Cited by 13Reproductive Health and ContraceptionInternational Human Rights and Reproductive LawEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Aborto e legislação: opinião de magistrados e promotores de justiça brasileiros

Open access
Duarte, Graciana Alves, Osis, Maria José Duarte, Faúndes, Anibal, Sousa, Maria Helena de·2010·Revista de Saúde Pública

Abstract

OBJETIVO: Analisar opiniões de juízes e promotores de justiça sobre a legislação brasileira e as circunstâncias em que o aborto induzido deveria ser permitido. MÉTODOS: Estudo transversal realizado com 1.493 juízes e 2.614 promotores no Brasil entre 2005 e 2006. Os participantes preencheram um questionário estruturado sobre características sociodemográficas, opiniões acerca da legislação que trata do aborto e circunstâncias para permiti-lo. Realizaram-se análises bivariada e multivariada por regressão de Poisson. RESULTADOS: A maioria (78%) dos participantes opinou que as circunstâncias nas quais não se pune o aborto deveriam ser ampliadas, ou mesmo que o aborto não deveria ser considerado crime. As maiores proporções de opiniões favoráveis a que o aborto seja permitido referiram-se a risco para a vida da gestante (84%), anencefalia (83%), malformação congênita grave (82%) e gravidez resultante de estupro (82%). As variáveis relativas à religião foram as mais freqüentemente associadas a essas opiniões. CONCLUSÕES: Observou-se uma tendência a considerar a necessidade de mudanças na atual legislação brasileira no sentido de ampliar as circunstâncias nas quais não se pune o aborto e até deixar de considerá-lo como um crime, independentemente da circunstância em que é praticado.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1590/s0034-89102010005000006

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 12 · Cited by 13

Authors
Duarte, G. A., Osis, M. J. D., Faúndes, A., & Sousa, M. H. D.
Affiliations
Centro de Pesquisa em Saúde Reprodutiva de Campinas, Brasil
Venue
Revista de Saúde Pública
Published
2010-06
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
406-420
ISSN
0034-8910 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1487672841
Cited by
13
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
pt
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Revista de Saúde Pública (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Human Rights and Reproductive Law
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
abortion law, legal opinions, decriminalization of abortion, anencephaly, congenital malformations
MeSH terms
Abortion, Induced, Adult, Brazil, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pregnancy, Public Opinion, Surveys and Questionnaires, Socioeconomic Factors, Poisson Distribution

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review