscarriage or premature delivery of a woman, with the intent to do so, shall be guilty of abortion and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned for a period of not more than five years. "
In 1970, the Trial Division of the High Court, Yap District, considered the case of a woman charged with having unlawfully caused her own abortion. The court held that the section of the Trust Territory Code pertaining to abortion was so vague and indefinite that its attempted enforcement in the case in question constituted a denial of due process to the defendant and it was therefore invalid.
More generally, the court found that under the abortion section of this Code the persons liable are determinable by inference only and such indefiniteness and vagueness constitutes a denial of due process. It stated that criminal punishment was due only in cases where the intent to cause an abortion was present, precluding punishment for abortion by accident.
The court found that abortion statutes by their terms are applicable to the person causing the abortion and do not apply, without specific provision to the pregnant woman who is the victim of the act. Unless the abortion statute expressly makes the woman responsible, it is generally held, although the statute reads any "person," that she is not liable to any criminal prosecution, whether she solicits the act or performs it upon herself.
No law replacing Section 51 of the Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands could be found. Related documents: |
![]() Mental healthNo data found see note WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Health grounds shall reflect WHO’s definitions of health, which entails a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. Abortion Care Guideline § 2.2.2.
Additional notesThe Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands states in Section 51: "Every person who shall unlawfully cause the miscarriage or premature delivery of a woman, with the intent to do so, shall be guilty of abortion and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned for a period of not more than five years. "
In 1970, the Trial Division of the High Court, Yap District, considered the case of a woman charged with having unlawfully caused her own abortion. The court held that the section of the Trust Territory Code pertaining to abortion was so vague and indefinite that its attempted enforcement in the case in question constituted a denial of due process to the defendant and it was therefore invalid.
More generally, the court found that under the abortion section of this Code the persons liable are determinable by inference only and such indefiniteness and vagueness constitutes a denial of due process. It stated that criminal punishment was due only in cases where the intent to cause an abortion was present, precluding punishment for abortion by accident.
The court found that abortion statutes by their terms are applicable to the person causing the abortion and do not apply, without specific provision to the pregnant woman who is the victim of the act. Unless the abortion statute expressly makes the woman responsible, it is generally held, although the statute reads any "person," that she is not liable to any criminal prosecution, whether she solicits the act or performs it upon herself.
No law replacing Section 51 of the Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands could be found. Related documents: |
![]() Physical healthNo data found see note WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Health grounds shall reflect WHO’s definitions of health, which entails a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. Abortion Care Guideline § 2.2.2.
Additional notesThe Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands states in Section 51: "Every person who shall unlawfully cause the miscarriage or premature delivery of a woman, with the intent to do so, shall be guilty of abortion and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned for a period of not more than five years. "
In 1970, the Trial Division of the High Court, Yap District, considered the case of a woman charged with having unlawfully caused her own abortion. The court held that the section of the Trust Territory Code pertaining to abortion was so vague and indefinite that its attempted enforcement in the case in question constituted a denial of due process to the defendant and it was therefore invalid.
More generally, the court found that under the abortion section of this Code the persons liable are determinable by inference only and such indefiniteness and vagueness constitutes a denial of due process. It stated that criminal punishment was due only in cases where the intent to cause an abortion was present, precluding punishment for abortion by accident.
The court found that abortion statutes by their terms are applicable to the person causing the abortion and do not apply, without specific provision to the pregnant woman who is the victim of the act. Unless the abortion statute expressly makes the woman responsible, it is generally held, although the statute reads any "person," that she is not liable to any criminal prosecution, whether she solicits the act or performs it upon herself.
No law replacing Section 51 of the Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands could be found. Related documents: |
![]() HealthNo data found see note WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Health grounds shall reflect WHO’s definitions of health, which entails a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. Abortion Care Guideline § 2.2.2.
Additional notesThe Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands states in Section 51: "Every person who shall unlawfully cause the miscarriage or premature delivery of a woman, with the intent to do so, shall be guilty of abortion and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned for a period of not more than five years. "
In 1970, the Trial Division of the High Court, Yap District, considered the case of a woman charged with having unlawfully caused her own abortion. The court held that the section of the Trust Territory Code pertaining to abortion was so vague and indefinite that its attempted enforcement in the case in question constituted a denial of due process to the defendant and it was therefore invalid.
