pro abortion research paper

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 26 October 2021

Why hundreds of scientists are weighing in on a high-stakes US abortion case

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

An upcoming case in the US Supreme Court might hasten the end of abortion across roughly half of the United States — a right that the country has defended for nearly 50 years. More than 800 scientists and several scientific organizations have provided evidence to the court showing that abortion access is an important component of reproductive health care.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 599 , 187-189 (2021)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02834-7

Editor’s note: Nature recognizes that transgender men and non-binary people might become pregnant and seek abortion care. We use ‘women’ in this story to reflect how participants are reported in the studies we cite, and how people are referred to in court briefs.

Foster, D. G. The Turnaway Study: Ten Years, a Thousand Women, and the Consequences of Having — or Being Denied — an Abortion (Simon & Schuster, 2021).

Google Scholar  

Raymond, E. G. & Grimes, D. A. Obstet. Gynecol. 119 , 215–219 (2012).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Biggs, M. A., Upadhyay, U. D., McCulloch, C. E., & Foster, D. G. JAMA Psychiatry 74 , 169–178 (2017).

Ralph, L. J., Schwarz, E. B., Grossman, D. & Foster, D. G. Ann. Intern. Med. 171 , 238–247 (2019).

Jones, R. K. & Jerman, J. Am. J. Public Health 107 , 1904–1909 (2017).

Kalist, D. E. J. Labor Res. 25 , 503–514 (2004).

Article   Google Scholar  

Miller, S., Wherry, L. R. & Foster, D. G. NBER working paper No. 26662 https://doi.org/10.3386/w26662 (2020).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

Will COVID force public health to confront America's epic inequality?

• Public health
• Health care

Huge amounts of bird-flu virus found in raw milk of infected cows

News 05 JUN 24

Underfunding cannabis research hampers sensible policymaking and boosts the black market

Correspondence 04 JUN 24

Negotiating a pandemic treaty is just the first step — how will countries comply?

World View 04 JUN 24

A dad’s diet affects his sperm — and his sons’ health

Do scientists make good presidents? How five national leaders performed

News 06 JUN 24

Chinese research collaborations shift to the Belt and Road

Nature Index 05 JUN 24

China’s research clout leads to growth in homegrown science publishing

Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor/Senior Lecturer/Lecturer

The School of Science and Engineering (SSE) at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen (CUHK-Shenzhen) sincerely invites applications for mul...

Shenzhen, China

The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen (CUHK Shenzhen)

Faculty Positions& Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Optical and Electronic Information, HUST

Job Opportunities: Leading talents, young talents, overseas outstanding young scholars, postdoctoral researchers.

Wuhan, Hubei, China

School of Optical and Electronic Information, Huazhong University of Science and Technology

Postdoctoral Fellowships at West China Hospital/West China School of Medicine of Sichuan University

Open to PhD students, PhD, Post-Doc and residents.

Chengdu, Sichuan, China

West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital

Welcome Global Talents to West China Hospital/West China School of Medicine of Sichuan University

Top Talents; Leading Talents; Excellent Overseas Young Talents on National level; Overseas Young Talents

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Open access
• Published: 28 June 2021

Impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes: a systematic review protocol

• Foluso Ishola   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8644-0570 1 ,
• U. Vivian Ukah 1 &
• Arijit Nandi 1  

Systematic Reviews volume  10 , Article number:  192 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

21k Accesses

2 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

A country’s abortion law is a key component in determining the enabling environment for safe abortion. While restrictive abortion laws still prevail in most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), many countries have reformed their abortion laws, with the majority of them moving away from an absolute ban. However, the implications of these reforms on women’s access to and use of health services, as well as their health outcomes, is uncertain. First, there are methodological challenges to the evaluation of abortion laws, since these changes are not exogenous. Second, extant evaluations may be limited in terms of their generalizability, given variation in reforms across the abortion legality spectrum and differences in levels of implementation and enforcement cross-nationally. This systematic review aims to address this gap. Our aim is to systematically collect, evaluate, and synthesize empirical research evidence concerning the impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes in LMICs.

We will conduct a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature on changes in abortion laws and women’s health services and outcomes in LMICs. We will search Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases, as well as grey literature and reference lists of included studies for further relevant literature. As our goal is to draw inference on the impact of abortion law reforms, we will include quasi-experimental studies examining the impact of change in abortion laws on at least one of our outcomes of interest. We will assess the methodological quality of studies using the quasi-experimental study designs series checklist. Due to anticipated heterogeneity in policy changes, outcomes, and study designs, we will synthesize results through a narrative description.

This review will systematically appraise and synthesize the research evidence on the impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes in LMICs. We will examine the effect of legislative reforms and investigate the conditions that might contribute to heterogeneous effects, including whether specific groups of women are differentially affected by abortion law reforms. We will discuss gaps and future directions for research. Findings from this review could provide evidence on emerging strategies to influence policy reforms, implement abortion services and scale up accessibility.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42019126927

Peer Review reports

An estimated 25·1 million unsafe abortions occur each year, with 97% of these in developing countries [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Despite its frequency, unsafe abortion remains a major global public health challenge [ 4 , 5 ]. According to the World health Organization (WHO), nearly 8% of maternal deaths were attributed to unsafe abortion, with the majority of these occurring in developing countries [ 5 , 6 ]. Approximately 7 million women are admitted to hospitals every year due to complications from unsafe abortion such as hemorrhage, infections, septic shock, uterine and intestinal perforation, and peritonitis [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. These often result in long-term effects such as infertility and chronic reproductive tract infections. The annual cost of treating major complications from unsafe abortion is estimated at US$ 232 million each year in developing countries [ 10 , 11 ]. The negative consequences on children’s health, well-being, and development have also been documented. Unsafe abortion increases risk of poor birth outcomes, neonatal and infant mortality [ 12 , 13 ]. Additionally, women who lack access to safe and legal abortion are often forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies, and may not seek prenatal care [ 14 ], which might increase risks of child morbidity and mortality.

Access to safe abortion services is often limited due to a wide range of barriers. Collectively, these barriers contribute to the staggering number of deaths and disabilities seen annually as a result of unsafe abortion, which are disproportionately felt in developing countries [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. A recent systematic review on the barriers to abortion access in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) implicated the following factors: restrictive abortion laws, lack of knowledge about abortion law or locations that provide abortion, high cost of services, judgmental provider attitudes, scarcity of facilities and medical equipment, poor training and shortage of staff, stigma on social and religious grounds, and lack of decision making power [ 17 ].

An important factor regulating access to abortion is abortion law [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Although abortion is a medical procedure, its legal status in many countries has been incorporated in penal codes which specify grounds in which abortion is permitted. These include prohibition in all circumstances, to save the woman’s life, to preserve the woman’s health, in cases of rape, incest, fetal impairment, for economic or social reasons, and on request with no requirement for justification [ 18 , 19 , 20 ].

Although abortion laws in different countries are usually compared based on the grounds under which legal abortions are allowed, these comparisons rarely take into account components of the legal framework that may have strongly restrictive implications, such as regulation of facilities that are authorized to provide abortions, mandatory waiting periods, reporting requirements in cases of rape, limited choice in terms of the method of abortion, and requirements for third-party authorizations [ 19 , 21 , 22 ]. For example, the Zambian Termination of Pregnancy Act permits abortion on socio-economic grounds. It is considered liberal, as it permits legal abortions for more indications than most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa; however, abortions must only be provided in registered hospitals, and three medical doctors—one of whom must be a specialist—must provide signatures to allow the procedure to take place [ 22 ]. Given the critical shortage of doctors in Zambia [ 23 ], this is in fact a major restriction that is only captured by a thorough analysis of the conditions under which abortion services are provided.

Additionally, abortion laws may exist outside the penal codes in some countries, where they are supplemented by health legislation and regulations such as public health statutes, reproductive health acts, court decisions, medical ethic codes, practice guidelines, and general health acts [ 18 , 19 , 24 ]. The diversity of regulatory documents may lead to conflicting directives about the grounds under which abortion is lawful [ 19 ]. For example, in Kenya and Uganda, standards and guidelines on the reduction of morbidity and mortality due to unsafe abortion supported by the constitution was contradictory to the penal code, leaving room for an ambiguous interpretation of the legal environment [ 25 ].

Regulations restricting the range of abortion methods from which women can choose, including medication abortion in particular, may also affect abortion access [ 26 , 27 ]. A literature review contextualizing medication abortion in seven African countries reported that incidence of medication abortion is low despite being a safe, effective, and low-cost abortion method, likely due to legal restrictions on access to the medications [ 27 ].

Over the past two decades, many LMICs have reformed their abortion laws [ 3 , 28 ]. Most have expanded the grounds on which abortion may be performed legally, while very few have restricted access. Countries like Uruguay, South Africa, and Portugal have amended their laws to allow abortion on request in the first trimester of pregnancy [ 29 , 30 ]. Conversely, in Nicaragua, a law to ban all abortion without any exception was introduced in 2006 [ 31 ].

Progressive reforms are expected to lead to improvements in women’s access to safe abortion and health outcomes, including reductions in the death and disabilities that accompany unsafe abortion, and reductions in stigma over the longer term [ 17 , 29 , 32 ]. However, abortion law reforms may yield different outcomes even in countries that experience similar reforms, as the legislative processes that are associated with changing abortion laws take place in highly distinct political, economic, religious, and social contexts [ 28 , 33 ]. This variation may contribute to abortion law reforms having different effects with respect to the health services and outcomes that they are hypothesized to influence [ 17 , 29 ].

Extant empirical literature has examined changes in abortion-related morbidity and mortality, contraceptive usage, fertility, and other health-related outcomes following reforms to abortion laws [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. For example, a study in Mexico reported that a policy that decriminalized and subsidized early-term elective abortion led to substantial reductions in maternal morbidity and that this was particularly strong among vulnerable populations such as young and socioeconomically disadvantaged women [ 38 ].

To the best of our knowledge, however, the growing literature on the impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. A study by Benson et al. evaluated evidence on the impact of abortion policy reforms on maternal death in three countries, Romania, South Africa, and Bangladesh, where reforms were immediately followed by strategies to implement abortion services, scale up accessibility, and establish complementary reproductive and maternal health services [ 39 ]. The three countries highlighted in this paper provided unique insights into implementation and practical application following law reforms, in spite of limited resources. However, the review focused only on a selection of countries that have enacted similar reforms and it is unclear if its conclusions are more widely generalizable.

Accordingly, the primary objective of this review is to summarize studies that have estimated the causal effect of a change in abortion law on women’s health services and outcomes. Additionally, we aim to examine heterogeneity in the impacts of abortion reforms, including variation across specific population sub-groups and contexts (e.g., due to variations in the intensity of enforcement and service delivery). Through this review, we aim to offer a higher-level view of the impact of abortion law reforms in LMICs, beyond what can be gained from any individual study, and to thereby highlight patterns in the evidence across studies, gaps in current research, and to identify promising programs and strategies that could be adapted and applied more broadly to increase access to safe abortion services.

The review protocol has been reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines [ 40 ] (Additional file 1 ). It was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database CRD42019126927.

Eligibility criteria

Types of studies.

This review will consider quasi-experimental studies which aim to estimate the causal effect of a change in a specific law or reform and an outcome, but in which participants (in this case jurisdictions, whether countries, states/provinces, or smaller units) are not randomly assigned to treatment conditions [ 41 ]. Eligible designs include the following:

Pretest-posttest designs where the outcome is compared before and after the reform, as well as nonequivalent groups designs, such as pretest-posttest design that includes a comparison group, also known as a controlled before and after (CBA) designs.

Interrupted time series (ITS) designs where the trend of an outcome after an abortion law reform is compared to a counterfactual (i.e., trends in the outcome in the post-intervention period had the jurisdiction not enacted the reform) based on the pre-intervention trends and/or a control group [ 42 , 43 ].

Differences-in-differences (DD) designs, which compare the before vs. after change in an outcome in jurisdictions that experienced an abortion law reform to the corresponding change in the places that did not experience such a change, under the assumption of parallel trends [ 44 , 45 ].

Synthetic controls (SC) approaches, which use a weighted combination of control units that did not experience the intervention, selected to match the treated unit in its pre-intervention outcome trend, to proxy the counterfactual scenario [ 46 , 47 ].

Regression discontinuity (RD) designs, which in the case of eligibility for abortion services being determined by the value of a continuous random variable, such as age or income, would compare the distributions of post-intervention outcomes for those just above and below the threshold [ 48 ].

There is heterogeneity in the terminology and definitions used to describe quasi-experimental designs, but we will do our best to categorize studies into the above groups based on their designs, identification strategies, and assumptions.

Our focus is on quasi-experimental research because we are interested in studies evaluating the effect of population-level interventions (i.e., abortion law reform) with a design that permits inference regarding the causal effect of abortion legislation, which is not possible from other types of observational designs such as cross-sectional studies, cohort studies or case-control studies that lack an identification strategy for addressing sources of unmeasured confounding (e.g., secular trends in outcomes). We are not excluding randomized studies such as randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized trials, or stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trials; however, we do not expect to identify any relevant randomized studies given that abortion policy is unlikely to be randomly assigned. Since our objective is to provide a summary of empirical studies reporting primary research, reviews/meta-analyses, qualitative studies, editorials, letters, book reviews, correspondence, and case reports/studies will also be excluded.

Our population of interest includes women of reproductive age (15–49 years) residing in LMICs, as the policy exposure of interest applies primarily to women who have a demand for sexual and reproductive health services including abortion.

Intervention

The intervention in this study refers to a change in abortion law or policy, either from a restrictive policy to a non-restrictive or less restrictive one, or vice versa. This can, for example, include a change from abortion prohibition in all circumstances to abortion permissible in other circumstances, such as to save the woman’s life, to preserve the woman’s health, in cases of rape, incest, fetal impairment, for economic or social reasons, or on request with no requirement for justification. It can also include the abolition of existing abortion policies or the introduction of new policies including those occurring outside the penal code, which also have legal standing, such as:

National constitutions;

Supreme court decisions, as well as higher court decisions;

Customary or religious law, such as interpretations of Muslim law;

Medical ethical codes; and

Regulatory standards and guidelines governing the provision of abortion.

We will also consider national and sub-national reforms, although we anticipate that most reforms will operate at the national level.

The comparison group represents the counterfactual scenario, specifically the level and/or trend of a particular post-intervention outcome in the treated jurisdiction that experienced an abortion law reform had it, counter to the fact, not experienced this specific intervention. Comparison groups will vary depending on the type of quasi-experimental design. These may include outcome trends after abortion reform in the same country, as in the case of an interrupted time series design without a control group, or corresponding trends in countries that did not experience a change in abortion law, as in the case of the difference-in-differences design.

Outcome measures

Primary outcomes.

Access to abortion services: There is no consensus on how to measure access but we will use the following indicators, based on the relevant literature [ 49 ]: [ 1 ] the availability of trained staff to provide care, [ 2 ] facilities are geographically accessible such as distance to providers, [ 3 ] essential equipment, supplies and medications, [ 4 ] services provided regardless of woman’s ability to pay, [ 5 ] all aspects of abortion care are explained to women, [ 6 ] whether staff offer respectful care, [ 7 ] if staff work to ensure privacy, [ 8 ] if high-quality, supportive counseling is provided, [ 9 ] if services are offered in a timely manner, and [ 10 ] if women have the opportunity to express concerns, ask questions, and receive answers.

Use of abortion services refers to induced pregnancy termination, including medication abortion and number of women treated for abortion-related complications.

Secondary outcomes

Current use of any method of contraception refers to women of reproductive age currently using any method contraceptive method.

Future use of contraception refers to women of reproductive age who are not currently using contraception but intend to do so in the future.

Demand for family planning refers to women of reproductive age who are currently using, or whose sexual partner is currently using, at least one contraceptive method.

Unmet need for family planning refers to women of reproductive age who want to stop or delay childbearing but are not using any method of contraception.

Fertility rate refers to the average number of children born to women of childbearing age.

Neonatal morbidity and mortality refer to disability or death of newborn babies within the first 28 days of life.

Maternal morbidity and mortality refer to disability or death due to complications from pregnancy or childbirth.

There will be no language, date, or year restrictions on studies included in this systematic review.

