See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306160208

The history of abortion statistics in Russia and

the USSR from 1900 to 1991

Article · January 1995

CITATIONS READS

20 122

3 authors, including:

Alexandre Avdeev
Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne
35 PUBLICATIONS 176 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Démographie: Analyse et synthèse dircted by G.Cazelli, J.Vallin and G.Wunsch (2001-2007) View
project

Demographic History and Historical Demography in Russia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexandre Avdeev on 24 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION
STATISTICS IN RUSSIA AND THE
USSR FROM 1900TO 1991

In the USSR and in present-dayRussia alike, abortion

has always been a sensitiveissue. Legalized veryearly,it later
followedthewindsofpolitical change. It has also been a per-
petual source of conjecture,abortion statisticshaving been
'for a verylong time.Althoughthesedata
'highlyconfidential
are now accessible,foundlessestimatescontinueto appear in
theRussianpress,and are used tofuelpolitical argumentover
thecontemporary situation*.Prior to 1986, whenthefirstcom-
plete abortionstatisticswerepublished,and withtheexception
of the yearbooksof 1925 and 1926 which wentpractically
unnoticed in the west, the available figures (C. Tietze,
S. Henshaw, 1986) were risky extrapolations based on a
handful of scattered survey data**. Thanks to Alexandre
AVDEEV***, Alain BLUM**** and Irina TROITSKAYA***, we
can now look at therealityofabortionand shake offitsmantle
offantasy.

Abortionin the formerUSSR and in the new Republics is in itself

an interestingsubjectmatter:being practisedon a scale rarelyfoundelse-
where, it can be consideredthe principalmethodof birthcontrol.It is
equally interestingto studyits measurement and coverageby the statistical
apparatus,given thatthese have been subject on the one hand, to obser-
vational pressuresand the need to understanddevelopmentsthat contra-
dicted ideological a prioris, and on the other,to sweeping legislative
changes.Administrators, and scientistswere thuspermanently
practitioners
at a crossroads,strivingto meet political demandsas well as to construct
an observationtool that was to serve several purposes: to understanda
processthatwas judged to reflectthe stateof society,or measurea medical
practiceto facilitatehealthplanning.

* A. Kapeliouk, <<Echecdes reformes,triomphedes mafias.La grandedetressede la

societe russe>>,Le Monde diplomatique,Sept. 1993, echoes these rumours.He speaks of 8
millionlegal abortionsin Russia and almost20 millionlegal or illegal abortions,particularly
extravagantfigures.
** See Alain Blum, Naitre,vivreet mouriren URSS, 1917-1991, Paris, Plon, 1994.
*** Universityof Moscow.
**** TM1NF

Population: An English Selection, 7, 1995, 39-66

40 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA

The aim of the presentstudyis twofold.First,to analyse these con-

tradictionsand constraints,to unravelthe different
threadsin the construc-
tion of an officialsystemof statisticalobservation,that was subject to
strongideological pressures,but at the same timewas set up by men who
were concerned with the understandingof social problems. Second, to
brieflysummarizethe abortion statistics,which have been analyzed in
greaterdetail elsewhere(l).

I. - Laws and theories

From the Russian Penal Code Legislationin the Russian Empirere-

to the 1920 AbortionLaw flecteda standverysimilarto thatta-
ken by the religious and civil
authoritiesin the west. In the 17thcentury,the Czar Alexis Romanov put
a death sentenceon abortion.This was removedby Peter the Great , but
abortioncontinuedto be considereda serious crimeuntil 1917. UnderAr-
ticles 1462 and 1463 of the Penal Code, a person guiltyof this crime
could be deprivedof civil rightsand exiled or sentencedto hard labour.
However, such sentenceswere rarelypronounced,particularlyat the be-
ginningof the 20th century,as the data existingfor thatperiod indicate
(Table 1). Littleis knownabout the positionof the OrthodoxChurch,but
it was apparentlymuch more tolerantthan the Catholic Church.

TABLE 1.-NUMBERS OF SENTENCES PRONOUNCED FOR ABORTION IN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE

1910 20 1914*
1911 28 1915** 40
1912 31 1916** 51
1914 60
* Accounts burntin 1917.
** Excluding the territory
occupied by Germany.
Source: M. Gemet, <<Avortv zakone i statistikaabortov>>,Abortyv 1925 godu, CSU SSSR, Moscow,
1927.

In parallel, the debate which opposed militantneo-Malthusiansand

pro-natalistsin Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuriesrapidly
took a moreliberalturnin Russia. Also, it tookplace thereon thescientific
(thatis, medical) scene, ratherthan the political one, which was the case

(1) In L'avortementet la contraception

en Russie et dans 1'ex-URSS: histoireet pre'sent
(Dossiers et Recherches,41, INED, Oct. 1993), we presentmanysummarytables, whichare
listed here in Appendix II. Most are based on the archives of the Ministryof Health, and
cover not only the recentperiod (abortionand contraceptivedata by republic) but also the
yearsprecedingthe Second WorldWar (abortionsby regionof Russia, 1931-40). The present
articlerefersto muchof this large body of data, but formoredetailedinformation on trends
in abortionand contraceptiveuse, the Dossiers et Recherchesshould be consulted.
 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA 41

in France(2).The questionwas discussedin a numberof conferenceswhere,

althoughoftenconflictingpositionswere presented,a standwas generally
takenin favourof liberalizing,or even completelydepenalizing,abortion.
The Third Congress of the Pirogov Society, a medical learned society
whose workshad a resoundinginfluencein Russia, raised the questionof
abortionforthefirsttimein 1889. Its TwelfthCongressin 1913(3),together
withthatof the Russian groupof the InternationalSociety of Criminolog-
ists in 1914(4), markeda firststep forward.The press coverage shows to
what extentthis issue stirredpublic opinion:
"Thegripping questionofthepenalization drewalmostall the
of abortion
to today'ssessionof theobstetrics
participants group."(5)
There was little pro-natalistdiscussion: the debate focused on the
relationshipbetween abortion and social factors,living conditions and
women's rights.The ultimatedisappearanceof abortionwas seen as ine-
vitable (Astrakhan and Agishev on living conditions, Bronikova on
women's rights).For Grin,who, as we shall see, played a prominentrole
afterthe Revolution,abortionshould be depenalized. The motioncarried
at the end of this session statedthat:
"In no instanceshouldmothers be penalizedforhavingan abortion. Doc-
torsshouldalso be clearedof all penalresponsibilitywhentheyabortat
the mother'srequest.The onlyexceptionwouldbe thosewho abortin
theirownprofessional interests,in whichcase theyshouldbe judgedby
theMedicalCouncil."(6)
Reflectionon the social natureof abortionwas a fundamentalele-
ment,rootedin late 19thcenturytradition,whichsaw abortionas a social
phenomenon.This was to have manyconsequences after1917.
Thus, the law promulgatedin 1920 was more the logical conclusion
of a debate whichhad begun in czaristRussia thanan ideological import
of new principles.It was, moreover,somewhattempered,and presented
the liberalizationof abortionas a lesser evil:
"[The Sovietstate]combatsabortion, by reinforcingthesocialistregime
andtheanti-abortion campaign conducted amongworking womenandby
makingprovision formother andchildwelfare. Thiswilllead to thegra-
dual disappearanceof thepractise.However,thetracesof thepast and
current economicconditionslead womento haverecourse stillto thisope-
ration.The People'sCommissariat forHealthand thePeople'sCommis-
sariatforJustice,whileprotecting women'shealthandin theinterests of
therace,consideringthatrepression inthisfieldhasnotgiventheexpected
results,decrees[thatabortionis authorized]."(7)

(2) See FrancisRonsin,La greve des ventres: propagande neo-malthusienne et baisse

de la natalitefrancaise (XIXe-XXesiecles), Paris, 1980; and Jacques Dupaquier, <<Combien
d'avortementsen France avant 1914?>>,Commentaires, 44, 1986.
(3) 12jy S'ezd obshchestvavracej imeniPirogova, 19 May-5 June1913, St. Petersburg.
(4) S'ezd russkoj gruppymezdunarodnogosojuza kriminalistov, Moscow, 1914.
(5) Russkoe Slovo, 127, 4 June 1913.
(6) Russkoe Slovo, 127, 4 June 1913.
(7 Preambleto the Edict of 18 November1920. PostanovlenieKPSS i Sovetskogopra-
vitel'stvaob okhranezdorov'ja naroda, Moscow, 1958, p. 63.
42 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA

This law was introducedfirstin Russia, thenon 5 July1921 in Uk-

raine,and finallyin the whole of the Soviet Union. But it was principally
an ideological stand,expressingthetriumphof liberalideals, since no con-
crete measures were announced: for instance,no durationof pregnancy
was stipulated.The foundationsof a systemof abortionstatisticswerelaid,
togetherwiththe requirementthatabortionsshould be performedonly in
a medical establishment,but the measures remainedvague. In addition,
therewas an acute lack of facilities,in particularhospitalbeds. Many abor-
tions were performedin disastrousconditionsin a non-medicalenviron-
ment. The consequences were soon evident, and the authoritieswere
obliged to adopt a series of restrictivemeasureson 3 November 1924(8).
These measures,which should be interpreted as the effectiveimplementa-
tion of the 1920 law, were based on social considerations.To qualifyfor
free-of-charge abortion,the following prioritieswere established: first,
single unemployedwomen; second, single and working,with child(ren);
then industrialworkerswith several children,wives of manual workers
withseveralchildren,otherwomenwithsocial insurance,and finallyother
women(9).This orderreflectsthe theorythatstandardof living and need
for birthcontrolare inverselyrelated.

