During the 2024 presidential campaign, abortion later in pregnancy became a hot topic. Politicians and the media focused heavily on fetal development milestones, like heartbeats and fetal survival outside the womb. But much of this discussion is based on misunderstandings and ignores the realities of women seeking abortions.
Laws often hinge on whether a fetus can survive outside the uterus, called “viability.” However, these markers come from political and legal debates—not medical or scientific evidence. More importantly, they do not reflect the experiences or needs of pregnant people.
As medical sociologists studying abortion, we found that while fetal development markers shape patients’ experiences, many women who have later abortions don’t think about their pregnancies in those terms. We interviewed 30 women who had abortions after viability cutoffs to understand how these laws affect them.
Before the 2022 Supreme Court Dobbs decision, thousands were already denied abortions due to state limits tied to fetal development. States like Maine and Washington restrict abortion after “viability,” often around 24 weeks. Even states with supportive abortion policies maintain such limits.
Since Dobbs, more women face denials or delays because of laws based on fetal markers. These restrictions often threaten the health and wellbeing of pregnant people, as our research shows.
“Fetal viability” sounds clinical, but it’s a legal term born in the 1970s. Clinicians had to adapt this concept for healthcare, but viability isn’t fixed at 24 weeks. Survival depends on many factors like fetal weight, sex, genetics, and medical care availability.
Only about half of babies born at 24 weeks survive to leave the hospital. Survival rates improve with gestational age but don’t reflect lifelong health issues many premature infants face.
In interviews, women described how viability laws missed critical details. Some carried fetuses with fatal or severe conditions that would cause suffering after birth, not during pregnancy. One woman said she couldn’t bring a child into the world doomed to pain and disabilities. For her, abortion was an act of compassion.
These women felt laws ignored the quality of life their babies might have. To them, “viability” meant mere survival, not whether the child would live with pain or serious impairments.
Research and reports confirm that abortion bans cause severe medical emergencies and suffering. Women told us laws focused on fetal viability often neglect their physical and emotional health.
One woman considered suicide because she couldn’t access an abortion under her state’s fetal viability law. She had to travel out of state, where abortion providers saved her life.
Another woman risked her health to carry a pregnancy but sought abortion when she learned her fetus would die shortly after birth. The law denied her abortion, forcing travel. She called the law cruel and unreasonable.
Many women described the laws as nonsensical and harsh. One who was denied abortion after 24 weeks, despite clear medical evidence her fetus had no chance of survival without severe suffering, had to fly across the country to get care.
She asked, “What sense does that make? Who would want this outcome from such a policy?”
