In Arkansas, state health officials announced a stunning statistic for 2023: The total number of abortions in the state, where some 1.5 million women live, was zero.<\/p>\n
In South Dakota, too, official records show zero abortions that year.<\/p>\n
And in Idaho, home to abortion battles that have recently made their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the official number of recorded abortions was just five.<\/p>\n
In nearly a dozen states with total or near-total abortion bans, government officials claimed that zero or very few abortions occurred in 2023, the first full year after the Supreme Court eliminated federal abortion rights.<\/p>\n
Those statistics, the most recent available and published in government records, have been celebrated by anti-abortion activists. Medical professionals say such accounts are not only untrue but fundamentally dishonest.<\/p>\n
\u201cTo say there are no abortions going on in South Dakota is ludicrous,\u201d said Amy Kelley, an OB-GYN in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, citing female patients who have come to her hospital after taking abortion pills or to have medical procedures meant to prevent death or end nonviable pregnancies. \u201cI can think of five off the top of my head that I dealt with,\u201d she said, \u201cand I have 15 partners.\u201d<\/p>\n
For some data scientists, these statistics also suggest a troubling trend: the potential politicization of vital statistics.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s so clinically dishonest,\u201d said Ushma Upadhyay, a public health scientist at the University of California-San Francisco, who co-chairs WeCount, an academic research effort that has kept a tally of the number of abortions nationwide since April 2022.<\/p>\n
The zeroing out is statistically unlikely, Upadhyay said, and also runs counter to the reality that pregnancy \u201ccomes with many risks and in many cases emergency abortion care will be needed.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe know they are sometimes necessary to save the pregnant person\u2019s life,\u201d she said, \u201cso I do hope there are abortions occurring in South Dakota.\u201d<\/p>\n
State officials reported a sharp decline in the official number of abortions after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade<\/em> in June 2022.<\/p>\n Arkansas reported zero abortions in 2023, compared with 1,621 in 2022.<\/p>\n Texas reported 60 in 2023, after reporting 50,783 abortions in the state in 2021.<\/p>\n Idaho reported five in 2023 compared with 1,553 in 2021.<\/p>\n South Dakota, which had severely restricted abortions years ahead of the Dobbs<\/em> ruling, reported zero in 2023 compared with 192 abortions in 2021.<\/p>\n Anti-abortion politicians and activists have cited these statistics to bolster their claims that their decades-long crusade to end abortion is a success.<\/p>\n \u201cUndoubtedly, many Arkansas pregnant mothers were spared from the lifelong regrets and physical complications abortion can cause and babies are alive today in Arkansas,\u201d Rose Mimms, executive director of Arkansas Right to Life, said in a press statement<\/a>. \u201cThat\u2019s a win-win for them and our state.\u201d<\/p>\n A spokesperson for the Arkansas Department of Health, Ashley Whitlow, said in an email that the department \u201cis not able to track abortions that take place out of the state or outside of a healthcare facility.\u201d State officials, she said, collect data from \u201cin-state providers and facilities for the Induced Abortion data reports as required by Arkansas law.\u201d<\/p>\n WeCount\u2019s tallies of observed telehealth abortions do not appear in the official state numbers. For instance, from April to June 2024 it counted an average of 240 telehealth abortions a month in Arkansas.<\/p>\n Groups that oppose abortion rights acknowledge that state surveillance reports do not tell the full story of abortion care occurring in their states. Mimms, of Arkansas Right to Life, said she would not expect abortions to be reported in the state, since the procedure is illegal except to prevent a patient\u2019s death.<\/p>\n \u201cWomen are still seeking out abortions in Arkansas, whether it\u2019s illegally or going out of state for illegal abortion,\u201d Mimms told KFF Health News. \u201cWe\u2019re not naive.\u201d<\/p>\n The South Dakota Department of Health \u201ccompiles information it receives from health care organizations around the state and reports it accordingly,\u201d Tia Kafka, its marketing and outreach director, said in an email responding to questions about the statistics. Kafka declined to comment on specific questions about abortions being performed in the state or characterizations that South Dakota\u2019s report is flawed.<\/p>\n Kim Floren, who serves as director of the Justice Empowerment Network, which provides funds and practical support to help South Dakota patients receive abortion care, expressed disbelief in the state\u2019s official figures.<\/p>\n \u201cIn 2023, we served over 500 patients,\u201d she said. \u201cMost of them were from South Dakota.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFor better or worse, government data is the official record,\u201d said Ishan Mehta, director for media and democracy at Common Cause, the nonpartisan public interest group. \u201cYou are not just reporting data. You are feeding into an ecosystem that is going to have much larger ramifications.\u201d<\/p>\n When there is a mismatch in the data reported by state governments and credible researchers, including WeCount and the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research group that supports abortion rights, state researchers need to dig deeper, Mehta said.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is going to create a historical record for archivists and researchers and people who are going to look at the decades-long trend and try to understand how big public policy changes affected maternal health care,\u201d Mehta said. And now, the recordkeepers \u201cdon\u2019t seem to be fully thinking through the ramifications of their actions.\u201d<\/p>\n A Culture of Fear<\/strong><\/p>\n Abortion rights supporters agree that there has been a steep drop in the number of abortions in every state that enacted laws criminalizing abortion. In states with total bans, 63 clinics have stopped providing abortions. And doctors and medical providers face criminal charges for providing or assisting in abortion care in at least a dozen states.<\/p>\n Practitioners find themselves working in a culture of confusion and fear, <\/strong>which could contribute to a hesitancy to report abortions \u2014 despite some state efforts to make clear when abortion is allowed.