Abortions In US Rose In 2024 Due To Telehealth Prescriptions: Report
The latest report from the WeCount project of the Society of Family Planning, which supports abortion access, was released a day before the third anniversary of the US Supreme Court's ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended nearly 50 years of legal abortion nationally for most of pregnancy.
Currently, 12 states are enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with limited exceptions, and four have bans that kick in at or about six weeks into pregnancy - often before women realize they are pregnant.
While the total number of abortions has risen gradually over those three years, the number has dropped to near zero in some states, while abortions using pills obtained through telehealth appointments have become more common in nearly all states.
Pills are used in the majority of abortions and are also prescribed in person.
The overall number of abortions has risen, but it is below historic highs
The latest survey, released Monday, tallied about 1.1 million abortions nationally last year, or about 95,000 a month. That is up from about 88,000 monthly in 2023 and 80,000 a month between April and December of 2022. WeCount began after Roe was overturned, and the 2022 numbers don't include January through March, when abortions are traditionally at their highest.
The number is still well below the historic peak in the US of nearly 1.6 million a year in the late 1990s.
The Society of Family Planning relies primarily on surveys of abortion providers and uses estimates.
Pills prescribed by telehealth now account for one-fourth of US abortions
WeCount found that in the months before the Dobbs ruling was handed down, about 1 in 20 abortions was accessed by telehealth.
But during the last three months of 2024, it was up to 1 in 4.
The biggest jump over that time came in the middle of 2023, when laws in some Democratic-controlled states took effect with provisions intended to protect medical professionals who use telehealth to prescribe pills to patients in states where abortion is banned or where there are laws restricting telehealth abortion.
WeCount found that about half of the telehealth abortions last year were facilitated by the shield laws. The number of telehealth abortions also grew for those in states without bans.
WeCount is the only nationwide public source of information about the pills prescribed to women in states with bans. One key caveat is that it is not clear how many of the prescriptions result in abortion. Some women may change their minds, access in-person abortion or be seeking pills to save for future use.
The WeCount data could help explain data from a separate survey from the Guttmacher Institute, which found the number of people crossing state lines for abortion declined last year.
Anti-abortion efforts are focused on pills
Anti-abortion efforts are zeroing in on pills, along with barring federal funds for Planned Parenthood and undoing ballot measures that provided for abortion access.
Three states have sued to try to get courts to limit telehealth prescriptions of mifepristone, one of the two drugs usually used in combination for medication abortions. President Donald Trump's administration last month told a judge it does not believe the states have legal standing to make that case.
The US Supreme Court last year found that anti-abortion doctors and their organizations didn't have standing, either.
Meanwhile, officials in Louisiana are using criminal laws, and there is an effort in Texas to use civil penalties against a New York doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills to women in their states. Louisiana lawmakers have also sent the governor a bill to further restrict access to the pills.
SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said on a call with reporters Monday that it's a priority for her group to keep pushing US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other officials to investigate the safety of abortion pills - and to require that they be dispensed only in person.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
States sue Trump, saying he is intimidating hospitals over gender-affirming care for youth
Seventeen Democratic officials accused President Donald Trump 's administration of unlawfully intimidating health care providers into stopping gender-affirming care for transgender youth in a lawsuit filed Friday. The complaint comes after a month in which at least eight major hospitals and hospital systems - all in states where the care is allowed under state law - announced they were stopping or restricting the care. The latest announcement came Thursday from UI Health in Chicago. Trump 's administration announced in July that it was sending subpoenas to providers and focusing on investigating them for fraud. It later boasted in a news release that hospitals are halting treatments. The Democratic officials say Trump's policies are an attempt to impose a nationwide ban on the treatment for people under 19 - and that's unlawful because there's no federal statute that bans providing the care to minors. The suit was filed by attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia, plus the governor of Pennsylvania, in U.S. District Court in Boston. "The federal government is running a cruel and targeted harassment campaign against providers who offer lawful, lifesaving care to children," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. Trump and others who oppose the care say that it makes permanent changes that people who receive it could come to regret - and maintain that it's being driven by questionable science. Since 2021, 28 states with Republican-controlled legislatures have adopted policies to ban or restrict gender-affirming care for minors. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states have a right to enforce those laws. For families with transgender children, the state laws and medical center policy changes have sparked urgent scrambles for treatment. The medical centers are responding to political and legal pressure The Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, the biggest public provider of gender-affirming care for children in teens in the U.S., closed in July. At least seven other major hospitals and health systems have made similar announcements, including Children's National in Washington D.C., UChicago Medicine and Yale New Haven Health . Kaiser Permanente, which operates in California and several other states, said it would pause gender-affirming surgeries for those under 19 as of the end of August, but would continue hormone therapy. Connecticut Children's Medical Center cited "an increasingly complex and evolving landscape" for winding down care. Other hospitals, including Penn State, had already made similar decisions since Trump returned to office in January. Alex Sheldon, executive director of GLMA, an organization that advocates for health care equity for LGBTQ+ people, said the health systems have pulled back the services for legal reasons, not medical ones. "Not once has a hospital said they are ending care because it is not medically sound," Sheldon said. Trump's administration has targeted the care in multiple ways Trump devoted a lot of attention to transgender people in his campaign last year as part of a growing pushback from conservatives as transgender people have gained visibility and acceptance on some fronts. Trump criticized gender-affirming care, transgender women in women's sports, and transgender women's use of women's facilities such as restrooms. On his inauguration day in January, Trump signed an executive order defining the sexes as only male and female for government purposes, setting the tone for a cascade of actions that affect transgender people. About a week later, Trump called to stop using federal money, including from Medicaid, for gender-affirming care for those under 19. About half of U.S. adults approve of Trump's handling of transgender issues, an AP-NORC poll found. But the American Medical Association says that gender is on a spectrum, and the group opposes policies that restrict access to gender-affirming health care. Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person's gender identity, including when it's different from the sex they were assigned at birth. It includes counseling and treatment with medications that block puberty, and hormone therapy to produce physical changes, as well as surgery, which is rare for minors. In March, a judge paused enforcement of the ban on government spending for care. The court ruling didn't stop other federal government action In April, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed government investigators to focus on providers who continue to offer gender-affirming care for transgender youth. "Under my leadership, the Department of Justice will bring these practices to an end," she wrote. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report discouraging medical interventions for transgender youth and instead focusing solely on talk therapy. The report questions adolescents' capacity to consent to life-changing treatments that could result in future infertility. The administration has not said who wrote the report, which has been deeply criticized by LGBTQ+ advocates. In June, a Justice Department memo called for prioritizing civil investigations of those who provide the treatment. In July, Justice Department announced it had sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics involved in gender-affirming care for youth, saying they were part of investigations of health care fraud, false statements and other possible wrongdoing. And in a statement last week, the White House celebrated decisions to end gender-affirming care, which it called a "barbaric, pseudoscientific practice" Families worry about accessing care Kirsten Salvatore 's 15-year-old child started hormone therapy late last year at Penn State Health. Salvatore said in an interview with The Associated Press before the lawsuit was announced that it was a major factor in reduced signs of anxiety and depression. Last month, the family received official notice from the health system that it would no longer offer the hormones for patients under 19 after July 31, though talk therapy can continue. Salvatore has been struggling to find a place that's not hours away from their Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, home that would provide the hormones and accept Medicaid coverage. "I'm walking around blind with no guidance, and whatever breadcrumbs I was given are to a dead-end alleyway," she said. The family has enough testosterone stockpiled to last until January. But if they can't find a new provider by then, Salvatore's child could risk detransitioning, she said.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
