Republican states claim zero abortions. A red state doctor calls that 'ludicrous'
This is a .
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.
In South Dakota, too, official records show zero abortions that year.
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.
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.
MORE: Fighting for their lives: Women and the impact of abortion restrictions in post-Roe America
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.
"To say there are no abortions going on in South Dakota is ludicrous," 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. "I can think of five off the top of my head that I dealt with," she said, "and I have 15 partners."
For some data scientists, these statistics also suggest a troubling trend: the potential politicization of vital statistics.
"It's so clinically dishonest," 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.
The zeroing out is statistically unlikely, Upadhyay said, and also runs counter to the reality that pregnancy "comes with many risks and in many cases emergency abortion care will be needed."
"We know they are sometimes necessary to save the pregnant person's life," she said, "so I do hope there are abortions occurring in South Dakota."
State officials reported a sharp decline in the official number of abortions after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade in June 2022.
Arkansas reported zero abortions in 2023, compared with 1,621 in 2022.
Texas reported 60 in 2023, after reporting 50,783 abortions in the state in 2021.
Idaho reported five in 2023 compared with 1,553 in 2021.
South Dakota, which had severely restricted abortions years ahead of the Dobbs ruling, reported zero in 2023 compared with 192 abortions in 2021.
Anti-abortion politicians and activists have cited these statistics to bolster their claims that their decades-long crusade to end abortion is a success.
"Undoubtedly, many Arkansas pregnant mothers were spared from the lifelong regrets and physical complications abortion can cause and babies are alive today in Arkansas," Rose Mimms, executive director of Arkansas Right to Life, said in a press statement. "That's a win-win for them and our state."
A spokesperson for the Arkansas Department of Health, Ashley Whitlow, said in an email that the department "is not able to track abortions that take place out of the state or outside of a healthcare facility." State officials, she said, collect data from "in-state providers and facilities for the Induced Abortion data reports as required by Arkansas law."
WeCount's 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.
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's death.
"Women are still seeking out abortions in Arkansas, whether it's illegally or going out of state for illegal abortion," Mimms told KFF Health News. "We're not naive."
MORE: Abortion ballot initiatives could have helped Harris win, instead Trump overperformed
The South Dakota Department of Health "compiles information it receives from health care organizations around the state and reports it accordingly," 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's report is flawed.
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's official figures.
"In 2023, we served over 500 patients," she said. "Most of them were from South Dakota."
"For better or worse, government data is the official record," said Ishan Mehta, director for media and democracy at Common Cause, the nonpartisan public interest group. "You are not just reporting data. You are feeding into an ecosystem that is going to have much larger ramifications."
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.
"This 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," Mehta said. And now, the recordkeepers "don't seem to be fully thinking through the ramifications of their actions."
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.
Practitioners find themselves working in a culture of confusion and fear, which could contribute to a hesitancy to report abortions -- despite some state efforts to make clear when abortion is allowed.
For instance, South Dakota Department of Health Secretary Melissa Magstadt released a video to clarify when an abortion is legal under the state's strict ban.
The procedure is legal in South Dakota only when a pregnant woman is facing death. Magstadt said doctors should use "reasonable medical judgment" and "document their thought process."
Any doctor convicted of performing an unlawful abortion faces up to two years in prison.
MORE: A state-by-state breakdown of where abortion stands after ballot initiatives pass
In the place of reliable statistics, academic researchers at WeCount use symbols like dashes to indicate they can't accurately capture the reality on the ground.
"We try to make an effort to make clear that it's not zero. That's the approach these departments of health should take," said WeCount's Upadhyay, adding that health departments "should acknowledge that abortions are happening in their states but they can't count them because they have created a culture of fear, a fear of lawsuits, having licenses revoked."
"Maybe that's what they should say," she said, "instead of putting a zero in their reports."
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 -- and, in some cases, marital status and the reason for ending the pregnancy.
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's 2022 Dobbs 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.
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. "It's part of a pretty long history of those tools being used to stigmatize abortion," he said.
