Last week, the Guttmacher Institute released a policy analysis making the case that states should cease mandating the reporting of abortion data. Guttmacher argues that states should instead move to a model where the reporting of abortion data is voluntary.
In the policy analysis, Guttmacher acknowledges that abortion data can be “vital in shaping public policies to improve reproductive health access and outcomes.” However, it states that mandated data collection could be used to “harass” or “prosecute” abortion facilities or women who obtain abortions.
This is disappointing. It is very unlikely that aggregate abortion data could be used in a punitive way against anyone. Furthermore, in a post-Dobbs world, accurate abortion data take greater importance. That is because many women have been able to circumvent state pro-life laws by obtaining abortions in other states or by obtaining chemical abortion pills through the mail. Furthermore, regardless of the legal status of abortion, accurate abortion data can provide valuable information about the impact of contraception programs, sex education curricula, and various pro-life policies.
HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
Overall, there is broad consensus that that the quality of abortion data released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is poor. The most recent CDC abortion data are over two years old. California has not reported any abortion data to the CDC since 1997, and other states, including Maryland and New Hampshire, also typically do not report abortion data to the CDC. Furthermore, in some states there are large disparities between the abortion numbers reported by the CDC and the abortion numbers reported by Guttmacher.
Since our inception, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research and education arm of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, has consistently favored stronger abortion reporting requirements. We even rank states on the quality, detail, and timeliness of their abortion data. In contrast, organizations that favor abortion rights have never expended serious political capital trying to improve the quality or reliability of publicly reported abortion data.
Now Guttmacher is formally on the record stating that it opposes state laws requiring the collection and dissemination of accurate abortion data. Groups that support legal abortion often claim to be on the side of science and good public health. However, this new report clearly shows that Guttmacher’s primary interest is to reduce government oversight of abortion facilities. It is sad, but unsurprising, that Guttmacher is prioritizing permissive abortion policies over data that could improve public health outcomes for women, children, and families.
LifeNews Note: Michael J. New is an assistant professor at the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America and is an associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Follow him on Twitter @Michael_J_New