More generally, the court found that under the abortion section of this Code the persons liable are determinable by inference only and such indefiniteness and vagueness constitutes a denial of due process. It stated that criminal punishment was due only in cases where the intent to cause an abortion was present, precluding punishment for abortion by accident.
The court found that abortion statutes by their terms are applicable to the person causing the abortion and do not apply, without specific provision to the pregnant woman who is the victim of the act. Unless the abortion statute expressly makes the woman responsible, it is generally held, although the statute reads any "person," that she is not liable to any criminal prosecution, whether she solicits the act or performs it upon herself.
No law replacing Section 51 of the Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands could be found. Related documents: |
![]() LifeNo data found see note WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Grounds-based approaches to restricting access to abortion should be revised in favour of making abortion available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends against laws and other regulations that restrict abortion by grounds. The guideline recommends abortion be available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person.
Additional notesThe Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands states in Section 51: "Every person who shall unlawfully cause the miscarriage or premature delivery of a woman, with the intent to do so, shall be guilty of abortion and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned for a period of not more than five years. "
In 1970, the Trial Division of the High Court, Yap District, considered the case of a woman charged with having unlawfully caused her own abortion. The court held that the section of the Trust Territory Code pertaining to abortion was so vague and indefinite that its attempted enforcement in the case in question constituted a denial of due process to the defendant and it was therefore invalid.
More generally, the court found that under the abortion section of this Code the persons liable are determinable by inference only and such indefiniteness and vagueness constitutes a denial of due process. It stated that criminal punishment was due only in cases where the intent to cause an abortion was present, precluding punishment for abortion by accident.
The court found that abortion statutes by their terms are applicable to the person causing the abortion and do not apply, without specific provision to the pregnant woman who is the victim of the act. Unless the abortion statute expressly makes the woman responsible, it is generally held, although the statute reads any "person," that she is not liable to any criminal prosecution, whether she solicits the act or performs it upon herself.
No law replacing Section 51 of the Code of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands could be found. Related documents: |
Other
|
Country | Authorization of health professional(s) |
Authorization in specially licensed facilities only |
Judicial authorization for minors |
Judicial authorization in cases of rape |
Police report required in case of rape |
Parental consent required for minors |
Spousal consent |
Ultrasound images or listen to foetal heartbeat required |
Compulsory counselling |
Compulsory waiting period |
Mandatory HIV screening test |
Other mandatory STI screening tests |
Prohibition of sex-selective abortion |
Restrictions on information provided to the public |
Restrictions on methods to detect sex of the foetus |
Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Micronesia (Federated States Of) |
No data
Authorization of health professional(s)No data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Third-party authorization requirements are incompatible with international human rights law, which provides that States may not restrict women’s access to health services on the ground that they do not have the authorization of husbands, partners, parents or health authorities, because they are unmarried, or because they are women. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends that abortion be available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person without the authorization of any other individual, body or institution. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.3.2.
|
No data
Authorization in specially licensed facilities onlyNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. To establish an enabling environment, there is a need for abortion care to be integrated into the health system across all levels (including primary, secondary and tertiary) – and supported in the community – to allow for expansion of health worker roles, including self-management approaches. To ensure both access to abortion and achievement of Universal Health Coverage (UHC), abortion must be centred within primary health care (PHC), which itself is fully integrated within the health system, facilitating referral pathways for higher-level care when needed. Abortion Care Guideline § 1.4.1.
|
No data
Judicial authorization for minorsNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends that abortion be available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person without the authorization of any other individual, body or institution. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.3.2.
|
![]() Judicial authorization in cases of rapeNot applicable WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. There shall be no procedural requirements to “prove” or “establish” satisfaction of grounds, such as requiring judicial orders or police reports in cases of rape or sexual assault (for sources to support this information). These restrictions subject the individual to unnecessary trauma, may put them at increased risk from the perpetrator, and may cause women to resort to unsafe abortion.
|
![]() Police report required in case of rapeNot applicable WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. There shall be no procedural requirements to “prove” or “establish” satisfaction of grounds, such as requiring judicial orders or police reports in cases of rape or sexual assault (for sources to support this information). These restrictions subject the individual to unnecessary trauma, may put them at increased risk from the perpetrator, and may cause women to resort to unsafe abortion.
