The number of abortions slightly increased in the US in the first year after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed a wave of strict bans to go into effect across the country.
The modest rise could be interpreted in many different ways, depending on someone’s political leanings. An abortion rights supporter might view the data as clearly showing that bans on abortions do not eliminate the need for them. A states’ rights proponent might think the outcome proves their point: People are free to go elsewhere to seek care, and the data showed that they did. Of course, a staunch abortion opponent might look at the results as evidence that a nationwide ban is needed.
Yet none of those simplistic views reflect the reality of what it took to maintain abortion access in the US after the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling in June last year. The data belied a gargantuan and potentially unsustainable effort to connect women with providers, and the story on access is still being written in legal battles across the US.
A new report from the #WeCount project at the Society of Family Planning said that the number of abortions in the US from June last year to June this year increased by about 2,000 from a year earlier.
“Someone could superficially look at the data and say, ‘There’s no problem here,’” said Ushma Upadhyay, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, and chair of the #WeCount project.
However, the data do not show the intense work going on behind the scenes to ensure that women in states with bans can still access healthcare.
For instance, take the massive effort to help women travel for abortion care. Illinois, which saw the biggest increase in abortions in that first post-Dobbs year, has become the obvious destination for women in the Midwest and south.
The incredible logistical and financial task of getting people to the state might not be sustainable — nor a reasonable substitute for access to care in a person’s home town.
For example, Planned Parenthood of Illinois said that average per-patient travel costs have nearly doubled from US$250 to US$475, and that it has provided about US$2.1 million in financial support for patients since the Dobbs decision.
The Chicago Abortion Fund has fielded more than 14,000 support requests since the Dobbs decision, dispensing more than US$4.5 million to people who need help with everything from train or plane tickets to hotels, meals and child care.
“That’s a staggering amount when our organizational budget five years ago was about US$270,000,” Chicago Abortion Fund executive director Megan Jeyifo said.
Travel is only likely to get more expensive as some of last year’s “refuge states” impose bans. North Carolina, for example, performed an extra 11,830 abortions in the first 12 months post-Dobbs, but in July, a ban on abortions after 12 weeks of gestation went into effect, along with more onerous requirements for earlier abortions that make it harder for out-of-staters to receive care there. Provisional data from the Guttmacher Institute showed that in the first month after the ban, facility-based abortions declined by 31 percent, amounting to about 1,310 fewer abortions.
If the Florida Supreme Court upholds that state’s 15-week ban, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has promised to put a more draconian six-week ban into effect within weeks. Florida saw nearly as big of a post-Dobb bump in abortions as Illinois, thanks to its position in the Deep South.
A six-week ban in the Sunshine State would create a daunting number of people seeking care in Illinois.
“We haven’t had to turn anyone away since summer of 2019, and that’s what keeps you up at night: How much longer can we do that?” Jeyifo said.
Meanwhile, states with total bans are passing laws to punish anyone who helps a woman travel out of state for an abortion. This week, Lubbock became the largest county in Texas to introduce an ordinance that would allow private citizens to file civil suits against someone who assists in abortion-related travel. Some states are threatening criminal prosecution for aiding someone seeking an abortion. While the legality of such measures is in question, their mere existence has a chilling effect.
The ripple effects that abortion bans can have on other areas of healthcare cannot be ignored.
Researchers from Boston Children’s Hospital found that states with the most restrictive stance on abortion had higher county-level rate of infant deaths — a conclusion drawn from pre-Dobbs-era data.
The authors fear that rate could worsen with the wave of restrictive laws.
Early data out of Texas showed that after infant mortality rose by 11.5 percent after it instituted a six-week ban on abortions, upending an eight-year decline in deaths.
Another thing that bans could worsen is the country’s abysmal rate of maternal mortality.
One report found that before Dobbs, the maternal death rate was 2.4 times higher in states with abortion restrictions than in those without. That gap could easily widen.
The Dobbs ruling is already driving some obstetricians and gynecologist out of states that have introduced draconian bans. That is making all reproductive healthcare — including obtaining birth control, getting pap smears and giving birth — increasingly hard to find in rural areas.
All of that means that the next post-Dobbs year, and the ones after it, could look a lot different than the first one — not just for abortion care, but for women’s overall health.
Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry. Previously, she was executive editor of Chemical & Engineering News.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
RSS