Abstract. Actions Abortion is basically allowed as long as it is aimed for medical reasons, but in practice there are still many abortion practices that are conducted contrary to the law. Abortion is regulated in Articles 299, 346, 347, 348, and 348 of the Criminal Code and outside the Criminal Code in article 76 of the Health Act, in the case that the Author makes more focus on prosecuting someone who assisted in the abortion, in the Criminal Code provided for in Article 56 of the Criminal Code.The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the verdict of Kendal District Court which is not in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Code in assisting in the conduct of abortion crime and analyze the extent of legal certainty and the deterrent effect that should be experienced for the participant.Writing method used by writer is normative juridical, referring to title and problem formulation, descriptive research using descriptive analysis, data used in in form of secondary data. The priemer's legal material is the material of binding Laws that covers, the Criminal Code, the 1945 Constitution, Law no.36 of 2009 on health. In the Law of secondary law materials in libraries, theses and seminars. Tertiary Law Material that is material of Law giving guidance and explanation to the material of Law of Priemer and Law of Scunder like law journal, and internet data related to research.The result of the research that the author made, the Judge of the State Court of Kendal against the defendant did not comply with what was set in article 57 of the Criminal Code, in the second judge's decision the defendant should have complied with Article 56 of Article KUHP retreat. Legal certainty here is not seen because the verdict that the defendant received did not make a deterrent effect that should not only look at the abortion actors but also see who helped conduct the abortion crime.Keywords: Abortion, Inclusion, Criminal Code, Law number 36 of 2009 on healthAbstrak. Tindakan Aborsi pada dasarnya diperbolehkan selama itu bertujuan untuk alasan medis, namun pada prakteknya masih banyak praktek aborsi yang dilakukan bertentangan dengan Hukum. Aborsi diatur di dalam Pasal 299, 346, 347, 348, dan 348 KUHP Pidana dan diluar KUHP dalam Pasal 76 Undang-Undang Kesehatan, dalam kasus yang Penulis buat lebih memfokuskan pada pemidanaan seseorang yang membantu melakukan Aborsi, dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana diatur di dalam Pasal 56 KUHP.Tujuan penulisan skripsi ini adalah untuk menganalisa putusan pengadilan Negeri Kendal yang tidak sesuai dengan dalam Pasal 57 KUHP dalam membantu melakukan tindak Pidana Aborsi dan menganalisa sejauh mana kepastian hukum dan efek jera yang harusnya di alami bagi si pelaku penyertaan.Metode penulisan yang digunakan penulis adalah yuridis normatif, mengacu pada judul dan rumusan masalah, penelitian deskriptif menggunakan deskriptif analisis, data yang digunakan dalam dalam bentuk data sekunder. Bahan hukum priemer yaitu bahan Hukum-Hukum mengikat yang mencangkup, KUHP, UUD 1945, UU no.36 tahun 2009 tentang kesehatan. Dalam bahan Hukum skunder yaiti bahan Hukum di perpustakaan, skripsi dan seminar. Bahan Hukum tersier yaitu bahan-bahan Hukum yang memberikan petunjuk maupun penjelasan terhadap bahan Hukum priemer dan Hukum Skunder seperti jurnal hukum, dan data internet yang berkaitan dengan penelitianHasil dari penelitian yang Penulis buat, Hakim Pengadilan negeri Kendal terhadap terdakwa tidak sesuai dengan apa yang di atur dalam Pasal 57 KUHP, didalam putusan Hakim kedua terdakwa harusnya sudah memenuhi undur Pasal 56 KUHP. Kepastian Hukum disini tidak terlihat karena putusan yang terdakwa terima tidak membuat efek jera yang harusnya jangan hanya melihat para pelaku Aborsi tetapi juga melihat yang membantu melakukan tindak Pidana Aborsi tersebut.Kata kunci : Aborsi, Penyertaan, KUHP, Undang-Undang nomor 36 tahun 2009 tentang kesehatan. Abstract. Actions Abortion is basically allowed as long as it is aimed for medical reasons, but in practice there are still many abortion practices that are conducted contrary to the law. Abortion is regulated in Articles 299, 346, 347, 348, and 348 of the Criminal Code and outside the Criminal Code in article 76 of the Health Act, in the case that the Author makes more focus on prosecuting someone who assisted in the abortion, in the Criminal Code provided for in Article 56 of the Criminal Code.The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the verdict of Kendal District Court which is not in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Code in assisting in the conduct of abortion crime and analyze the extent of legal certainty and the deterrent effect that should be experienced for the participant.Writing method used by writer is normative juridical, referring to title and problem formulation, descriptive research using descriptive analysis, data used in in form of secondary data. The priemer's legal material is the material of binding Laws that covers, the Criminal Code, the 1945 Constitution, Law no.36 of 2009 on health. In the Law of secondary law materials in libraries, theses and seminars. Tertiary Law Material that is material of Law giving guidance and explanation to the material of Law of Priemer and Law of Scunder like law journal, and internet data related to research.The result of the research that the author made, the Judge of the State Court of Kendal against the defendant did not comply with what was set in article 57 of the Criminal Code, in the second judge's decision the defendant should have complied with Article 56 of Article KUHP retreat. Legal certainty here is not seen because the verdict that the defendant received did not make a deterrent effect that should not only look at the abortion actors but also see who helped conduct the abortion crime.  Keywords: abortion, inclusion, Criminal Code, Law number 36 of 2009 on health