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
Vox
13 minutes ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court's blessedly narrow decision about religion in the workplace, explained
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. In 2018, shortly before Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation shifted the Supreme Court drastically to the right, Democratic Justice Elena Kagan laid out her strategy to keep her Court from becoming too ideological or too partisan. The secret, she said, is to take 'big questions and make them small.' Since then, Kagan and her Democratic colleagues have had mixed success persuading their colleagues to decide cases narrowly when they could hand right-wing litigants a sweeping victory. The Court has largely transformed its approach to religion, for example, though it does occasionally hand down religion cases that end less with a bang than with a whimper. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission will likely be remembered as such a whimper. The opinion is unanimous, and it is authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of Kagan's few fellow Democratic justices. The case could have ended in a sweeping decision that severely undermined the rights of many workers. Instead, Sotomayor's opinion focuses on a very narrow distinction between how Wisconsin law treats some religious groups as compared to others. Catholic Charities involved a Wisconsin law that exempts some nonprofits from paying unemployment taxes. This exemption applies only to employers that operate 'primarily for religious purposes.' Wisconsin's state supreme court determined that a 'religious purpose' includes activities like holding worship services or providing religious education, but it does not include secular services like feeding the poor, even if those secular activities are motivated by religion. Related The Supreme Court is leading a Christian conservative revolution The upshot is that Catholic Charities — an organization that is run by the Catholic Church but focuses primarily on secular charitable work — was not exempt from paying unemployment taxes. Sotomayor's decision reverses the state supreme court, so Catholic Charities will now receive an exemption. The Court largely avoids a fight over when businesses with a religious identity can ignore the law In a previous era, the Court was very cautious about permitting religious organizations to claim exemptions, in part because doing so would give some businesses 'an advantage over their competitors.' Such exemptions could also potentially permit employers with a religious identity to exploit their workers. In Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor (1985), for example, the Court considered a religious cult that operated a wide range of commercial businesses. These businesses paid no cash salaries or wages, although they did claim to give workers food, clothing, and shelter. The cult sought an exemption from minimum wage laws and similar workplace protections, but the Court disagreed. A too-broad decision in Catholic Charities could have potentially undermined decisions like Alamo Foundation, by giving some employers a broad right to ignore laws protecting their workers. But Sotomayor's opinion reads like it was crafted to hand Catholic Charities the narrowest possible victory. Under the state supreme court's decision in Catholic Charities, Sotomayor writes, a church-run nonprofit that does entirely secular charity work may not receive an exemption from paying unemployment taxes. But a virtually identical nonprofit that does the exact same work but also engages in 'proselytization' or limits its services to members of the same faith would receive an exemption. This distinction, Sotomayor says, violates the Supreme Court's long-standing rule that the government 'may not 'officially prefe[r]' one religious denomination over another.' The state may potentially require all charities to pay unemployment taxes. But it cannot treat religious charities that seek to convert people, or that limit their services to members of one faith, differently from religious charities that do not do this. In Sotomayor's words, an organization's 'eligibility for the exemption ultimately turns on inherently religious choices (namely, whether to proselytize or serve only co-religionists).' The crux of Sotomayor's opinion is that the decision whether to try to convert people, or whether to serve non-Catholics, is an inherently 'theological' choice. And states cannot treat different religious organizations differently because of their theological choices. Unfortunately, Sotomayor's opinion, which is a brief 15 pages, does not really define the term 'theological.' So it is likely that future courts will have to wrestle with whether other laws that treat some organizations differently do so because of theological differences or for some other reason. It's not hard to imagine a cult like the one in Alamo Foundation claiming that it has a theological objection to paying the minimum wage. But the Catholic Charities opinion also does not explicitly undermine decisions like Alamo Foundation. Nor does it embrace a more sweeping approach proposed by dissenting justices in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, who argued that nonprofits whose 'motivations are religious' may claim an exemption — regardless of what that nonprofit actually does.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with woman who says she suffered job discrimination for being straight
