A prominent research organization advocating for abortion rights is calling on states to stop mandating detailed reports for each abortion procedure. According to the Guttmacher Institute, such mandated data collection poses significant risks, potentially compromising the privacy of both healthcare providers and patients. The group argues that in today’s political landscape, the data might be misused, potentially leading to harmful outcomes.
The institute asserts that the once-valuable benefits of detailed reporting are now overshadowed by the risks involved. The detailed data might expose personal information, stigmatize individuals seeking abortions, inconvenience providers, or worse, be leveraged in legal investigations.
With the reversal of Roe v. Wade nearly three years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court, state-level bans on most abortions have been permitted, further complicating the landscape of abortion data collection. This decision has sparked significant debate about the type of information gathered from abortion procedures. There is an increased concern that the return of anti-abortion political figures could lead to these reports being used in investigative actions.
State health departments largely require medical practitioners to report abortion data, excluding patient names, although some states like Massachusetts and Illinois only gather aggregated information. The collected data offers insights into the prevalence, timing, and demographics of abortions at a national level via reports sent to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, this data arrives with a two-year delay and omits information from certain states such as California, Maryland, Michigan, and New Jersey that do not mandate such reports.
According to Guttmacher data scientist Isaac Maddow-Zimet, information collected by some states—including patient marital status, ZIP code, and reasons for seeking an abortion—could potentially stigmatize individuals or even violate their privacy. He emphasizes that this granular level of detail is unnecessary for other medical procedures and contributes to a perceived “abortion exceptionalism.”
Conversely, Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, argues that these reports are crucial to understanding the extent and implications of abortion, suggesting they could highlight underlying social issues like increased sexual assault rates. She claims the collected data is vital for shaping informed public policy and protecting women by recognizing potential complications.
In Indiana, an anti-abortion group utilized public records requests to obtain individual abortion reports, leading to allegations against providers and highlighting potential issues within the data collection system. The state’s Department of Health subsequently asserted these reports were not considered public records due to their potential to identify participants following an abortion ban. Litigation is ongoing regarding access to these documents, which will have significant implications for both patient and provider privacy.
Several states are reconsidering or amending their reporting requirements. Michigan has paused its mandatory reporting, while Minnesota has eliminated the need for certain demographic data. Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs of Arizona advocates for repealing such reporting despite facing a Republican-controlled legislature.
In Illinois, reporting changes now focus on aggregated data rather than individual specifics, a move supporters say protects privacy, particularly for those traveling from out of state for services. However, advocates like Connie Fei Lu, a medical fellow at the University of Illinois Chicago, stress that any shifts in data collection must be balanced thoughtfully with scientific research needs.
Guttmacher is advocating for the end of compulsory abortion reporting but does not oppose abortion data collection altogether. They suggest states might employ voluntary methods to gather information. In cooperation with the Society of Family Planning, Guttmacher has also conducted surveys of service providers. These analyses, though using estimates, are released more promptly than government data and are now essential for discerning state-level impacts post-Roe overturn.