1924-5: Ideologyabove A systemof abortionregistration cards was

observation set up in July1924(10). This made the cons-
tructionof abortionstatisticspossible, des-
pite substantialunder-registration. Introducedat the same time as the
measures definingthe applicationof the 1920 law, this systemreflected
the will to legislate and to controlall in one. The ideological statement
embodiedin the 1920 law became regulation.Registrationwas the means
to observeabortiondynamics,but above all to understandthe social nature
of this practise.The role of statisticswas, at this point, not to control,
butto understand:indeed,thefirstdata extracted,relativeto theyear 1925,
were preparedand publishedby the Departmentof Moral Statisticsof the
Central StatisticalOffice and not by the Commissariatfor Health. This
1925 AbortionYearbook,published in 1927, provides a wealth of infor-
mationon women's motives,social status,nationalityand numberof pre-
Prefacingthe1926 AbortionYearbook,M. Krasil'nikov,
vious pregnancies("1).

(8) Decree of the Commissariatfor Health and the Commissariatfor Justice.

(9) For a detaileddescription,see A. Gens, <<Kproblemelegalizatsiii statistikiabortov
v RSFSR>>,in Abortyv 1925 godu, Moscow, 1927; cf. also WendyZ. Goldman,Women,the
State and Revolution:Soviet Family Policy and Social Life, 1917-36, CambridgeRussian,
Soviet and Post-SovietStudies, CambridgeUniversityPress, 1993.
(10) These cards indicatedthe woman's age, nationality,occupation,place of residence
(urban or rural), maritalstatus,housing conditions,numberof previous pregnancies,births
and abortions,durationof currentpregnancy.
(11) The followingtableswerepublished:Reasons forabortion,by age and social status;
by age and familysituation;by durationof pregnancyand maritalstatus. Social statusby
numberof children.Numberof previouspregnanciesand abortionsby age and maritalstatus.
Nationality(narodnost') by literacy.A distinctionis made betweenwomen entitledand not
entitledto free-of-charge abortion,as well as forthosehospitalizedafterinitiationof abortion.
The data are brokendown by residence(capitals of governments, othertowns,rural).
 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA 43

Head of theDepartmentof Social Statisticsof theCentralStatisticalOffice,

statedthat"undeniably,the data publishedhere permitin-depthinvestiga-
tion of a social phenomenon:abortion"'(2).Sociological analysis was then
ridingthe crestof the wave in the USSR, and was on the lookout for all
sources of knowledgeand inspiration.Like suicide in the sociological tra-
ditionof late 19th-century Europe,abortionbecame in theUSSR a preferred
sourcefortheanalysisof post-revolutionary Sovietsociety.
The line thatconsistedin regulatingthispractise,while not challeng-
ing it, continuedfor some time after1924. The committeesset up to rule
on free abortionexisted only in the towns,makingit difficultto obtain
in the countryside.The decree of 17 March 1925 leftthis decision in the
handsof theruralpractitioners. On 12 February1926, anotherdecreebanned
abortionafter3 monthspregnancy, excepton strictmedicalgrounds.
But these years were to be short-lived.From regulationand a will
to understand,it was a small step to repression.A campaignwhichbegan
at the end of the 1920s put a stop to this golden age for social research
in the Soviet Union. It led to the banningof abortionon 27 July1936(13).
A series of articlesrunin all the major daily newspapersin 1935 prepared
forthisabout-turn, theoriginof whichcan be seen as thegrowingabortion
ratesattestedby the yearbooks.But this change of positionreflectsabove
all the fact thatthe authoritieschose to increasinglyignore social obser-
vations,preferring to lean on abstractideological discourse.
In fact,the theoriesthathad been put forwardto justifythe legali-
zation of abortionwere not backed up by statistics.The logic was thatan
improvement in living conditionswould make it easier to have children,
and would thusincreasefamilysize. But on thecontrary, womenwho were
well-offwere observed to have more abortionsthan theirpoorer sisters.
Two theorieswere opposed. One, based on the traditionalPirigov Society
position,called forthe diffusionof contraception as an alternativeto abor-
tion. The other,furtherremoved fromactual observations,continuedto
postulatea directrelationshipbetweenfertility and standardof living. Its
victoryled to greaterimportancebeing given to theoreticalarguments,to
the detrimentof social observation.
The pro-natalistargumentwas also present.This can be explained
by the demographiccrises of the late 1920s and early 1930s:
"In our country,themotherfigureis one of themostrespected.We reserve
the best conditionsforour mothers,our kolkhozians,to give birth...while
the barbariancapitalistsare deprivingtheirwomen of what is most dear
to them:theirrightto childbirth."'(4)

(12) Abortyv 1926 g. Moscow, 1929.

(13) Edict of the CentralExecutiveCommittee(CIK) and the Council of People's Com-
missars(SNK) of theUSSR. PostanovlenieCIK-SNK of 27 July1936, <<Ozapreshcheniiabor-
tov,uvelicheniimaterial'nojpomoshchirozhenitsam, ustanovleniigosudarstvennojposmoshchi
mnogosemejnim, rasshireniiseti rodil'nykhdomov,detskikhjaslej i detskikhdomov,ob usi-
lenii ugolovnogo nakazanija za neplatezhalimentovi nekotorykh izmenenijakhv zakonoda-
tel'stveob abortakh>>. Cf. PostanovlenijaKPSS i Sovetskogopravitel'stvaob okhranezdrovija
naroda, Moscow, 1959, p. 264.
(14) Pravda, 28 May 1935.
44 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA

This attitudemet with a somewhatrelieved approval in France: the

pro-nataliststook it as confirmation of theirtenets,as we can fromthe
titleof an articlein La revuede l'Alliance nationalpour l'accroissement
de la populationde la France: "Have the Soviets recognizedthe value of
large families?"("5). The FrenchCommunistPartynewspaper,L'Humanite',
which had earlier applauded the liberalizationof abortion,was quick to
perceive the change of course:
"Illegalabortion is a scourgeforsociety.
And legal abortionis also an evil(16). But it is a lesserevil,becauseit
offerssomeguarantees.
It is forthisreason,and thisreasonalone,thatit was authorized in the
SovietUnion[...].
Butitis clearthat,inno way,can theanti-natural andanti-socialpractise
of abortionrepresent an idealfor us communists, or be considered as
anything otherthana transitional measure.[...]
Andit is perhapsone of themoststriking examplesof theimprovement
of livingconditions in theUSSR andof thesuccessof socialism, thatthe
number ofinstances whereabortion is legallyauthorized
hasbeenreduced
duringthelastyear.
Now,in theUSSR, thefamilyis born."(17)
The new legislationwent togetherwith an increase in the provision
of maternityfacilities.In 1931, therewere only 31,296 maternitybeds;
the figurerose to 46,340 in 1936, 59,791 in 1937 and 91,807 in 1938.
Creche capacity grew from4,726,600 in 1936 to 7,297,000 in 1938(18).
The illusion of a debate was played out in the Soviet Union,although
the rare articlesfavourableto keeping the 1920 law were submergedby
a wave of oppositionarticles.The tone of the latterreflectsthe depthof
the change. This is confirmedby the preambleto the 1936 law: thistime,
it contains nothingbut remarksdevoid of significance.All referenceto
social observationhas disappeared.The rare workspublishedon the ques-
tion also reflectthis. One, by M.F. Levi, is particularlymeaningful,since
two editionsexist, one publishedin 1935, priorto the new law, the other
in 1937. The title- Abortionand thefightagainst it('9)- is the same in
bothcases, thenumberof copies verysimilar:at firstsightthetwo editions
are identical.But in the second, the sub-titleAvoidingpregnancyhas dis-
appeared,portending theamendments. In fact,all thepassages dealingwith
the social aspects of abortionhave been suppressed,for instance:
"But it is notrarethatwomenhave an abortion forotherreasons[than
medical].Insufficient materialconditions or otherneedslead themto do
so. [...] Thisis termedabortion forsocialreasons."
The introduction to the second edition shows clearly thatan exclu-
sivelv ideological argumentation has taken over:
(15) Revue de l'Alliance Nationalepour l'accroissementde la populationde la France,
1934, pp. 157-159.
)In italics in the original.
(17) <<Malfaisancede l'avortement>>,L'Humanite, 1 Jan.1936.
(18) Bol'shaja Sovetskaja Entsiklopedija,1939, t.43, p. 703-704.
(19)M.F. Levi, Aborti bor'ba s nim,Moscow, Biomedgiz; 1st ed. 1935; 2nd ed. 1937.
 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA 45

"In May 1936,theCIK and SNK USSR publishedin thepressthebill

ofJune27...Thislawenters intohistoryas a newmonument demonstrating
theSovietauthorities' concernformother and child.[...] It is an excep-
tionalmoment in thefieldof women'shealth."
In this,the 1936 law can appear analogous to its predecessor,since
it presentsthe same ideological aspect; but the logic is inversed.Abortion
was virtuallytotallybanned,and it was only nearlysix monthslater that
it was authorizedin some specificcases with a medical prescription(20).
From thenon, abortionwas cut offfromall otherrealities,withno
referenceto social disparitiesor living conditions.The statisticalsystem
was abolished, but abortionson medical groundsand those not begun in
a hospitalor clinic,whichincludedillegal abortionsgone wrong,continued
to be counted.Thus, untilthe death of Stalin in 1953, doctorscould only
observe a reflectionof illegal abortionsand note the trendsin maternal
mortality.However,neitherthe deteriorationtheywitnessednor any pro-
posals to improvethe situationcould be put down in black and white,
particularlyin the years just before 1953, when distrustof the medical
profession culminatedin the'whitecoat trial'.Accountsof thisperiodwerenot
discloseduntilmuchlater.The followingdescription was publishedin 1968:
"The number of illegalabortions rose substantiallyfrom1936 to 1955.
Abortionsresultingin infection
andfever, peritonitis,
perforation andhae-
morrhageof the matrixled to a sharpupturnin abortion-related morbidity
and mortality.Chronic inflammation, sterility,ovarian disordersbecame
considerablymore frequent."(21)
Thus, themedicalprofessionwas waitingwithopen armsfora change
of legislation.This came afterStalin's death. A law passed discreetlyon
23 November1955 liberalizedabortionagain and producedan immediate
reductionof maternalmortality:accordingto the Ministryof Health, by
1961 this had fallen to two-fifthsthe level in 1955.
Therehave been fewlegislativechangessince 1955, apartfromminor
amendmentsintroducedfromtime to time by the Health Ministry.The
maximumdurationof pregnancyset at 12 weeks has been maintained,as
well as the requirementthat abortionsbe performedin a medical estab-
lishment.Free-of-chargeabortionwas abolished, then adopted again, as
was thepaymentof threedays abortionleave. The only change susceptible
of having had an impacton abortionstatisticswas the decision, in 1987,
to authorizethe methodof vacuum aspirationup to the seventhweek of
pregnancy, withouthospitalization.At first,theMinistryof Health was un-
sure whetherto include these mini-abortions(22) in its statistics,which ex-
plains the sharp,but temporary, fall in the numberof abortionsin 1987.
At the presenttime,the issue of abortiondoes not stimulatethe con-
troversyit did in thepast. Althoughthepressis fondof usingdemographics

(20) Postanovienie CIK-SNK of 22 Nov. 1936, 0 porjadke razreshenieabort po me-

ditsinskim pokazaniem.
(21) A.A. Verbenko,S.E. Il'in, V.N. Chusovaja, T.N. Al'shevskaja,Abortyi protivoza-
chatochnyesredstva,Moscow, 1968, p. 8.
(22) Mini-aborty:termused for this practiseby the Ministryof Health.
46 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA

to justifyits politicalstands,it has notclimbedon theabortionbandwagon.

