New Research Highlights the Limits of Abortion Bans
Out-of-state and self-managed abortions pose daunting challenges for pro-life legislators.

Since the Supreme Court repudiated a constitutional right to abortion in June, 22 states have enacted or begun to enforce new limits on the procedure, including 13 strict bans. New research suggests that the consequences so far have been less dramatic than pro-choice activists may have feared and pro-life activists may have hoped, demonstrating the obstacles facing legislators who are taking advantage of the authority that the Court restored.
The Society of Family Planning (SFP) recently estimated that U.S. clinicians performed 6 percent fewer abortions in August than they did in April, before the Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health Organization. That tally almost certainly exaggerates the impact of Dobbs, because it does not take into account seasonal variation or drug-induced abortions that women performed on their own.
The SFP report analyzes data from health care providers who accounted for 82 percent of abortions performed at or through U.S. medical facilities, augmented by estimates based on information from other sources. The researchers found that the number of such procedures fell sharply this summer in some states while rising substantially in others, which reflects women who traveled to obtain abortions.
On balance, the SFP counted some 10,000 fewer abortions in July and August. But the report notes that the volume of abortions tends to fall in the summer, which means some of the decline could be due to seasonal variation rather than new legal restrictions.
Self-managed abortions introduce further uncertainty. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of abortion pills without a clinic visit, and they are widely available not only from American prescribers but also from sources such as over-the-counter purchases in Mexico and online organizations like Aid Access.
According to a 30-state study reported in The Journal of the American Medical Association on Tuesday, the average number of daily requests received by Aid Access rose from 83 to 137 after a draft of the Dobbs majority opinion was leaked in early May, then jumped again to 214 after the decision was officially announced on June 24. Increases were especially large in states that had restricted or banned abortion, where requests more than tripled in some cases.
The SFP survey did not include drug-induced abortions that women completed without assistance from U.S. providers. It is therefore impossible to say how many women evaded abortion bans without traveling to clinics in other states.
"While the overall decline suggests that many people who need[ed] abortions did not travel to other states, we are unable to estimate the number of abortions that occurred outside the formal healthcare system, such as via Aid Access or volunteer 'accompaniment' networks in Mexico," the SFP report notes. "Thus, we are unable to estimate how many pregnant people self-managed their abortions versus carried to term."
The full impact of Dobbs has not been felt yet, because the number of states with bans or severe restrictions on abortion is likely to grow. And the burdens imposed by existing abortion laws surely have proven to be prohibitive for many women.
Out-of-state abortions may not be a viable option for women of modest means who live far from the closest clinic, especially if they have inflexible work schedules or childrearing responsibilities. They might not know how to obtain abortion pills from informal sources, or they might view that option as unacceptably risky.
Legislators who hope to prevent abortions nevertheless will have to contend with the fact that they remain broadly legal in 28 states and the District of Columbia. They also will have to contend with the availability of abortion pills, an obstacle they cannot overcome simply by passing new laws.
For more than a century, the government has vainly tried to stop Americans from obtaining psychoactive substances it deems intolerable. Since abortion pills are approved by the FDA and remain legal in most states as well as many other countries, they pose an even more daunting practical and political challenge.
© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Nobody cares about this card you keep trying to play.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.????????.???
^Beat me to it. Dear Mr. Sullum, no one fucking cares.
The repeated 'abortion season' straw-grasping makes me think Sullum's not here man.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (odi-19) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
…
Just open the link————————————–>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Globally… https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/05/27/1099739656/do-restrictive-abortion-laws-actually-reduce-abortion-a-global-map-offers-insigh “Do restrictive abortion laws actually reduce abortion? A global map offers insights” Answer: No, tighter laws do NOT reduce the number of abortions… They just make them harder to get, and more dangerous!
"Many studies have shown that making abortions illegal doesn't decline the number of abortions," Ana Langer, at Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, told NPR. "Once a procedure becomes illegal, the need is still there. Women will look for services, safe or unsafe, to terminate their pregnancy."
BUTT... For arrogant whack jobs... Conclusions first, then find or make up data to justify what I already bleeve!!! 'Cause God told me so, and God speaks ONLY to MEEEEE (and sometimes mine also, when they agree with MEEEEE)!!!!
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this article… http://www.Profit97.com
"For more than a century, the government has vainly tried to stop Americans from obtaining psychoactive substances it deems intolerable. Since abortion pills are approved by the FDA and remain legal in most states as well as many other countries, they pose an even more daunting practical and political challenge."
Passing laws to try to discourage theft, rape and murder have proven to be vain tasks as well, yet they are important to establishing the universality of human rights.
Murdering plants and animals DELIBERATELY in order to EAT them stops beating hearts and flowing sap!!! STOPPING this utter MADNESS remains essential to establishing the universality of living-being rights!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism ... Jain vegetarianism is the Truth and The Way!!! Eat ONLY fruits that have fallen from the tree, lest ye HURT the tree during the picking of the fruit! And do NOT eat the seeds! Eating seeds prevents new plants from being born!
(All of this deep disrespect for universal LIFE inherent in ALL belief systems excluding strict Jain vegetarianism is the root cause of ALL human evils, including genocide, bad haircuts, torture-rape, sloppy housekeeping, and necrophilia!)
OK, so the concept of "human rights" are invalid. Where does that get us as to what kind of societal structure and rules that we should live under?
NOTHING will get us there, short of the absolute worshit, not only of recently-fartilized egg smells, but also, of ALL living beings!!! From the cited article about the Jains and their MUCH higher standards than the rest of us, see...
"Strict Jains do not consume food that has been stored overnight, as it possesses a higher concentration of micro-organisms (for example, bacteria, yeast etc.) as compared to food prepared and consumed the same day."
Bacteria have feelings and rights too, ya know!!!
The laws are effective at stopping medical providers from carrying out abortions in a state. That’s their point. I don’t see any “daunting challenges” there.
(States might additionally deny future state benefits to individuals who obtain abortions out of state, but that’s a separate issue.)
"States might additionally deny future state benefits to individuals who obtain abortions..."
Since they won't get bennies, will they be proportionately excused from paying state taxes? If not, then this is "taxation without representation", ya know!!! I am taxed, but my interests are NOT considered in return! Some smart, tough, and fair-minded folks WAAAY back when fought a full-fledged WAR over "taxation without representation", ya know!!!
(Also, since I am a man, I can't get an abortion, so as to justify my NOT paying taxes, under this scheme, if it has the decency to forego "taxation without representation"... So that I could bow OUT of socialist redistribution schemes!!! THIS, too is unfair! Sex discrimination!!!)
Sure, if they leave the state.
You mean the same way state governments take my money and don't consider my interests and deny me many benefits? Welcome to democracy in America!
State governments deny benefits to many tax payers for a wide variety of reasons. Foremost, the people paying the most state taxes are the least likely to receive benefits. So, no, neither you nor me can get out of paying state taxes.
This is entire article can be summed up as:
"Sometimes people can go visit a place where the laws are different"