New Survey Finds Abortions Increased Slightly in 2023, Despite Widespread Bans

The same survey found that thousands of women are still getting telemedicine abortions, even if they live in states where the procedure is illegal.

According to new research, about 8,000 women per month obtained abortion pills in late 2023, despite living in states that have bans or severe restrictions on telemedicine abortion or abortion access. The survey also found that the abortion rate in 2023 was slightly higher than in 2022, despite total abortion bans in more than a dozen states.

"The number of abortions in the United States remained consistently elevated compared to pre-Dobbs levels, even as 14 states have banned abortion completely," reads a Tuesday press release. "This elevated volume of abortion may be due in part to the expansion of telehealth abortion care, which made up 19% of all abortion care nationwide by December 2023."

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, a rash of states jumped to ban abortion entirely or place severe restrictions on the practice. Nearly two years later, 14 states have completely banned abortion, and three more have banned it after six weeks into the pregnancy.

However, research has indicated that the total number of U.S. abortions didn't necessarily go down following Roe's overturn. In the one survey released Tuesday by the abortion-rights group Society of Family Planning, the total number of abortions seemed to increase modestly in 2023 when compared to the year before.

The survey, called #WeCount, found that in 2022, there were around 82,000 abortions per month. In 2023, the rate had gone up to 86,000—even after excluding a bump in abortion numbers coming from women who obtained otherwise illegal telemedicine abortions under abortion-provider-protecting "shield laws."

Further, the survey found that by December 2023, almost one in five U.S. abortions are provided through telehealth. Surprisingly, around half of these abortions occurred in states where telehealth abortion is otherwise illegal or severely restricted. While the survey found that around 17,000 women per month from October to December 2023 were prescribed abortion pills by telehealth, 8,000 of these prescriptions went to women who lived in states where telehealth abortion is banned.

How is this possible? The researchers suggest that the introduction of shield laws in a handful of states played a major role. So far, five states have passed laws protecting medical providers from possible prosecution for helping women obtain medication abortions that are illegal in another state. The shield laws prohibit officials from cooperating with investigations or prosecutions related to such abortions. 

This led to a noted uptick in #WeCount's numbers. "Part of the increase in 2023 is due to abortions being provided under shield laws, starting in July 2023, and #WeCount's subsequent inclusion of these abortions," the report states. "These abortions may have previously occurred outside the formal healthcare system prior to the use of shield laws."

This latest research shows just how difficult it is to truly ban abortion as long as telehealth prescriptions for abortion pills remain readily available. Since the end of Roe, not only have women seeking to end their pregnancies frequently traveled out of state for abortion procedures, but they've also been able to get abortion pills delivered to their door. However, even the Society of Family Planning admits they can't accurately estimate all abortions in the United States.

"Providers in the formal healthcare system, including those protected by shield laws, are not the only source of abortion medications," reads Tuesday's report. "We are unable to estimate the number of abortions that occurred outside clinician-provided care, including those provided by online stores that sell abortion medications, volunteer accompaniment networks, and other types of self-managed abortion." 

Comments

[Chumby]

Birds of a feather, flock together.

Cells of a clump end up in a dump.

[Moderation4ever]

This is why the Republican feel there is a need for a database of pregnant women. Women are failing to submit to their state's government rules that they give birth. Tracking is the only thing that can keep these women in line with the rules.

[damikesc]

Do you feel shame falling for every asinine leftist talking point under the sun?

Like literally all of them.

[Moderation4ever]

As Reason points out it is a useless database, so what's the point of having it if not needed. States are having problems keeping medical abortions away from women and they cannot stop women from traveling to other states, so they need a new idea.

[JesseAz]

Lol. Reason already debunked this parody. Thought you weren't a left wing loon.

[Minadin]

C'mon, you didn't actually think that. You pay way too much attention to what people actually post to be caught at unawares like that.

I know, I know, it's shocking when a poster who is constantly only arguing the one side ends up being actually ON that side as opposed to simply presenting their argument to bring context, or in a 'Devil's Advocate' kind of manner. But it's happened before.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Again, how to boil a life frog. Start with warm water the frog finds comfortable and slowly increase the heat until the frog is dead.

Our income tax is a voluntary system. For most of my life that's what the first page of the booklet from the IRS said. I don't think they bother anymore. Anyhow, that voulentary system became mandatory real quick.