Few articlesare devotedto the question(23). The OrthodoxChurchrecently
organizeda conferenceon the subject,but its positionis not a clear one(24).

II. - Contraception: a non-runner?

Thus, the abortiondebate followed the course of Soviet ideology,

while being very oftenbroughtto the fore in discussions on population
and familypolicy. The scale of the debate mightlead us to suppose that
contraception was thesubjectof similardiscussion.However,abortionwas,
and still is, althoughto a lesser extent,theprimarymethodof birthcontrol
in Russia and the USSR. This is an aspect that invites reflection.How
could a countrythatadopted a liberal abortionpolicy veryearly on - and
which, apart from a twenty-year digression,has kept to that course -
become so backwardwithrespectto moderncontraception? Werethe prin-
cipal actors in the abortiondebate not involved in discussion on contra-
ception?How was it possible to have such different attitudestowardstwo
aspects of the same problem,birthcontrol?To find an answer to these
questions,we mustagain studythe conflictingopinions thatwere voiced
in the 1920s, when the subject was firstbroachedon a largerscale.

A skeletondebate Withthe sharprise in the numberof abortionsat

the beginningof the 1920s, it soon became clear
thatan alternativesolutionmust be found.We have seen that,according
to ideological certainties,abortionwould fall off when living standards
rose. But the opposite was observed,and in any case, the need for rapid
action was to produce a numberof measuresand studies relativeto con-
traceptivepractise.In 1923, a circularby theNarkomzdrav(25) recommended
thatwomenbe informedon contraceptivemattersin the women's consult-
ations(26)and gynaecologicalclinics. However,this initiativewas as cau-
tious as the law liberalizingabortion:the information had to be soughtby
the woman. A littlelater,A. Gens proposed the creationof a systemfor
the diffusionof contraception, and a statisticalstructureto monitorit.
Despite thistimidstart,some rarestudies- notablytheone conducted
by S.G. Bykov in Saratov in 1927- show thatthe question did rouse in-
terest.He questioned 1,115 women aged 16 to 48, of whom only 19.4%
reportedusing or having used a contraceptivemethod(27). In a study of

(23) See Alain Blum, AndreiNedbaev,<<Demographie et discourspolitique>>,

Problemes
politiqueset sociaux, Se'rieRussie, Sept. 1993; and Alain Blum, <<Lesderivesdemographiques
du debat politique en Russie>>,Population et Societe's,293, Oct. 1993.
(24) Cf. Izvestija, 21 May 1994.
(25) People's Commissariatfor Health.
(26) Zhenskiekonsultatsii.
(27) S.G. Bykov,<<Kvoprosuo rasprostranenii protivozachatochnykh sredstvv nasele-
nii>>,Kazanskij meditsinskijzhurnal, 1928, 8, p. 760.
 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA 47

peasants' sex lives duringthe same period by S.A. Tomilin(281,out of 119

marriedwomen aged over 50, only 9% had used contraception, in general
withdrawal.The same methodwas reportedby the 15% of contraceptive
users in a surveyof 271 women in the Kremenchugregioncarriedout by
M.M. Levin in 1930(29). Finally,we can mentiontwo studiesby Siflinger
in Saratov and Doctor Emel'janov in Brjansk(30).
Althoughlimited,these studiesreflecta growingawareness of con-
traception.M.M. Levin's surveyshowed that65% of respondentsalready
knew somethingabout contraceptionand (after informationwas given)
98.5% replied yes to the question "Will you use a contraceptivemethod
in the future?".
Attendanceof thewomen'sconsultationsalso seems to have increased
at the time,althoughthereis littleinformation on this.In Ivano-Voznesen-
sky,forinstance,the seat of the Russian textileindustry,10.7% of women
consultingforthe firsttimein 1927 and the firsthalf of 1928 came about
birthcontrol.The rise in theirnumbersbetween 1927 - 338, or 5.4% of
firstvisits- and the firstsix monthsof 1928 - 614, or 16% of firstvisits
- led A.A. Lebedev to conclude that contraceptionwas becomingwide-
spread:
"Observationsshow thatcontraceptioncan now reach not only the privi-
leged groups,but all women, includingthe least educated. Truly,more
promisingmethodsthan the primitiveones, and cheaper,can meet with
considerablesuccess. All the currentcontraceptivemethodsare presented
in the women'sconsultations, exceptthosewhichare harmful:intrauterine
injectionsand pessaries and X-raytreatment. In additionto the condom,
we findintrauterine and intravaginaldevices(31),vaginal pellets(32),
barrier
pastes and sponges. It is essential to note thatthese methodscannot all
be found in the pharmacies.The organismsin charge of supplyingthe
contraceptivesare notattentiveto theneeds of theusers,who oftenreceive
only advice, not the means to put it into practice."(33)
In these studies, however, contraception is never perceived as a social
phenomenon, like abortion. Most were of a medical and biological nature,
and some research was conducted into developing effective methods of
contraception. In 1925, a commission was set up within the Mother and
Child Department of the Narkomzdrav to study contraceptive means. It
was headed by Selitskok, and a clinic was put at its disposal. It published
a bulletinentitledNew findingsin thefield of contraception(34).
Several
experimental studies were devoted to developing new methods, for men

(28) S.A. Tomilin, <<K voprosu o plodovitostikrest'jankii ee vlijanii na detskiju

smertnost'>>, Zhurnalpo izuchenijurannegodetskogovozrasta, 1929, t. 9, p. 740.
(29) M.M Levin, <<K kharakteristike pritchiniskusstvennogovykidysha>>, Zhurnal
akusherstvai zhenskijboleznej,1931,t. 42, 3, p. 378.
(30) Cf. Akusherstvo i ginekologija,1927, 1 and 5.
(31) Matotchnye(sheechnye)i vlagalishchnyekolpachki.
(32) Vlagalishchnye shariki.
(33) A.A. Lebedev, <<Rabotazhenskijkonsul'tatsijgorodaIvanovo-Voznesenskaza 1927
god i pervujupolovinu 1928 goda i ikh perspektivyna budushchee>>, Zhurnalpo izucheniju
rannegodetskogovozrasta, 1929, t. IX, 5, p. 363.
(34) Nine issues up to 1929, when publicationended.
48 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA

as well as women; some were of a veryimaginativenature.Such research

was, however,marginal,which reflectsa relativelack of interest.

An unattainablecompromise In fact,the ambiguitystems fromthe

necessity of opposing western anti-
abortiontraditions,while at the same timetakinga pro-nataliststand.This
ambiguityis epitomizedin a textwrittenin 1927 by the Ukrainiandemo-
grapherS.A. Tomilin,on the occasion of the tenthanniversaryof the Oc-
tober Revolution, which proposes an elaborate conception of the
demographictransitionand optimumpopulation:
"Everyeconomicera can be dividedintotwoperiods:a periodof multi-
plicationofmankind, as longas, fora giveneconomicsituation, theavai-
lable resourcescan meetthisgrowth, and a periodof prevention when
foodproduction cannotcoverthefeedingof anymoremouths, andpopu-
lationgrowth becomeslimited.(35)
Today,thereare 1,800millionpeopleon ourplanet,andif growth conti-
nuesas in the19thcentury, therewillbe 3,600millionin theyear2000
and7,200millionin 2100; thisfigureexceedstheEarth'scapacitywhich,
whentheforeseeable improvements in foodproduction aretakenintoac-
count,can be putat 5,000million.[...]
Shouldsuchforecasts be takenlightly? Wouldit notbe betterto adopt
another pointof view,thatwe shouldaim foran optimum ratherthana
maximum population?Andso shouldwe notfacetheterrible problemof
Ukraine,withits peasantry's ignorance and poverty.Wouldit be human
to recommend theautomatic whichcharacterizes
procreation(36) thispopu-
lation,andis so humiliatingforwomen,whoeachyearactas a thermostat
forhatching a newbroodof sicklypeasantbabies(37), manyof whomwill
notlive long.[...]
For thisreason,thegovernment of thefuturesocialistconstruction
will
have to take firmactionover theregulationof generativelife(38),as it has
alreadystarted
to today.But,insteadof isolatedinitiatives,
thisgovern-
mentalactionwillbecomein thefuture a regular
reproductivepolicy,with
of organisms
theparticipation forbiologicalsurveillance,
thedoctorsof
thefuture.
Thesedoctorswill base theirpracticalworkon pleogenicas well as eu-
genic ideas(39), so thatmankindcan be freedof the pathologicalelements
thathave enteredthehumanrace throughout thecenturies, and a more
accomplished formof happy,constructive existencecan be created.[...]
It seemstomethatthelegalization ofabortionis a temporarycompromise,
thatmustsoonbe reconsidered. Successin thefieldofpreventive methods
has been so greatthat,veryshortly,theywill be availableforall. That
representsa newdanger.Mostcoupleswillsatisfy theirparental
instincts
withone or two children. Then,somenationswill,fromgeneration to
generation,dwindlein size. Reflections
on thefuture of theracecannot
(35) S.A. Tomilin,<<Problemanarodonaselenija(formulirovkaosnovnykhzakonov)>>,
Vrachebnoedelo, 1927, 23-23, pp. 1886-7.
(36) Literal translationof avtomaticheskajaplodovitost',with the meaningof natural
fertility.
(37) Igrajushchejezhegodnorol' termostatadlja byluplivanijakrest'janskikhzamorys-
hej, iz kotorykh bol'shaja chast' bystrogibnet.
(38) Regulirovaniegenerativnojzhizni.
(39) Pleogenicheskiji evgenicheskij.
 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA 49