The Supreme Court on Thursday revived a lawsuit by an Ohio woman who said her bosses discriminated against her for being straight. The court unanimously ruled that members of majority groups do not face a higher legal standard than minorities to prevail in so-called reverse discrimination lawsuits under Title VII, the federal civil rights law that bars employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex and other protected characteristics. The decision, written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, comes as President Donald Trump has sought to deploy the nation's civil rights laws and agencies to combat what he sees as discrimination against white people and other majority groups. The ruling could make it easier for men and white people to successfully sue their employers for job discrimination. Lower courts had thrown out the lawsuit by Marlean Ames, who alleged that she was passed over for an Ohio state government job and then demoted from her existing post in favor of LGBTQ+ candidates. The lower courts said that members of majority groups suing for discrimination had to show 'background circumstances' suggesting that their bosses were among the 'rare' group of employers who were biased against the majority. Minorities suing for discrimination were not required to show analogous 'background circumstances' about their employers under the legal test that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had adopted. Jackson wrote that the 6th Circuit's requirement 'cannot be squared' with federal civil rights law or other judicial precedent. 'Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' the opinion states. The decision was an unsparing rebuke of the 'background circumstances' test and Ohio's legal arguments, stating at one point that the state's defense 'misses the mark by a mile.' Thursday's decision was unsurprising, given that the justices were highly skeptical of the state's position during oral arguments in February. Jackson's opinion did not explicitly discuss the implications for cases filed by white people. But Justice Clarence Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote a concurring opinion in which he said that racial discrimination lawsuits brought by white people should not face a higher legal bar than those brought by minorities. Writing that he was 'pleased' with the court's ruling, he argued that the murkiness of racial classifications can make it difficult to determine whether someone is part of the majority. 'Even if courts could identify all the relevant racial groups and their boundaries, courts would still struggle to determine which racial groups make up a majority,' Thomas wrote, in an opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. The Supreme Court's decision Thursday vacated the appeals court's ruling and sent the case back for further consideration, meaning Ames will get a chance to prove her discrimination claims against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which runs the state's juvenile detention centers. A spokesperson for the Ohio attorney general's office, which defended the case, said the Supreme Court 'made clear that this case is not over,' and it still believes Ames was treated fairly. 'We look forward to fully pressing those arguments as the case moves forward because the Ohio Department of Youth Services did not engage in unlawful discrimination,' spokesperson Dominic Binkley said in a statement. The state argued previously that Ames was not chosen for the job she applied for and then demoted because she lacked experience relevant to both positions. In addition to uniting the Supreme Court, the case is also notable for being one in which both the Biden and Trump administrations, as well as conservative groups like America First Legal, all lined up behind the worker and against the 'background circumstances' standard. Some civil rights groups were concerned, however, that doing so could lead to an uptick of meritless 'reverse discrimination' cases.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wes Moore: ‘I don't need studies. Just do the work.'
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Wes Moore is not running for president. The governor of Maryland will say that anywhere: In a TV studio, at a press conference in Annapolis, at a Democratic Party gathering in an early presidential primary state. After a roaring response from the crowd at the Democrats' Blue Palmetto dinner and Rep. Jim Clyburn's (R-S.C.) 'world famous fish fry,' Moore skipped the party's all-day convention, which might have fueled even more 2028 speculation; he met instead with an early 2008 supporter of Barack Obama at his home in the suburbs. Moore did take time, during the trip, to talk to Semafor. His speech had urged Democrats to take a page from Donald Trump and act boldly and quickly, not get bogged down in studies or meetings. We followed up on that, as well as local criticism of how he'd vetoed a study of reparations for the descendants of slaves, and how the deportations and asylum cancellations affected Maryland and every other state. And Moore described an active, faith-based liberalism that could respond effectively to the Trump administration, now and when it's over. This is an edited transcript of the conversation. David Weigel: When you talked about the speed Trump moves at, I was curious — how much of what he's dismantled should Democrats be rebuilding? Wes Moore: I don't think that's what Democrats should do. That's basically making the argument that everything was perfect before, and he's just dismantling something that was perfect. I'm not defending that, because I think you're trying to defend the indefensible. There were real problems before. I think about my own life and journey — my