abortion policy research paper

• Open access
• Published: 28 June 2021

Impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes: a systematic review protocol

• Foluso Ishola   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8644-0570 1 ,
• U. Vivian Ukah 1 &
• Arijit Nandi 1  

Systematic Reviews volume  10 , Article number:  192 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

22k Accesses

3 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

A country’s abortion law is a key component in determining the enabling environment for safe abortion. While restrictive abortion laws still prevail in most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), many countries have reformed their abortion laws, with the majority of them moving away from an absolute ban. However, the implications of these reforms on women’s access to and use of health services, as well as their health outcomes, is uncertain. First, there are methodological challenges to the evaluation of abortion laws, since these changes are not exogenous. Second, extant evaluations may be limited in terms of their generalizability, given variation in reforms across the abortion legality spectrum and differences in levels of implementation and enforcement cross-nationally. This systematic review aims to address this gap. Our aim is to systematically collect, evaluate, and synthesize empirical research evidence concerning the impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes in LMICs.

We will conduct a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature on changes in abortion laws and women’s health services and outcomes in LMICs. We will search Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases, as well as grey literature and reference lists of included studies for further relevant literature. As our goal is to draw inference on the impact of abortion law reforms, we will include quasi-experimental studies examining the impact of change in abortion laws on at least one of our outcomes of interest. We will assess the methodological quality of studies using the quasi-experimental study designs series checklist. Due to anticipated heterogeneity in policy changes, outcomes, and study designs, we will synthesize results through a narrative description.

This review will systematically appraise and synthesize the research evidence on the impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes in LMICs. We will examine the effect of legislative reforms and investigate the conditions that might contribute to heterogeneous effects, including whether specific groups of women are differentially affected by abortion law reforms. We will discuss gaps and future directions for research. Findings from this review could provide evidence on emerging strategies to influence policy reforms, implement abortion services and scale up accessibility.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42019126927

Peer Review reports

An estimated 25·1 million unsafe abortions occur each year, with 97% of these in developing countries [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Despite its frequency, unsafe abortion remains a major global public health challenge [ 4 , 5 ]. According to the World health Organization (WHO), nearly 8% of maternal deaths were attributed to unsafe abortion, with the majority of these occurring in developing countries [ 5 , 6 ]. Approximately 7 million women are admitted to hospitals every year due to complications from unsafe abortion such as hemorrhage, infections, septic shock, uterine and intestinal perforation, and peritonitis [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. These often result in long-term effects such as infertility and chronic reproductive tract infections. The annual cost of treating major complications from unsafe abortion is estimated at US$ 232 million each year in developing countries [ 10 , 11 ]. The negative consequences on children’s health, well-being, and development have also been documented. Unsafe abortion increases risk of poor birth outcomes, neonatal and infant mortality [ 12 , 13 ]. Additionally, women who lack access to safe and legal abortion are often forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies, and may not seek prenatal care [ 14 ], which might increase risks of child morbidity and mortality.

Access to safe abortion services is often limited due to a wide range of barriers. Collectively, these barriers contribute to the staggering number of deaths and disabilities seen annually as a result of unsafe abortion, which are disproportionately felt in developing countries [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. A recent systematic review on the barriers to abortion access in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) implicated the following factors: restrictive abortion laws, lack of knowledge about abortion law or locations that provide abortion, high cost of services, judgmental provider attitudes, scarcity of facilities and medical equipment, poor training and shortage of staff, stigma on social and religious grounds, and lack of decision making power [ 17 ].

An important factor regulating access to abortion is abortion law [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Although abortion is a medical procedure, its legal status in many countries has been incorporated in penal codes which specify grounds in which abortion is permitted. These include prohibition in all circumstances, to save the woman’s life, to preserve the woman’s health, in cases of rape, incest, fetal impairment, for economic or social reasons, and on request with no requirement for justification [ 18 , 19 , 20 ].