Studies have to be conducted in a low- and middle-income country. We will use the country classification specified in the World Bank Data Catalogue to identify LMICs (Additional file 2 ).

Search methods

We will perform searches for eligible peer-reviewed studies in the following electronic databases.

Ovid MEDLINE(R) (from 1946 to present)

Embase Classic+Embase on OvidSP (from 1947 to present)

CINAHL (1973 to present); and

Web of Science (1900 to present)

The reference list of included studies will be hand searched for additional potentially relevant citations. Additionally, a grey literature search for reports or working papers will be done with the help of Google and Social Science Research Network (SSRN).

Search strategy

A search strategy, based on the eligibility criteria and combining subject indexing terms (i.e., MeSH) and free-text search terms in the title and abstract fields, will be developed for each electronic database. The search strategy will combine terms related to the interventions of interest (i.e., abortion law/policy), etiology (i.e., impact/effect), and context (i.e., LMICs) and will be developed with the help of a subject matter librarian. We opted not to specify outcomes in the search strategy in order to maximize the sensitivity of our search. See Additional file 3 for a draft of our search strategy.

Data collection and analysis

Data management.

Search results from all databases will be imported into Endnote reference manager software (Version X9, Clarivate Analytics) where duplicate records will be identified and excluded using a systematic, rigorous, and reproducible method that utilizes a sequential combination of fields including author, year, title, journal, and pages. Rayyan systematic review software will be used to manage records throughout the review [ 50 ].

Selection process

Two review authors will screen titles and abstracts and apply the eligibility criteria to select studies for full-text review. Reference lists of any relevant articles identified will be screened to ensure no primary research studies are missed. Studies in a language different from English will be translated by collaborators who are fluent in the particular language. If no such expertise is identified, we will use Google Translate [ 51 ]. Full text versions of potentially relevant articles will be retrieved and assessed for inclusion based on study eligibility criteria. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or will involve a third reviewer as an arbitrator. The selection of studies, as well as reasons for exclusions of potentially eligible studies, will be described using a PRISMA flow chart.

Data extraction

Data extraction will be independently undertaken by two authors. At the conclusion of data extraction, these two authors will meet with the third author to resolve any discrepancies. A piloted standardized extraction form will be used to extract the following information: authors, date of publication, country of study, aim of study, policy reform year, type of policy reform, data source (surveys, medical records), years compared (before and after the reform), comparators (over time or between groups), participant characteristics (age, socioeconomic status), primary and secondary outcomes, evaluation design, methods used for statistical analysis (regression), estimates reported (means, rates, proportion), information to assess risk of bias (sensitivity analyses), sources of funding, and any potential conflicts of interest.

Risk of bias and quality assessment

Two independent reviewers with content and methodological expertise in methods for policy evaluation will assess the methodological quality of included studies using the quasi-experimental study designs series risk of bias checklist [ 52 ]. This checklist provides a list of criteria for grading the quality of quasi-experimental studies that relate directly to the intrinsic strength of the studies in inferring causality. These include [ 1 ] relevant comparison, [ 2 ] number of times outcome assessments were available, [ 3 ] intervention effect estimated by changes over time for the same or different groups, [ 4 ] control of confounding, [ 5 ] how groups of individuals or clusters were formed (time or location differences), and [ 6 ] assessment of outcome variables. Each of the following domains will be assigned a “yes,” “no,” or “possibly” bias classification. Any discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or a third reviewer with expertise in review methodology if required.

Confidence in cumulative evidence

The strength of the body of evidence will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system [ 53 ].

Data synthesis

We anticipate that risk of bias and heterogeneity in the studies included may preclude the use of meta-analyses to describe pooled effects. This may necessitate the presentation of our main findings through a narrative description. We will synthesize the findings from the included articles according to the following key headings:

Information on the differential aspects of the abortion policy reforms.

Information on the types of study design used to assess the impact of policy reforms.

Information on main effects of abortion law reforms on primary and secondary outcomes of interest.

Information on heterogeneity in the results that might be due to differences in study designs, individual-level characteristics, and contextual factors.

Potential meta-analysis

If outcomes are reported consistently across studies, we will construct forest plots and synthesize effect estimates using meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using the I 2 test where I 2 values over 50% indicate moderate to high heterogeneity [ 54 ]. If studies are sufficiently homogenous, we will use fixed effects. However, if there is evidence of heterogeneity, a random effects model will be adopted. Summary measures, including risk ratios or differences or prevalence ratios or differences will be calculated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Analysis of subgroups

If there are sufficient numbers of included studies, we will perform sub-group analyses according to type of policy reform, geographical location and type of participant characteristics such as age groups, socioeconomic status, urban/rural status, education, or marital status to examine the evidence for heterogeneous effects of abortion laws.

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analyses will be conducted if there are major differences in quality of the included articles to explore the influence of risk of bias on effect estimates.

Meta-biases

If available, studies will be compared to protocols and registers to identify potential reporting bias within studies. If appropriate and there are a sufficient number of studies included, funnel plots will be generated to determine potential publication bias.

This systematic review will synthesize current evidence on the impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health. It aims to identify which legislative reforms are effective, for which population sub-groups, and under which conditions.

Potential limitations may include the low quality of included studies as a result of suboptimal study design, invalid assumptions, lack of sensitivity analysis, imprecision of estimates, variability in results, missing data, and poor outcome measurements. Our review may also include a limited number of articles because we opted to focus on evidence from quasi-experimental study design due to the causal nature of the research question under review. Nonetheless, we will synthesize the literature, provide a critical evaluation of the quality of the evidence and discuss the potential effects of any limitations to our overall conclusions. Protocol amendments will be recorded and dated using the registration for this review on PROSPERO. We will also describe any amendments in our final manuscript.

Synthesizing available evidence on the impact of abortion law reforms represents an important step towards building our knowledge base regarding how abortion law reforms affect women’s health services and health outcomes; we will provide evidence on emerging strategies to influence policy reforms, implement abortion services, and scale up accessibility. This review will be of interest to service providers, policy makers and researchers seeking to improve women’s access to safe abortion around the world.

Abbreviations

Cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature

Excerpta medica database

Low- and middle-income countries

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols

International prospective register of systematic reviews

Ganatra B, Gerdts C, Rossier C, Johnson BR, Tuncalp O, Assifi A, et al. Global, regional, and subregional classification of abortions by safety, 2010-14: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lancet. 2017;390(10110):2372–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31794-4 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Guttmacher Institute. Induced Abortion Worldwide; Global Incidence and Trends 2018. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide . Accessed 15 Dec 2019.

Singh S, Remez L, Sedgh G, Kwok L, Onda T. Abortion worldwide 2017: uneven progress and unequal access. NewYork: Guttmacher Institute; 2018.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fusco CLB. Unsafe abortion: a serious public health issue in a poverty stricken population. Reprod Clim. 2013;2(8):2–9.

Google Scholar  

Rehnstrom Loi U, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Faxelid E, Klingberg-Allvin M. Health care providers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards induced abortions in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia: a systematic literature review of qualitative and quantitative data. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1502-2 .

Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tuncalp O, Moller AB, Daniels J, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(6):E323–E33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Benson J, Nicholson LA, Gaffikin L, Kinoti SN. Complications of unsafe abortion in sub-Saharan Africa: a review. Health Policy Plan. 1996;11(2):117–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/11.2.117 .

Abiodun OM, Balogun OR, Adeleke NA, Farinloye EO. Complications of unsafe abortion in South West Nigeria: a review of 96 cases. Afr J Med Med Sci. 2013;42(1):111–5.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Singh S, Maddow-Zimet I. Facility-based treatment for medical complications resulting from unsafe pregnancy termination in the developing world, 2012: a review of evidence from 26 countries. BJOG. 2016;123(9):1489–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13552 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vlassoff M, Walker D, Shearer J, Newlands D, Singh S. Estimates of health care system costs of unsafe abortion in Africa and Latin America. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2009;35(3):114–21. https://doi.org/10.1363/3511409 .

Singh S, Darroch JE. Adding it up: costs and benefits of contraceptive services. Estimates for 2012. New York: Guttmacher Institute and United Nations Population Fund; 2012.

Auger N, Bilodeau-Bertrand M, Sauve R. Abortion and infant mortality on the first day of life. Neonatology. 2016;109(2):147–53. https://doi.org/10.1159/000442279 .

Krieger N, Gruskin S, Singh N, Kiang MV, Chen JT, Waterman PD, et al. Reproductive justice & preventable deaths: state funding, family planning, abortion, and infant mortality, US 1980-2010. SSM Popul Health. 2016;2:277–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.03.007 .

Banaem LM, Majlessi F. A comparative study of low 5-minute Apgar scores (< 8) in newborns of wanted versus unwanted pregnancies in southern Tehran, Iran (2006-2007). J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008;21(12):898–901. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767050802372390 .

Bhandari A. Barriers in access to safe abortion services: perspectives of potential clients from a hilly district of Nepal. Trop Med Int Health. 2007;12:87.

Seid A, Yeneneh H, Sende B, Belete S, Eshete H, Fantahun M, et al. Barriers to access safe abortion services in East Shoa and Arsi Zones of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. J Health Dev. 2015;29(1):13–21.

Arroyave FAB, Moreno PA. A systematic bibliographical review: barriers and facilitators for access to legal abortion in low and middle income countries. Open J Prev Med. 2018;8(5):147–68. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpm.2018.85015 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Boland R, Katzive L. Developments in laws on induced abortion: 1998-2007. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2008;34(3):110–20. https://doi.org/10.1363/3411008 .

Lavelanet AF, Schlitt S, Johnson BR Jr, Ganatra B. Global Abortion Policies Database: a descriptive analysis of the legal categories of lawful abortion. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2018;18(1):44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-018-0183-1 .

United Nations Population Division. Abortion policies: A global review. Major dimensions of abortion policies. 2002 [Available from: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/abortion/abortion-policies-2002.asp .

Johnson BR, Lavelanet AF, Schlitt S. Global abortion policies database: a new approach to strengthening knowledge on laws, policies, and human rights standards. Bmc Int Health Hum Rights. 2018;18(1):35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-018-0174-2 .

Haaland MES, Haukanes H, Zulu JM, Moland KM, Michelo C, Munakampe MN, et al. Shaping the abortion policy - competing discourses on the Zambian termination of pregnancy act. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-018-0908-8 .

Schatz JJ. Zambia’s health-worker crisis. Lancet. 2008;371(9613):638–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60287-1 .

Erdman JN, Johnson BR. Access to knowledge and the Global Abortion Policies Database. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;142(1):120–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12509 .

Cleeve A, Oguttu M, Ganatra B, Atuhairwe S, Larsson EC, Makenzius M, et al. Time to act-comprehensive abortion care in east Africa. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(9):E601–E2. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30136-X .

Berer M, Hoggart L. Medical abortion pills have the potential to change everything about abortion. Contraception. 2018;97(2):79–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.12.006 .

Moseson H, Shaw J, Chandrasekaran S, Kimani E, Maina J, Malisau P, et al. Contextualizing medication abortion in seven African nations: A literature review. Health Care Women Int. 2019;40(7-9):950–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2019.1608207 .

Blystad A, Moland KM. Comparative cases of abortion laws and access to safe abortion services in sub-Saharan Africa. Trop Med Int Health. 2017;22:351.

Berer M. Abortion law and policy around the world: in search of decriminalization. Health Hum Rights. 2017;19(1):13–27.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Johnson BR, Mishra V, Lavelanet AF, Khosla R, Ganatra B. A global database of abortion laws, policies, health standards and guidelines. B World Health Organ. 2017;95(7):542–4. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.197442 .

Replogle J. Nicaragua tightens up abortion laws. Lancet. 2007;369(9555):15–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60011-7 .

Keogh LA, Newton D, Bayly C, McNamee K, Hardiman A, Webster A, et al. Intended and unintended consequences of abortion law reform: perspectives of abortion experts in Victoria, Australia. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2017;43(1):18–24. https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2016-101541 .

Levels M, Sluiter R, Need A. A review of abortion laws in Western-European countries. A cross-national comparison of legal developments between 1960 and 2010. Health Policy. 2014;118(1):95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.06.008 .

Serbanescu F, Morris L, Stupp P, Stanescu A. The impact of recent policy changes on fertility, abortion, and contraceptive use in Romania. Stud Fam Plann. 1995;26(2):76–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137933 .

Henderson JT, Puri M, Blum M, Harper CC, Rana A, Gurung G, et al. Effects of Abortion Legalization in Nepal, 2001-2010. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(5):e64775. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064775 .

Goncalves-Pinho M, Santos JV, Costa A, Costa-Pereira A, Freitas A. The impact of a liberalisation law on legally induced abortion hospitalisations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;203:142–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.05.037 .

Latt SM, Milner A, Kavanagh A. Abortion laws reform may reduce maternal mortality: an ecological study in 162 countries. BMC Women’s Health. 2019;19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-018-0705-y .

Clarke D, Muhlrad H. Abortion laws and women’s health. IZA discussion papers 11890. Bonn: IZA Institute of Labor Economics; 2018.

Benson J, Andersen K, Samandari G. Reductions in abortion-related mortality following policy reform: evidence from Romania, South Africa and Bangladesh. Reprod Health. 2011;8(39). https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4755-8-39 .

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Bmj-Brit Med J. 2015;349.

William R. Shadish, Thomas D. Cook, Donald T. Campbell. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, New York; 2002.

Bernal JL, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(1):348–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw098 .

Bernal JL, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. The use of controls in interrupted time series studies of public health interventions. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47(6):2082–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy135 .

Meyer BD. Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. J Bus Econ Stat. 1995;13(2):151–61.

Strumpf EC, Harper S, Kaufman JS. Fixed effects and difference in differences. In: Methods in Social Epidemiology ed. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass; 2017.

Abadie A, Diamond A, Hainmueller J. Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: estimating the effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program. J Am Stat Assoc. 2010;105(490):493–505. https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Abadie A, Diamond A, Hainmueller J. Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. Am J Polit Sci. 2015;59(2):495–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12116 .

Moscoe E, Bor J, Barnighausen T. Regression discontinuity designs are underutilized in medicine, epidemiology, and public health: a review of current and best practice. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2015;68(2):132–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.021 .

Dennis A, Blanchard K, Bessenaar T. Identifying indicators for quality abortion care: a systematic literature review. J Fam Plan Reprod H. 2017;43(1):7–15. https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2015-101427 .

Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 .

Jackson JL, Kuriyama A, Anton A, Choi A, Fournier JP, Geier AK, et al. The accuracy of Google Translate for abstracting data from non-English-language trials for systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2019.

Reeves BC, Wells GA, Waddington H. Quasi-experimental study designs series-paper 5: a checklist for classifying studies evaluating the effects on health interventions-a taxonomy without labels. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.016 .

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD .

Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Genevieve Gore, Liaison Librarian at McGill University, for her assistance with refining the research question, keywords, and Mesh terms for the preliminary search strategy.

The authors acknowledge funding from the Fonds de recherche du Quebec – Santé (FRQS) PhD doctoral awards and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Operating Grant, “Examining the impact of social policies on health equity” (ROH-115209).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Purvis Hall 1020 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1A2, Canada

Foluso Ishola, U. Vivian Ukah & Arijit Nandi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

FI and AN conceived and designed the protocol. FI drafted the manuscript. FI, UVU, and AN revised the manuscript and approved its final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Foluso Ishola .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:.

PRISMA-P 2015 Checklist. This checklist has been adapted for use with systematic review protocol submissions to BioMed Central journals from Table 3 in Moher D et al: Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews 2015 4:1

Additional File 2:.

LMICs according to World Bank Data Catalogue. Country classification specified in the World Bank Data Catalogue to identify low- and middle-income countries

Additional File 3: Table 1

. Search strategy in Embase. Detailed search terms and filters applied to generate our search in Embase

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ishola, F., Ukah, U.V. & Nandi, A. Impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev 10 , 192 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01739-w

Download citation

Received : 02 January 2020

Accepted : 08 June 2021

Published : 28 June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01739-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Abortion law/policies; Impact
• Unsafe abortion
• Contraception

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Articles on pro-abortion rights

Displaying all articles.