journey has been the consequences of, in many cases, some really bad policies that have been put in place, and not just by Republicans. So I don't think that the answer is: Let's just go and rebuild what was there before. Truthfully, there were people being left behind before. Saying we have to move with a sense of speed and urgency does not mean we have to put things back the way they were, as fast as possible. On immigration; The Supreme Court just let Trump remove temporary status from 500,000-odd people. Some got asylum status while they were here, but most of these people, from Venezuela and Haiti, lost their TPS. Why was that wrong? What we're seeing is an exploitation of an already broken process. Immigration has been broken for a very long time, and again, Donald Trump didn't break it. Donald Trump is actually exposing breakage. We know that Congress, actually, is the one with the authority to really reform and rethink and make sure that we have an immigration process that matches the aspirations of our country and comes up with a sane and systematic way for allowing immigrants to come into the country. Congress has decided that they're not going to do this. The President has decided that he is not going to work with Congress to do this… so, in the last five months, we've taken a broken immigration process and we've just thrown kerosene on it. Were the people who fled those countries enriching our country by being here? Haitians in Springfield, Venezuelans around Florida — was the country better because they were here, and weaker because they're not? We have to fix the immigration side. It's — we have a system that is now allowing for exploitation. We have a system that is now allowing for choices about what rules to follow and what rules not to follow, what court decisions to enforce and which not to enforce. We have an absolute mess on our hands… [it] highlights the problem in the first place. Because what the President is doing, in many cases, the President doesn't have the authority to do. The President is taking advantage of the fact that we have a broken system. Tim Walz spoke here; he's compared ICE, recently, to the Gestapo. You agree with that assessment? I think we have an immigration system in this country that allows way too much room for interpretation. It allows way too much space for people to try to fill into the void — and in some cases, illegally. That's the reason that the guidance that I've given to all of our state agencies is, in the state of Maryland, we've got to follow the Constitution. The constitution is very clear about where jurisdictional authority on immigration enforcement begins and ends. One legislator here, John King, told Politico that he would skip the dinner because he was frustrated with your veto of the reparations study in Maryland. Was the issue with that, hey, we don't need another study? Or was it, reparations are not worth pursuing? This would be the fifth study in 25 years. What are we studying? We have got to stop being the party of bureaucracy and multi-year studies on things that we know the answers to, and be the party of action. There is nobody in the state of Maryland or elsewhere who can legitimately question my commitment to these issues, right? Just in the past two and a half years, we've had over $1.3 billion of investments in our state's HBCUs. That's a 60% increase. We've been able to have the largest mass pardon in the history of the United States of America for misdemeanor cannabis convictions. We're giving assistance when it comes to first time home-buying. We've been able to address procurement policies and invest over $800 million in black-owned businesses. There is nobody who can argue that we are not doing the work of repair right now. My point is, the bill says we are going to spend two years studying this and then bring the recommendations to the governor. Well, I am the governor, and I don't need two years. Let's work now. I have the largest amount of vetoes from a Democratic governor of Maryland in a generation. There was something about a data center study — vetoed it. We did something around an energy study — vetoed it. I don't need studies. Just do the work. Do you find, talking to people in Maryland, some who look at Trump and say: Hey, he's doing something? At least he's acting? That's where this goes, back to this idea that Donald Trump doesn't need a multi-year study to dismantle the Constitution. Donald Trump doesn't need a multi-year study to be able to say that he is going to put together a tax package that is literally giving billionaires a tax cut and leaving the rest of us with the bill. He didn't need a white paper to explain that to him. So I think people, we have to look at his actions as, in many cases, inhumane and unconstitutional, and we have to be able to call it out, but we would be foolish not to understand there is something about speed that Donald Trump gets that we need to start getting as a party too. Maryland's a state. When Republicans pass the laws people are fleeing, it's sometimes couched in religious terms. How does your faith inform your tolerance toward transgender rights? My faith informs how I think about humanity. I mean, I'm a deeply faithful person. I believe that if we're all God's children, then by definition, we're brothers and sisters. And I think it's important that we act accordingly. My faith really does shape how I think about the love of humanity, a love for the least of these, our ability to fight for those who need and deserve a champion. It's part of our responsibility to emulate and try to be vessels of God on earth. There's nothing Christian about bullying.