Although abortion laws in different countries are usually compared based on the grounds under which legal abortions are allowed, these comparisons rarely take into account components of the legal framework that may have strongly restrictive implications, such as regulation of facilities that are authorized to provide abortions, mandatory waiting periods, reporting requirements in cases of rape, limited choice in terms of the method of abortion, and requirements for third-party authorizations [ 19 , 21 , 22 ]. For example, the Zambian Termination of Pregnancy Act permits abortion on socio-economic grounds. It is considered liberal, as it permits legal abortions for more indications than most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa; however, abortions must only be provided in registered hospitals, and three medical doctors—one of whom must be a specialist—must provide signatures to allow the procedure to take place [ 22 ]. Given the critical shortage of doctors in Zambia [ 23 ], this is in fact a major restriction that is only captured by a thorough analysis of the conditions under which abortion services are provided.

Additionally, abortion laws may exist outside the penal codes in some countries, where they are supplemented by health legislation and regulations such as public health statutes, reproductive health acts, court decisions, medical ethic codes, practice guidelines, and general health acts [ 18 , 19 , 24 ]. The diversity of regulatory documents may lead to conflicting directives about the grounds under which abortion is lawful [ 19 ]. For example, in Kenya and Uganda, standards and guidelines on the reduction of morbidity and mortality due to unsafe abortion supported by the constitution was contradictory to the penal code, leaving room for an ambiguous interpretation of the legal environment [ 25 ].

Regulations restricting the range of abortion methods from which women can choose, including medication abortion in particular, may also affect abortion access [ 26 , 27 ]. A literature review contextualizing medication abortion in seven African countries reported that incidence of medication abortion is low despite being a safe, effective, and low-cost abortion method, likely due to legal restrictions on access to the medications [ 27 ].

Over the past two decades, many LMICs have reformed their abortion laws [ 3 , 28 ]. Most have expanded the grounds on which abortion may be performed legally, while very few have restricted access. Countries like Uruguay, South Africa, and Portugal have amended their laws to allow abortion on request in the first trimester of pregnancy [ 29 , 30 ]. Conversely, in Nicaragua, a law to ban all abortion without any exception was introduced in 2006 [ 31 ].

Progressive reforms are expected to lead to improvements in women’s access to safe abortion and health outcomes, including reductions in the death and disabilities that accompany unsafe abortion, and reductions in stigma over the longer term [ 17 , 29 , 32 ]. However, abortion law reforms may yield different outcomes even in countries that experience similar reforms, as the legislative processes that are associated with changing abortion laws take place in highly distinct political, economic, religious, and social contexts [ 28 , 33 ]. This variation may contribute to abortion law reforms having different effects with respect to the health services and outcomes that they are hypothesized to influence [ 17 , 29 ].

Extant empirical literature has examined changes in abortion-related morbidity and mortality, contraceptive usage, fertility, and other health-related outcomes following reforms to abortion laws [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. For example, a study in Mexico reported that a policy that decriminalized and subsidized early-term elective abortion led to substantial reductions in maternal morbidity and that this was particularly strong among vulnerable populations such as young and socioeconomically disadvantaged women [ 38 ].

To the best of our knowledge, however, the growing literature on the impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. A study by Benson et al. evaluated evidence on the impact of abortion policy reforms on maternal death in three countries, Romania, South Africa, and Bangladesh, where reforms were immediately followed by strategies to implement abortion services, scale up accessibility, and establish complementary reproductive and maternal health services [ 39 ]. The three countries highlighted in this paper provided unique insights into implementation and practical application following law reforms, in spite of limited resources. However, the review focused only on a selection of countries that have enacted similar reforms and it is unclear if its conclusions are more widely generalizable.