Anti-abortion rights activists navigate a new, post-Roe landscape, as state bans mean they can ‘save babies’

Anne Whitesell , Miami University

Can states prevent doctors from giving emergency abortions, even if federal law requires them to do so? The Supreme Court will decide

Naomi Cahn , University of Virginia and Sonia Suter , George Washington University

Supreme Court’s selective reading of US history ignored 19th-century women’s support for ‘voluntary motherhood’

Lauren Thompson , Kennesaw State University

Related Topics

• Abortion bans
• Abortion policy
• Abortion rights
• anti-abortion rights
• Trigger laws
• US abortion law
• US Supreme Court

Top contributors

Assistant Professor of History and Interdisciplinary Studies, Kennesaw State University

Professor of Law, University of Virginia

Professor of Law, George Washington University

Assistant Professor, Political Science, Miami University

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What the data says about abortion in the U.S.

Pew Research Center has conducted many surveys about abortion over the years, providing a lens into Americans’ views on whether the procedure should be legal, among a host of other questions.

In a  Center survey  conducted nearly a year after the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision that  ended the constitutional right to abortion , 62% of U.S. adults said the practice should be legal in all or most cases, while 36% said it should be illegal in all or most cases. Another survey conducted a few months before the decision showed that relatively few Americans take an absolutist view on the issue .

Find answers to common questions about abortion in America, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, which have tracked these patterns for several decades:

How many abortions are there in the U.S. each year?

How has the number of abortions in the u.s. changed over time, what is the abortion rate among women in the u.s. how has it changed over time, what are the most common types of abortion, how many abortion providers are there in the u.s., and how has that number changed, what percentage of abortions are for women who live in a different state from the abortion provider, what are the demographics of women who have had abortions, when during pregnancy do most abortions occur, how often are there medical complications from abortion.

This compilation of data on abortion in the United States draws mainly from two sources: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, both of which have regularly compiled national abortion data for approximately half a century, and which collect their data in different ways.

The CDC data that is highlighted in this post comes from the agency’s “abortion surveillance” reports, which have been published annually since 1974 (and which have included data from 1969). Its figures from 1973 through 1996 include data from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and New York City – 52 “reporting areas” in all. Since 1997, the CDC’s totals have lacked data from some states (most notably California) for the years that those states did not report data to the agency. The four reporting areas that did not submit data to the CDC in 2021 – California, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey – accounted for approximately 25% of all legal induced abortions in the U.S. in 2020, according to Guttmacher’s data. Most states, though,  do  have data in the reports, and the figures for the vast majority of them came from each state’s central health agency, while for some states, the figures came from hospitals and other medical facilities.

Discussion of CDC abortion data involving women’s state of residence, marital status, race, ethnicity, age, abortion history and the number of previous live births excludes the low share of abortions where that information was not supplied. Read the methodology for the CDC’s latest abortion surveillance report , which includes data from 2021, for more details. Previous reports can be found at  stacks.cdc.gov  by entering “abortion surveillance” into the search box.

For the numbers of deaths caused by induced abortions in 1963 and 1965, this analysis looks at reports by the then-U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, a precursor to the Department of Health and Human Services. In computing those figures, we excluded abortions listed in the report under the categories “spontaneous or unspecified” or as “other.” (“Spontaneous abortion” is another way of referring to miscarriages.)

Guttmacher data in this post comes from national surveys of abortion providers that Guttmacher has conducted 19 times since 1973. Guttmacher compiles its figures after contacting every known provider of abortions – clinics, hospitals and physicians’ offices – in the country. It uses questionnaires and health department data, and it provides estimates for abortion providers that don’t respond to its inquiries. (In 2020, the last year for which it has released data on the number of abortions in the U.S., it used estimates for 12% of abortions.) For most of the 2000s, Guttmacher has conducted these national surveys every three years, each time getting abortion data for the prior two years. For each interim year, Guttmacher has calculated estimates based on trends from its own figures and from other data.

The latest full summary of Guttmacher data came in the institute’s report titled “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2020.” It includes figures for 2020 and 2019 and estimates for 2018. The report includes a methods section.

In addition, this post uses data from StatPearls, an online health care resource, on complications from abortion.

An exact answer is hard to come by. The CDC and the Guttmacher Institute have each tried to measure this for around half a century, but they use different methods and publish different figures.

The last year for which the CDC reported a yearly national total for abortions is 2021. It found there were 625,978 abortions in the District of Columbia and the 46 states with available data that year, up from 597,355 in those states and D.C. in 2020. The corresponding figure for 2019 was 607,720.

The last year for which Guttmacher reported a yearly national total was 2020. It said there were 930,160 abortions that year in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, compared with 916,460 in 2019.

• How the CDC gets its data: It compiles figures that are voluntarily reported by states’ central health agencies, including separate figures for New York City and the District of Columbia. Its latest totals do not include figures from California, Maryland, New Hampshire or New Jersey, which did not report data to the CDC. ( Read the methodology from the latest CDC report .)
• How Guttmacher gets its data: It compiles its figures after contacting every known abortion provider – clinics, hospitals and physicians’ offices – in the country. It uses questionnaires and health department data, then provides estimates for abortion providers that don’t respond. Guttmacher’s figures are higher than the CDC’s in part because they include data (and in some instances, estimates) from all 50 states. ( Read the institute’s latest full report and methodology .)

While the Guttmacher Institute supports abortion rights, its empirical data on abortions in the U.S. has been widely cited by  groups  and  publications  across the political spectrum, including by a  number of those  that  disagree with its positions .

These estimates from Guttmacher and the CDC are results of multiyear efforts to collect data on abortion across the U.S. Last year, Guttmacher also began publishing less precise estimates every few months , based on a much smaller sample of providers.

The figures reported by these organizations include only legal induced abortions conducted by clinics, hospitals or physicians’ offices, or those that make use of abortion pills dispensed from certified facilities such as clinics or physicians’ offices. They do not account for the use of abortion pills that were obtained  outside of clinical settings .

(Back to top)

The annual number of U.S. abortions rose for years after Roe v. Wade legalized the procedure in 1973, reaching its highest levels around the late 1980s and early 1990s, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. Since then, abortions have generally decreased at what a CDC analysis called  “a slow yet steady pace.”

Guttmacher says the number of abortions occurring in the U.S. in 2020 was 40% lower than it was in 1991. According to the CDC, the number was 36% lower in 2021 than in 1991, looking just at the District of Columbia and the 46 states that reported both of those years.

(The corresponding line graph shows the long-term trend in the number of legal abortions reported by both organizations. To allow for consistent comparisons over time, the CDC figures in the chart have been adjusted to ensure that the same states are counted from one year to the next. Using that approach, the CDC figure for 2021 is 622,108 legal abortions.)

There have been occasional breaks in this long-term pattern of decline – during the middle of the first decade of the 2000s, and then again in the late 2010s. The CDC reported modest 1% and 2% increases in abortions in 2018 and 2019, and then, after a 2% decrease in 2020, a 5% increase in 2021. Guttmacher reported an 8% increase over the three-year period from 2017 to 2020.

As noted above, these figures do not include abortions that use pills obtained outside of clinical settings.

Guttmacher says that in 2020 there were 14.4 abortions in the U.S. per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. Its data shows that the rate of abortions among women has generally been declining in the U.S. since 1981, when it reported there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women in that age range.

The CDC says that in 2021, there were 11.6 abortions in the U.S. per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. (That figure excludes data from California, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey.) Like Guttmacher’s data, the CDC’s figures also suggest a general decline in the abortion rate over time. In 1980, when the CDC reported on all 50 states and D.C., it said there were 25 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44.

That said, both Guttmacher and the CDC say there were slight increases in the rate of abortions during the late 2010s and early 2020s. Guttmacher says the abortion rate per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 rose from 13.5 in 2017 to 14.4 in 2020. The CDC says it rose from 11.2 per 1,000 in 2017 to 11.4 in 2019, before falling back to 11.1 in 2020 and then rising again to 11.6 in 2021. (The CDC’s figures for those years exclude data from California, D.C., Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey.)

The CDC broadly divides abortions into two categories: surgical abortions and medication abortions, which involve pills. Since the Food and Drug Administration first approved abortion pills in 2000, their use has increased over time as a share of abortions nationally, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher.

The majority of abortions in the U.S. now involve pills, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. The CDC says 56% of U.S. abortions in 2021 involved pills, up from 53% in 2020 and 44% in 2019. Its figures for 2021 include the District of Columbia and 44 states that provided this data; its figures for 2020 include D.C. and 44 states (though not all of the same states as in 2021), and its figures for 2019 include D.C. and 45 states.

Guttmacher, which measures this every three years, says 53% of U.S. abortions involved pills in 2020, up from 39% in 2017.

Two pills commonly used together for medication abortions are mifepristone, which, taken first, blocks hormones that support a pregnancy, and misoprostol, which then causes the uterus to empty. According to the FDA, medication abortions are safe  until 10 weeks into pregnancy.

Surgical abortions conducted  during the first trimester  of pregnancy typically use a suction process, while the relatively few surgical abortions that occur  during the second trimester  of a pregnancy typically use a process called dilation and evacuation, according to the UCLA School of Medicine.

In 2020, there were 1,603 facilities in the U.S. that provided abortions,  according to Guttmacher . This included 807 clinics, 530 hospitals and 266 physicians’ offices.

While clinics make up half of the facilities that provide abortions, they are the sites where the vast majority (96%) of abortions are administered, either through procedures or the distribution of pills, according to Guttmacher’s 2020 data. (This includes 54% of abortions that are administered at specialized abortion clinics and 43% at nonspecialized clinics.) Hospitals made up 33% of the facilities that provided abortions in 2020 but accounted for only 3% of abortions that year, while just 1% of abortions were conducted by physicians’ offices.

Looking just at clinics – that is, the total number of specialized abortion clinics and nonspecialized clinics in the U.S. – Guttmacher found the total virtually unchanged between 2017 (808 clinics) and 2020 (807 clinics). However, there were regional differences. In the Midwest, the number of clinics that provide abortions increased by 11% during those years, and in the West by 6%. The number of clinics  decreased  during those years by 9% in the Northeast and 3% in the South.

The total number of abortion providers has declined dramatically since the 1980s. In 1982, according to Guttmacher, there were 2,908 facilities providing abortions in the U.S., including 789 clinics, 1,405 hospitals and 714 physicians’ offices.

The CDC does not track the number of abortion providers.

In the District of Columbia and the 46 states that provided abortion and residency information to the CDC in 2021, 10.9% of all abortions were performed on women known to live outside the state where the abortion occurred – slightly higher than the percentage in 2020 (9.7%). That year, D.C. and 46 states (though not the same ones as in 2021) reported abortion and residency data. (The total number of abortions used in these calculations included figures for women with both known and unknown residential status.)

The share of reported abortions performed on women outside their state of residence was much higher before the 1973 Roe decision that stopped states from banning abortion. In 1972, 41% of all abortions in D.C. and the 20 states that provided this information to the CDC that year were performed on women outside their state of residence. In 1973, the corresponding figure was 21% in the District of Columbia and the 41 states that provided this information, and in 1974 it was 11% in D.C. and the 43 states that provided data.

In the District of Columbia and the 46 states that reported age data to  the CDC in 2021, the majority of women who had abortions (57%) were in their 20s, while about three-in-ten (31%) were in their 30s. Teens ages 13 to 19 accounted for 8% of those who had abortions, while women ages 40 to 44 accounted for about 4%.

The vast majority of women who had abortions in 2021 were unmarried (87%), while married women accounted for 13%, according to  the CDC , which had data on this from 37 states.

In the District of Columbia, New York City (but not the rest of New York) and the 31 states that reported racial and ethnic data on abortion to  the CDC , 42% of all women who had abortions in 2021 were non-Hispanic Black, while 30% were non-Hispanic White, 22% were Hispanic and 6% were of other races.

Looking at abortion rates among those ages 15 to 44, there were 28.6 abortions per 1,000 non-Hispanic Black women in 2021; 12.3 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women; 6.4 abortions per 1,000 non-Hispanic White women; and 9.2 abortions per 1,000 women of other races, the  CDC reported  from those same 31 states, D.C. and New York City.

For 57% of U.S. women who had induced abortions in 2021, it was the first time they had ever had one,  according to the CDC.  For nearly a quarter (24%), it was their second abortion. For 11% of women who had an abortion that year, it was their third, and for 8% it was their fourth or more. These CDC figures include data from 41 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

Nearly four-in-ten women who had abortions in 2021 (39%) had no previous live births at the time they had an abortion,  according to the CDC . Almost a quarter (24%) of women who had abortions in 2021 had one previous live birth, 20% had two previous live births, 10% had three, and 7% had four or more previous live births. These CDC figures include data from 41 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

The vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. In 2021, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation,  according to the CDC . An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and about 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. These CDC figures include data from 40 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

About 2% of all abortions in the U.S. involve some type of complication for the woman , according to an article in StatPearls, an online health care resource. “Most complications are considered minor such as pain, bleeding, infection and post-anesthesia complications,” according to the article.

The CDC calculates  case-fatality rates for women from induced abortions – that is, how many women die from abortion-related complications, for every 100,000 legal abortions that occur in the U.S .  The rate was lowest during the most recent period examined by the agency (2013 to 2020), when there were 0.45 deaths to women per 100,000 legal induced abortions. The case-fatality rate reported by the CDC was highest during the first period examined by the agency (1973 to 1977), when it was 2.09 deaths to women per 100,000 legal induced abortions. During the five-year periods in between, the figure ranged from 0.52 (from 1993 to 1997) to 0.78 (from 1978 to 1982).

The CDC calculates death rates by five-year and seven-year periods because of year-to-year fluctuation in the numbers and due to the relatively low number of women who die from legal induced abortions.

In 2020, the last year for which the CDC has information , six women in the U.S. died due to complications from induced abortions. Four women died in this way in 2019, two in 2018, and three in 2017. (These deaths all followed legal abortions.) Since 1990, the annual number of deaths among women due to legal induced abortion has ranged from two to 12.

The annual number of reported deaths from induced abortions (legal and illegal) tended to be higher in the 1980s, when it ranged from nine to 16, and from 1972 to 1979, when it ranged from 13 to 63. One driver of the decline was the drop in deaths from illegal abortions. There were 39 deaths from illegal abortions in 1972, the last full year before Roe v. Wade. The total fell to 19 in 1973 and to single digits or zero every year after that. (The number of deaths from legal abortions has also declined since then, though with some slight variation over time.)

The number of deaths from induced abortions was considerably higher in the 1960s than afterward. For instance, there were 119 deaths from induced abortions in  1963  and 99 in  1965 , according to reports by the then-U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, a precursor to the Department of Health and Human Services. The CDC is a division of Health and Human Services.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published May 27, 2022, and first updated June 24, 2022.

Jeff Diamant is a senior writer/editor focusing on religion at Pew Research Center .

Besheer Mohamed is a senior researcher focusing on religion at Pew Research Center .

Rebecca Leppert is a copy editor at Pew Research Center .

Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in europe, public opinion on abortion, americans overwhelmingly say access to ivf is a good thing, broad public support for legal abortion persists 2 years after dobbs, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

May 5, 2022

Abortion Rights Are Good Health Care and Good Science

Restricting access to abortion goes against science, safety, and human dignity and portends a dangerous future

By The Editors

Abortion rights demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Wednesday, May 4, 2022.

Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to make a huge mistake.

If the leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a true indication of the Court’s will, federal abortion rights in this country are about to be struck down. In doing so the Court will not only side against popular opinion on a crucial issue of bodily autonomy, but also signal that politics and religion play a more important role in health care than do science and evidence.

For almost 50 years people in the U.S. who have needed to end a pregnancy have had a legal right to do so. Accessibility and affordability have always been barriers, and anti-abortion lawmakers have chipped away at this right, set forth in Roe v. Wade , but the ability to get a safe and legal abortion before fetal viability was settled law.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The new decision would strike down Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey , an opinion that overturned a Pennsylvania law that required a pregnant married woman to notify her husband in order to obtain abortion services. Many states, mainly governed by conservative lawmakers, have already passed or are planning to introduce laws that either ban abortion outright or put such severe restrictions on this medical procedure that it will be practically impossible to legally end a pregnancy. Some states will make criminals of doctors and other health care providers who perform abortions. Some laws set to go into effect after a Supreme Court ruling would deny people the right to end pregnancies that happen after rape or incest, or that pose grave medical dangers. These laws are contrary to all relevant science, and any health-related claims used to support them are demonstrably wrong.