|
No data
Parental consent required for minorsNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. While parental or partner involvement in abortion decision-making can support and assist women, girls or other pregnant persons, this must be based on the values and preferences of the person availing of abortion and not imposed by third-party authorization requirements. Third-party authorization requirements are incompatible with international human rights law, which provides that States may not restrict women’s access to health services on the ground that they do not have the authorization of husbands, partners, parents or health authorities, because they are unmarried, or because they are women. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends that abortion be available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person without the authorization of any other individual, body or institution. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.3.2.
|
No data
Spousal consentNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. While parental or partner involvement in abortion decision-making can support and assist women, girls or other pregnant persons, this must be based on the values and preferences of the person availing of abortion and not imposed by third-party authorization requirements. Third-party authorization requirements are incompatible with international human rights law, which provides that States may not restrict women’s access to health services on the ground that they do not have the authorization of husbands, partners, parents or health authorities, because they are unmarried, or because they are women. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends that abortion be available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person without the authorization of any other individual, body or institution. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.3.2.
|
No data
Ultrasound images or listen to foetal heartbeat requiredNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. The right to refuse information, including the right to refuse viewing ultrasound images, must be respected. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends against the use of ultrasound scanning as a prerequisite for providing abortion services for both medical and surgical abortion. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.3.5.
|
No data
Compulsory counsellingNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. While counselling should be made available and accessible, it should always be voluntary for women to choose whether or not they want to receive it. The right to refuse counselling when offered must be respected. Where provided, counselling must be available to individuals in a way that respects privacy and confidentiality.
|
No data
Compulsory waiting periodNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Mandatory waiting periods delay access to abortion, sometimes to the extent that women’s access to abortion or choice of abortion method is restricted. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends against mandatory waiting periods for abortion. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.3.1.
|
No data
Mandatory HIV screening testNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Regulatory, policy and programmatic barriers – as well as barriers in practice – that hinder access to and timely provision of quality abortion care should be removed. Abortion Care Guideline § Box 2.1.
|
No data
Other mandatory STI screening testsNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Regulatory, policy and programmatic barriers – as well as barriers in practice – that hinder access to and timely provision of quality abortion care should be removed. Abortion Care Guideline § Box 2.1.
|
No data
Prohibition of sex-selective abortionNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. In situations where abortion is restricted for sex selection purposes, terminating a pregnancy for this reason is likely to involve an unsafe procedure carrying high risks. Any policies or guidelines on the use of technology in obstetric and fetal medicine should take into account the need to ensure women’s access to safe abortion and other services - efforts to manage or limit sex selection should also not hamper or limit access to safe abortion services. Preventing gender-biased sex selection: an interagency statement.
|
No data
Restrictions on information provided to the publicNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Dissemination of misinformation, withholding of information and censorship should be prohibited.
|
No data
Restrictions on methods to detect sex of the foetusNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. A woman is entitled to know the status of her pregnancy and to act on this information. Prenatal tests and other medical diagnostic services cannot legally be refused because the woman may decide to terminate her pregnancy. Safe Abortion Guidelines § 4.2.1.4.
|
Other |
Country | National guidelines for induced abortion |
Methods allowed |
Country recognized approval (mifepristone / mife-misoprostol) |
Country recognized approval (misoprostol) |
Where can abortion services be provided |
National guidelines for post-abortion care |
Where can post abortion care services be provided |
Contraception included in post-abortion care |
Insurance to offset end user costs |
Who can provide abortion services |
Extra facility/provider requirements for delivery of abortion services |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Micronesia (Federated States Of) |
No data
National guidelines for induced abortionNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. National standards and guidelines for abortion care should be evidence based and periodically updated and should provide the necessary guidance to achieve equal access to comprehensive abortion care. Leadership should also promote evidence-based SRH services according to these standards and guidelines. Abortion Care Guideline § 1.3.3.
|
![]() Methods allowedVacuum aspirationNo data found Dilatation and evacuationNo data found Combination mifepristone-misoprostolNo data found Misoprostol onlyNo data found Other (where provided)
WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Vacuum aspiration is recommended for surgical abortions at or under 14 weeks to be provided by traditional and complementary medicine professionals, nurses, midwives, associate/advanced associate clinicians, generalist medical practitioners and specialist medical practitioners.