We are suppose to believe this registry will remain voluntary for ever? I don't think thats ever happened with a government program.

[ducksalad]

“Early enough that you can handle it with pills” is about 10 weeks. Which just coincidentally is only a few weeks short of the typical cutoff date that most Western democracies adopt when the issue hasn’t been politicized and dominated by absolutists.

Sounds like the solution has been found. Can me move on now?

[Liberty_Belle]

No, the busybodies will think of a workaround soon. Can't have women making their own choices, now can we.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Do they get the choice to not wear a mask?

[Don't look at me!]

Or get a shot?

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Look, choice is only a thing if a (leftist) government approves of it.

[JesseAz]

Does that choice extend to female babies?

[VULGAR MADMAN]

He’d have to be a biologist to answer that.

[JasonT20]

Does that choice extend to female babies?

What choice does a female baby need to make regarding abortion? They are far too young to get pregnant, sicko.

[Social Justice is neither]

And the extremist psychopath is here right on cue. Can't possibly expect you to be responsible before conception though.

[MrMxyzptlk]

I take it you had those pesky hormones removed from your body when you were young. Normal people have hormones raging through them making them want to mate. You don't want them being gay and ass fuckjng because that's a sin and you don't want them wanking off to porn because that's a sin. So what do you want them to do with these urges? Get medicated? Take puberty blockers? Are those sins too?

In the end you want some idealized Leave it to Beaver world where kids don't get sexually active at all. Mind you that was a TV show. No doubt the teen actors were fucking like bunnies when the cameras turned off.

Sex is going to happen. Outside of wedlock and between stupid kids. You won't stop it short of a total rebuild of society. Best to be ready for damage control afterward. Abortion is damage control.

[Dillinger]

you must be so ... proud?

[mad.casual]

Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering patriarchy; to the last I grapple with thee; from my totally-accidentally impregnated womb I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.

I guess we won’t find out for the next several months or years if any of these 4,000 additional abortions that we’re discussing were rapes that we’re just ignoring in favor lauding Big Pharma... Who would totally never exploit and oppress people for money.

[MasterThief]

It really is so tone-deaf and ghoulish to be cheering for more dead babies, especially when Reason was angry about more births in Texas. You don't have to be "pro-life" to find this level of abortion advocacy off-putting

[mad.casual]

You know who else liked to report inflated numbers of child fatalities?

[JesseAz]

Sarc, jeff, and Hamas?

[Chumby]

That group of parents against Dungeons and Dragons?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

'The survey, called #WeCount, found that in 2022, there were around 82,000 abortions per month.'

Who knew that many thoughtless drunk party girls, er, helpless oppressed rape victims get it on every month.

[Liberty_Belle]

Weird how “it takes two” when decisions are to be made, but it’s only one side (i.e. – drunk party girls) to be blamed when we start throwing around things like “responsibility”.

We aren't sexing ourselves. What about the drunk horny men in this little blame scenario of yours ?

[American Mongrel]

The men who support or encourage the abortions are immoral whores too. But they don't really have a say one way or the other, do they?

[Liberty_Belle]

Sure they do. More than they should, in fact.

https://4w.pub/in-2020-women-still-need-their-husbands-permission-to-get-sterilized/

[JesseAz]

Do you support men terminating their parental obligations if the woman wants to keep the baby?

And if unknown users on X are the source of your information…. Weird how no laws were cited.

[Liberty_Belle]

Yes, and it should be mandatory, really. There are some caveats, tho. I think it’s fair to make the man pay for prenatal and legal separation fees so they don’t get off scott-free and it discourages irresponsible sex on his part. The woman is going to raise a child alone which is already her discouragement. It is an uncomfortable thought (especially with the hormones kicking you in the brain), but how she is going to raise a child alone needs to be a realistic deciding factor in her decision to continue pregnancy. Whoever bears the most decision making power also bears the most consequence.

Edit: Also the man should have to give up a copy of a full medical history. The child should have a right to know about any congenital health issues from his side.

[Don't look at me!]

Statutes in Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia requie the written consent of the patient's spouse to voluntary sterilizations. In the absence of such a statute, no definitive answer can be given. Every individual does have the right to consent to any lawful Medical treatment or procedure.

Men need approval for vasectomies too.

[Social Justice is neither]

So in talking about abortions you suddenly pivot to sterilization? WTF kind of dishonest gish gallop is this?