In passing these laws, anti-abortion legislators often claim that abortion harms people who are pregnant. In a landmark study from the University of California, San Francisco, scientists found the opposite: d enying people abortions led to worse mental and physical health , as well as financial stability. The Turnaway Study looked at about 1,000 women who were seeking abortions, and followed them for five years. Some were just early enough in their pregnancies that they got the procedure, and others were turned away because their pregnancies were slightly past the legal cutoff where they lived. Women who had abortions reported fewer mental health issues, even years later, and their most common reaction was relief . Women denied abortions often experienced brief declines in mental health and higher anxiety.

Women denied abortions were more likely to end up poor, unemployed or receiving government assistance, even though before they asked for an abortion they were in a similar financial place as women who were able to get one. This study, and others, tell us what will happen in a post- Roe world , when people are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term because they are denied a most basic form of health care and the ability to make decisions about their own bodies. Access to abortion largely appears to have very positive effects on people’s lives.

The fight against abortion rights is often depicted as a religious mission, but not all religions or religious believers oppose abortion. We note that these political moves are part of a long-standing effort by some conservative Christians, as well as anti-abortion politicians and activists.

By forcing people to have children when they don’t want to, these ideologues strip women of political and earning power, in some cases making them dependent upon men. By forcing people to have children when they are not financially secure, these laws prolong patterns of poverty. And the states with the most restrictive abortion policies often have the worst social safety nets, the worst maternal mortality rates and the greatest health care inequities.

This ideology denies the dangers of pregnancy, despite the fact that in some U.S. states maternal mortality approaches that of some developing nations. Some of the abortion restrictions states have passed are pegged to an early stage of pregnancy. But the biological and genetic problems that lead to complications with pregnancy are too numerous to list, and too variable from person to person to assign a deadline to. Gestational age cutoffs, “heartbeat” laws and total bans go against the basic workings of human biology.

Regardless of how they legally justify their ruling, the justices of the Supreme Court who choose to strike down abortion rights are telling the American public that science doesn’t matter, that evidence can be ignored. High courts have similarly said as much in striking down mask and vaccine mandates during the COVID pandemic. The logic of Alito’s draft—the right to an abortion is not in the Constitution—could apply to all reproductive health, including the Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision that overturned a law banning birth control. The highest court in the land must value evidence and respect best medical practices, and yet the conservative majority clearly doesn’t.

President Joe Biden and other pro-choice elected officials have said they will work to protect abortion rights. There are legislative means to ensure some degree of abortion access. But with our current federal legislature and the filibuster in place, getting the needed votes to pass measures protecting abortion will be difficult, if not impossible. We hope lawmakers will see abortion rights as an issue that makes it necessary to break through legislative roadblocks.

As our Supreme Court is poised to radically constrain the lives of so many people in the U.S, we applaud those states that are strengthening their abortion protections. We applaud those people who are continuing to fight the legal and practical battles for our right to health care and our right to privacy. And we applaud the health care workers—the doctors, the nurses, the medical assistants—and the volunteers, donors and programs that help people who are pregnant care for themselves and their health. Safe and accessible reproductive health care is a basic right that is supported by science, medicine, and respect for human dignity. Everyone should have access to it.

Science Is Giving the Pro-life Movement a Boost

Advocates are tracking new developments in neonatal research and technology—and transforming one of America’s most contentious debates.

Updated at 2:15 p.m. ET on August 25, 2021

The first time Ashley McGuire had a baby, she and her husband had to wait 20 weeks to learn its sex. By her third, they found out at 10 weeks with a blood test. Technology has defined her pregnancies, she told me, from the apps that track weekly development to the ultrasounds that show the growing child. “My generation has grown up under an entirely different world of science and technology than the Roe generation,” she said. “We’re in a culture that is science-obsessed.”

Activists like McGuire believe it makes perfect sense to be pro-science and pro-life. While she opposes abortion on moral grounds, she believes studies of fetal development, improved medical techniques, and other advances anchor the movement’s arguments in scientific fact. “The pro-life message has been, for the last 40-something years, that the fetus … is a life, and it is a human life worthy of all the rights the rest of us have,” she said. “That’s been more of an abstract concept until the last decade or so.” But, she added, “when you’re seeing a baby sucking its thumb at 18 weeks, smiling, clapping,” it becomes “harder to square the idea that that 20-week-old, that unborn baby or fetus, is discardable.”

Recommended Reading

The Progressive Roots of the Pro-Life Movement

These Pro-Lifers Are Headed to the Women’s March on Washington

Will the Pro-Life Movement Split With Trump on Issues Other Than Abortion?

Scientific progress is remaking the debate around abortion. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade , the case that led the way to legal abortion, it pegged most fetuses’ chance of viable life outside the womb at 28 weeks; after that point, it ruled, states could reasonably restrict women’s access to the procedure. Now, with new medical techniques, doctors are debating whether that threshold should be closer to 22 weeks. Like McGuire, today’s prospective moms and dads can learn more about their baby earlier into a pregnancy than their parents or grandparents. And like McGuire, when they see their fetus on an ultrasound, they may see humanizing qualities like smiles or claps, even if most scientists see random muscle movements.

These advances fundamentally shift the moral intuition around abortion. New technology makes it easier to apprehend the humanity of a growing child and imagine a fetus as a creature with moral status. Over the last several decades, pro-life leaders have increasingly recognized this and rallied the power of scientific evidence to promote their cause. They have built new institutions to produce, track, and distribute scientifically crafted information on abortion. They hungrily follow new research in embryology. They celebrate progress in neonatology as a means to save young lives. New science is “instilling a sense of awe that we never really had before at any point in human history,” McGuire said. “We didn’t know any of this.”

In many ways, this represents a dramatic reversal; pro-choice activists have long claimed science for their own side. The Guttmacher Institute, a research and advocacy organization that defends abortion and reproductive rights, has exercised a near-monopoly over the data of abortion, serving as a source for supporters and opponents alike. And the pro-choice movement’s rhetoric has matched its resources: Its proponents often describe themselves as the sole defenders of women’s welfare and scientific consensus. The idea that life begins at conception “goes against legal precedent, science, and public opinion,” said Ilyse Hogue, the president of the abortion-advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a recent op-ed for CNBC. Members of the pro-life movement are “not really anti-abortion,” she wrote in another piece . “They are against [a] world where women can contribute equally and chart our own destiny in ways our grandmothers never thought possible.”

In their own way, both movements have made the same play: Pro-life and pro-choice activists have come to see scientific evidence as the ultimate tool in the battle over abortion rights. But in recent years, pro-life activists have been more successful in using that tool to shift the terms of the policy debate. Advocates have introduced research on the question of fetal pain and whether abortion harms women’s health to great effect in courtrooms and legislative chambers, even when they cite studies selectively and their findings are fiercely contested by other members of the academy.

Not everyone in the pro-life movement agrees with this strategic shift. Some believe new scientific findings might work against them. Others warn that overreliance on scientific evidence could erode the strong moral logic at the center of their cause. The biggest threat of all, however, is not the potential damage to a particular movement. When scientific research becomes subordinate to political ends, facts are weaponized. Neither side trusts the information produced by their ideological enemies; reality becomes relative.

Abortion has always stood apart from other topics of political debate in American culture. It has remained morally contested in a way that other social issues have not, at least in part because it asks Americans to answer unimaginably serious questions about the nature of human life. But perhaps this ambiguity, this scrambling of traditional left-right politics, was always unsustainable. Perhaps it was inevitable that abortion would go the way of the rest of American politics, with two sides that share nothing lobbing claims of fact across a no-man’s-land of moral debate.

When Colleen Malloy, a neonatologist and faculty member at Northwestern University, discusses abortion with her colleagues, she says, “it’s kind of like the emperor is not wearing any clothes.” Medical teams spend enormous effort, time, and money to deliver babies safely and nurse premature infants back to health. Yet physicians often support abortion, even late into fetal development.

As medical techniques have become increasingly sophisticated, Malloy says, she has felt this tension acutely: A handful of medical centers in major cities can now perform surgeries on fetuses while they’re still in the womb. Many are the same age as the small number of fetuses aborted in the second or third trimesters of a mother’s pregnancy. “The more I advanced in my field of neonatology, the more it just became the logical choice to recognize the developing fetus for what it is: a fetus, instead of some sort of sub-human form,” Malloy says. “It just became so obvious that these were just developing humans.”

Malloy is one of many doctors and scientists who have gotten involved in the political debate over abortion. She has testified before legislative bodies about fetal pain—the claim that fetuses can experience physical suffering, perhaps even prior to the point of viability outside the womb—and written letters to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.

Her career also shows the tight twine between the science and politics of abortion. In addition to her work at Northwestern, Malloy has produced work for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a relatively new D.C. think tank that seeks to bring “the power of science, medicine, and research to bear in life-related policymaking, media, and debates.” The organization, which employs a number of doctors and scholars on its staff, shares an office with Susan B. Anthony List, a prominent pro-life advocacy organization.

“I don’t think it compromises my objectivity, or any of our associate scholars,” says David Prentice, the institute’s vice president and research director. Prentice spent years of his career as a professor at Indiana State University and at the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group founded by James Dobson. “Any time there’s an association with an advocacy group, people are going to make assumptions,” he says. “What we have to do is make our best effort to show that we’re trying to put the objective science out here.”

This desire to harness “objective science” is at the heart of the pro-science bent in the pro-life movement: Science is a source of authority that’s often treated as unimpeachable fact. “The cultural authority of science has become so totalitarian, so imperial, that everybody has to have science on their side in order to win a debate,” says Mark Largent, a historian of science at Michigan State University.

Some pro-life advocates worry about the potential consequences of overemphasizing the authority of science in abortion debates. “The question of whether the embryo or fetus is a person … is not answerable by science,” says Daniel Sulmasy, a professor of biomedical ethics at Georgetown University and former Franciscan friar. “Both sides tend to use scientific information when it is useful towards making a point that is based on … firmly and sincerely held philosophical and religious convictions.”

For all the ways that the pro-life movement might be seen as countering today’s en vogue sexual politics, its obsession with science is squarely of the moment. “We’ve become steeped in a culture in which only the data matter, and that makes us, in some ways, philosophically illiterate,” says Sulmasy, who is also a doctor. “We really don’t have the tools anymore for thinking and arguing outside of something that can be scientifically verified.”

Sometimes, scientific discoveries have worked against the pro-life movement’s goals. Jérôme Lejeune, a French scientist and devout Catholic, helped discover the cause of Down syndrome. He was horrified that prenatal diagnosis of the disease often led women to terminate their pregnancies, however, and spent much of his career advocating against abortion. Lejeune eventually became the founding president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, established in 1994 to navigate the moral and theological questions raised by scientific advances against a “‘culture of death’ that threatens to take control.”

When scientific evidence seems to undermine pro-life positions on issues such as birth control and in vitro fertilization, pro-lifers’ enthusiasm for research sometimes wanes. For example: Some people believe emergency contraception, also known as the morning-after pill or Plan B, is an abortifacient, meaning it may end pregnancies. Because the pill can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus, advocates argue, it could end a human life.

Sulmasy, who openly identifies as pro-life, has argued against this view of the drug—and found it difficult to reach his peers in the movement. “It’s been very difficult to convince folks within the pro-life community that the science seems to be … suggesting that [Plan B] is not abortifacient,” he says. “They are too readily dismissing that work as being motivated by advocacy.”

And at a basic level, the argument for abortion is also framed in scientific terms: The procedures are “gynecological services, and they’re health-care services,” Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, says . This alone is enough to make even gung-ho pro-life advocates wary. “Science for science’s sake is not necessarily good,” said McGuire, who serves as a senior fellow at the Catholic Association. “If anything, that’s what gave us abortion … When the moral and human ethics are removed from it, it’s considered a medical procedure.”

Even with all these internal debates and complications, many in the pro-life movement feel optimistic that scientific advances are ultimately on their side. “Science is a practice of using systematic methods to study our world, including what human organisms are in their early states,” says Farr Curlin, a physician who holds joint appointments at Duke University’s schools of medicine and divinity. “I don’t see any way it’s not an ally to the pro-life cause.”

Pro-lifers’ enthusiasm for science isn’t always reciprocated by scientists—sometimes, quite the opposite. Last summer, Vincent Reid, a professor of psychology at Lancaster University in the United Kingdom, published a paper showing that late-development fetuses prefer to look at face-like images while they’re in the womb, just like newborn infants. As Reid told The Atlantic ’s Ed Yong , the study “tells us that the fetus isn’t a passive processor of environmental information. It’s an active responder.”

After his research was published, Reid suddenly found himself showered with praise from American pro-life advocates. “I had a few people contacting me, congratulating me on my great work, and then giving a kind of religious overtone to it,” he told me. “They’d finish off by saying, ‘Bless you,’ this sort of thing.” Pro-life advocates interpreted his findings as evidence that abortion is wrong, even though Reid was studying fetuses in their third trimester, which account for only a tiny fraction of abortions, he said. “It clearly resonated with them because they had a preconceived notion of what that science means.”

Reid found the experience perplexing. “I’m very proud of what I did … because it made genuine advances in our understanding of human development,” he said. “It’s frustrating that people take something which actually has no relevance to the position of anti-abortion or pro-abortion and try to use it … in a way that’s been pre-ordained.” He’s not going to stop doing his research on fetal development, he said. But he “will probably be a bit more heavy, perhaps, in my anticipation of how it’s going to be misused.”

This fate is nearly impossible to avoid in any field that remotely touches on abortion or origin-of-life issues. “There [are] no people who are just sitting in a lab, working on their projects,” says O. Carter Snead, a professor of law and political science at Notre Dame who served as general counsel to President George W. Bush’s Council of Bioethics. “Everybody is politicized.” This is true even of researchers like Reid, who was blindsided by the reaction to his findings. “You can’t do this and not get sucked into somebody’s orbit,” says Largent, the Michigan State professor. “Everyone’s going to take your work and use it for their ends. If you’re going to do this, you either decide who’s going to get to use your work, or it’s done to you.”

That can have a chilling effect on scientists who work in sensitive areas related to conception or death. Abortion is “the third-rail of research,” says Debra Mathews, an associate professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins who also has responsibility for science programs at the university’s bioethics institute. * “If you touch it, your research becomes associated with that debate.” Although the abortion debate is important, she says, it can be intimidating for researchers: “It tends to envelop whatever it touches.”

As often as not, scientists dive into the debate, taking funding from pro-life or pro-choice organizations or openly advancing an ideological position. This, too, has consequences: It casts doubt on the validity and integrity of any researcher in bioethics-related fields. “Anybody with money can get a scientist to say what they want them to say,” Largent says. “That’s not because scientists are whores. It’s because the world is a really complex place, and there are ways that you can craft a scientific investigation to lend credence to one side or another.”

This can have a fun-house-mirror effect on the scientific debate, with scholars on both sides constantly criticizing the methodological shortcomings of their opponents and coming to opposite conclusions. For example: Priscilla Coleman is a professor at Bowling Green State University who studies the mental-health effects of abortion. Coleman has testified before Congress, and pro-life advocates cite her as an important scholar working on this issue. At least some of her work, however, has been challenged repeatedly by others in her field : When she published a paper on the connection between abortion and anxiety, mood, and substance-abuse disorders in 2009, for instance, a number of scholars suggested her research design led her to draw false conclusions. She and her co-author claimed they had made only a weighting error and published a corrigendum, or corrected update. But ultimately, the author of the dataset Coleman used concluded that her “analysis does not support … assertions that abortions led to psychopathology.”

“If the results are questionable or not reproducible, then the study gets retracted. That’s what happens in science,” Coleman said in an interview. “The bottom line was that the pattern of the findings did not change.” She expressed frustration at media reports that questioned her work. “I’m so past trying to defend myself in these types of articles,” she said. “To me, there isn’t anything much worse than distorting science for an agenda, when the ultimate impact falls on these women who spend years and years suffering.”