Dilation and evacuation (D&E) is recommended for surgical abortions at or over 14 weeks to be provided by generalist medical practitioners and specialist medical practitioners. Vacuum aspiration can be used during a D&E. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.4.1.
The recommended method for medical abortion is mifepristone followed by misoprostol (regimen differs by gestational age). Abortion Care Guideline § 3.4.2.
The Abortion Care Guideline recommends the use of misoprostol alone, with a regime that differs by gestational age. Evidence demonstrates that the use of combination mifepristone plus misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.4.2.
|
No data
Country recognized approval (mifepristone / mife-misoprostol)No data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Mifepristone and misoprostol should be listed in relevant national EMLs (NEMLs) or their equivalent and should be included in the relevant clinical care/service delivery guidelines.
Mifepristone and misoprostol should be listed in relevant national EMLs (NEMLs) or their equivalent and should be included in the relevant clinical care/service delivery guidelines.
|
No data
Country recognized approval (misoprostol)No data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Mifepristone and misoprostol should be listed in relevant national EMLs (NEMLs) or their equivalent and should be included in the relevant clinical care/service delivery guidelines.
|
No data
Where can abortion services be providedNo data found Primary health-care centresNo data found Secondary (district-level) health-care facilitiesNo data found Specialized abortion care public facilitiesNo data found Private health-care centres or clinicsNo data found NGO health-care centres or clinicsNo data found Other (if applicable)
WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Where it is lawful, abortion must be accessible in practice. This requires both ensuring that health-care facilities, commodities and services are accessible (including sufficient providers), and that law and policy on abortion is formulated, interpreted and applied in a way that is compatible with human rights. Abortion Care Guideline § 1.3.1.
|
No data
National guidelines for post-abortion careNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. National standards and guidelines for abortion care should be evidence based and periodically updated and should provide the necessary guidance to achieve equal access to comprehensive abortion care. Leadership should also promote evidence-based SRH services according to these standards and guidelines. Abortion Care Guideline § 1.3.3.
|
![]() Where can post abortion care services be providedPrimary health-care centresNo data found Secondary (district-level) health-care facilitiesNo data found Specialized abortion care public facilitiesNo data found Private health-care centres or clinicsNo data found NGO health-care centres or clinicsNo data found Other (if applicable)
WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends the option of telemedicine as an alternative to in-person interactions with the health worker to deliver medical abortion services in whole or in part. Telemedicine services should include referrals (based on the woman’s location) for medicines (abortion and pain control medicines), any abortion care or post-abortion follow-up required (including for emergency care if needed), and for post-abortion contraceptive services. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.6.1.
|
No data
Contraception included in post-abortion careNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. All contraceptive options may be considered after an abortion. For individuals undergoing surgical abortion and wishing to use contraception, Abortion Care Guideline recommends the option of initiating the contraception at the time of surgical abortion. For individuals undergoing medical abortion, for those who choose to use hormonal contraception, the Abortion Care Guideline suggests that they be given the option of starting hormonal contraception immediately after the first pill of the medical abortion regimen. For those who choose to have an IUD inserted, Abortion Care Guideline suggests IUD placement at the time that success of the abortion procedure is determined. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.5.4.
|
No data
Insurance to offset end user costsNo data found Other (if applicable)
WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Where user fees are charged for abortion, this should be based on careful consideration of ability to pay, and fee waivers should be available for those who are facing financial hardship and adolescent abortion seekers. As far as possible, abortion services and supplies should be mandated for coverage under insurance plans as inability to pay is not an acceptable reason to deny or delay abortion care. Furthermore, having transparent procedures in all health-care facilities can ensure that informal charges are not imposed by staff. Abortion Care Guideline § 1.4.2.
|
No data
Who can provide abortion servicesNo data found NurseNo data found Midwife/nurse-midwifeNo data found Doctor (specialty not specified)No data found Specialist doctor, including OB/GYNNo data found Other (if applicable)
WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends against regulation on who can provide and manage abortion that is inconsistent with WHO guidance. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.3.8.