Men have ZERO say in decisions to abort so fuck you you lying dishonest cunt. You simply refuse to accept responsibility and accountability for decisions that are 100% yours.

[Stuck in California]

Yeah, that's where it goes from discussion to just trolling.

There's a libertarian debate to be had around decision making and responsibility. It's going to be clouded by the Abortion topic, of course, as that's particularly emotional and polarizing, but responsibility and decision making there are fertile ground for debate.

Sterilization? Fuck man, talk about non sequitur. That's like discussing the color of a school bus and someone backs their position saying their HOA has to approve them painting their door yellow.

[mad.casual]

It’s going to be clouded by the Abortion topic

I disagree. I think the abortion topic is crystallizing or anodizing.

The nebulousness of “What about the rights of the mother?” only exists in the heads of people who, several generations prior would’ve said “What about the property rights of the slave owners?” to abolitionists.

There is one group that believes humanity is obtained via a heartbeat, functioning brain, and human DNA and there is another group that doesn’t believe that or for whom that belief complicates things. One group that says, “Let’s not just go around killing people.” and another group whose response is “Before we can agree on anything, I’m going to need you to define ‘people’ in terms that we find acceptable.”

One group for whom the rules are clear equally for everyone and one group who needs the rules to be clouded.

[damikesc]

I thought men had no place in the discussion, as feminists like you claim routinely.

[mad.casual]

What about the drunk horny men in this little blame scenario of yours ?

You mean the ones who get disproportionately arrested for rape based solely on pregnancy or the ones who get disproportionately sued for paternity based solely on pregnancy?

Because from where I sit, it's hard to tell if you're intentionally portraying women as dumb, irresponsible, *and* out of touch with reality on purpose or if it just comes naturally.

[Nazi-Chipping Warlock]

I support Planned Parenthood.
Keep America White!

[chemjeff radical individualist]

thoughtless drunk party girls, er, helpless oppressed rape victims

Aaaand there we have it. The crusade against abortion isn't about "protecting life", it is about punishing the sluts.

[Don't look at me!]

No, it isn’t.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Yes. It is. If it weren't about sin then there would be no reason to oppose abortion. I does everything conservatives want done. Just offer $1,000 to any woman who gets an abortion. Pretty soon you win by way of simply having more conservative children born.

[AT]

Gee, it's kind of like we never needed Roe v Wade in the first place and individual state-based restrictions aren't keeping those wholly intent on killing tiny humans from doing so.

Sad how the pro-abortion crowd spent all that time worked up for nothing.

[JasonT20]

Gee, it’s kind of like we never needed Roe v Wade in the first place and individual state-based restrictions aren’t keeping those wholly intent on killing tiny humans from doing so.

Maybe that's true. It could be that the individual state-based restrictions are only succeeding at making women facing miscarriages, non-viable fetuses, and threats to their own health or lives wait in parking lots until they are at risk of bleeding out before they can get a hospital to do anything about their condition.

Way to strike a blow for life!

[AT]

Oh my gosh, a statistically minuscule exception to the people who just wantonly desire to kill tiny inconvenient humans? Gosh, we should make them define the rule!

Also, y’all have EMTALA (which you shouldn’t, but you do). If you’re “at risk of bleeding out” – the hospital will take you. And probably even help you kill your tiny human if you want.

Which, y’know, is the parenting equivalent to using your kid as a bullet shield to prevent your own death – but, sure, whatever. That’s definitely not horrible and sending you to whatever version of Hell you believe in.

[JasonT20]

Oh my gosh, a statistically minuscule exception to the people who just wantonly desire to kill tiny inconvenient humans? Gosh, we should make them define the rule!

The "statistically minuscule exception[s]" that have been in the news involve women that wanted a baby, but something went wrong. They weren't looking for abortions to deal with "tiny inconvenient humans," but for help with miscarriages or nonviable fetuses that would be risky to continue to carry for no purpose. But hey, risking the lives of a few adult women (that everyone can agree are people, hopefully) is worth it to be sure that thousands of potential people survive!

These cases show the lie behind "pro-life" politicians. If they really were looking to safeguard "life," they would have been sure that medical professionals could still make rational, evidence-based decisions on how to help these women without having to fear being prosecuted by some anti-abortion zealot DA. Instead, they rushed these laws through (or left poorly constructed "trigger laws" in place for when Roe was brought down) to show how serious they were about following through with their decades-long promises to ban all "baby murder".

