A Proportional Response?

Abstract Abortion, almost always exceptionalized in law and medicine, contends with a range of barriers related to access, availability, cost, information and knowledge, and stigma, among others. This exceptionalism shapes laws, e.g., the number of laws or regulations governing abortion, and medicine, e.g., limitations to or requirements for access to care, and reproduces abortion stigma. The COVID-19 pandemic heightened many of these barriers and was underpinned, in many contexts, by abortion exceptionalism within law and in care provision. The approach taken to proportionality in this chapter highlights how a balance between public health and moral considerations is achieved through a constant (re)calibration and (re)assessment of the moral weights assigned to abortion-seekers, their needs, and their autonomies, against that of current laws and regulations. This case study focuses specifically on abortion regulation and exceptionalism in Great Britain, the introduction of telemedicine for early medical abortion care as a temporary pandemic measure, and its impact on current abortion regulations. This chapter argues against continued abortion exceptionalism, challenges the continued criminalization of abortion, and offers a third alternative that affirms human rights and gender justice—self-managed abortion.