|
![]() Extra facility/provider requirements for delivery of abortion servicesReferral linkages to a higher-level facilityNo data found Availability of a specialist doctor, including OB/GYNNo data found Minimum number of bedsNo data found Other (if applicable)
WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. There is no single recommended approach to providing abortion services. The choice of specific health worker(s) (from among the recommended options) or management by the individual themself, and the location of service provision (from among recommended options) will depend on the values and preferences of the woman, girl or other pregnant person, available resources, and the national and local context. A plurality of service-delivery approaches can co-exist within any given context. Given that service-delivery approaches can be diverse, it is important to ensure that for the individual seeking care, the range of service-delivery options taken together will provide access to scientifically accurate, understandable information at all stages; access to quality-assured medicines (including those for pain management); back-up referral support if desired or needed; linkages to an appropriate choice of contraceptive services for those who want post-abortion contraception. Best Practice Statement 49 on service delivery. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.6.1.
|
Country | Public sector providers |
Private sector providers |
Provider type not specified |
Neither Type of Provider Permitted |
Public facilities |
Private facilities |
Facility type not specified |
Neither Type of Facility Permitted |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Micronesia (Federated States Of) |
No data
Public sector providersNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends that access to and continuity of comprehensive abortion care be protected against barriers created by conscientious objection. It is critical that States ensure compliance with regulations and design/organize health systems to ensure access to and continuity of quality abortion care. If it proves impossible to regulate conscientious objection in a way that respects, protects and fulfils abortion seekers’ rights, conscientious objection in abortion provision may become indefensible. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.3.9.
|
No data
Private sector providersNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends that access to and continuity of comprehensive abortion care be protected against barriers created by conscientious objection. It is critical that States ensure compliance with regulations and design/organize health systems to ensure access to and continuity of quality abortion care. If it proves impossible to regulate conscientious objection in a way that respects, protects and fulfils abortion seekers’ rights, conscientious objection in abortion provision may become indefensible. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.3.9.
|
No data
Provider type not specifiedNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends that access to and continuity of comprehensive abortion care be protected against barriers created by conscientious objection. It is critical that States ensure compliance with regulations and design/organize health systems to ensure access to and continuity of quality abortion care. If it proves impossible to regulate conscientious objection in a way that respects, protects and fulfils abortion seekers’ rights, conscientious objection in abortion provision may become indefensible. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.3.9.
|
No data
Neither Type of Provider PermittedNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. The Abortion Care Guideline recommends that access to and continuity of comprehensive abortion care be protected against barriers created by conscientious objection. It is critical that States ensure compliance with regulations and design/organize health systems to ensure access to and continuity of quality abortion care. If it proves impossible to regulate conscientious objection in a way that respects, protects and fulfils abortion seekers’ rights, conscientious objection in abortion provision may become indefensible. Abortion Care Guideline § 3.3.9.
|
No data
Public facilitiesNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Where it is lawful, abortion must be accessible in practice. This requires both ensuring that health-care facilities, commodities and services are accessible (including sufficient providers), and that law and policy on abortion is formulated, interpreted and applied in a way that is compatible with human rights. Abortion Care Guideline § 1.3.1.
|
No data
Private facilitiesNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Where it is lawful, abortion must be accessible in practice. This requires both ensuring that health-care facilities, commodities and services are accessible (including sufficient providers), and that law and policy on abortion is formulated, interpreted and applied in a way that is compatible with human rights. Abortion Care Guideline § 1.3.1.
|
No data
Facility type not specifiedNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Where it is lawful, abortion must be accessible in practice. This requires both ensuring that health-care facilities, commodities and services are accessible (including sufficient providers), and that law and policy on abortion is formulated, interpreted and applied in a way that is compatible with human rights. Abortion Care Guideline § 1.3.1.
|
No data
Neither Type of Facility PermittedNo data found WHO GuidanceThe following descriptions were extracted from WHO Abortion Care Guideline. Where there is a specific Recommendation, this is stated. Otherwise, these are excerpts. Where it is lawful, abortion must be accessible in practice. This requires both ensuring that health-care facilities, commodities and services are accessible (including sufficient providers), and that law and policy on abortion is formulated, interpreted and applied in a way that is compatible with human rights. Abortion Care Guideline § 1.3.1.
|
Country specific information regarding abortion related penalties. Information regarding penalties has been presented in English only; this information is not based on an official translation. Please review the source documents provided.