They were counting on people like you to dismiss these kinds of problems (just like rape-pregnancies) as being a "minuscule" fraction of pregnancies and thus insignificant compared to all of the "babies" being saved. I, on the other hand, feel that a few people with lives, loved-ones, and hopes of their own for the future matter more than any number of potential human lives lost to abortion that have never had any consciousness, hopes, memories, or loved ones.

And that last part is the real point here. Abortion is a rational choice when the pregnancy is unwanted. That means that the embryo or fetus does not yet have anyone that loves it the way people love other people that have been born. That seems tragic to you, I'm sure. Tragedy to me would be a woman that dies because no one would do anything about her inevitable miscarriage, leaving her husband a widower, her parents with a lost child, and her own hopes of becoming a mother lost forever along with everything else she had dreamed about.

Those lost embryos or fetuses that you cry over are no different than the fertilized eggs that are lost because they never implanted in the uterus, only the woman never knew that they existed. A potential human being is valuable to the people that want it brought into the world so that they can love it and care for it. How can it really mean so much to you when you'll never see it born, hold it, or have any responsibility to raise it?

[AT]

is worth it to be sure that thousands of potential people survive!

Why would you italicize (which I bolded, since I italicized the entire line to quote it) the very word that undermines your entire argument?

They’re not potential, Jas. They’re people. Tiny people. Undeveloped people. But people. In utero.

These cases show the lie behind “pro-life” politicians.

Straw man.

If you want to argue against pro-life politicians, than go find a pro-life politician. If you want to argue against me, then argue against what I say – not what they say.

I, on the other hand, feel

There it is.

(Pro-tip: try thinking instead.)

Those lost embryos or fetuses that you cry over are no different than the fertilized eggs that are lost because they never implanted in the uterus, only the woman never knew that they existed.

Actually, the difference is that they DID know about them and INTENTIONALLY KILLED them. It wasn’t some quirk of biology and nature. It was, “Hey this tiny human is here, I know it’s here, and I don’t want it here – so KILL KILL KILL!!!!”

[JasonT20]

Why would you italicize (which I bolded, since I italicized the entire line to quote it) the very word that undermines your entire argument?

No, it doesn't. I was being sarcastic.

They’re not potential, Jas. They’re people. Tiny people. Undeveloped people. But people. In utero.

This is getting into the semantics that we don't agree upon. I am using a definition of "person" and "people" that is consistent with how society and the law have always treated those words as being distinct from live "in utero." There is a reason why there are those trying to pass "fetal personhood" amendments to state constitutions and the like. That is because they are most definitely not persons under any current law. (Alabama Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding) Nor have they been considered persons under general society understanding until the pro-life movement started insisting on it to justify their stance.

If you want to argue against pro-life politicians, than go find a pro-life politician. If you want to argue against me, then argue against what I say – not what they say.

Fair enough. But since you insist on thinking of every developing life in a woman's uterus to be a person equal to you or me, that doesn't leave must room for you to disagree with those laws, does it?

Actually, the difference is that they DID know about them and INTENTIONALLY KILLED them. It wasn’t some quirk of biology and nature. It was, “Hey this tiny human is here, I know it’s here, and I don’t want it here – so KILL KILL KILL!!!!”

Intent only matters if you have already assumed that it has status that makes abortion immoral. You have not shown that. People go to extraordinary lengths to avoid "quirk[s] of biology and nature" that result in the death of other people. No one goes to extraordinary lengths to save something that they don't value. Nor do people go about killing living beings without much thought if they do value it. Abortion is the result of unwanted pregnancy. That seems to be your problem with it. You think it horrifying that people don't place the same value on their embryos or fetuses that you would in their place. Maybe when it is your body and your risk to take, that will matter.

[AT]

This is getting into the semantics that we don’t agree upon.

No, it's actually getting into the Is or Is Not part of the conversation that you don't want to have, because you can't defend your "Is Not" position without deferring exclusively to Argumentum ad Populum.

Fine. You don't think that tiny little humans are human; are people. What is it instead? And what objective factor separates it from you, in terms of human rights?

Oh, wait, are some humans not people? Please articulate the difference. (Protip: if you make the same arguments that defend eugenics, you lose.)

But since you insist on thinking of every developing life

I'm glad you recognize it as a life.

So, now, why are you anti- that life?

that doesn’t leave must room for you to disagree with those laws, does it?