take as guide line the behaviourof individuals,giventhattheyessentially

take an interestin theirown personalcomforts."(40)
Tomilin'sposition,whichwas sharedby manycoevals, is clear. Birth
controlmakes it possible to achieve this optimumpopulationinstead of
unbridledgrowth.But hostilitytowardsabortionas the preferredmethod
leads him to advocate the developmentof contraception. However,he con-
sidersthatstateintervention is necessaryfortwo reasons: first,in thetradi-
tional line of the time,eugenics and improvement of the human race(41);
second, a more originalreason, the contradictionbetweenwhat the indi-
vidual wants and what the nationneeds. In this,Tomilinjoins the pro-na-
talist movement,which had become known in Russia at the end of the
19th century,throughtranslationsof J. Bertillon'sLa de'ge'ne'rescence du
peuple franCaisand Le mouvement naturelde la population de la France.
Tomilin was not the only one, in the late 1920s and early 1930s,
looking fora compromisebetweenneo-Malthusianism, which saw contra-
ception as a way to combat abortion,and pro-natalism,voicing the fear
of depopulation 42).
The latterwas to dominatein the debates precedingthe 1936 law.
Contraceptionwas thenseen as a danger,threatening the populationwith
decline. Gens and Tomilinspoke up in favourof developingcontraception,
but too late, and the rare studiesconductedwere ignored.This movement
did not have timeto get up steambeforetheupheavalsof the 1930s. More-
over,several authorsexpresseddoubtabout the effectiveness of contracep-
tion for fightingagainst abortion.Even A. Gens, looking at the German
experience,notedthatthe numberof abortionswas continuingto rise des-
pite theproductionof contraceptives by severalfirmsand theirdistribution
in all pharmacies.He concludedthat:"manifestly, thiswas due to the fact
thatthe diffusionof contraception dependedless on the scientificand prac-
tical value of the methodsavailable than on good advertising"(43).
This period can be summarizedin threepoints:
1) Unlike abortion,contraceptionwas not perceivedas a social phe-
nomenon;it was studiedonly in its medical and biological dimension.
2) Knowledge of and demandforcontraceptivesspread,as an alter-
native to abortion,but the necessaryinfrastructures were lacking.

(40) S.A. Tomilin,<<Problema narodnonaselenija(formulirovkaosnovnykhzakonov)>>,

Vrachebnoedelo, 1927, 23-24, p. 1890.
(41) On eugenismin Russia, see L.R. Graham,Science, Philosophyand Human Beha-
viour in the Soviet Union,Columbia UniversityPress, New York, 1987; and A. Blum, op.cit.
1994.
(42) See in particular:A. Gens, <<Organizatsija i praktikaprimenenijaprotivozacha-
tochnykhsredstv>>, Vestniksovremennojmeditsiny,17, 1927, pp. 1095-1097; Tsinebrjukhov,
<<K organizatsiii praktikeprimenenijaprotivozachatochnykh sredstv>>,Vestniksovremennoj
meditsiny, 23, 1927, pp. 1503-1505; S.G. Bykov,<<Kvoprosuo rasprostranenii protivozatcha-
tochnykhsredstvv naselenii>>, zhurnal,8, 1928, p. 759-762; F.B. Blju-
Kazanskij meditsinskij
menau,Abort i meryego preduprezhdenija,Moscow/Leningrad, Gosmedizdat.
i praktikaprimenenijaprotivozachatochnykh
(43) A. Gens, <<Organizatsija sredstv>>,Vest-
nik sovremennojmeditsiny,17, 1927, p. 1096.
50 THEHISTORYOF ABORTION
STATISTICSINRUSSIA

3) In spite of a numberof declarations,no serious attemptwas made

to organizethe diffusionof contraception:abortionwas opposed to births,
ratherthanto contraception, resultingin a straightforwardpro-natalistpo-
sition.

III. - A slow revival

Afterthe liberalizationof abortionin 1955, a new period opened up

that was even more favourableto contraceptionthan the 1920s, because
of increasedmedical knowledgeand provisionof gynaecologicalcare. But
the situationchanged only very gradually.
The renewed interestin contraceptionwas the consequence of the
sharp rise in abortionsbetween 1954 and 1958. Once again, therewere
studies presentingcontraceptionas a means to fightabortion(44). A large-
scale experimentalstudywas carriedout in seven townsto createa system
for diffusingcontraception.But therewere no real results,and we have
few accountsof theexperiment, apartfroma shortreportpublishedseveral
years afterwards(45).
In fact, anothertrendwas going to prevail. It is expressed in the
workof E.A. Sadvokasova, the only referenceon the matterforthe 1950s
and 1960s. Dusting offthe inevitableargumentthatthe incidenceof abor-
tion is linked to standardof living, she classes the reasons for aborting
into the followinggroups(46):
1) Those that can be eliminated:no-one to look afterthe children;
not enough room; not enough money.
2) Those that are difficultto eliminate:no husband; illness; family
problems.
3) Those that cannot be eliminated:already nursing;large family,
etc.
4) Difficultto determine:themotherdoesn't wantthebaby; thefather
doesn't want the baby; otherreasons.
This marks the returnof an essentiallyideological conception,in
which abortionequals birthcontrol.The factorspresenteddo not allow
abortionand attitudestowardsfamilyplanningto be separateduntil the
end of the 1970s. Sadvokasova's workis the compulsoryreferenceon the

(44) See, forinstance:O.K. Nikonchik,<<Problema i organizatsijabor'by

kontratseptsii
s abortamiv SSSR>>,Akusherstvo i ginekologija,XXXV, 6 (Nov.-Dec.1959); O.E. Chernetskij,
<<Organizatsijarabotypo snizhenijuabortov>>, Sovetskoezdravookhranenie,XXII, 3 (March
1963).
(45) A.A. Verbenko,S.E. Il'in, V.N. Chusovaja, <<Kvoprosyorganizatsiibor'by s abor-
tami>>,Voprosyokhranymaterinstvai destva, 1965, t. 10, 8, p. 80-83; S.E. Il'in, V.N. Chu-
sovaja, T.N. Al'shevskaja,Abortyi protivozachatochnye sredstva,Moscow, Meditsina,1968.
(46) E.A. Sadvokasova, Sotsialno-gigienicheskieaspektyregulirovanijarazmerovsem'i,
Meditsina,Moscow, 1969, pp. 152-157.
 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA 51

matterand the only source of information on abortionpractices.The ques-

tion of contraceptionis, in public, completelyeluded, whichmoreoverfa-
voursthe pro-natalistdiscourseunambiguouslyexpressedby Krushchevin
1959(47).
Yet the alternativepolicy to abortiondid not entirelyfail. Various
medical and biological institutesconducted research into contraception.
Also, in spite of the reigningatmosphere,voices calling for the develop-
mentof contraceptionwere regularlyraised. Finally,several studieslaun-
ched in themid-1960sby theCentralStatisticalOffice,thentheUniversity
of Moscow and the Science Academy of the USSR, challengedthe ideo-
logical foundationsof the relationshipbetweenstandardof living and fer-
tility,by advancingthatfertility decline was inevitable.
These studies embody the divorce between the administrativeap-
paratus,which continuedto follow rules based on rigid ideological dis-
course, and the scientificworld (includingpart of the centralstatistical
apparatus)which,althoughunable to rapidlyimplementan alternativepol-
icy,nonethelessbroughtabout,throughits abundantliterature, an in-depth
change. This long-termeffortfinallybore fruitin the 1980s, as our stat-
istical analysis will show.

IV. - Abortiondynamicsin the USSR

There have been five stages in the historyof abortionstatistics:

1) before 1920: statisticson criminalabortionsand data for a few
hospitalsor clinics(48); these are too sparse to be interpretable.
2) 1920-5: counts of abortions performedin the medical estab-
lishments;these data are incompletebut permitanalysis forsome regions.
3) 1925-36: countsbased on theindividualcards filledin by theabor-
tioncommittees.Registrationimprovedover theyears,so thatdetailedana-
lysis for whole regions graduallybecomes possible.
4) 1937-55: hospital data, concerningonly abortionsauthorizedon
medical groundsand those initiatedbeforearrival at the hospital; regis-
trationof the latterwas good.

(47) R.S. Khrushchevdeclared in January1959 that: "the bourgeois ideology carries

manycannibal theories,one of which is the theoryof overpopulation.These are elaborated
to decrease natalityand to decrease populationgrowth.In that,theydifferfromus, comrades.
If to 100 millionof our men, another200 millionwere added, it would not be enough. For
us socialists,thegrowthof natalityis notmerelya meansto increaseour workforce. A socialist
governmentstudiesthe question fromthe point of view of the futureof the nation".
(48) Translator'snote: "hospitalsor clinics", or one or the otherfor short,has been
used to denote the Russian bolnitsa,the very general termcoveringmedical establishments
of various kinds and sizes which provide in-patienttreatment.
52 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA

5) from1955 to the presentday: hospitalregistration data. Registra-

tion improvedsteadilyup to the mid-1960s,and the qualitycan be judged
satisfactory fromthenon.
Today,it is difficultto obtaindata relativeto the whole of theformer
USSR, owing to heterogeneity of statisticalpracticesin the different
new
states.It is, however,a feasible task.