At least in one respect, she is correct: Many of her opponents do have affiliations with the pro-choice movement. In this case, one of the researchers questioning her work was associated with the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion organization. In an email, Lawrence Finer, the co-author who serves as Guttmacher’s vice president for research, said that Coleman’s results were simply not reproducible. While Guttmacher advocates for abortion rights, the difference, Finer claimed, is that it places a priority on transparency and integrity—which, he implied, the other side does not. “It’s actually not difficult to distinguish neutral analysis from advocacy,” he wrote in an email. “The way that’s done is by making one’s analytical methods transparent and by submitting one’s analysis—‘neutral’ or not—to peer review. No researcher—no person, for that matter—is neutral; everyone has an opinion. What matters is whether the researcher’s methods are appropriate and reproducible.”

“There is a false equivalence between the science and what [Coleman] does,” added Julia Steinberg, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Health and Finer’s co-author, in an email. “It’s not a debate, the way global warming is not a debate. There are people claiming global warming is not occurring, but scientists have compelling evidence that it is occurring. Similarly, there are people like Coleman, claiming abortion harms women’s mental health, but the scientists have compelling evidence that this is not occurring.”

Yet, even the academy that establishes and promotes transparent methodologies for science research has its own institutional biases. Because support for legal abortion rights is commonly seen as a neutral position in the academy, Sulmasy says, openly pro-life scholars may have a harder time getting their colleagues to take their work seriously. “If an article is written by somebody who … is affiliated with a pro-life group or has a known pro-life stand on it, that scientific evaluation is typically dismissed as advocacy,” he said. “Prevailing prejudices within academia and media” determine “what gets considered to be advocacy and what is considered to be scientifically valid.”

Pro-life optimists believe those biases might be changing—or, at least, they hope they’ve captured the territory of scientific authority. As the former NARAL president Kate Michelman told Newsweek in 2010 , “The technology has clearly helped to define how people think about a fetus as a full, breathing human being … The other side has been able to use the technology to its own end.” In recent years, this has been the biggest change in the abortion debate, says Jeanne Mancini, the president of March for Life: Pro-choice advocates have largely given on up on the argument that fetuses are “lifeless blobs of tissue.”

“There had been, a long time ago, this mantra from our friends on the other side of this issue that, while a little one is developing in its mother’s womb, it’s not a baby,” she says. “It’s really hard to make that argument when you see and hear a heartbeat and watch little hands moving around.”

Ultimately, this is the pro-life movement’s reason for framing its cause in scientific terms: The best argument for protecting life in the womb is found in the common sense of fetal heartbeats and swelling stomachs. “The pro-life movement has always been a movement aimed at cultivating the moral imagination so people can understand why we should care about human beings in the womb,” says Snead, the Notre Dame professor. “Science has been used, for a long time, as a bridge to that moral imagination.”

Now, the pro-life movement has successfully brought their scientific rallying cry to Capitol Hill. In a recent promotional video for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Republican legislators spoke warmly about how data help make the case for limiting abortion. “When we have very difficult topics that we need to talk about, the Charlotte Lozier Institute gives credibility to the testimony and to the information that we’re giving others,” says Tennessee Representative Diane Black. Representative Claudia Tenney of New York agreed: “We’re winning on facts, and we’re winning hearts and minds on science.”

This, above all, represents the shift in America’s abortion debate: An issue that has long been argued in normative claims about the nature of human life and women’s autonomy has shifted toward a wobbly empirical debate. As Tenney suggested, it is a move made with an eye toward winning—on policy, on public opinion, and, ultimately, in courtrooms. The side effect of this strategy, however, is ever deeper politicization and entrenchment. A deliberative democracy where even basic facts aren’t shared isn’t much of a democracy at all. It’s more of an exhausting tug-of-war, where the side with the most money and the best credentials is declared the winner.

* This article has been updated to clarify that Mathews helps run science programs at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, rather than the institute itself. This story also originally stated that doctors perform surgeries on genetically abnormal fetuses while they are in utero. Fetuses that are treated this way are not necessarily genetically abnormal, however.

Abortion in the US: What you need to know

Subscribe to the center for economic security and opportunity newsletter, isabel v. sawhill and isabel v. sawhill senior fellow emeritus - economic studies , center for economic security and opportunity @isawhill kai smith kai smith research assistant - the brookings institution, economic studies.

May 29, 2024

Key takeaways:

One in every four women will have an abortion in their lifetime.

• The vast majority of abortions (about 95%) are the result of unintended pregnancies.
• Most abortion patients are in their twenties (61%), Black or Latino (59%), low-income (72%), unmarried (86%), between six and twelve weeks pregnant (73%), and already have given birth to one or more children (55%).
• Despite state bans, U.S. abortion totals increased in the first full year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Introduction

Two years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion remains one of the most hotly contested issues in American politics. The abortion landscape has become highly fractured, with some states implementing abortion bans and restrictions and others increasing protections and access. The Supreme Court heard two more cases on abortion this term and will likely release those decisions in June. Beyond the Supreme Court, pro-choice and pro-life advocates are fiercely battling it out in the voting booths, state legislatures, and courts. If the 2022 midterm elections are any indication , abortion will be one of the most influential issues of the 2024 election. So what are the basic facts about abortion in America? This primer is designed to tell you most of what you need to know.

What are the different types of abortion?

There are two main types of abortion: procedural abortions and medication abortions. Procedural abortions (also called in-clinic or surgical abortions) are provided by health care professionals in a clinical setting. Medication abortions (also called medical abortions or the abortion pill) typically involve the oral ingestion of two drugs in succession, mifepristone and misoprostol.

Most women discover they are pregnant in the first five to six weeks of pregnancy, but about a third of women do not learn they are pregnant until they are beyond six weeks of gestation. 1 Women with unintended pregnancies detect their pregnancies later than women with intended pregnancies, between six and seven weeks of gestation on average. Even if a woman discovers she is pregnant relatively early, for many it takes time to decide what to do and how to arrange for an abortion if that is her preference.

Why do women have abortions?

The vast majority of abortions (about 95%) are the result of unintended pregnancies. That includes pregnancies that are mistimed as well as those that are unwanted.

Women’s reasons for not wanting a child—or not wanting one now—include finances, partner-related issues, the need to focus on other children, and interference with future education or work opportunities.

In short, if there were fewer unintended pregnancies, there would be fewer abortions.

How common are abortions?

About two in every five pregnancies are unintended (40% in 2015). Roughly the same share of these unintended pregnancies end in abortion (42% in 2011). About one in every five pregnancies are aborted (21% in 2020).

How have abortion totals changed over time?

The number of abortions occurring in the U.S. jumped up after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. After peaking in 1990, the number of abortions declined steadily for two and a half decades until reaching its lowest point since 1973 in 2017. 2 Possible contributing factors explaining this long-term decline include delays in sexual activity amongst young people, improvements in the use of effective contraception , and overall declines in pregnancy rates , including those that are unintended . In addition, state restrictions which became more prevalent beginning in 2011 prevented at least some individuals in certain states from having abortions.

In 2018 (four years before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade), the number of abortions in the U.S. began to increase. The causes of this uptick are not yet fully understood, but researchers have identified multiple potential contributing factors. These include greater coverage of abortions under Medicaid that made abortions more affordable in certain states, regulations issued by the Trump administration in 2019 which decreased the size of the Title X network and therefore reduced the availability of contraception to low-income individuals, and increased financial support from privately-financed abortion funds to help pay for the costs associated with getting an abortion.

Another contributing factor, whose importance bears emphasizing, is the surging popularity of medication abortions .

The use of medication abortions has increased steadily since becoming available in the U.S. in 2000. However, in 2016, the FDA increased the gestational limit for the use of mifepristone from seven to ten weeks and thereby doubled the share of abortion patients eligible for medication abortions from 37% to 75%.

Later, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA revised its policy in 2021 so that clinicians are no longer required to dispense medication abortion pills in person. Patients can now have medication abortion pills mailed to their homes after conducting remote consultations with clinicians via telehealth. In January 2023, the FDA issued another change which allows retail pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens to dispense medication abortion pills to patients with a prescription. Previously only doctors, clinics, or some mail-order pharmacies could dispense abortion pills.

Although access varies widely by state , medication abortions are now the most commonly used abortion method in the U.S. and account for nearly two-thirds of all abortions (63% in 2023). 3

This is why the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in the Mifepristone case (FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine) is so consequential. Among other issues, at stake is whether access to medication abortion will be sharply curtailed and whether regulations regarding medication abortions will revert to pre-2016 rules when abortion pills were not authorized for use after seven weeks of pregnancy and could not be prescribed via telemedicine, sent to abortion patients by mail, or dispensed by retail pharmacies.

Who has abortions?

Most abortion patients are in their twenties (61%), Black or Latino  (59%), low-income (72%), unmarried (86%), and between six and twelve weeks pregnant (73%). 4

The majority of abortion patients have already given birth to one or more children (55%) and have not previously had an abortion (57%). 5 Among abortion patients twenty years old or older, most had attended at least some college (63%). The vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester of pregnancy (91%). So-called “late-term abortions” performed at or after 21 weeks of pregnancy are very rare and represent less than 1% of all abortions in the U.S.

The abortion rate per 1,000 women of reproductive age is disproportionately high for certain population groups. Among women living in poverty, for example, the abortion rate was 36.6 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 2014, compared to 14.6 abortions per 1,000 women among all women of reproductive age.

How much does an abortion cost?

The cost of an abortion varies depending on what kind of abortion is administered, how far along the patient is in their pregnancy, where the patient lives, where the patient is seeking an abortion, and whether health insurance or financial assistance is available. In 2021, the median self-pay cost for abortion services was $625 for a procedural abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy and $568 for a medication abortion.

Since 1977, the Hyde Amendment has banned the use of federal funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. Today, among the 36 states that have not banned abortion, fewer than half (17 as of March 2024) allow the use of state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions. 6 Many insurance plans do not cover abortions, often due to state limitations. Most abortion patients pay for abortions out of pocket (53%). State Medicaid funding is the second-most-commonly used method of payment (30%), followed by financial assistance (15%) and private insurance (13%). 7

Whether state law allows state Medicaid funds to cover abortions has a very large impact on the difficulty of paying for abortions and the methods used by women to pay for them. In the year before the Dobbs Supreme Court decision, 50% of women residing in states where state Medicaid funds did not cover abortion reported it was very or somewhat difficult to pay for their abortions, compared to only 17% of women residing in states where abortions were covered.

How has the Supreme Court handled abortion?

In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court established that states could not ban abortions before fetal viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. Under the three-trimester framework established by Roe, states were not allowed to ban abortions during the first two trimesters of pregnancy but were allowed to regulate or prohibit abortions in the third trimester, except in cases where abortions were necessary to protect the life or health of a pregnant person. The Court ruled that the fundamental right to have an abortion is included in the right to privacy implicit in the “liberty” guarantee of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Since it was decided, Roe v. Wade has faced legal criticism. Notwithstanding these critiques, the Court upheld Roe multiple times over the next half-century including in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). But after former President Trump appointed three new Justices to the Supreme Court, a new conservative supermajority overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) and established that there is no Constitutional right to have an abortion.

In his Dobbs majority opinion , Justice Alito concluded “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.” Writing for the majority, he underscored that “[t]he Constitution makes no reference to abortion,” and while he recognized there are constitutional rights not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, he concluded the right to have an abortion is not one of them. Justice Alito reasoned that the only legitimate rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution are those “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions,” and he found no evidence of this for abortion.

Because the Court determined there is no Constitutional right to abortion, it allowed the Mississippi state law which banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy with limited exceptions to go into effect. The Court ruled that states have the authority to restrict access to abortion or ban it completely and that the power to regulate or prohibit abortions would be “returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

The Court’s three liberal Justices criticized the majority’s decision in a withering joint dissent . The dissenting Justices argued the right to abortion established in Roe and upheld in Casey is necessary to respect the autonomy and equality of women and prevent the government from controlling “a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life.” They lamented “one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens.”

How did the states respond to the overturning of Roe v. Wade?

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, many states have implemented abortion bans or restrictions, while others have added protections and expanded access. The abortion landscape in America is now fractured and highly variegated .

As of May 2024, abortion is banned completely in almost all circumstances in 14 states. In 7 states, abortion is banned at or before 18 weeks of gestation. Many states with abortion bans do not include exceptions in cases where the health of the pregnant person is at risk, the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or there is a fatal fetal anomaly.

Access to abortion varies widely even among states without bans since many states have restrictions such as waiting periods, gestational limits, or parental consent laws making it more difficult to get an abortion.

Many state bans and restrictions are still being litigated in court. The interjurisdictional issues and legal questions arising from the post-Dobbs abortion landscape have not been fully resolved.

Despite the Supreme Court’s stated intention in Dobbs to leave the abortion issue to elected officials, the Court will likely hear more cases on abortion in the near future. This term, in addition to the case about Mifepristone, the Court will decide in Moyle v. United States whether a federal law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTLA) can require hospitals in states with abortion bans to perform abortions in emergency situations that demand “stabilizing treatment” for the health of pregnant patients.

What are the trends in abortion statistics post-Dobbs?

In 2023, the first full year since the Dobbs Supreme Court decision, states with abortion bans experienced sharp declines in the number of abortions occurring within their borders. But these declines were outweighed by increases in abortion totals in states where abortion remained legal. Nearly all states without bans witnessed increases in 2023. Taken together, abortions in non-ban states increased by 26% in 2023 compared to 2020 levels.

As a result, the nationwide abortion statistics from 2023 represent the highest total number (1,037,000 abortions) and abortion rate (15.9 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age) in the U.S. in over a decade. The 2023 U.S. total represents an 11% increase from 2020 levels.

It’s unclear why, despite Dobbs, abortions have continued to rise . It may be because of the increased use of medication abortions , especially after the FDA liberalized regulations related to telehealth and in-person visits. In addition, multiple states where abortion remains legal have implemented shield laws and other new protections for abortion patients and providers, increased insurance coverage, or otherwise expanded access . Abortion funds provided greater financial and practical assistance . Interstate travel for abortions doubled after the Dobbs decision.

In short, the impacts of Dobbs are being felt unevenly. Although most women who want abortions are still able to obtain them, a significant minority are instead carrying their pregnancies to term. In the first six months of 2023, state abortion bans led between one-fifth and one-fourth of women living in ban states who may have otherwise gotten an abortion not to have one.

Young, low-income, and minority women will be most affected by state bans and restrictions because they are disproportionately likely to have unintended pregnancies and less able to overcome economic and logistical barriers involved in travelling across state lines or receiving medication abortion pills through out-of-state networks.

What are the effects of expanding or restricting abortion access on women and their families?

Effects of abortion restrictions on women.

Abortion bans jeopardize the lives and health of women. The impacts on their health can be especially troublesome. Pregnancies can go wrong for many reasons—fetal abnormalities, complications of a miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies—and without access to emergency care, some women could face serious threats to their own health and future ability to bear children. Abortion restrictions can place doctors in difficult situations and undermine women’s health care.

Although medication abortions are safe and effective, abortion bans could also increase the number of women who use unsafe methods to induce self-managed abortions, thereby endangering their own health or even their lives. State abortion legalizations in the years before Roe reduced maternal mortality among non-white women by 30-40%.

Enforcement of state laws that restricted access to abortion in the years before Dobbs has even been associated with increases in intimate partner violence-related homicides of women and girls.

In addition, lack of access to abortion leads to worse economic outcomes for women. After a conservative group suggested that such effects have not been well documented, a group of economists filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Dobbs case, noting that in recent years methods for establishing the causal effects of abortion have shown that they do affect women’s life trajectories. Although there has been some difficulty in separating the effects of access to abortion from access to the Pill or other forms of birth control, an extensive literature shows that reducing unintended pregnancies increases educational attainment , labor force participation , earnings , and occupational prestige for women. These trends are especially pronounced for Black women .

One example that focuses solely on abortion is the Turnaway study, in which researchers compared the outcomes for women who were denied abortions on the basis of just being a little beyond the gestational cutoff for eligibility to the outcomes of otherwise similar women who were just under that cutoff. The study along with subsequent related research has shown that women who are denied abortions are nearly four times more likely to be living in poverty six months after being denied an abortion, a difference that persists through four years after denial. They are also more likely to be unemployed , rely on public assistance , and experience financial distress such as bankruptcies, evictions and court judgements.

