principled position
In recent months officials and representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church have signaled possible limits on abortion. Private clinics in Crimea no longer perform the procedure. Several Moscow medical institutions have also stopped offering abortion services. As a result, the network of multidisciplinary medical centers Fomina Clinic does not provide abortion at all in principle.
There are reports of unscrupulous operators who conduct abortions with violations, including breaches of the seven day cooling off period. By contrast, most market participants strive to act responsibly. However, the Fomina Clinic network maintains a strict policy: it will not terminate a pregnancy when a fetal heart is beating, except in cases where a full abortion is confirmed. This stance is shared across every city and clinic, according to the founder Dmitry Fomin speaking to Socialbites.
The scope of regions that partially restrict abortion has grown. Deputy Speaker of the State Duma Anna Kuznetsova noted that at least ten regions are moving toward banning abortions in private clinics, with expectations of further expansion.
The rationale offered by supporters centers on alleged noncompliance with the law in private clinics. Critics say there is no proper tracking of abortion statistics and that the week of silence rules are ignored. They also question the qualifications of experts performing procedures. Proponents argue that banning or tightening limits would prevent postabortion complications and ensure the procedure is carried out correctly.
Corruption, secret abortion and harm to women
Obstetrician gynecologist and public health expert Lyubov Erofeeva argues that curtailing abortion rights could worsen outcomes. She contends it may drive abortions underground and worsen both psychological and physical health for women.
If access to termination is restricted when private clinics are blocked or limited, women may face longer waits at public facilities. The result could be queuing, delays in six to seven week pregnancies, and a longer wait that conflicts with the week of silence rules. Longer durations raise the risk of complications, she notes in discussions with Socialbites.
There was also consideration of reducing the permissible window for abortion from twelve weeks to eight. Erofeeva warns this would push more abortions underground, and she notes that irregular cycles can mean some pregnancies are not detected until the eighth week.
She questions the value of arguments about private clinics not complying with standards. She suggests instead exercising selective oversight and maintaining citizens rights while focusing on safety. She points to Poland where abortion is effectively restricted yet Russia has a higher birth rate, highlighting divergent global trends toward liberalization elsewhere. Erofeeva adds that abortion issues in Russia are not as acute as sometimes claimed and that numbers have trended down in recent years. She cites a shift from about one million abortions in 2013 to 390 thousand in 2022, underscoring better reproductive management by some women without broad state action. She calls for parity in care between private and public clinics and for better access rather than withdrawal from services.
Beyond policy changes, the debate includes calls to avoid banning abortion entirely or allowing unwanted pregnancies. The focus should be on education, free birth control options for the poor and students, and training doctors to provide high quality counseling. The aim remains to support women choosing what is best for them and to respect their agency while safeguarding health outcomes.
Reason for wanting an abortion
Tamara Rostovskaya, a doctor of Sociological Sciences and a professor with the Demographic Research Institute of the Federal Research Center for Sociology, emphasizes the need to reduce the number of private centers performing abortions without eliminating access for medical necessity.
Rostovskaya argues for a careful, thoughtful approach that keeps the focus on women’s health. She stresses that every child deserves love and a healthy home environment and that the state has a stake in ensuring that pregnant individuals are supported and informed.
She questions why many women in distress do not engage their extended families in the decision making. When family support is possible, it can help women face difficult choices with better guidance. If such support is unavailable, Rostovskaya proposes that clinics provide access to trained demographers and counselors who can help women reflect on their options before making a decision. She asserts that compassionate counseling should be part of the standard care for anyone seeking abortion, with involvement from the father where possible. A fully supported, informed decision should be the goal, especially in cases of medical issues requiring abortion.
Rostovskaya cautions against a blanket ban, warning that history shows restrictive regimes often drive secret abortions and cross border procedures. The moral dimension requires deep engagement with families to promote qualitative rather than merely numerical population goals. She concludes that every child born should be loved and raised in a complete, nurturing family, and that the discussion must center on the wellbeing of women and children rather than political expediency.