Thefirstdata It is not easy to capturethe directimpact of the le-

galization of abortion.The 1920 law apparentlyhad
littleinfluenceon fertilitytrends(49),
but thereare few data permitting the
comparisonof abortiontrendsbeforeand afterits adoption.The statistics
of convictionsfor abortionshow that the sentencesprovided for in the
Penal Code were rarelypronounced,but theythrowno lighton the inci-
dence of abortion.Some fragmentary data suggest,however,thatthe num-
ber of abortionsrose sharplyat the beginningof the 20th century(50), and
thatthe practicewas widespread.In the medical establishmentsof St. Pe-
tersburgin 1914, out of 5,874 women admittedfor complicationsrelated
to delivery,4,374 cases were the resultof abortion(51).In a numberof cli-
nics in Moscow and St. Petersburg,abortionsrepresented30% to 40% of
diagnoses in gynaecology(52) (Table 2).
Anothersource of information is providedby the retrospectivesur-
veys carriedout aftertheRevolution.The CommissariatforHealth,seeking
to demonstratethat a rise in 'voluntaryinterruption of pregnancy'went
hand in hand witha simultaneousfall in infantmortality, conducteda sur-
vey on 1,000 women workingin the textileindustry.Between 1900 and
1913, the outcomeof 94 in 100 pregnanciesamongthesewomenhad been
childbirth;between 1914 and 1916, 91. Infantmortalitythen accounted
formore than50% of births.Between 1917 and 1919, the birth/pregnancy
proportionfell to 85, while infantmortalityrepresented38% then32% of
birthsin 1918 and 1919 respectively.Afterthe legalization of abortion,
only 77 out of 100 pregnanciesended in childbirthin 1920-2, and 71 in
1924. Infantmortalityaccountedfor32% of birthsin 1920, 25% in 1921,
30% in 1922, 26% in 1923 and 17% in 1924.(53)

(49) Cf. Alain Blum, op.cit. 1994.

(50) In the 19th and early 20th centuries,some studies were conductedon the basis
of hospital admissionsfor complicationsresultingfromabortion.Accordingto one by I.N.
Chukhina,presentedat the FifthCongress of the Pirogov Society in 1893, more than 22%
of pregnanciesin Karkhovand the regionended in an abortion.In 1913, accordingto L.G.
Lichkus, the numberof abortionshad increased tenfoldin the space of 15 years in Saint-
Petersburg,and represented20% of live births.This was one of the firstattemptsto estimate
the numberof abortions.However, such resultsshould be handled with care. The mythof
one millionabortionsa year in France was builton a few fragmentary data (cf. J. Dupaquier,
loc.cit. in fn. 2).
(51) A. Borkhov,<<Statisticheskie dannyie ob abortakhv Peterburgskikh gorodskikh
bol'nitsakh>>, VestnikPrava, 16, 1914.
(52) M. Gernet,<<Abortv zakone i statistikaabortov>>,
Abortyv 1925 godu, TsSU SSSR,
Moscow, 1927, p.13.
(53) A.B. Gens, Abortv RSFSR, Moscow, Okhmadet,1926, p. 17.
 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA 53

TABLE 2. - PERCENTAGE OF ABORTIONS AMONG ALL GYNAECOLOGICAL DIAGNOSES,

SELECTED CLINICS IN MOSCOW AND ST PETERSBURG

Moscow St-Petersburg
Year Timistr Lepekhin Petropavlosk
clinic hosp.
maternity clinic

1906 12
1907 19
1908 3.4 25
1909 5.7 30
1910 17.9 6.7 33
1911 11.6
1912 30.9 6.0
1913 41.8 13.5
Source: M. Gernet, 1927, op. cit. p. 13.

The firstlarge-scale statisticalstudydates back to 1925. The Com-

missariat for Health sent out a questionnaireto rural medical estab-
lishments,asking practitionersto indicate how many abortionsthey had
performed, how manywere abortionsinitiatedbeforeadmissionto thehos-
pital or clinic (denoted IBA), and the motives stated.Of 3,761 question-
naires sent out, 2,207 were returned.They showed that abortionswere
performedby 41% of these clinics, i.e. 909, of which 800 on a regular
basis.
In 1922, 1923 and 1924, in 904 establishments 55,532 abortionswere
performed, and for 1,658 establishments therewere 66,375 abortionsIBA.
A firstset of chronologicaldata based on 364 of these rural clinics was
drawnup (Table 3).

TABLE 3. - NUMBER OF ABORTIONS PERFORMED IN A SAMPLE OF 364 RURAL CLINICS

Year Legal abortions Begunout-of-clinic Total

1922 10 060 10 676 20 763

1923 13 996 14 296 28 293
1924 16 771 16 712 33 483
Source: A.B. Gens, 1926, op. cit.

In all theclinics thathad responded,131,572 abortionswere recorded

in 1924, of which 37% IBA. In 1925, the figureswere 200,000 and 29%
respectively(54).
Withthe implementation of the individualregistrationsystem,abor-
tion statisticsare more completefromthatyear on. For 11 governments
of Russia, 55,597 abortionswere recordedin 1925, of which only 18%

of Vologda, Kursk,
(54) Excluding the North Caucasia region and the governments
Nizhni-Novgorodand Ural.
54 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA

were IBA (data fromthe 1925 AbortionYearbook,thefirstto be published

in the USSR(55)).
From 1926 on, only the statisticsdrawn fromthe individual cards
are available. For thatyear,theytotal 155,390 abortionsand 15% IBA, a
proportionmuchlower thanthe one providedby the surveydata for 1925.
These registrationstatisticsconcern 23 territoriesof Russia, Belorussia,
Uzbekistanand Turkmenia,as well as the hospitalsreservedforthe Com-
missariatfor Rail Transport.Variationsin coverage make a clear notion
of time trendsimpossible.
By comparingthe territories covered in both years, 1925 and 1926,
we observe an undeniableincrease (70% in legal abortionsand 42% in
thoseinitiatedbeforeadmission).Similarly,in Ukraine,thenumberof abor-
tionsregisteredgrewfrom149,700 in 1924-5 to 242,000 in 1926-7(56).For
the whole of the USSR, roughly400,000 abortionswere recordedin 1926.
But it is impossibleto tell what is due to betterregistration
coverage and
whatis actual increase.The monthlydata forLeningradmanifestly indicate
an improvement in registration:
thenumbersof abortionsrecordedincrease
regularly(Figure 1), whereas the numbersof birthsbarelychange(57).
Numbers

2000

1500

1000

500

C l l
Jan. 1924 Jul.1924 Jan. 1925 Jul. 1925 Jan. 1926 Jul. 1926 Nov. 1926
Months

Figure 1. - Numbersof abortionsregisteredin Leningrad,1924 to

1926 (absolute values, monthly
data)

It is, therefore,
clear thatthe continuousimprovement in registration
is one of the factorsof growth.Nonetheless,the data for the main cities
of the USSR can no doubtapproximateto reality,since coverage was cer-
tainlymorecompletetherethanelsewhere.For theyear 1926, totalabortion

(55) Abortyv 1925 g. Moscow, 1927.

(56) S.A. Tomilin,op. cit. in fn. 27, p. 41.
(57) V. Paevskij, Elementystatistiki,Leningrad,1931, p. 55.
 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA 55

rates can be calculatedfromthe age-specificabortiondata and the female

age structureat the 1926 census. The rate is 44 (per 1,000 women aged
15-44) in Moscow, 37.1 in Leningrad,130.1 in Simferopol(the highest
value observed), and 14.8 in Smolensk (the lowest). In the towns other
thanregional capitals, theyare generallyless thanhalf as high,and only
one-fifth to one-tenthas high in the ruralareas. But we mustbe cautious
in interpretingthese data: womenlivingin the countrysidemay have gone
to town,wheretherewere more medical resources,to have an abortion.
The 1926 AbortionYearbook was the second and final one, the data
thereafter being kept secret.A single figurewas publishedby Izvestija in
1936, in the frameworkof the campaign which preceded the adoptionof
the restrictivelaw. Accordingto this newspaper,700,000 abortionswere
recordedin 1934, comparedto threemillionbirths(581). Today,the archives
of the Ministryof Health providean interesting, albeit incomplete,picture
of regionalabortiontrends.We have presentedelsewhere(59) the full set of
data. Variationsin coverage complicateanalysis. But the figuresfor 1936-
1940 (Table 4) reveal a sharpdrop in the numberof abortionsfrom1936
to 1937, thena gradualrise in illegal abortionsand in medicallyprescribed
abortions,once the immediateeffectsof the new law were over.

TABLE 4. - NUMBEROF ABORTIONS

REGISTEREDIN THE USSR BETWEEN1936 AND 1940
(PARTIALTERRITORIAL COVERAGE)

Of which begun Proportionillegal

Year Total out-of-clinic among(3)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (3)/(2)

1936 803 058 343 750 - 43 %
1937 682 823 327 898 _ 58 %
1938 429 695 396 362 9% 92 %
1939 464 246 424 500 8.5 % 91 %
1940 500 516 452 557 - 90 %

The data for a numberof cities confirmthese trends(Figure 2). In

Moscow and Leningrad,the abortionratios plummetin 1936, but begin
to rise again in 1938.
Despite the lack of clear-cutevidence, we can discern a period of
growthwhich began priorto the Revolution,and startedto accelerate,no
doubt,in the early 1920s. The law of 1936 is one of the consequencesof
this rise, but its effectivenesscan be questioned.The sharpupturnin na-
talitythatfollowedits adoptionwas short-lived,and it does not appear to
have had any lasting effecton the long-termtrend,which was perturbed
much more by the Second World War. In the light of pre-warstatistics,

(58) In thetowns,375,000 abortionsfor574,000 naissances; in thecountryside,

324,000
for 2,430,000 births;in Moscow, 155,000 abortionsfor 57,000 birthsin maternity clinics.
(59) A. Avdeev et al., op. cit. in fn. 1.
56 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA

Abortionsper livebirth
INED
233 94

2.5 - Moscow -

2.0 -

Leningrad
1.5

1.0

0.5 -

o
1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940
Year

Figure2. - Abortionratios,Moscow and Leningrad

the limitedeffectof the measures seems to resultfromthe combination

of a rise in illegal abortionsand greaterindulgencewith respect to the
authorizationof abortionon medical grounds.