US Senate Democrats to investigate Kennedy's firing of vaccine expert panel
Washington: Democrats on the U.S. Senate's health committee launched an investigation on Tuesday into Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 's firing of all members of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel of vaccine experts. Kennedy last month fired the 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which reviews vaccines approved by the Food and Drug Administration before making recommendations to the CDC on their use. Kennedy replaced them with hand-picked advisers including anti-vaccine activists . "The harm your actions will cause is significant. As your new ACIP makes recommendations based on pseudoscience, fewer and fewer Americans will have access to fewer and fewer vaccines," Democrats on the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee wrote to Kennedy in a letter reviewed by Reuters. A spokesperson for Senator Bernie Sanders said committee Democrats launched the investigation after Senator Bill Cassidy, the committee's Republican chairman, denied his call for a bipartisan investigation. Cassidy's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Democrats requested Kennedy provide information on the firings by August 12, including details of the alleged conflict of interest for each fired member and note how they differ from ones they previously disclosed. Kennedy said at the time that he fired the committee because it was rife with conflicts, but provided no specific evidence of conflicts among any departing members. They requested that Kennedy outline everyone involved in the firing decision within and out of government, asking about the role played by specific individuals, including Lyn Redwood, the former leader of an anti-vaccine group founded by Kennedy. Redwood led a presentation at the newly constituted ACIP's first meeting. The Democratic senators asked who approved the meeting agenda and who selected Redwood as presenter. They asked for all communications and documents on the appointment of the new members, including selection criteria, the vetting process, and proof they complied with government ethics requirements. "As you give a platform to conspiracy theorists, and even promote their theories yourself, Americans will continue to lose confidence in whatever vaccines are still available," the senators wrote. Kennedy said the firings were to restore public confidence in vaccines. "Millions more lives are at risk from vaccine-preventable diseases if you continue to undermine vaccine access
Time of India
25-07-2025
- Time of India
Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to allow NIH diversity-related cuts
New York: Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to allow the government to proceed with sweeping cuts to National Institutes of Health grants as part of the Republican president's crackdown on diversity initiatives. The Justice Department asked the justices to lift Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young's June ruling that halted the plan as a violation of federal law and required the government to reinstate access to the grant funds. The judge acted in a legal challenge by researchers and 16 U.S. states, led by Democratic-governed Massachusetts. The NIH is the world's largest funder of biomedical research. The cuts are part of Trump's wide-ranging actions to reshape the U.S. government, slash federal spending and end government support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs and transgender healthcare. The administration repeatedly has sought the Supreme Court's intervention to allow implementation of Trump policies impeded by lower courts. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has sided with the administration in almost every case that it has been called upon to review since Trump returned to the presidency in January. In June, dozens of scientists, researchers and other NIH employees signed an open letter criticizing the agency's actions and spending cuts under Trump that they said politicize research and "harm the health of Americans and people across the globe." Young's ruling came in two lawsuits challenging the cuts. One was filed by the American Public Health Association, individual researchers and other plaintiffs who called the cuts an "ongoing ideological purge" of projects with a purported connection to gender identity, DEI "or other vague, now-forbidden language." The other was filed by the states, most of them Democratic-led. Young, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan, invalidated the grant terminations in June. The judge wrote that every new administration is entitled to make policy changes but that these must be reasonable and reasonably explained. Instead, according to the judge, the steps taken by Trump administration officials were "breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious," violating a federal law governing the actions of agencies. Young criticized administration officials for not offering any definition of DEI while disparaging studies they deemed low-value and unscientific that the officials claimed were used to unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race and other protected characteristics. "There is not a shred of evidence supporting any of these statements in the record," Young wrote. Many U.S. conservatives contend that DEI policies discriminate against white people. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 18 denied the administration's request to put Young's decision on hold. The administration has argued that the litigation should have been brought in a different judicial body, the Washington-based Court of Federal Claims, which specializes in money damages claims against the U.S. government. That reasoning was also the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in April that let Trump's administration proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants also targeted under the DEI crackdown.
