Researchers estimate 1 in 10 abortions provided by online-only clinics one year after Roe
Demonstrators gathered in front of the Supreme Court as justices heard arguments in March about medication abortion, the most common method in 2023, according to the Guttmacher Institute. (Photo by Anna)
In the first year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, an estimated 1 in 10 abortions were provided by online-only clinics, according to new data released Thursday by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that researches reproductive health and advocates for abortion access.
Guttmacher's Monthly Abortion Provision Study for the first time shows state-level estimates of the proportions of abortions provided via medication and by online-only clinics. Researchers found that in the majority of states without total abortion bans, most people are terminating with abortion pills. The data build on a previous finding that 63% of all clinician-provided abortions in the U.S. in 2023 were through medication.
'We're publishing these data at a time in which medication abortion is under threat from many angles, particularly medication abortion provision via telemedicine, and we're finding that this is a really key pathway to abortion access for people all around the country,' said Isabel DoCampo, a senior research associate at the Guttmacher Institute, who co-authored the data analysis.
Despite its widespread use and high safety record, medication abortion could soon become much harder to access if the Trump administration — in line with the GOP blueprint Project 2025 — tries to ban telemedicine abortion or prevent the mailing of abortion pills, which are also used to treat miscarriages and other health conditions.
There is also an ongoing federal lawsuit over the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone, the first in a two-drug abortion regimen. In a recent development, GenBioPro, the country's largest manufacturer of abortion pills, joined the lawsuit as a defendant.
The Monthly Abortion Provision Study estimates the number of abortions provided by clinicians in states without total abortion bans between January 2023 and November 2024, based on data collected from abortion providers and using a statistical model. It defines medication abortion as either being 'prescribed at an in-person clinic visit, or via telemedicine from a brick-and-mortar or online-only clinic.'
Guttmacher excluded from its study self-managed abortions or telemedicine abortion in states with total abortion bans, though online medication abortion is available to people living in states with abortion bans. The states excluded were: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. Data about online-only clinics were unavailable for states that restricted telemedicine in 2023.
'Our estimates of medication abortion provision are likely an undercount,' DoCampo said.
Wyoming had the highest estimated proportion of medication abortion (95% of all abortions) and abortions via online-only clinics (60%), while the District of Columbia had the lowest proportion of medication abortions, at 44%, and also via online-only clinics (7%).
Other states with high proportions of medication abortion include: Montana (84%), Georgia (83%), Nebraska (83%), Vermont (81%) and Delaware (77%), with lower proportions in Ohio (46%), Florida (55%), Massachusetts (57%), Michigan (58%), New York (58%).
Iowa had the second-highest proportion of online-only clinics (29%), followed by Delaware (28%), Nevada (24%), Colorado (22%), and Minnesota (21%).
DoCampo said state differences in proportions of medication abortions and online-only clinic usage can't be attributed to any one thing, but to a variety of factors, including a state's abortion laws, population and clinic density, telemedicine availability, and insurance reimbursement rates for medication versus procedural abortions.
Wyoming — with its low population density, few clinics and (at the time of the study) restrictive abortion policies — was high on the list of states reporting more medication abortions. But so was Delaware, which is much more urban and has a higher density of clinics and fewer restrictions. Meanwhile, Ohio, which is densely populated, has few clinics and has a mix of restrictive and protective abortion policies, had the lowest state proportion of medication abortion, and did not have data for online-only clinics.
'It's really interesting to see diverse environments with similar proportions of medication abortion provision,' DoCampo said.
She noted the data do not reflect the preferences of all abortion seekers.
'Medication abortion, even though it does represent the majority of abortions in most U.S. states without total bans, might not be the preferred abortion method for folks,' DoCampo said. 'Black individuals and individuals who are below the federal poverty line often tend to prefer procedural abortion to medication abortion.'
But in many states, medication abortion has become the most available method. Guttmacher data published in 2024 found a 5% nationwide decline in brick-and-mortar clinics that provide procedural abortions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
Trump stokes fear, confusion with pulled emergency abortion guidance
The Trump administration sowed confusion and fear among physicians with its move this past week to rescind Biden-era guidelines to hospitals that provide life-saving abortions. While the move doesn't change the law, doctors and reproductive-rights advocates fear it will have a chilling effect on health care workers in states with abortion bans, ultimately harming pregnant women. Earlier this past week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced they would rescind guidance issued during the Biden administration, which reinforced to hospitals that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA,) abortions qualify as stabilizing care in medical emergencies. Emergency rooms in states with abortion bans have been struggling since the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade to understand when they can legally provide emergency abortions. After President Trump pulled the Biden-era guidance seeking to clarify that question, emergency room doctors will experience 'more confusion' and 'more fear,' according to health and legal experts who spoke with The Hill. 'Clinicians are scared to provide basic medical care, and this care is clearly in line with medical ethics … medical standards of care, and they're being put in this situation where they can't win,' said Payal Shah, director of research, legal and advocacy at Physicians for Human Rights. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, at least 13 states have enacted near-total abortion bans, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute. There are exceptions in these states when continuing a pregnancy poses a threat to the health or life of the mother. However, most of the language in state laws is unclear on how that determination is made, resulting in instances of emergency rooms denying care. Doctors in states like Idaho, Texas and Tennessee have filed lawsuits requesting that lawmakers clarify when an abortion is allowed to save the life of a pregnant person. The doctors and patients involved in the lawsuits argue that state laws do not adequately protect pregnant patients in emergencies. Many of these states have severe punishments for doctors who violate abortion bans, like steep fines and prison time. 