Abortionstatistics
after1954 For a long time,any attemptto study
the rise in abortionsafter 1955 came
up againstthelack of publishedstatistics.Some incompletedata weregiven
out by E.A. Sadvokasova,whichindicatedthegrowth,butnotthenumbers,
of abortionsbetween 1954 and 1966. For the next twentyyears,only the
odd figuregiven here and there in a newspaper(60), and estimatedfrom
verypartiallocal-level surveydata, was available. The estimatesproduced
in the west were obtained by extrapolatingthese figures,and took into
account neitherthe substantialregional differencesnor the haze surroun-
ding the definitionof abortion.
Let us take an example. In 1982, M.S. Bednyj forwardedthe figure
of 208 abortionsfor 100 births.This was immediatelytaken up by the
westernobservers,and used to obtain an estimateof 11 million abortions
in 1982, by multiplyingthe numberof live birthsfor the whole of the
USSR by thisratio.But M.S. Bednyj did not statewhetherhe was referring
to live birthsor all births,nor thathis calculation was based on only a
few territoriesof Russia(61).
These doubtsare now cleared up, but thedata publishedin theUSSR
after1986 and in present-dayRussia, as well as those kept confidential

(60) In particularin SovetskoeZdravookhranenie.Cf. A. Blum, op. cit.1994.

(61) M.S. Bednyj,Demograficheskie faktoryzdorovija,Mysl', Moscow, 1984, p. 113.
 THE HISTORY"OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA 57

in the archives,still pose a problem of comparabilitywith international

statistics.Soviet and Russian abortionstatisticshave always aggregated
inducedabortionsperformed completelyin a medicalestablishment - which
correspondto most international data - withabortionsinitiatedbeforear-
rival at the medical establishmentand terminatedtherebecause of com-
plications(62).The latter group contains some of the illegally induced
abortions,butalso spontaneousabortionswithcomplications.It is therefore
not justifiedto conclude, as some authorshave, thatthe officialstatistics
are under-estimated(63).
The origin of this classificationno doubt lies in the conceptionof
abortionstatisticsadopted at the beginningof the 1930s. The aim of reg-
istrationwas no longertheunderstanding of social practices,butto provide
figuresfor planningpurposes.Hospitals and clinics gave those figuresto
justifythe numberof theirbeds or to claim moremeans. There was there-
fore no reason to separate induced and spontaneousabortionsor those
begun beforeadmission.
It is always difficultto estimatethe coverage of abortionstatistics.
For one thing,'pregnancies'diagnosed in the very early stages may not
be real; in this case, the 'abortions'performedare not real either.Some
of the 1.5 millionmini-abortions now performedeach year by vacuum as-
pirationmay well not correspondto actual conceptions.For anotherthing,
some illegal abortions,even those ending in complicationsand hospital-
ization,are concealed by the women concerned.However,these problems
are foundin most countrieswhere induced abortionis legal, and we can
suppose that,in this respect,abortionstatisticsare generallycomparable
fromcountryto country.
But the registrationsystemoperatingin the Soviet Union permits
evaluationof the coverage of abortionstatistics.Up to 1988, pregnancies
were diagnosedand registeredin maternity and gynaecologyclinics,where
physicianssupplied,when necessary,the certificaterequiredfor abortion
in a hospitalor clinic. By comparingthe numberof pregnancieswiththe
numbersof birthsand abortionsregistered,we can estimatethe proportion
of abortionsnot registered.In the late 1970s, a studyin Leningradfound
15.5% of pregnanciesfor which the outcome was not recorded.Some of
these would be abortionsperformedout-of-clinicwithno major complica-
tions; but therewere othercases: spontaneousabortions,legal abortions
performed in anothertown(64).Thus, theproportionof illegal abortionswas
verylow.
Figure 3 shows the numbersof legal abortionsin the USSR from
1954 to 1990, estimatedby correctingthedata fromtheMinistryof Health

(62) Termed'complete'and 'incomplete'abortionsrespectively:see tablesin AppendixI.

(63) See, forinstance,A. Popov, ?FamilyPlanningand Induced Abortionin the USSR:
Basic Health and DemographicCharacteristics,>> Studies in Family Planning,6, Nov. 1991.
(64) N.S. Sokolova, <<Voprosyizuchenija iskhodovberemenosteju zhenshchin>>, Zdra-
vookhranenijeRossijskoj Federatsii, 1980, 3, p. 13-15.
58 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA

Thousands

7000

6000 -

5000 _

4000 -

3000 -

2000

1000 _
INED
O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 123294
1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990
Year

Figure 3. - Legal abortionsin the USSR since 1954 (estimates)

archives up to 1986, then the published data. These correctionswere
necessarybecause of various deficiencies(65).
The data on legal abortionsin 1954 correspondto abortionspres-
cribed by physicians,and thus are, to some extent,an indicationof the
population'shealthstatus,although,as we have seen, a degreeof tolerance
led to countingas legal some abortionsforwhichtherewere no real medi-
cal grounds.The abortionsinitiatedbefore admission to the hospital or
clinic (IBA) included spontaneousabortionsas well as illegal abortions.
A surveyconductedin the early 1960s on 13,500 women showed that,of
the 14.3% of IBA abortions,3.9% were spontaneousabortionsand 10.4%
illegal ones(66).In otherwords,almostthreequartersof IBA abortionswere
at thattime illegal abortions.Supposing thatthe illegal abortionswhich
led to complicationsand hospitaladmissionrepresented30% of all illegal
abortions(67),the numberof illegal abortionsin 1954 can be estimatedto
be 3.5 million. Added to the 400,000 legal abortionsregistered(see Ap-
pendix Table Al) and to the spontaneousabortions(the remainingquarter
of IBA abortions,i.e. roughly500,000), we have a totalestimateof about
4.4 million.This figureshows to what extentthe legal sanctionswere ig-
nored.Moreover,thelegalizationof abortionhad verylittleimpacton fer-
tilitylevels. The only visible effectis the drop in non-maritalbirths,
showing that the 1955 abortionlaw did, afterall, allow more effective
birthcontrol(Table 5).
The new law producedan apparentlyrapid rise in abortions,which
peaked in 1965 (see AppendixTables Al and A2) . The numberof abortions
then stabilized. The rise followingthe liberalizationof abortionreflects
See AppendixI for information
(65) on the data and the corrections.
A. Verbenko,S. Il'in, V. Chusovaja, T. Al'chevskaja,Abortyi protivozachatochnye
(66)
sredstva,Moscow, Meditsina, 1968, p. 9.
(67) Accordingto M.S. Bednyj, op. cit.in fn. 60, pp. 102-103.
 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA 59

Abortions
per woman
4.3 | | INED
I I I I I I I
231 94
4.1 -

3.9 -

3.7 - -

3.5- -

3.3-

3.1 -

2.0 -

2.7 -

2.5 1 I I I I I I
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992
Year

Figure4. - Total abortionrate in Russia, 1970-91

Numbers
perwoman Numbers
perwoman
035 1I- I --r-1 I 0.35. 1--I- I- -I
5-a 5-b
0.30 no - 0.30 T

025 - 0.25 -

0.20 0.20 -

0:15 - 0.15 -

0.10 .'0.10

0005- 0.05 U
~ .1D D-0-1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Age 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Age

Numbersperwoman Numbers
perwoman
035 ---I---- I I I II I0.35 I I I I-M
5-c 5-d 2209
0.30 0.30 -

0.25 - 0.25 -

020 0.20

0.15 - dlns0.15 Abdln

0.10- ~~~~~~~~~~~0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00:7 0.00
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Age 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Age

Figure5. - Outcome of pregnanciesby age at census, Russia

60 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA

TABLE 5.- PROPORTION OF EXTRA-MARITALBIRTHS, 1945 TO 1984

Date Extra-maritalbirths(%) Date Extra-maritalbirths(%)

1945-49 17.9 1965-69 9.5

1950-54 17.5 1970-74 8.4
1955-59 13.1 1975-79 8.4
1960-64 11.2 1980-84 8.9
Source: Naselenie SSSR 1987, statischeskijsbornik,Goskomstat SSSR, Finansy i Statistika,1988.

both improvedregistrationand actual growth(68). It seems probable that

registration coverage became satisfactoryaroundthe mid-1960s. In addi-
tion, the proportionof abortionsbegun out-of-hospital decreases rapidly,
from80% in 1954 to 20% in 1959, then more slowly,down to 16% in
1966 and not quite 12% in 1986. We can conclude fromthis thatin the
mid-1960s,most of the abortionsinitiatedbeforeadmissionwere sponta-
neous abortions.The statisticsof abortionsinduced - or, more precisely,
begun and ended - in a medical establishment(in Soviet statisticaltermi-
nology,'complete' abortions)can thusbe used forcomparisonwithinter-
nationalabortiondata.
In the mid-1960s,of the 8 millionabortionsregisteredin the USSR,
therewere roughly7 million 'complete' abortionsinduced in a medical
establishment, thatis, about 150 abortionsfor 100 live births.After1965,
thereis a slow but steadyfall. The abortionratio(69)was 148 in 1970, 138
in 1975, 130 in 1980 and the presentlevel, in 1990, is 124. In Russia,
the totalabortionrate only reallystartedto decline afterthe mid-1970s(70);
from4.2 at thattime,it has fallen to 2.6 today (Figure 4). The gradual
convergenceof the age patternsof fertilityand abortion suggests that
women are increasinglyusing otherformsof birthcontrol(Figure 5).