In South Dakota, clinic staff members were required to report the weight of the contents of the uterus, including the woman's 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's ban.
"If it was a procedural abortion, you had to weigh everything that came out and write that down on the report," Floren said.
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's annual "Abortion Surveillance" report.
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 "induced termination of pregnancy" reports, or ITOPs.
Before Dobbs, 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.
At least six states have enacted what are called "shield laws" 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.
MORE: What could abortion access look like under Trump?
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.
"In 2023, Aid Access absolutely mailed pills to all three states in question — South Dakota, Arkansas, and Texas," Prine said.
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' near-total abortion ban. It's the first legal challenge to New York's shield law and threatens to derail access to medication abortion.
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 in the Netherlands and Choices Women's Medical Center in New York City, stating that "abortion pills may not legally be shipped to Arkansas" and accusing the medical organizations of potentially "false, deceptive, and unconscionable trade practices" that carry up to $10,000 per violation.
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.
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.
"If 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," Mehta said, "we are in a very dangerous place."
Republican states claim zero abortions. A red state doctor calls that 'ludicrous' originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a DEI case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Why? Every decision was unanimous. Recent polling has shown that Americans continue to view the Supreme Court as extremely partisan. Just 20% of those polled view the nation's highest courtas politically neutral, and its favorability is far higher among Republicans than Democrats. These opinions on SCOTUS come from a lack of nuance in conversations around the court, in which Republicans are furious when one of their preferred justices occasionally disagrees with President Donald Trump, and where Democrats ignore the Supreme Court cases that don't get decided along political ideology. The ideological lines on the court shouldn't be chalked up to the party of the president who appointed each justice, and the media narrative suggesting such should be dispelled. Can we finally leave Justice Amy Coney Barrett alone? There is no better example of the lack of nuanced conversation surrounding the Supreme Court than Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She has been villainized by the left for being a Trump sycophant and has been smeared as a liberal in disguise by some of Trump's most ardent supporters. In recent months, Barrett has been under fire from MAGA for not being sufficiently committed to their cause. Glossing over the fact that the job of judges is to determine what the law is, rather than what it ought to be, these individuals have gone from praising Barrett's integrity at her confirmation to demanding she sacrifice it for Trump's causes. Opinion: Liberals owe Justice Barrett an apology. She's clearly not in Trump's pocket. What has Barrett done to deserve any of this? Well, she had the audacity to rule against Trump on a couple of occasions. That's it. Justice Barrett joined the liberal justices in dissent against the majority decision to allow Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, as well as voting against the Trump administration's attempts to freeze funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Since arriving on the court in 2020, Barrett has joined majorities to overturn Roe v. Wade, restore the right to carry a handgun, eliminate racist affirmative action practices, rein in executive bureaucracy and even expand presidential immunity. No reasonable person could argue that her jurisprudence in these cases is advancing any liberal causes, but the fact that she has ruled against Trump on occasion somehow overrides all of that evidence. Both parties have a warped view of who Justice Barrett is, and that is a symptom of a much larger problem about Americans' information about the court. The news media has played a role in that overall view. News media needs to do a better job of covering SCOTUS Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a discrimination case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Opinion: There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination. The reason for that is the fact that every one of these decisions was unanimous, each written by one of the three liberal justices, so they didn't fit the narrative of the extremely polarized Supreme Court that Americans have been barraged with in recent years. Naturally, the court tends to split on the highest profile cases, which intuitively makes sense. After all, they are divisive. However, the vast majority of cases undermine the partisan tale often told of the court. For the 2022-23 term, the last for which data has been published, conservative justices only agreed with each other on roughly half of their cases, and in some cases, even they were more likely to agree with a certain liberal justice. Some experts have categorized the justices according to their regard for the consequences of the rulings, instead of political leanings. Justices Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts seem to be more concerned with consequences outside of the specific case they are ruling on. The result is that, in some respects, this group of three is closer to the liberal justices than their conservative colleagues. Furthermore, each justice has individual tendencies that differentiate them from even their ideological allies. Neil Gorsuch has a libertarian streak of generally standing up to the government and has a soft spot for the rights of Native Americans. The popular partisan narrative for the Supreme Court gives a very narrow view of how the justices' ideologies actually play out in practice. Americans should look to the justices' own personal tendencies and judicial philosophy to characterize them, rather than simply grouping them by party. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Alarm raised over increase in antisemitism