No idea. We're not talking about laws.

Intent only matters if you have already assumed that it has status that makes abortion immoral.

Ooh ooh, this is good. I like where you're going with this. Indulge me Jason - tell me, in detail please, what "status" one might have that makes action taken against another human being "immoral".

Better yet, tell me what status makes it OK for me to do immoral things to them.

No one goes to extraordinary lengths to save something that they don’t value.

Oh, absolutely, you're bringing all the cards to the table! I like it! So, if there's a class of humans that I don't value - and a concentrated effort was made by another class of humans to intentionally kill them - you'd be on board with that, right? Nobody goes to extraordinary lengths to save them so, hell with 'em, right?

Human is what those on top say is human, no?

Abortion is the result of unwanted pregnancy.

Abortion is the result of people not wanting to face the consequences of their actions, and being willing to kill - and support/facilitate killing - hundreds of millions of humans to avoid it.

[JasonT20]

If you’re “at risk of bleeding out” – the hospital will take you.

Pay attention to the details in those cases. The imminent risk of death was what finally got those women care. A possible or even likely risk days later wasn't enough. They had to be close to death before they got care, and that is fucking bullshit.

[AT]

Why?

Also, language.

[JasonT20]

Doctors and hospitals had reasonable fear of the vague language of how imminent the threat needed to be before the "protecting the life of the mother" exceptions to abortion bans would kick in. That is why those cases occurred.

As for my language, it is ludicrous in the extreme that "pro-life" lawmakers were so unconcerned about actually protecting the lives of pregnant women with medical emergencies that doctors felt that they couldn't just perform their jobs the way that they had been doing for decades.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Fuck You. How's that for language?

[Stuck in California]

Despite Widespread Bans

Assumes facts not in evidence.

But -- well, it's fucking Emma Camp. Stupid, progressive, and remarkably untrustworthy as a journalist.

[AT]

I’m pretty sure she’s not even a person. Or, if she is, her only contribution is feeding directives into ChatGPT.

“Please read this civil complaint, and then draft me a 1000 word article about it, slanted against the police, using its allegations taken as undisputed fact as your only basis for consideration.”

“Sure, I can help with that. [Generates Emma Camp article.]”

[mad.casual]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

It's a typo, she meant "Despite wide spread bans."

[MakeOrwellFictionAgain]

It's easy to explain the increase. Progressives are okay with murdering their unborn baby as a protest against, well, morality and human kindness.

[TJJ2000]

Yeah but Republicans are okay with murdering unearned income. /s
Yeah; Pro-Life is really that stupid.
The power-mad psycho mob that grew out of the Democrat party and boy does it show it in every argument made.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland]

In an effort to curb global warming, any chick that gets an abortion also gets executed, as does the guy that knocked her up

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

Said day for libertarianism. NAP violated for all those innocent babies.

[JasonT20]

Do you really believe that a 12-week fetus is a "baby"? And if you do, do you really think that enough people agree with you to take that to its logical conclusion: prosecuting abortion providers and the women seeking abortion for murder.

If it is a baby, then wouldn't it be horrifying to know that many of those babies won't get the proper nourishment because of women that don't have access to even minimal prenatal care?

Also, if it is really a baby, then can you be legally required to render assistance to a pregnant woman in danger of injury or death that would result in the fetus dying? How about if that assistance puts you at risk of significant injury or death?

That last one would be something I've never heard existing in Western law. If you or anyone else knows of a situation when one person is legally liable for failing to put themselves at significant risk in order to help someone else in mortal danger, I'd like to know about it. Or is only pregnant women that must risk their lives for "babies"?

[TJJ2000]

Do you really believe that a 12-week fetus is a “baby”?

Nobody does; but repeating the lie over and over and over and over and over again makes the lie become fact! It's called BS propaganda and Pro-Life is nothing but BS propaganda of power-mad busy bodies who can't mind their own F'En business.

[TJJ2000]

Yeah but now the Pro-Life religious zealots can send their Gov-Guns out to harass, enslave and kill the defiant Women too.

As every non-psychopath already knew; this has always been about religious (power-mad) tyranny of the State. Their ‘unicorn’ imagination never held a single factor of reality. It was all ‘faith’ based. This just gave them an *excuse* to hang the whores at their temple of self-righteous sacrificing wanna-play-god freak-jobs who just can't mind their own F'En business.