'For clinicians, there is actually no safe way to navigate this in this moment, and ultimately, that's how these laws are designed,' Shah said. 'They're designed to cause chaos and confusion. They're often written in ways that don't use medical terminology.' Without clear guidance, pregnant women suffer and sometimes die, as ProPublica has reported. One striking example of this is the 2023 case of Kyleigh Thurman, a Texas woman who was repeatedly denied care for a nonviable pregnancy after days of experiencing bleeding and pain. Health care workers discovered that she had an ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg implants and begins to grow outside of the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube. Ectopic pregnancies are never viable and are life-threatening if not treated properly. It wasn't until her OB/GYN 'pleaded to hospital staff that she be given care,' that the hospital administered a shot ending her pregnancy, according to a complaint filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Thurman. The shot came too late, and the ectopic pregnancy ruptured Thurman's right fallopian tube, which was then removed. 'If a patient is actively hemorrhaging or experiencing an ectopic pregnancy which is also life-threatening, doctors need that clear guidance that yes, EMTALA applied,' said Autumn Katz, associate director of U.S. litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights. A federal investigation into Thurman's case found that the Texas hospital violated EMTALA, according to a recent letter from the CMS. 'I finally got some justice,' Thurman said in a statement. 'I hope this decision will do some good in encouraging hospitals to help women in situations like mine.' Hospitals that violate EMTALA are subject to heavy fines and, in some extreme cases, risk losing a portion of their Medicare and Medicaid hospital funding, according to the National Institutes of Health. Former President Biden leaned on the law to preserve access to emergency abortion across the country, leading to a legal fight with Idaho, which has a strict abortion ban. The Supreme Court last year dismissed the case, declining to rule on the merits of a politically charged case. The rescinding of these guidelines also means hospitals that violate the law will likely not be investigated as often as they were under previous administrations, according to Shah. That lack of punitive risk means that hospitals could be incentivized to deny life-saving care for patients. 'The standard of EMTALA is pretty high,' said Katherine Hempstead, senior policy adviser at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 'This kind of takes that layer of reassurance away, and it will make a lot of providers feel very vulnerable.'
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
The Bulletin June 4, 2025
The rundown: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s vow to "Make America Healthy Again" could fall short when it comes to chronic disease, experts have warned. Here's how. Why it matters: Nearly 130 million Americans are estimated to have at least one form of chronic disease, which could be heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity or hypertension, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The proposed cuts to Medicaid funding and work requirements for eligibility to the benefits, which are set to come as part of the broader GOP budget bill, could leave many with chronic disease without access to vital care. As many as three in four adults enrolled in Medicaid report having one or more chronic conditions, and many are unable to work the hours needed to meet the new eligibility requirements, according to nonprofit health policy research and news organization, KFF. So, while some may be medically exempt, others will lose their health coverage, meaning their conditions could worsen without access to care. Read more in-depth coverage: Health Experts Call Out RFK Jr. Policy Changes: 'New Inconsistency Every Day' TL/DR: Experts told Newsweek that, while the Trump administration's ambition to "defeat" the "epidemic" is clear, whether its policies will help or hinder chronic-disease patients remains to be seen. What happens now? Ross Brownson, director of the Prevention Research Center at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, told Newsweek that Medicaid cuts would "likely have a detrimental effect on chronic disease risk among the most vulnerable populations," adding Medicaid-enrolled adults have significantly higher rates of chronic disease than individuals privately insured. Deeper reading Can Trump Tackle US 'Chronic Disease Crisis'? Experts Weigh In
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Activists protest possible Medicaid cuts outside KS Rep. Derek Schmidt's Topeka office
TOPEKA (KSNT) — Kansans are speaking out against lawmakers who are voting to cut Medicaid. The GOP-led One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed the US House by a razor thin margin. 215 House members voted to pass it, while 214 voted against it. Local Kansas activists are calling out Rep. Derek Schmidt, a Republican who voted to pass the bill. A group of protesters gathered outside of Schmidt's office in Topeka Thursday afternoon and expressed concerns about cuts to Medicaid. 'Today is life or death,' protester Dillon Warren said. 'We voted someone in there that we shouldn't have. He doesn't support us.' The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the bill passes, at least 7 million people will lose Medicaid coverage. For that reason, many Kansas voters are making their voices heard. Chiefs and Royals stadium bill deadline approaching as Kansas and Missouri fight for the teams 'We need Medicaid for medical equipment,' protester Rick Macias said. 'These chairs are $200,000 if not more. So, it's very important that Medicaid sticks around.' 27 News reached out to Schmidt, who was unavailable for comment. A spokesperson for the congressman provided 27 News with a written statement. 'Congressman Schmidt is a strong supporter of Medicaid for people the program is designed to help: those who are disabled, in nursing homes, pregnant, raising small children, or otherwise in need. Unfortunately, some states have abused the program by providing benefits to illegal aliens, millions of healthy young adults who choose not to work, or people who are not eligible to receive taxpayer-funded benefits from the program. That is the main reason why Medicaid spending has exploded by more than 50 percent since just 2019: an unsustainable rate of growth that puts benefits for Americans who need them most at risk. By addressing this abuse of the program, Congressman Schmidt is protecting both the traditional Medicaid recipients who rely on benefits and the taxpayers who pay the bills.' Spokesman for Rep. Derek Schmidt For more Capitol Bureau news, click here. Keep up with the latest breaking news in northeast Kansas by downloading our mobile app and by signing up for our news email alerts. Sign up for our Storm Track Weather app by clicking here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