Conclusion

In its haste to overturnthe social structureof the Russian Empire,

the new regimethatcame to power in 1917 lost no time in passing laws
in all the fields affectingdaily life and social and demographicbehaviour.
The legalization of abortion,promulgatedon 18 November 1920, might
be takento represent,both symbolicallyand in practice,one of the most
fundamental breaks fromthe czaristera, and a legal landmarkthatwas to
profoundlyaffectpopulationbehaviour.The same year,France was going
in the completelyopposite direction,with a law passed on 31 July1920
which sanctioned ahortion. and another on 29 March 1923 that went even

(68) T. Frejka, <Induced Abortionand Fertility:a QuarterCenturyof Experience in

EasternEurope?, Population and DevelopmentReview,Vol. 9, 3, Sept. 1983, p. 502.
(69) The followingfiguresare based on the 'complete' abortionstatistics.
(70) For information on the calculations,see A. Avdeev et al., op. cit.
 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA 61

further, by banningall birthcontrolpropaganda.The Frenchnewspapers

immediatelytook hold of this change in Soviet Russia, the proof,in their
eyes, of the disappearanceof familyvalues. The abortionlaw was first
seen as a consequence of the ongoing social upheavals, beforebeing in-
terpretedas the symbolicexpressionof Soviet power. This shiftwas all
the easier as the data needed to studywhat was actuallyhappeningwere
lacking for a long time. Thus, westernobserversinterpreted the frequent
legal modificationssince 1920 as the expressionof societal changes(71).
Until 1986, when the firstfull set of abortiondata was published (with
the exceptionof the 1925 and 1926 yearbooks,whichwentpracticallyun-
noticed in the west), the figuresavailable (C. Tietze, S. Henshaw, 1986)
were hazardous extrapolationsbased on a handfulof fragmentary survey
data(72).Such secrecy,and these legal turnarounds, contributedto reinforc-
ing the image of a unifiedSoviet Union, breakingaway fromthe history
of the Russian Empire.
This interpretationof one of the most symboliclegislativechanges
in the familydomainis, however,a questionableone. To fullyunderstand
the significanceof thesemeasures,it is necessaryto understandthe debate
pursuedby the intellectualsand the liberal social strata(doctors,lawyers,
statisticians),the main opponentsof the czaristregime,in the second half
of the 19thcentury.The tendenciesthatthisdebatereflectsin Russia must
also be comparedto the discussionstakingplace in otherpartsof Europe,
on the same issue but oftenwith opposite conclusions. Such differences
in the argumentations and the conclusionsdrawnby similarsocial groups
focuses attentionon the disparityin therelationshipsbetweenthe political
power and the social groupsclosest to this power.
A briefhistoricalsummaryhas allowed us to set the 1920 abortion
law in the contextof discussions thathad been rockingwesternEurope,
in which a more liberal stand was takenby Russia even beforethe 1917
Revolution.The subsequentchanges reflecthow the political systemre-
treatedfrom social realities. In the 1930s, legislation became more the
expressionof discourseturningroundon itselfthanof anyreal observation
of the contrastssubsistingin the country.The distancebetweensocial ob-
servationand the theoriesproposed also produceda reactionof denial of
observationto the benefitof theory.Withrespectto statisticalobservation,
thischangeresultedin abortionfiguresbeing producedmorefortheneeds
of hospitalplanningthanfor analysingthe process itself.
The periodfollowingStalin's deathis moreobscure,butis fundamen-
tal in thatit appearsto have maintainedthe countryin a stateof ignorance
of the progressin moderncontraceptivemethodsthatelsewhereaccompa-
nied,and acceleratedafterthe 1960s, thefertilitydecline.The Soviet Union
thenbecame one of the only countriesto resortso massivelyto abortion,
oblivious of the condom and the pill. The demographictransitionwas no

(71) See Alain Blum, op. cit., 1994.

(72) We note thatthe resultsoverestimatedreality,as we have seen.
62 STATISTICSIN RUSSIA
THEHISTORYOF ABORTION

slower in the USSR, but the means of gettingtherewere very different.

Yet, can we really speak of ignorance?The latestdevelopmentsshow that
the second contraceptiverevolutionno doubt markedtime, but was not
unknown,and has spread veryrapidlyin recentyears. In the USSR, pre-
valence of the IUD and condom can be estimatedat 1.5% and 2% respec-
tivelyin 1979, withtraditionalmethodsconcerningroughly30% of women,
whereas in 1988 more than 13% of women were IUD users, roughly4%
were protectedby the condomand traditionalmethodswere down to 12%.
In Russia itself,the prevalenceof moderncontraceptionis even higher,
and continuingto grow,as we can see fromthe numbersof IUDs inserted
each year(73).
Our studyis based essentiallyon aggregatedata forthe whole Soviet
territory.But therehas always been great diversitywithinthis territory,
and abortionbehaviouris no exception(Table 6). A geographicalbreak-
down of the data shows thatthe patternof abortiondiffusionreflectstwo
factors:first,the highlydiversifiedculturesand traditionsof the different
regions; second, withinthis overall pattern,there are zones of stability
and thegreateror lesser frequencyof abortionoftenreflects
and instability,
populationsthatare more or less settledin theirplace of residence(74).

TABLE 6. - TOTAL(LEGAL)ABORTION
RATES(TAR) ANDTOTALFERTILITY
RATES(TFR) IN 1989

Republic TAR TFR Republic TAR TFR

Russia 3.45 2.01 Moldova 2.40 2.50

Ukraine 2.65 1.94 Latvia 2.21 2.05
Belarus 3.06 2.03 Kirghizstan 2.40 3.81
Uzbekistan 1.20 4.02 Tajikistan 1.16 5.08
Kazakhstan 2.48 2.81 Armenia 0.77 2.61
Georgia 1.47 2.14 Turkmenistan 1.22 4.27
Azerbaijan 0.63 2.76 Estonia 2.17 2.22
Lithuania 1.68 1.98 USSR 3.08 2.34

All the complexitiesof the coexistence and contradictionsbetween

ideological system,political systemand societyare expressedparticularly
clearly in this long historyof abortionstatistics.The resultis the series
of U-turns,instead of a straightcourse, that followed a measure which
was meantto be symbolic,the liberalizationof abortionin 1920.
AlexandreAVDEEV, Alain BLUM
and Irina TROITSKAYA

See A. Avdeev et al., op. cit.

(73)
See A. Blum and S. Zakharov,<Espaces regionauxet espaces nationauxdans l'ex-
(74)
URSS>>, Revue d'Etudes ComparativesEst-Ouest,1, 1993, pp. 81-99.
 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA 63

APPENDIX I
Abortion
statisticsafter1955
In the abortionstatisticspresentedbelow,relativeto theperiodfollowingthe
legalizationof abortionin 1955, the followingdistinctionis made:
1. Total numberof women who left a hospitalor clinic of the Ministryof
Health witha diagnosis of abortion.
2. Amongthesewomen,those who had been admittedforan abortionbegun
beforearrivalat the hospitalor clinic (termed'incompleteabortions').
This sub-groupincludes spontaneousabortionsas well as illegally induced
abortionswithcomplications.
3. The remainder, abortionsinitiatedand terminated in hospital(termed'com-
plete abortions').
The firsttwo series are compiled systematically by the Ministryof Health.
It was necessaryto add the abortionsperformedin a clinic or hospitalof the Min-
istryof Transport,which collects its own data (the same distinctionbeing made).
The abortionstatisticspublishedin the demographicyearbooksof the USSR for
theperiod1975-85do notincludethesedata.It was impossible to obtaintheexactnumbers
fromthisMinistry, and thefiguresshownare estimatesbased on thefollowing years.
In addition,startingin 1988, a further breakdownis made forthe 'mini-abor-
tions' by vacuum aspirationperformedup to the 7th week of pregnancy,without
hospitalization.The Ministryof Health was veryhesitantabout countingthese as
real abortions,whichno doubtexplainstheunusualdropin thenumberof abortions
in 1987, when the methodwas legalized. In fact,these mini-abortions had been
authorizedon an experimentalbasis since 1980, the numberof clinics concerned
varyingfromyear to year.The CalculationsCentreof the Ministryof Health may
not always have forwardedthese data to the CentralStatisticalOffice.In 1982 and
1984, forinstance,the Health Ministrystatisticsgive 12,000 and 15,000 abortions
more thanthe data publishedby the CentralStatisticalOffice.The mini-abortions
may be the reason for these discrepancies,unless theywere simplymistakes.
Furtherdifficultiesstem fromthe fact thatthe mini-abortions performedin
hospitalsor clinics are registeredseparatelyfromthose performedin dispensaries.
Observingthe formeronly, some researchershave spoken of grossly incomplete
data(75). To avoid such errors,we estimatedseparately, foreach republic,thenumber
of mini-abortions performedin each type of establishment.
Fromthe Ministryof Health archives,we have reconstructed a completetime
series of abortionsperformedin MH establishmentssince 1954, for the whole of
the USSR, distinguishing the urban and ruralsectors(76).

(75) A. Popov questions the validityand completenessof mini-abortion registration,

notingthat in Moldova in 1988, a mere 77 were recordedby the Ministryof Health (A.
Popov, ?Family planningand induced abortionin the USSR: basic health and demographic
characteristics>>,
Studies in Family Planning, 1991, Vol. 27, 6, p. 368). But these were the
mini-abortionsperformedin hospitalsor clinics only; a further7,672 were performedin dis-
pensaries.
(76) In an earlierstudy,presentedat the Chaire Queteletin 1991, these data were not
available, and we estimatedthe numbersof abortionsfromthe abortiongrowthratesbetween
1954 and 1966 calculatedby E.A. Sadvokasova (see fn.45). This is the reason forthe slight
differencewiththe resultsgiven here. Details on the correctionsand additionalinformation
are given in A. Avdeev et al., op. cit., 1993.
64 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA

TABLE A. 1. - ABORTIONS IN THE USSR, 1954TO 1990

Allabortions
registered induced
Legal abortions
('complete')SpontaneousLegal
abortion
rate
Year ByMinis-ByMinis- orcriminal peri o00
Total of
try of Allmethods
try Aspiration
Curettage abortions per100
( omen
Health Transport ('mini') ('incomplete')
live
birthsaged15-49
1954 1985302 1895964 89339 399046 399046 - 1586257 7.84 6.84
1955 2598761 2481816 116944 600314 600314 - 1998447 11.92 10.15
1956 4724547 4511942 212605 3316632 3316632 - 1407915 65.10 55.40
1957 5338738 5 108970 229768 3996159 3996159 - 1342579 76.81 66.26
1958 6 128871 5892260 236611 4 844567 4844567 - 1284304 92.24 80.62
1959 6398541 6211160 187381 5 102306 5 102306 - 1296235 96.21 85.79
1960 7038395 6504677 533718 5642210 5642210 - 1396185 107.17 96.06
1961 7425507 7073785 351722 6006038 6006038 - 1419469 118.39 103.57
1962 7774506 7344506 430000 6414217 6414217 - 1360289 132.08 110.19
1963 8023290 7662242 361048 6667354 6667354 - 1355936 144.81 114.64
1964 8408408 8030030 378378 7021021 7021021 - 1387387 161.30 120.23
1965 8551351 8 166540 384811 7 191686 7191686 - 1359665 169.33 122.46
1966 8337567 7962377 375191 7020232 7020232 - 1317336 168.52 118.15
1967 7846354 7493268 353086 6623990 6623990 - 1222364 161.94 109.72
1968 7645441 7301396 344045 6471055 6471055 - 1174386 158.32 105.25
1969 7460316 7 124602 335714 6330413 6330413 - 1129903 152.26 101.84
1970 7531270 7 192363 338907 6406594 6406594 - 1124676 148.99 101.44
1971 7610001 7267551 342450 6489481 6489481 - 1120520 147.89 101.07
1972 7497264 7 159887 337377 6408802 6408802 - 1088462 144.45 98.27
1973 7514765 7 176601 338164 6439040 6439040 - 1075725 145.48 97.50
1974 7449129 7 113918 335211 6397731 6397731 - 1051398 139.71 95.89
1975 7471572 7 135351 336221 6431773 6431773 - 1039798 137.65 95.68
1976 7636191 7292562 343629 6588364 6588364 - 1047827 140.09 97.22
1977 7579105 7238045 341060 6553674 6553674 - 1025430 138.70 96.22
1978 7497397 7 160014 337383 6497226 6497226 - I 000171 136.12 94.98
1979 7339566 7009286 330280 6374161 6374161 - 965406 131.63 93.21
1980 7333073 7003085 329988 6382028 6382028 - 951045 130.49 93.18
1981 7 155594 6833592 322002 6240562 6240562 - 915032 124.57 91.17
1982 7250355 6924089 326266 6336188 6336188 - 914167 120.29 92.13
1983 7085370 6766528 318842 6204515 6204515 - 880855 115.07 90.05
9184 7 115825 6795613 320212 6243572 6243572 - 872253 115.70 89.98
1985 7365852 7034389 331463 6475595 6475595 - 890258 118.64 92.77
1986 7 116000 6790141 325859 6267984 6267984 - 848016 110.62 89.47
1987 6818000 6496499 321501 6009655 6009655 - 808345 109.33 85.71
1988 7229000 6965221 263779 6469096 5271096 1198000 759904 124.16 92.42
1989 6974431 6672041 302390 6286035 4828267 1457768 688396 126.89 90.03
1990 6459000 6226821 232179 5836823 4 150448 1686375 622177 123.57 84.77
Sources:
1.Sadvokasova
E.A.Socialno-gigieniceskie
aspekty razmerov
regulirovania sem'i.
Moscow, ed. <<Medicina>>,
1969, p.117,118.
2. GARF(formerly
CGANKH f.1562,
SSSR), op.27,d.425(1957),
559(1958),934(1959), 1250
1088(1960), (1961),
1369(1962).
3. Nasselenie
SSSR.1987.Moscow, i Statistika,
Finansy 1988, 315.
p.318,
4. Nasselenie
SSSR.1988.Moscow, iStatistika,
Finansy 1989,
p.412, 399.
413,
5. Demograficeskij 1990.
e&egodnik Moscow,Finansyi Statistika,
1990,
p.361,353.
6. Narodnoe SSSRv1990
khojiajistvo gody.Statisti'ceskij
edzjegodnik,
Moscow, i statistika,
Finansy 1991,p.251.
7. Vestnik
Statistiki,
1974, 11;198312;198511.
11;1977-1982,
8. Andreev L.,KharkovaT.
E.,Darskij <<Histoire
delapopulation
del'URSS>>Annales
delademographiehistorique,
1992, p.61-150.
Paris,
9. Complete
databasefromthe
Calculations
Centre
ofthe USSR ofPublic
Ministry Health.
 THEHISTORYOF ABORTION
STATISTICSINRUSSIA 65

TABLEA.2. - ABORTIONSIN RUSSIA,1957 TO 1992

Abortions
in Russia Legal abortion
Abortions Abortlons
ln Russla ratein Russiafor Total
in USSR* (legal)
Year (Ministry ofwhich: 1,OOO 100 abortion
ofHealth) Total 'in- women livebirths rate**
'complete' complete' aged 15-49

1957 5 108970 3 407 398 2 565 037 842 361 ... 91.61 ...
1958 5 892 260 3 939 362 3 119980 819 382 ... 109.56 ...
1959 6 211 160 4 174 111 3 353 178 820 933 99.69 119.65 ...
1960 6 504 677 4 373 042 3 634 966 738 076 109.80 134.44 ...
1961 7 073 785 4 759 040 3 877 654 881 386 118.18 149.99 ...
1962 7 344 506 4 925 124 4 077 580 847 544 124.59 169.46 ...
1963 7 662 200 5 134 100 4 267 600 866 500 130.72 195.85 ...
1964 8 030 000 5 376 200 4 486 400 889 800 137.33 231.19 ...
1965 8 166 500 5 463 300 4 576 500 886 800 139.45 231.95 ...
1966 7 962 400 5 322 500 4 475 200 847 300 134.96 235.68 ...
1967 7 493 300 5 005 000 4 223 600 781 400 125.40 231.58 ...
1968 7 301 400 4 872 900 4 126 800 746 100 120.77 226.19 ...
1969 7 124 600 4 751 100 4 037 700 713 400 116.38 214.82 ...
1970 7 192400 4 792 500 4 086 700 705 800 115.36 211.65 4.17
1971 7 267 551 4 838 749 4 139949 698 800 114.87 206.82 4.17
1972 7 159 887 4 765 589 4 090 589 675 000 112.32 204.81 4.15
1973 7 176 601 4 747 037 4 087 637 659 400 111.42 200.14 4.17
1974 7 113918 4 674 050 4 037 350 636 700 109.58 193.96 4.09
1975 7 135 351 4 669 940 4 046 040 623 900 109.42 189.63 4.09
1976 7 292 562 4 757 055 4 133 755 623 300 111.50 192.83 4.15
1977 7 238 045 4 686 063 4 083 863 602 200 110.12 188.48 4.05
1978 7 160014 4 656 057 4 069 257 586 800 110.00 186.61 3.99
1979 7 009 286 4 540 440 3 979 240 561 200 108.03 181.17 3.86
1980 7 003 085 4 506 249 3 960 049 546 200 108.02 179.07 3.79
1981 6 833 592 4 400 676 3 877 576 523 100 106.13 171.31 3.69
1982 6 924 089 4462 825 3 942 525 520 300 108.11 162.19 3.72
1983 6 766 528 4 317 129 3 823 529 493 600 104.81 156.77 3.57
1984 6 795 613 4 361 959 3 872 859 489 100 105.83 161.89 3.56
1985 7 034 389 4 552 443 4 051 843 500 600 110.51 168.31 3.66
1986 6 790 141 4 362 110 3 891 677 470 433 106.17 152.95 3.46
1987 6 496 499 4 166 196 3 721 930 444 266 101.87 153.60 3.25
1988 6965 221 4483 856 4065 709 418 147 111.98 181.10 3.50
1989 6 672 041 4 242 028 3 876 220 365 808 107.40 186.25 3.31
1990 6 226 821 3 920 287 3 593 291 326 996 100.18 188.86 3.05
1991 6 014 000 3 608 412 3 164701 361 203 88.25 188.93 2.88
1992 5 442 900 3 265 718 2 910 460 329 545 80.88 183.37 2.66
Data notavailable.
* - All abortions bymedicalestablishments.
registered
**- Estimatedassuminga hypotheticalage-at-abortion based on naturalfertility
structure (see
A. Avdeev,<<Schemasd'avortement etevolution>>,inProceedings
selonl'age: typesprincipaux ofthe
FourthInternational
Conferenceof the AIDELF, Delphes 6-10 Oct. 1992,PUF, Paris, 1994,pp.
657-70).
66 THE HISTORY OF ABORTION STATISTICS IN RUSSIA

APPENDIX11
tables
Additional
We give here a list of the tables publishedin A. Avdeev,A. Blum and I.
Troitskaya,L'avortementet la contraceptionen Russie et dans l'ex-URSS : histoire
et present,Dossiers et Recherches,41, Oct. 1993, INED, Paris.
- Abortionsand contraceptions- recentannual data, by republic
Numberof deliveriesin clinic or hospital(1986-92)
Numberof abortionsterminatedin clinic or hospital(1986-92)
Numberof abortionsbegun out-of-clinic(spontaneousor induced, 1986-92)
Proportionof abortionsbegun out-of-clinicamong all recordedpregnancies
(1986-92)
Numberof abortionsby vacuum aspiration(mini-abortions, 1986-92)
Numberof 'complete' abortions(hospitals,clinics, dispensaries,1986-92)
Total numberof abortionsregistered(1986-92)
Abortionsregisteredin the Ministryof Health establishments (1971-92)
Numberof IUDs inserted(1982-90)
- Data prior to the Second World War
Abortionsin Moscow (1909-40)
Abortionsin Leningrad(1921-40)
Numberof abortionsregisteredin Russia in 1931, by region (oblast')
Numberof abortionsregisteredin Russia in 1933, by region (oblast')
Numberof abortionsregisteredin Russia in 1936, by region (oblast')
Numberof abortionsregisteredin Russia in 1937, by region (oblast')
Numberof abortionsregisteredin Russia in 1938, by region(oblast')
Numberof abortionsregisteredin Russia in 1939, by region (oblast')
Numberof abortionsregisteredin Russia in 1940, by region(oblast')

View publication stats