<\/p>\n For instance, South Dakota Department of Health Secretary Melissa Magstadt released a video<\/a> to clarify when an abortion is legal under the state\u2019s strict ban.<\/p>\n The procedure is legal in South Dakota only when a pregnant woman is facing death. Magstadt said doctors should use \u201creasonable medical judgment\u201d and \u201cdocument their thought process.\u201d<\/p>\n Any doctor convicted of performing an unlawful abortion faces up to two years in prison.<\/p>\n In the place of reliable statistics, academic researchers at WeCount use symbols like dashes to indicate they can\u2019t accurately capture the reality on the ground.<\/p>\n \u201cWe try to make an effort to make clear that it\u2019s not zero. That\u2019s the approach these departments of health should take,\u201d said WeCount\u2019s Upadhyay, adding that health departments \u201cshould acknowledge that abortions are happening in their states but they can\u2019t count them because they have created a culture of fear, a fear of lawsuits, having licenses revoked.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMaybe that\u2019s what they should say,\u201d she said, \u201cinstead of putting a zero in their reports.\u201d<\/p>\n Mixed Mandates for Abortion Data<\/strong><\/p>\n For decades, dozens of states have required abortion providers to collect detailed demographic information on the women who have abortions, including race, age, city, and county \u2014 and, in some cases, marital status and the reason for ending the pregnancy.<\/p>\n Researchers who compile data on abortion say there can be sound public health reasons for monitoring the statistics surrounding medical care, namely to evaluate the impact of policy changes. That has become particularly important in the wake of the Supreme Court\u2019s 2022 Dobbs<\/em> decision, which ended the federal right to an abortion and opened the door to laws in Republican-led states restricting and sometimes outlawing abortion care.<\/p>\n Isaac Maddow-Zimet, a Guttmacher data scientist, said data collection has been used by abortion opponents to overburden clinics with paperwork and force patients to answer intrusive questions. \u201cIt\u2019s part of a pretty long history of those tools being used to stigmatize abortion,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n In South Dakota, clinic staff members were required to report the weight of the contents of the uterus, including the woman\u2019s blood, a requirement that had no medical purpose and had the effect of exaggerating the weight of pregnancy tissue, said Floren, who worked at a clinic that provided abortion care before the state\u2019s ban.<\/p>\n \u201cIf it was a procedural abortion, you had to weigh everything that came out and write that down on the report,\u201d Floren said.<\/p>\n The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not mandate abortion reporting, and some Democratic-led states, including California, do not require clinics or health care providers to collect data. Each year, the CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies for every state, the District of Columbia, and New York City, and these states and jurisdictions voluntarily report aggregated data for inclusion in the CDC\u2019s annual \u201cAbortion Surveillance\u201d report<\/a>.<\/p>\n In states that mandate public abortion tracking, hospitals, clinics, and physicians report the number of abortions to state health departments in what are typically called \u201cinduced termination of pregnancy\u201d reports, or ITOPs.<\/p>\n Before Dobbs,<\/em> such reports recorded procedural and medication abortions. But following the elimination of federal abortion rights, clinics shuttered in states with criminal abortion bans. More patients began accessing abortion medication through online organizations, including Aid Access, that do not fall under mandatory state reporting laws.<\/p>\n At least six states have enacted what are called \u201cshield laws\u201d to protect providers who send pills to patients in states with abortion bans. That includes New York, where Linda Prine, a family physician employed by Aid Access, prescribes and sends abortion pills to patients across the country.<\/p>\n Asked about states reporting zero or very few abortions in 2023, Prine said she was certain those statistics were wrong. Texas, for example, reported 50,783 abortions in the state in 2021. Now the state reports on average five a month. WeCount reported an average of 2,800 telehealth abortions a month in Texas from April to June 2024.<\/p>\n \u201cIn 2023, Aid Access absolutely mailed pills to all three states in question \u2014 South Dakota, Arkansas, and Texas,\u201d Prine said.<\/p>\n Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit in January against a New York-based physician, Maggie Carpenter, co-founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, for prescribing abortion pills to a Texas patient in violation of Texas\u2019 near-total abortion ban. It\u2019s the first legal challenge to New York\u2019s shield law and threatens to derail access to medication abortion.<\/p>\n Still, some state officials in states with abortion bans have sought to choke off the supply of medication that induces abortion. In May, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin wrote cease and desist letters to Aid Access<\/a> in the Netherlands and Choices Women\u2019s Medical Center<\/a> in New York City, stating that \u201cabortion pills may not legally be shipped to Arkansas\u201d and accusing the medical organizations of potentially \u201cfalse, deceptive, and unconscionable trade practices\u201d that carry up to $10,000 per violation.<\/p>\n Good-government groups like Common Cause say that the dangers of officials relying on misleading statistics are myriad, including a disintegration of public trust as well as ill-informed legislation.<\/p>\n These concerns have been heightened by misinformation surrounding health care, including an entrenched and vocal anti-vaccine movement and the objections of some conservative politicians to mandates related to covid-19, including masks, physical distancing, and school and business closures.<\/p>\n \u201cIf the state is not going to put in a little more than the bare minimum to just find out if their data is accurate or not,\u201d Mehta said, \u201cwe are in a very dangerous place.\u201d<\/p>\n\n KFF Health News<\/a> is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF\u2014an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF<\/a>.<\/p>\nUSE OUR CONTENT<\/h3>\n