Finally, increased access to abortion results in lower rates of single and teen parenthood. State abortion legalizations in the years before Roe reduced the number of teen mothers by 34%. The effects were especially large for Black teens.

Effects of abortion restrictions on children

Along with contraception, access to abortion reduces unplanned births. That means fewer children dying in infancy, growing up in poverty, needing welfare, and living with a single parent. One study suggests that if all currently mistimed births were aligned with the timing preferred by their mothers, children’s college graduation rates would increase by about 8 percentage points (a 36% increase), and their lifetime incomes would increase by roughly $52,000.

Despite this evidence that the denial of abortions to women who want them would be harmful to women and to children once born, those who are pro-life argue that these costs are well worth the price to save the lives of the unborn. As of April 2024, 36% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all (8%) or most (28%) cases, while 63% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all (25%) or most (28%) cases.

Looking ahead

The abortion landscape in America is continually evolving. Whereas pro-choice advocates will seek to expand access and add additional protections for abortion patients and providers, opponents of abortion will continue to criminalize abortions and further restrict availability.

Abortion will be one of the top issues of the 2024 elections in November. Democratic candidates in particular believe abortion is a winning issue for them and will broadcast their pro-choice stance on the campaign trail. Some evidence suggests the overturning of Roe has galvanized a new class of abortion-rights voters. Multiple states will have abortion referenda on the ballot .

The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision will not prevent women and other citizens from affecting the legislative process by voting, organizing, influencing public opinion, or running for office. What they do with that power in November remains to be seen.

Related Content

Isabel V. Sawhill, Morgan Welch

June 30, 2022

Isabel V. Sawhill

November 3, 2020

Katherine Guyot, Isabel V. Sawhill

July 29, 2019

The Brookings Institution is financed through the support of a diverse array of foundations, corporations, governments, individuals, as well as an endowment. A list of donors can be found in our annual reports published online  here . The findings, interpretations, and conclusions in this report are solely those of its author(s) and are not influenced by any donation.

• We recognize people of all genders become pregnant and have abortions, including about 1% of abortion patients who do not identify as women or female. For concision, we use “women” and female pronouns in this piece when discussing individuals who become pregnant.
• The Guttmacher and CDC data produced in this primer only represent legal abortions that occur within the formal US healthcare system. They do not include self-managed which occur outside of the formal US healthcare system.
• As of March 2024, 29 states have laws that restrict access to medication abortion, for example by requiring ultrasound, counseling, or multiple in-person appointments.
• We define low-income as earnings below 200% of the federal poverty level.
• The CDC abortion data is less complete than the Guttmacher Institute data and omits abortion data from states which account for approximately one-fourth of all abortions in the U.S.
• Today, roughly 35% of women of reproductive age covered by Medicaid (5.5 million women) are living in states where abortion is legal but state funds are not allowed to cover abortions beyond the Hyde exceptions of rape, incest, or life endangerment.
• Respondents could indicate multiple payment methods.

Health Access & Equity Public Health Reproductive Health Care

Children & Families Human Rights & Civil Liberties

U.S. States and Territories

Economic Studies

North America U.S. States and Territories

Center for Economic Security and Opportunity

Election ’24: Issues at Stake

Douglas N. Harris

June 6, 2024

Norman Eisen, Fred Dews

June 5, 2024

Tara Watson, Gabriela Goodman

June 4, 2024

The Unlikely Women Fighting for Abortion Rights

The end of Roe has turned women who terminated pregnancies for medical reasons into a political force.

Riata Little Walker, right, with her husband, Ian Walker, and their family in Casper, Wyo. Credit... Jimena Peck for The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By Kate Zernike

Kate Zernike covers abortion for The Times.

• May 27, 2024

For a long time, many women who had abortions because of catastrophic fetal diagnoses told their stories only privately. Grieving pregnancies they dearly wanted and fearing the stigma of abortion, they sought the closely guarded comfort of online communities identified by the way many doctors had described the procedure — TFMR, or “termination for medical reasons.”

In the two years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, their pain has been compounded into anger by new abortion bans across the country. While these women account for a fraction of abortions in the United States, they have emerged as the most powerful voices in the nation’s post-Roe debate, speaking out against bans with their stories of being forced across state lines and left to feel like criminals in seeking care.

Many of these women started out opposing abortion, but as they have changed their minds, they have changed the way Americans speak about it. Shifting from private anguish to public outrage, they have also helped shift public opinion toward more support for abortion.

“After going through all this I wondered, why are we not the poster child for abortion rights?” said Riata Little Walker, who traveled from her home in Casper, Wyo., for an abortion in Colorado at 22 weeks, after doctors diagnosed Down syndrome and a heart defect in her fetus, which they said would require surgery and later a transplant if it survived until delivery.

“Yes, your body, your choice, but that’s not the story that pulls people in,” she said. “We have to bring our stories to the front because otherwise it’s so easy for those over here to do, ‘But they’re killing babies.’”

Ms. Walker is Catholic and had worked for Wyoming Republicans, including Senator John Barrasso. She opposed abortion, and did not realize she was having one because doctors called it “termination.” In the months that followed, she came to support abortion whatever the reason, and after Roe was overturned in June 2022, she testified against the ban on abortion passed by the Wyoming Legislature.

Although most bans allow abortions to save the life or health of the pregnant woman, few women have been granted these exceptions, and only a handful of bans allow abortions for fatal fetal anomalies. There are no bright lines to define “fatal,” or “medical reason,” and the procedure is the same whether it’s described as termination, TFMR, or abortion.

That makes these cases complicated for doctors, lawmakers, and for the women themselves: What qualifies as a medical reason?

The women speaking out say their experiences made them believe that the law can’t and shouldn’t try to address complex and endlessly varying medical cases. In this, they appeal to rare common ground in what has been a bitter, decades-long debate: Regardless of whether they identify as “pro-life” or “pro-choice” in polls, Americans overwhelmingly say that the decision to have an abortion should be up to women and doctors, not the government.

These women say they now feel compelled not only to speak out but to use the word “abortion,” to remove the stigma they themselves put on it.

“All these things we never even knew before, because before all of this it was never spoken about,” said Kimberly Manzano, who flew from Texas for an abortion in New Mexico at 18 weeks after scans showed her fetus was missing limbs, organs and genitalia.

Ms. Manzano describes herself and her husband as “big Christians,” who thought abortion was something “promiscuous women” did to end unwanted pregnancies. Their pastor assumed they would qualify as a medical exception to Texas’ ban. They did not.

“We feel it’s our calling to our child that we lost that we do need to talk about it, to educate people, because I feel that we were so uneducated,” she said.

Some of the women are appearing in ads in favor of abortion rights ballot measures or candidates . Others are confronting politicians on the campaign trail, testifying or joining lawsuits . But mostly, they are talking to friends, family members and colleagues.

Polls show that people who have heard stories about women who had to cross state lines for abortions because of severe pregnancy complications are more likely to support legalized abortion. That is true even for Republicans or those who think that abortion should be illegal in most cases. Stories like these have also moved voters who oppose abortion to support ballot measures that have enshrined broad abortion rights in conservative states like Ohio and Kansas.

“By telling people’s stories, it makes it reality,” said Megan Kling, who traveled from her home in Wisconsin to Minnesota for an abortion at 23 weeks after a scan revealed that her fetus had no kidneys , so was not creating amniotic fluid, and would die after delivery, if not in utero. “You want to think every woman is perfectly healthy, every pregnancy is perfectly healthy, when in reality there’s a lot of things that can go wrong.”

Ms. Kling said some family members have argued that her situation is different: They support abortion if the fetus has a devastating condition, they just don’t want women using it as birth control. She understands, because she never thought of herself as someone who would choose abortion. “But women need health care options, and that’s what they don’t understand: Abortion is health care,” she said. “That’s what these stories raise up.”

Researchers say it’s not clear how many of the roughly one million abortions each year in the United States would be considered “for medical reasons,” but that they are rare.

Still, TFMR or “ending wanted pregnancy” communities have flourished online, with websites , private groups on social media where thousands of women share their stories — and separate sites for their partners — as well as podcasts and psychotherapists devoted solely to TFMR, and an awareness day in early May.

Many of these women don’t fit the usual angles of the abortion debate. They bristle at the clinical language of abortion rights groups; instead of saying “fetus,” they speak of the pregnancies they lost as unborn children. They name them, mark birthdays and imprint their tiny feet on keepsakes.

Ms. Kling found herself in an awkward position after she wrote letters to her state legislators, including the Republicans who represent her, in an attempt to move beyond her grief and anger after losing her pregnancy. She heard back only from a Democrat, and later, from Planned Parenthood and other groups who asked her to speak at events in support of President Biden. She agreed, but explained that she did not necessarily support him. She doesn’t think of herself as a Democrat, but she doesn’t feel like a Republican anymore, either.

“I feel like most people feel that way,” she said. “All the extremists are so loud you almost feel like you can’t speak up.”

Anti-abortion groups argue that bans prohibit only what they call “elective abortions” for unwanted pregnancies, and that any woman who needs an abortion for medical reasons can get one under the exceptions in those bans. They accuse Democrats of manipulating medical patients for political ends.

“Women have been falsely told this is a compassionate option, however, it feeds into the growing trend of disability discrimination and the pressure women face from the medical community to abort children who might have a disability,” said Dr. Ingrid Skop, of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

On the other side, abortion rights groups fear that elevating TFMR stories promotes the message that abortion should be protected only if it is “justified,” not that it should be every woman’s right. “People need abortions for all kinds of reasons — financial, medical, life circumstances — and none should be stigmatized,” said Nancy Northup, the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Even within online communities, there is debate: Is it acceptable to terminate if a child would live only a few hours? A few days, a few years? What about the “gray” diagnoses — where a fetus is likely to survive into childhood but live a life severely constrained by surgeries, medications, machinery and hospitalizations?

Women describe weeks of waiting for additional scans, hoping for miracles, poring over statistics on survival rates and research on quality of life. Some elect to continue their pregnancies.

“Theoretically, if I had a Down syndrome diagnosis, I would keep them,” said Martha Sheppard. She and her husband, a teacher, learned on a 20-week anatomy scan that their daughter’s spine had not fused — the diagnosis was spina bifida — and would require an unknown number of surgeries, the first in utero. They moved from their home in Virginia to a Ronald McDonald House near a hospital in North Carolina for further tests, and researched. Three weeks later, they decided to terminate.

“To keep a child with spina bifida is also a loving decision,” Ms. Sheppard said, “but my husband and I decided that it was a loving decision not to bring her into the world with the body that she had.”

The women might seem to be making the case for medical exceptions — dozens have joined lawsuits filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights in four states , seeking to clarify what conditions qualify as exceptions under abortion bans. Instead, “Exceptions don’t work, is what we’re proving,” said Ashley Brandt, a plaintiff in Texas.

Ms. Brandt traveled to Colorado to abort a twin that had acrania — it had no skull — and posed a threat to her other fetus. “It wasn’t just me at risk, it was my viable daughter,” she said. “We still were not an exception.”

She learned of the option to selectively abort only from a TFMR group online; her doctors had been afraid to mention termination for fear of prosecution. She saw the shame and isolation that women in those groups felt, and felt it herself. Some of the harshest comments, Ms. Brandt said, came from women struggling with infertility who cannot imagine choosing to end any pregnancy. Like many of the women now telling their stories in public, she said her experience has made her feel more compassion for women who choose abortion no matter what the reason.

“Picking and choosing, it has to stop,” she said. “We need to trust people to make their own decisions.”

But the women say it remains a fight simply to explain that what they had was an abortion.

Months after Ms. Manzano’s abortion, she noticed her doctor had recorded it as “spontaneous miscarriage” on her chart.

“We had to travel to New Mexico,” Ms. Manzano said. “There was nothing spontaneous about it.”

She has been seeing a grief counselor, who refers to it as her “medical miscarriage,” even after Ms. Manzano told him she prefers to say “abortion.”

“Neither one of us corrects the other,” she said. Still, “for me to be able to grieve and heal through the process, I have to be able to say what it is.”

Kate Zernike is a national reporter at The Times. More about Kate Zernike

Advertisement

The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States (2018)

Chapter: 5 conclusions, 5 conclusions.

This report provides a comprehensive review of the state of the science on the safety and quality of abortion services in the United States. The committee was charged with answering eight specific research questions. This chapter presents the committee’s conclusions by responding individually to each question. The research findings that are the basis for these conclusions are presented in the previous chapters. The committee was also asked to offer recommendations regarding the eight questions. However, the committee decided that its conclusions regarding the safety and quality of U.S. abortion care responded comprehensively to the scope of this study. Therefore, the committee does not offer recommendations for specific actions to be taken by policy makers, health care providers, and others.

1. What types of legal abortion services are available in the United States? What is the evidence regarding which services are appropriate under different clinical circumstances (e.g., based on patient medical conditions such as previous cesarean section, obesity, gestational age)?

Four legal abortion methods—medication, 1 aspiration, dilation and evacuation (D&E), and induction—are used in the United States. Length of gestation—measured as the amount of time since the first day of the last

___________________

1 The terms “medication abortion” and “medical abortion” are used interchangeably in the literature. This report uses “medication abortion” to describe the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved prescription drug regimen used up to 10 weeks’ gestation.

menstrual period—is the primary factor in deciding what abortion procedure is the most appropriate. Both medication and aspiration abortions are used up to 10 weeks’ gestation. Aspiration procedures may be used up to 14 to 16 weeks’ gestation.

Mifepristone, sold under the brand name Mifeprex, is the only medication specifically approved by the FDA for use in medication abortion. The drug’s distribution has been restricted under the requirements of the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program since 2011—it may be dispensed only to patients in clinics, hospitals, or medical offices under the supervision of a certified prescriber. To become a certified prescriber, eligible clinicians must register with the drug’s distributor, Danco Laboratories, and meet certain requirements. Retail pharmacies are prohibited from distributing the drug.

When abortion by aspiration is no longer feasible, D&E and induction methods are used. D&E is the superior method; in comparison, inductions are more painful for women, take significantly more time, and are more costly. However, D&Es are not always available to women. The procedure is illegal in Mississippi 2 and West Virginia 3 (both states allow exceptions in cases of life endangerment or severe physical health risk to the woman). Elsewhere, access to the procedure is limited because many obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYNs) and other physicians lack the requisite training to perform D&Es. Physicians’ access to D&E training is very limited or nonexistent in many areas of the country.

Few women are medically ineligible for abortion. There are, however, specific contraindications to using mifepristone for a medication abortion or induction. The drug should not be used for women with confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancy or undiagnosed adnexal mass; an intrauterine device in place; chronic adrenal failure; concurrent long-term systemic corticosteroid therapy; hemorrhagic disorders or concurrent anticoagulant therapy; allergy to mifepristone, misoprostol, or other prostaglandins; or inherited porphyrias.

Obesity is not a risk factor for women who undergo medication or aspiration abortions (including with the use of moderate intravenous sedation). Research on the association between obesity and complications during a D&E abortion is less certain—particularly for women with Class III obesity (body mass index ≥40) after 14 weeks’ gestation.

A history of a prior cesarean delivery is not a risk factor for women undergoing medication or aspiration abortions, but it may be associated

2 Mississippi Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, Mississippi HB 519, Reg. Sess. 2015–2016 (2016).

3 Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, West Virginia SB 10, Reg. Sess. 2015–2016 (2016).

with an increased risk of complications during D&E abortions, particularly for women with multiple cesarean deliveries. Because induction abortions are so rare, it is difficult to determine definitively whether a prior cesarean delivery increases the risk of complications. The available research suggests no association.

2. What is the evidence on the physical and mental health risks of these different abortion interventions?

Abortion has been investigated for its potential long-term effects on future childbearing and pregnancy outcomes, risk of breast cancer, mental health disorders, and premature death. The committee found that much of the published literature on these topics does not meet scientific standards for rigorous, unbiased research. Reliable research uses documented records of a prior abortion, analyzes comparable study and control groups, and controls for confounding variables shown to affect the outcome of interest.