Advertisement There has been too much silence and indifference for far too long, which enables and emboldens this harmful hate and abuse. It's time for real support and solidarity and a rejection of the civic inertia that has left Jewish people unsafe, marginalized, and threatened in Massachusetts, New England, and across the country. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Noam Schimmel Framingham The writer is a lecturer in global studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Israel's punishing campaign in Gaza has to be taken into account In a Voice of America Advertisement Samantha Joseph's op-ed does allude to the 'elevated threat' to the Jewish community that the FBI links to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. Regrettably, though, Joseph fails to acknowledge that in the 21 months since Hamas's brutal killings and kidnappings of Oct. 7, 2023, the Israeli government's grossly disproportionate punishment levied against the people of Gaza — a relentless assault viewed by many international legal scholars and human rights organizations as amounting to a genocide — has likely triggered the recent awful attacks on Jews. All of which tells us that Israel's ending the carnage in Gaza is what's desperately needed — for the people of Gaza, for the remaining hostages, and, frankly, for Jews everywhere. Michael Felsen Jamaica Plain BDS movement is a gray area between antisemitism, criticism of Israel Samantha Joseph is right to decry antisemitic violence perpetrated by supporters of Palestinian rights. No matter how one feels about Israel's attacks on Palestinians (and now Iranians), that does not justify attacks on American Jews. We all need to draw a sharp line between criticism of the government of Israel and antisemitism. However, later in her op-ed, Joseph blurs this line by calling the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel antisemitic. This movement is precisely an attempt to impose financial and reputational consequences on Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. Contrary to to the claims of the movement's critics, it has nothing to do with antisemitism. Ken Olum Sharon
2 hours ago
Clerk who denied same-sex marriage licenses in 2015 is still fighting Supreme Court's ruling
The Kentucky county clerk who became known around the world for her opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage is still arguing in court that it should be overturned. Kim Davis became a cultural lightning rod 10 years ago, bringing national media and conservative religious leaders to eastern Kentucky as she continued for weeks to deny the licenses. She later met Pope Francis in Rome and was parodied on 'Saturday Night Live.' Davis began denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Videos of a same-sex couple arguing with Davis in the clerk's office over their denial of a license drew national attention to her office. She defied court orders to issue the licenses until a federal judge jailed her for contempt of court in September 2015. Davis was released after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf but removed her name from the form. The Kentucky Legislature later enacted a law removing the names of all county clerks from state marriage licenses. Davis said her faith forbade her from what she saw as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Faith leaders and conservative political leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and then-Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin rallied to her cause. After her release from jail, Davis addressed the media, saying that issuing same-sex marriage licenses 'would be conflicting with God's definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This would be an act of disobedience to my God.' Davis declined a request for an interview from The Associated Press for this story. In 2018, one of the men who had confronted Davis over her defiance ran for her office. David Ermold said he believed people in Rowan County were sick of Davis and wanted to move on. When he went to file his papers for the Democratic primary, Davis, a Republican, was there in her capacity as clerk to sign him up. Sitting across a desk from each other, the cordial meeting contrasted the first time they met three years earlier. Both candidates lost; Ermold in the primary and Davis in the general election. She has not returned to politics. Davis' lawyers are attempting again to get her case before the Supreme Court, after the high court declined to hear an appeal from her in 2020. A federal judge has ordered Davis to pay a total of $360,000 in damages and attorney fees to Ermold and his partner. Davis lost a bid in March to have her appeal of that ruling heard by a federal appeals court, but she will appeal again to the Supreme Court. Her attorney, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, said the goal is affirm Davis' constitutional rights and 'overturn Obergefell.'