Accordingly, the primary objective of this review is to summarize studies that have estimated the causal effect of a change in abortion law on women’s health services and outcomes. Additionally, we aim to examine heterogeneity in the impacts of abortion reforms, including variation across specific population sub-groups and contexts (e.g., due to variations in the intensity of enforcement and service delivery). Through this review, we aim to offer a higher-level view of the impact of abortion law reforms in LMICs, beyond what can be gained from any individual study, and to thereby highlight patterns in the evidence across studies, gaps in current research, and to identify promising programs and strategies that could be adapted and applied more broadly to increase access to safe abortion services.

The review protocol has been reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines [ 40 ] (Additional file 1 ). It was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database CRD42019126927.

Eligibility criteria

Types of studies.

This review will consider quasi-experimental studies which aim to estimate the causal effect of a change in a specific law or reform and an outcome, but in which participants (in this case jurisdictions, whether countries, states/provinces, or smaller units) are not randomly assigned to treatment conditions [ 41 ]. Eligible designs include the following:

Pretest-posttest designs where the outcome is compared before and after the reform, as well as nonequivalent groups designs, such as pretest-posttest design that includes a comparison group, also known as a controlled before and after (CBA) designs.

Interrupted time series (ITS) designs where the trend of an outcome after an abortion law reform is compared to a counterfactual (i.e., trends in the outcome in the post-intervention period had the jurisdiction not enacted the reform) based on the pre-intervention trends and/or a control group [ 42 , 43 ].

Differences-in-differences (DD) designs, which compare the before vs. after change in an outcome in jurisdictions that experienced an abortion law reform to the corresponding change in the places that did not experience such a change, under the assumption of parallel trends [ 44 , 45 ].

Synthetic controls (SC) approaches, which use a weighted combination of control units that did not experience the intervention, selected to match the treated unit in its pre-intervention outcome trend, to proxy the counterfactual scenario [ 46 , 47 ].

Regression discontinuity (RD) designs, which in the case of eligibility for abortion services being determined by the value of a continuous random variable, such as age or income, would compare the distributions of post-intervention outcomes for those just above and below the threshold [ 48 ].

There is heterogeneity in the terminology and definitions used to describe quasi-experimental designs, but we will do our best to categorize studies into the above groups based on their designs, identification strategies, and assumptions.

Our focus is on quasi-experimental research because we are interested in studies evaluating the effect of population-level interventions (i.e., abortion law reform) with a design that permits inference regarding the causal effect of abortion legislation, which is not possible from other types of observational designs such as cross-sectional studies, cohort studies or case-control studies that lack an identification strategy for addressing sources of unmeasured confounding (e.g., secular trends in outcomes). We are not excluding randomized studies such as randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized trials, or stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trials; however, we do not expect to identify any relevant randomized studies given that abortion policy is unlikely to be randomly assigned. Since our objective is to provide a summary of empirical studies reporting primary research, reviews/meta-analyses, qualitative studies, editorials, letters, book reviews, correspondence, and case reports/studies will also be excluded.

Our population of interest includes women of reproductive age (15–49 years) residing in LMICs, as the policy exposure of interest applies primarily to women who have a demand for sexual and reproductive health services including abortion.

Intervention

The intervention in this study refers to a change in abortion law or policy, either from a restrictive policy to a non-restrictive or less restrictive one, or vice versa. This can, for example, include a change from abortion prohibition in all circumstances to abortion permissible in other circumstances, such as to save the woman’s life, to preserve the woman’s health, in cases of rape, incest, fetal impairment, for economic or social reasons, or on request with no requirement for justification. It can also include the abolition of existing abortion policies or the introduction of new policies including those occurring outside the penal code, which also have legal standing, such as:

National constitutions;

Supreme court decisions, as well as higher court decisions;

Customary or religious law, such as interpretations of Muslim law;

Medical ethical codes; and

Regulatory standards and guidelines governing the provision of abortion.

We will also consider national and sub-national reforms, although we anticipate that most reforms will operate at the national level.