Physical health effects The committee identified high-quality research on numerous outcomes of interest and concludes that having an abortion does not increase a woman’s risk of secondary infertility, pregnancy-related hypertensive disorders, abnormal placentation (after a D&E abortion), preterm birth, or breast cancer. Although rare, the risk of very preterm birth (<28 weeks’ gestation) in a woman’s first birth was found to be associated with having two or more prior aspiration abortions compared with first births among women with no abortion history; the risk appears to be associated with the number of prior abortions. Preterm birth is associated with pregnancy spacing after an abortion: it is more likely if the interval between abortion and conception is less than 6 months (this is also true of pregnancy spacing in general). The committee did not find well-designed research on abortion’s association with future ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage or stillbirth, or long-term mortality. Findings on hemorrhage during a subsequent pregnancy are inconclusive.

Mental health effects The committee identified a wide array of research on whether abortion increases women’s risk of depression, anxiety, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder and concludes that having an abortion does not increase a woman’s risk of these mental health disorders.

3. What is the evidence on the safety and quality of medical and surgical abortion care?

Safety The clinical evidence clearly shows that legal abortions in the United States—whether by medication, aspiration, D&E, or induction—are

safe and effective. Serious complications are rare. But the risk of a serious complication increases with weeks’ gestation. As the number of weeks increases, the invasiveness of the required procedure and the need for deeper levels of sedation also increase.

Quality Health care quality is a multidimensional concept. Six attributes of health care quality—safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity—were central to the committee’s review of the quality of abortion care. Table 5-1 details the committee’s conclusions regarding each of these quality attributes. Overall, the committee concludes that the quality of abortion care depends to a great extent on where women live. In many parts of the country, state regulations have created barriers to optimizing each dimension of quality care. The quality of care is optimal when the care is based on current evidence and when trained clinicians are available to provide abortion services.

4. What is the evidence on the minimum characteristics of clinical facilities necessary to effectively and safely provide the different types of abortion interventions?

Most abortions can be provided safely in office-based settings. No special equipment or emergency arrangements are required for medication abortions. For other abortion methods, the minimum facility characteristics depend on the level of sedation that is used. Aspiration abortions are performed safely in office and clinic settings. If moderate sedation is used, the facility should have emergency resuscitation equipment and an emergency transfer plan, as well as equipment to monitor oxygen saturation, heart rate, and blood pressure. For D&Es that involve deep sedation or general anesthesia, the facility should be similarly equipped and also have equipment to provide general anesthesia and monitor ventilation.

Women with severe systemic disease require special measures if they desire or need deep sedation or general anesthesia. These women require further clinical assessment and should have their abortion in an accredited ambulatory surgery center or hospital.

5. What is the evidence on what clinical skills are necessary for health care providers to safely perform the various components of abortion care, including pregnancy determination, counseling, gestational age assessment, medication dispensing, procedure performance, patient monitoring, and follow-up assessment and care?

Required skills All abortion procedures require competent providers skilled in patient preparation (education, counseling, and informed consent);

TABLE 5-1 Does Abortion Care in the United States Meet the Six Attributes of Quality Health Care?

a These attributes of quality health care were first proposed by the Institute of Medicine’s Committee on Quality of Health Care in America in the 2001 report Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.

b Elsewhere in this report, effectiveness refers to the successful completion of the abortion without the need for a follow-up aspiration.

clinical assessment (confirming intrauterine pregnancy, determining gestation, taking a relevant medical history, and physical examination); pain management; identification and management of expected side effects and serious complications; and contraceptive counseling and provision. To provide medication abortions, the clinician should be skilled in all these areas. To provide aspiration abortions, the clinician should also be skilled in the technical aspects of an aspiration procedure. To provide D&E abortions, the clinician needs the relevant surgical expertise and sufficient caseload to maintain the requisite surgical skills. To provide induction abortions, the clinician requires the skills needed for managing labor and delivery.

Clinicians that have the necessary competencies Both trained physicians (OB/GYNs, family medicine physicians, and other physicians) and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) (physician assistants, certified nurse-midwives, and nurse practitioners) can provide medication and aspiration abortions safely and effectively. OB/GYNs, family medicine physicians, and other physicians with appropriate training and experience can perform D&E abortions. Induction abortions can be provided by clinicians (OB/GYNs,

family medicine physicians, and certified nurse-midwives) with training in managing labor and delivery.

The extensive body of research documenting the safety of abortion care in the United States reflects the outcomes of abortions provided by thousands of individual clinicians. The use of sedation and anesthesia may require special expertise. If moderate sedation is used, it is essential to have a nurse or other qualified clinical staff—in addition to the person performing the abortion—available to monitor the patient, as is the case for any other medical procedure. Deep sedation and general anesthesia require the expertise of an anesthesiologist or certified registered nurse anesthetist to ensure patient safety.

6. What safeguards are necessary to manage medical emergencies arising from abortion interventions?

The key safeguards—for abortions and all outpatient procedures—are whether the facility has the appropriate equipment, personnel, and emergency transfer plan to address any complications that might occur. No special equipment or emergency arrangements are required for medication abortions; however, clinics should provide a 24-hour clinician-staffed telephone line and have a plan to provide emergency care to patients after hours. If moderate sedation is used during an aspiration abortion, the facility should have emergency resuscitation equipment and an emergency transfer plan, as well as equipment to monitor oxygen saturation, heart rate, and blood pressure. D&Es that involve deep sedation or general anesthesia should be provided in similarly equipped facilities that also have equipment to monitor ventilation.

The committee found no evidence indicating that clinicians that perform abortions require hospital privileges to ensure a safe outcome for the patient. Providers should, however, be able to provide or arrange for patient access or transfer to medical facilities equipped to provide blood transfusions, surgical intervention, and resuscitation, if necessary.

7. What is the evidence on the safe provision of pain management for abortion care?

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended to reduce the discomfort of pain and cramping during a medication abortion. Some women still report high levels of pain, and researchers are exploring new ways to provide prophylactic pain management for medication abortion. The pharmaceutical options for pain management during aspiration, D&E, and induction abortions range from local anesthesia, to minimal sedation/anxiolysis, to moderate sedation/analgesia, to deep sedation/

analgesia, to general anesthesia. Along this continuum, the physiological effects of sedation have increasing clinical implications and, depending on the depth of sedation, may require special equipment and personnel to ensure the patient’s safety. The greatest risk of using sedative agents is respiratory depression. The vast majority of abortion patients are healthy and medically eligible for all levels of sedation in office-based settings. As noted above (see Questions 4 and 6), if sedation is used, the facility should be appropriately equipped and staffed.

8. What are the research gaps associated with the provision of safe, high-quality care from pre- to postabortion?

The committee’s overarching task was to assess the safety and quality of abortion care in the United States. As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the committee decided that its findings and conclusions fully respond to this charge. The committee concludes that legal abortions are safe and effective. Safety and quality are optimized when the abortion is performed as early in pregnancy as possible. Quality requires that care be respectful of individual patient preferences, needs, and values so that patient values guide all clinical decisions.

The committee did not identify gaps in research that raise concerns about these conclusions and does not offer recommendations for specific actions to be taken by policy makers, health care providers, and others.

The following are the committee’s observations about questions that merit further investigation.

Limitation of Mifepristone distribution As noted above, mifepristone, sold under the brand name Mifeprex, is the only medication approved by the FDA for use in medication abortion. Extensive clinical research has demonstrated its safety and effectiveness using the FDA-recommended regimen. Furthermore, few women have contraindications to medication abortion. Nevertheless, as noted earlier, the FDA REMS restricts the distribution of mifepristone. Research is needed on how the limited distribution of mifepristone under the REMS process impacts dimensions of quality, including timeliness, patient-centeredness, and equity. In addition, little is known about pharmacist and patient perspectives on pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone and the potential for direct-to-patient models through telemedicine.

Pain management There is insufficient evidence to identify the optimal approach to minimizing the pain women experience during an aspiration procedure without sedation. Paracervical blocks are effective in decreasing procedural pain, but the administration of the block itself is painful, and

even with the block, women report experiencing moderate to significant pain. More research is needed to learn how best to reduce the pain women experience during abortion procedures.

Research on prophylactic pain management for women undergoing medication abortions is also needed. Although NSAIDs reduce the pain of cramping, women still report high levels of pain.

Availability of providers APCs can provide medication and aspiration abortions safely and effectively, but the committee did not find research assessing whether APCs can also be trained to perform D&Es.

Addressing the needs of women of lower income Women who have abortions are disproportionately poor and at risk for interpersonal and other types of violence. Yet little is known about the extent to which they receive needed social and psychological supports when seeking abortion care or how best to meet those needs. More research is needed to assess the need for support services and to define best clinical practice for providing those services.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure that has been provided to millions of American women. Since the Institute of Medicine first reviewed the health implications of national legalized abortion in 1975, there has been a plethora of related scientific research, including well-designed randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, and epidemiological studies examining abortion care. This research has focused on examining the relative safety of abortion methods and the appropriateness of methods for different clinical circumstances. With this growing body of research, earlier abortion methods have been refined, discontinued, and new approaches have been developed.

The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States offers a comprehensive review of the current state of the science related to the provision of safe, high-quality abortion services in the United States. This report considers 8 research questions and presents conclusions, including gaps in research.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Factors Influencing Abortion Decision-Making Processes among Young Women

Mónica frederico.

1 International Centre for Reproductive Health (ICRH), Ghent University, 9000 Gent, Belgium; [email protected]

2 Centro de Estudos Africanos, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, C. P. 1993, Maputo, Mozambique; [email protected]

Kristien Michielsen

Carlos arnaldo, peter decat.

3 Department of Family Medicine and primary health care, Ghent University, 9000 Gent, Belgium; [email protected]

Background: Decision-making about if and how to terminate a pregnancy is a dilemma for young women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. Those women are subject to sociocultural and economic barriers that limit their autonomy and make them vulnerable to pressures that influence or force decisions about abortion. Objective : The objective of this study was to explore the individual, interpersonal and environmental factors behind the abortion decision-making process among young Mozambican women. Methods : A qualitative study was conducted in Maputo and Quelimane. Participants were identified during a cross-sectional survey with women in the reproductive age (15–49). In total, 14 women aged 15 to 24 who had had an abortion participated in in-depth interviews. A thematic analysis was used. Results : The study found determinants at different levels, including the low degree of autonomy for women, the limited availability of health facilities providing abortion services and a lack of patient-centeredness of health services. Conclusions : Based on the results of the study, the authors suggest strategies to increase knowledge of abortion rights and services and to improve the quality and accessibility of abortion services in Mozambique.

1. Introduction

Abortion among adolescents and youth is a major public health issue, especially in developing countries. Estimates indicate that 2.2 million unplanned pregnancies and 25% (2.5 million) unsafe abortions occur each year, in sub-Saharan Africa, among adolescents [ 1 ]. In 2008, of the 43.8 million induced abortions, 21.6 million were estimated to be unsafe, and nearly all of them (98%) took place in developing countries, with 41% (8.7 million) being performed on women aged 15 to 24 [ 2 ].

The consequences of abortion, especially unsafe abortion, are well documented and include physical complications (e.g., sepsis, hemorrhage, genital trauma), and even death [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. The physical complications are more severe among adolescents than older women and increase the risk of morbidity and mortality [ 6 , 7 ]. However, the detrimental effects of unsafe abortion are not limited to the individual but also affect the entire healthcare system, with the treatment of complications consuming a significant share of resources (e.g., including hospital beds, blood supply, drugs) [ 5 , 8 ].

The decision if and how to terminate a pregnancy is influenced by a variety of factors at different levels [ 9 ]. At the individual level these factors include: their marital status, whether they were the victim of rape or incest [ 10 , 11 ], their economic independence and their education level [ 10 , 12 ]. Interpersonally factors include support from one’s partner and parental support [ 12 ]. Societal determinants include social norms, religion [ 9 , 13 ], the stigma of premarital and extra-marital sex [ 14 ], adolescents’ status, and autonomy within society [ 12 ]. At the organizational level, the existence of sex education [ 10 , 14 ], the health care system, and abortion laws influence the decisions if and where to have an abortion.

Those factors are related to power and (gender) inequalities. They limit young women’s autonomy and make them vulnerable to pressure. Additionally, the situation is exacerbated when there is a lack of clarity and information on abortion status, despite the existence of a progressive law in this regard.

For example, Mozambican law has allowed abortion if the woman’s health is at risk since the 1980s [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. In 2014, a new abortion law was established that broadened the scope of the original law: women are now also allowed to terminate their pregnancy: (1) if they requested it and it is performed during the first 12 weeks; (2) in the first 16 weeks if it was the result of rape or incest, or (3) in the first 24 weeks if the mother’s physical or mental health was in danger or in cases of fetus disease or anomaly. Women younger than 16 or psychically incapable of deciding need parental consent [ 19 , 20 ].

Notwithstanding the progressive abortion laws in Mozambique, hospital-based studies report that unsafe abortion remains one of the main causes of maternal death in Mozambique [ 3 ]. However, hospital cases are only a small share of unsafe abortions in the country. Many women undergo an abortion in illegal and unsafe circumstances for a variety of reasons [ 3 ], such as legal restrictions, the fear of stigma [ 21 , 22 , 23 ], and a lack of knowledge of the availability of abortion services [ 3 , 9 , 23 ].

According to the 2011 Mozambican Demographic Health Survey (DHS), at least 4.5% of all adolescents reported having terminated a pregnancy [ 24 ]. Unpublished data from the records of Mozambican Association for Family Development (AMODEFA) which has a clinic that offers sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion, indicate that from 2010 to 2016 a total of 70,895 women had an induced abortion in this clinic, of which 43% were aged 15 to 24. Of the 1500 women that had an induced abortion in the AMODEFA clinic in the first three months of 2017, 27.9% were also in this age group [ 25 ]. These data show the high demand for (safe) abortion among young women.

For all this described above, Mozambique is an interesting place to study this decision-making process; given the changing legal framework, women may have to navigate gray areas in terms of legality, safety, and access when seeking abortion, which is stigmatized but necessary for the health, well-being, and social position of many young women.

The objective of this study is to explore the individual, interpersonal and environmental factors behind the abortion decision-making process. This entails both the decision to have an abortion and the decision on how to have the abortion. By examining fourteen stories of young women with an episode of induced abortion, we contribute to the documentation of the circumstances around the abortion decision making, and also to inform the policymakers on complexity of this issue for, which in turn can contribute to improve the strategies designed to reduce the cases of maternal morbidity and mortality in Mozambique.

2. Materials and Methods

This is an exploratory study using in-depth interview to explore factors related to abortion decision-making in a changing context. As research on this topic is limited, we opted for a qualitative research framework that aims to identify factors influencing this decision-making process.

2.1. Location of the Study

The study was conducted in two Mozambican cities, Maputo and Quelimane. These cities were selected because they registered more abortions than other cities in the same region. According to the 2014 data from the Direcção Nacional de Planificação, 629 and 698 women, respectively, were admitted to the hospital due to induced abortion complications in Maputo and Quelimane [ 26 ]. Furthermore, the two differ radically in terms of culture, with Maputo in the South being patrilineal and Quelimane in the Central Region matrilineal, which could influence the abortion decision-making process. The fieldwork took place between July–August 2016 and January–February 2017.

2.2. Data Collection

The data were collected through in-depth interviews, asking participants about their experiences with induced abortion and what motivated them to get an abortion. To approach and recruit participants ( Figure 1 ), we used the information collected during a cross-sectional survey with women in the reproductive age (15–49), These women were selected randomly applying multistage cluster based on household registers. The survey was designed to understand women’s sexual and reproductive health and included filter questions that allowed us to identify participants who had undergone an abortion. The information sheet and informed consent form for this household survey included information about a possible follow-up study.

The process of recruitment of the participants.

Participants who were within the age-range 15–24 years and who reported having had an abortion were contacted by phone. In this contact, the researcher (MF) introduced herself, reminded the participant of the study she took part in, explained the follow-up study and asked whether she was willing to participate in this. If she did, an appointment was made at a convenient location. Before each interview, we explained to each participant why she was invited to the second interview. Participants were also informed of interview procedures, confidentiality and anonymity in the management of the data, and the possibility to withdraw from the interview at any time. In total 14, young women (15–24) agreed to participate: nine in Maputo and five in Quelimane. Six of them were interviewed twice to explore further aspects that remained unclear after the first interview. The interviews were conducted in Portuguese.

To start the interview, the participant was invited to tell her life history from puberty until the moment when the abortion occurred. During the conversation, we used probing questions to elicit more details. Gradually, we added questions related to the abortion and factors that influenced the decision process. The main questions were related to the pregnancy history, abortion decision-making, and help-seeking behaviour. The guideline was adapted from WHO tools [ 27 , 28 ]. Before the implementation of the guideline, it was discussed first with another Mozambican researcher to see how they fell regarding the question. After those questions were revised or removed from the guideline.

2.3. Data Analysis

The analysis consisted of three steps: transcription, reading, and codification with NVivo version 11(QSR International Pty Ltd., Doncaster, Australia). After an initial reading, one of the authors (MF) developed a coding tree on factors determining the decision-making. A structured thematic analysis was used to make inferences and elicit key emerging themes from the text-based data [ 29 , 30 ]. The coding tree was based on the ecological model, which is a comprehensive framework that emphasizes the interaction between, and interdependence of factors within and across all levels of a health problem since it considers that the behaviour affects and is affected by multiple levels of influence [ 31 , 32 ].

Next, the codes and the classification were discussed among the researchers (Mónica Frederico, Kristien Michielsen, Carlos Arnaldo and Peter Decat). Finally, the data was interpreted, and conclusions were drawn [ 33 ].

2.4. Ethical Consideration

Before the implementation of this research, we obtained ethical approval from the Institutional Committee of the Faculty of Medicine and Nacional Bioethical Committee for Health (IRB00002657). We also asked for the institutional approval of the Minister of Health and authorities at the provincial and community levels. The participants gave their informed consent after the objectives and interview procedures had been explained to them. The participants were informed that they might be contacted and invited, within six months, to participate in another interview.

2.5. Concepts

The providers are the people who carried out the abortion procedure. These may be categorized into skilled and unskilled providers: the former refers to a professional (i.e., nurse or doctor) offering abortion services to a client, while the latter is someone without any medical training. Another concept that requires further explanation is the legal procedure. This corresponds to a set of steps to be followed to comply with the law [ 19 , 20 ]. Specifically, this means that a committee should authorize the induced abortion and an identification document should be available, as well as an informed consent form from the pregnant woman. If the woman is a minor, consent is given by her legal guardian. An ultrasound exam is required to determine the gestational age.

3.1. Characteristics of the Participants

The characteristics of the interviewees are summarized in Table 1 . The 14 participants were aged 17 to 24 years. Eight had completed secondary school, four had achieved the second level of primary school, and two were university students. Almost all (13) were Christian. Five participants were studying, eight were unemployed, and one was working. The median age of their first sexual intercourse was 15.5 years. Participants reported living with one or both parents (12), with their uncle (1) or alone (1). They lived in suburban areas of Maputo and Quelimane, which are slums with poor living conditions. In these areas, most households earn their income through small businesses that also involve child labour (e.g., selling food or drinks).

Socio-demographic characteristics and abortion procedure.

Among the participants, five reported more than one pregnancy. One interviewee first had a stillbirth and then two abortions. Another woman gave birth to a girl and afterward terminated two pregnancies. Two interviewees reported two pregnancies, the first of which was brought to full term and the second one terminated. One woman first had an abortion and afterward gave birth to a child. In short, 14 interviewees in total reported on the experiences and decision-making of 16 abortions. One participant stated that the pregnancy was the consequence of rape. Of the 16 reported abortions, seven were performed after the new law came into force at the end of 2014, and nine were carried out before this time.

3.2. Abortions Stories

In this study, 12 abortions were done by skilled providers and two by unskilled providers. The unskilled providers were a mother and a husband, respectively. None of the cases, whose abortion was done by a skilled provider, included in this study followed the legal procedure.

In the analysis of the interviews, we studied the personal, interpersonal and environmental factors that influenced six different types of abortion stories, see Table 2 : (1) an abortion was performed because the pregnancy was unwanted; (2) an abortion was carried out although the pregnancy was wanted; (3) the abortion was done by an unskilled provider at home; (4) an abortion was carried out by a skilled provider outside the hospital; (5) a particular abortion procedure (medical or chirurgical) was chosen, and (6) the legal procedure was not followed in the hospital. Factors influencing the choice for a particular technical procedure were also examined.

Summary of induced abortion stories. (We changed the table format, please confirm.)

* The result of rape; ** Seven participants; *** six participants.

3.3. Abortion Following an Unwanted Pregnancy

In the stories about unwanted pregnancies, mostly personal factors were mentioned as reasons, with some interviewees stating that they felt unable to be a mother at the time of the pregnancy: “ (It) was at the time that I was taking pills that I got pregnant, and I induced abortion because I was not prepared (for motherhood). ” (24 years)

Some had had a bad experience in the past: “ Maybe I would be abandoned and it would be the same. (Sigh)... I learned with my first pregnancy. ” (23 years)

Also, the existence of another child was mentioned as a reason to have an abortion: “ I got pregnant when I was 20, and I had a baby. When I became pregnant again, my daughter was a child, and I could not have another child. ” (23 years)

For other participants, studies were the main reason why the pregnancy was not wanted: “ He was informed about it, and he said that I should keep it. However, as I wanted to continue my studies, I told him no, no (I) do not. ” (17 years)

At the interpersonal level, a lack of support from the partner was often mentioned as a reason for not wanting the baby: “ He said that he recognizes the paternity, but it is not to keep that pregnancy. ” (22 years)

Women frequently mentioned environmental circumstances related to their poor socio-economic situation: “ I am staying at Mom's house; it is not okay to still be having babies there.” (23 years)

“ At home, we do not have any resources to take care of this child! ” (20 years)

3.4. Abortion Following a Wanted Pregnancy

In these cases, the decision to abort the pregnancy was not made by the woman herself but imposed by others or by the circumstances.

Some participants reported that their parents/family had decided what had to be done: “ They decided while I was at school. If (it) was my decision I would keep it because I wanted it. ” (18 years).

Other young women indicated the refusal of paternity as a reason to terminate the pregnancy.

“ Because my son’s father did not accept the (second) pregnancy. There was a time, we argued with each other, and we terminated the relationship. Later, we started dating again, and I got pregnant. He said it was not possible. ” (21 years)

“ (he) impregnated me and after that, he dumped me, (smiles)… I went to him, and I said that I was pregnant. He said eee: I do not know, that is not my child. ” (20 years).

Some women told the interviewers that they were convinced by their boyfriend to have an abortion: “ I talked to him, and he said okay we are going to have an abortion and I accepted. ” (22 years)

Others mentioned their partner’s indecision and changing attitude as a reason to get an abortion, even though they did want the baby:

“ I told him I was pregnant. First, he said to keep it. (Next) He was different. Sometimes he was calling me, and other times not. I understood that he did not want me. ” (20 years)

The fear of being excluded from their family due to their pregnancy was another reason reported by participants: “ So I went to talk with my older sister, and she said eee, you must abort because daddy will kick you out of our home. ” (20 years)

“ As I am an orphan, and I live with my uncle, they were going to kick me out. No one would assist me. ” (20 years)

3.5. Location of the Abortion: Home-Based Versus Hospital-Based

Two young women reported having had the abortion at home by an unskilled provider. It seems that these unskilled providers than the women (i.e. family members, partner) made the decisions.

“ It was mammy and my sister (who provided the induced abortion services). My sister knows these things. ” (18 years)

“ He (the father of the child) came to my house and took me back to his house. It was that moment when I aborted. ” (21 years)

Of the 16 abortions, seven were performed through health services, by a skilled provider. For some of them, the choice for a health service was influenced by the fact of knowing someone at the health facility.

“ I went to talk to her (friend), and she said that “I have an aunt who works at the hospital, she can help you. Just take money”. ” (20 years)

“ I Already knew who could induce it (abortion). No, I knew that person. I went to the hospital, and I talked to her, (and) she helped me. ” (22 years)

Other participants went to the health facility, but due to the lack of money to pay for an abortion at the facilities they sought help out of the health facility: “ They charged us money that we did not have. The ladies did not want to negotiate anything. I think they wanted 1200 mt (17.1 euros) if I am not wrong. He had a job, but he (boyfriend) did not have that amount of money. ” (22 years)

Some participants reported that they had an abortion outside regular facilities because the health provider recommended going to his house: “ She (mother) was the one who accompanied me. She is the one who knows the doctor. We went to the central hospital, but he (the doctor) was very busy, and he told us to go to his house. ” (17 years)

Others reported the fear of signing a document as a reason to seek help outside of official channels: “ I heard that to induce abortion at the hospital it is necessary for an adult to sign a consent form. I was afraid because I did not know who could accompany me. Because at that time I only wanted to hide it from others. ” (22 years).

3.6. Abortion Procedure

The women were not able to explain why a particular abortion procedure (i.e., pills or aspiration, curettage) was used. It appears that they were not given the opportunity to choose and that they submitted themselves to the procedure proposed by the provider.

“ The abortion was done here at home. They just went to the pharmacy, bought pills and gave them to me. ” (18 years)

3.7. Legal Procedure

None of those treated at the hospital stated that legal procedures were followed. They also mentioned that they had to pay without receiving any official receipt.

“ First we got there and talked to a servant (a helper of the hospital). The servant asked for money for a refreshment so he could talk to a doctor. After we spoke (with servant), he went to the doctor, and the doctor came, and we arranged everything with him. ” (22 years)

“ We went to the health center, and we talked to those doctors or nurses I mean, they said that they could provide that service. It was 1200 mt (17.1 euros), and they were going to deal with everything. They did not give us the chance to sign a document and follow those procedures. ” (20 years)

4. Discussion

The objective of this study was to describe abortion procedures and to explore factors influencing the abortion decision-making process among young women in Maputo and Quelimane.

The study pointed out determinants at the personal, interpersonal and environmental level. Analysing the results, we were confronted with four recurring factors that negatively impacted on the decision-making process: (1) women’s lack of autonomy to make their own decisions regarding the termination of the pregnancy, (2) their general lack of knowledge, (3) the poor availability of local abortion services, and (4) the overpowering influence of providers on the decisions made.

The first factor involves women’s lack of autonomy. In our study, most women indicate that decisions regarding the termination of a pregnancy are mostly taken by others, sometimes against their will. Parents, family members, partners, and providers decide what should happen. As shown in the literature, this lack of autonomy in abortion decision-making is linked to power and gender inequality [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]. On the one hand, power reflects the degree to which individuals or groups can impose their will on others, with or without the consent of those others [ 34 , 37 , 38 ]. In this case, the power of the parent/family is observed when they, directly or indirectly, influence their daughters to induce an abortion, for instance by threatening to kick them out of their home. On the other hand, gender inequality is also a factor. This refers to the power imbalance between men and women and is reflected by cases in which the partner makes the decision to terminate the pregnancy [ 38 ]. Besides this, the contextual environment of male chauvinism in Mozambique also makes it more socially acceptable for men to reject responsibility for a pregnancy [ 34 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 40 ]. Finally, women’s economic dependence makes them more vulnerable, dependent and subordinated. For economic reasons, women, have no other choice but to obey and follow the family or partner’s decisions. Closely linked with women’s lack of autonomy is their lack of knowledge. Interviewees report that they do not know where abortion services are provided. They are not acquainted with the legal procedures and do not know their sexual rights. This lack of knowledge among women contributes to the high prevalence of pregnancy termination outside of health facilities and not in accordance with legal procedures.

Our participants often report that abortion services are absent at a local level, as has also been pointed out by Ngwena [ 41 ]. This is a particular problem in Mozambique. Not all tertiary or quaternary health facilities are authorized to perform abortions. The fact that only some tertiary and quaternary facilities are allowed to do so creates a shortage of abortion centres to cover the demand. In fact, only people with a certain level of education and a sufficiently large social network have access to legal and proper abortion procedures.

Finally, our study shows that providers mostly decide on the location, the methods used and the legality of abortion procedures. Patients are highly dependent on the health providers’ commitment, professionality and accuracy and the selected procedures are not mutually decided by the provider and the patient. Providers often do not refer the client to the reference health facility or do not inform them of the legal procedures, creating a gap between law and practice that stimulates illegal and unsafe procedures. The reasons for this are unclear. It might be due to a lack of knowledge among health providers too, and, perhaps, provider saw here an opportunity to supplement the low salary [ 42 ]. Participants who seek help at the health facility they do so contacting the provider in particular, as indication given by someone.

This corroborates with studies conducted by Ngwena [ 41 , 43 ], Doran et al. [ 44 ], Pickles [ 45 ], Mantshi [ 46 ], and Ngwena [ 47 ], which pointed out the obstacles related to the availability of services and providers’ attitudes towards safe abortion, although the law grants the population this right [ 41 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ]. As Ngwena [ 41 , 43 ] argues, the liberalization of abortion laws is not always put into practice and abortion rights merely exist on paper. Braam’ study [ 48 ] therefore highlights the necessity of clarifying and informing women and providers of the current legislation and ensuring that abortion services are available in all circumstances described in the law.

Finally, despite cultural differences between Maputo and Quelimane, the result did not suggest differences between two areas studied regarding factors influencing the decision to terminate and how the abortion is done. However, the Figure 1 suggests that there was trend to have more participants from Maputo reporting abortion episode in her life than Quelimane. This difference maybe be because Maputo is much more multicultural and the people of this city have more access to information that gives them the opportunity to learn about matter of reproductive health including abortion, than Quelimane. So, due to this there is trend decrease the taboo relation to abortion in Maputo than in Quelimane.

These abortion stories illustrate the lack of autonomy in decision-making process given the power and gender inequalities between adults and young women, and also between man and women . They also show the lack of knowledge not only on the availability of abortion services at some health facilities, as well as, on the new law on abortion. All these lacks that women have are reinforced by poor availability of abortion services and the fact that the providers we not taking their role to help those women, as it is exposed in the next sections.

This study interviewed young women who had an induced abortion at some point in their lives (15 years up to their age at interview date). As such, it does not provide any information on the factors behind the decisions of those who did not terminate their pregnancy.

The results presented in this paper only reflect the perceptions of the young women who had an induced abortion, not those of their parents or partners. The paper is based on qualitative data that provides insights into factors influencing abortion decision-making. Since the sample included in the study is not representative for the population of young women in Mozambique, the results cannot be generalized.

5. Conclusions

Based on the results of the study, we recommend the following measures to improve the abortion decision-making process among young women:

First, strategies should be implemented to increase women's autonomy in decision-making: The study highlighted that gender and power inequalities obstructed young women to make their decision with autonomy. We reiterate the Chandra-Mouli and colleges [ 49 ] message. There is a need to address gender and power inequalities. Addressing gender inequality, and promotion of more equitable power relations leads to improved health outcomes. The interventions to promote gender-equitable and power relationships, as well as human rights, need to be central to all future programming and policies [ 49 ].

Second, patients and the whole population should be better informed about national abortion laws, the recommended and legal procedures and the location of abortion services, since, despite the decision to terminate pregnancy resulted to the imposition, if they were well informed on that, maybe they could be decide on safe and legal abortion, avoiding double autonomy deprivation. At the same time, providers must be informed about the status of national abortion laws. Additionally, they should be trained in communication skills to promote shared decision-making and patient orientation in abortion counseling.

Third, the number of health facilities providing abortions services should be increased, particularly in remote areas.

Finally, health providers should be trained in communication skills to promote shared decision-making and patient orientation in abortion counseling.

The abortion decision-making by young women is an important topic because it refers the decision made during the transitional period from childhood to adulthood. The decision may have life-long consequences, compromising the individual health, career, psychological well-being, and social acceptance. This paper, on abortion decision-making, calls attention to some attitudes that lead to the illegality of abortion despite it was done at a health facility.

Acknowledgments

Authors gratefully acknowledge the support, contribution, and comments from all those who collaborated direct or indirectly, especially Olivier Degomme, Eunice Remane Jethá, Emilia Gonçalves, Cátia Taibo, Beatriz Chongo, Hélio Maúngue and Rehana Capruchand.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed significantly to the manuscript. Mónica Frederico collected data and developed the first analysis. The themes were intensively discussed with Kristien Michielsen, Carlos Arnaldo and Peter Decat. The subsequent versions of the article were written with the active participation of all authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.