The comparison group represents the counterfactual scenario, specifically the level and/or trend of a particular post-intervention outcome in the treated jurisdiction that experienced an abortion law reform had it, counter to the fact, not experienced this specific intervention. Comparison groups will vary depending on the type of quasi-experimental design. These may include outcome trends after abortion reform in the same country, as in the case of an interrupted time series design without a control group, or corresponding trends in countries that did not experience a change in abortion law, as in the case of the difference-in-differences design.

Outcome measures

Primary outcomes.

Access to abortion services: There is no consensus on how to measure access but we will use the following indicators, based on the relevant literature [ 49 ]: [ 1 ] the availability of trained staff to provide care, [ 2 ] facilities are geographically accessible such as distance to providers, [ 3 ] essential equipment, supplies and medications, [ 4 ] services provided regardless of woman’s ability to pay, [ 5 ] all aspects of abortion care are explained to women, [ 6 ] whether staff offer respectful care, [ 7 ] if staff work to ensure privacy, [ 8 ] if high-quality, supportive counseling is provided, [ 9 ] if services are offered in a timely manner, and [ 10 ] if women have the opportunity to express concerns, ask questions, and receive answers.

Use of abortion services refers to induced pregnancy termination, including medication abortion and number of women treated for abortion-related complications.

Secondary outcomes

Current use of any method of contraception refers to women of reproductive age currently using any method contraceptive method.

Future use of contraception refers to women of reproductive age who are not currently using contraception but intend to do so in the future.

Demand for family planning refers to women of reproductive age who are currently using, or whose sexual partner is currently using, at least one contraceptive method.

Unmet need for family planning refers to women of reproductive age who want to stop or delay childbearing but are not using any method of contraception.

Fertility rate refers to the average number of children born to women of childbearing age.

Neonatal morbidity and mortality refer to disability or death of newborn babies within the first 28 days of life.

Maternal morbidity and mortality refer to disability or death due to complications from pregnancy or childbirth.

There will be no language, date, or year restrictions on studies included in this systematic review.

Studies have to be conducted in a low- and middle-income country. We will use the country classification specified in the World Bank Data Catalogue to identify LMICs (Additional file 2 ).

Search methods

We will perform searches for eligible peer-reviewed studies in the following electronic databases.

Ovid MEDLINE(R) (from 1946 to present)

Embase Classic+Embase on OvidSP (from 1947 to present)

CINAHL (1973 to present); and

Web of Science (1900 to present)

The reference list of included studies will be hand searched for additional potentially relevant citations. Additionally, a grey literature search for reports or working papers will be done with the help of Google and Social Science Research Network (SSRN).

Search strategy

A search strategy, based on the eligibility criteria and combining subject indexing terms (i.e., MeSH) and free-text search terms in the title and abstract fields, will be developed for each electronic database. The search strategy will combine terms related to the interventions of interest (i.e., abortion law/policy), etiology (i.e., impact/effect), and context (i.e., LMICs) and will be developed with the help of a subject matter librarian. We opted not to specify outcomes in the search strategy in order to maximize the sensitivity of our search. See Additional file 3 for a draft of our search strategy.

Data collection and analysis

Data management.

Search results from all databases will be imported into Endnote reference manager software (Version X9, Clarivate Analytics) where duplicate records will be identified and excluded using a systematic, rigorous, and reproducible method that utilizes a sequential combination of fields including author, year, title, journal, and pages. Rayyan systematic review software will be used to manage records throughout the review [ 50 ].

Selection process

Two review authors will screen titles and abstracts and apply the eligibility criteria to select studies for full-text review. Reference lists of any relevant articles identified will be screened to ensure no primary research studies are missed. Studies in a language different from English will be translated by collaborators who are fluent in the particular language. If no such expertise is identified, we will use Google Translate [ 51 ]. Full text versions of potentially relevant articles will be retrieved and assessed for inclusion based on study eligibility criteria. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or will involve a third reviewer as an arbitrator. The selection of studies, as well as reasons for exclusions of potentially eligible studies, will be described using a PRISMA flow chart.

Data extraction

Data extraction will be independently undertaken by two authors. At the conclusion of data extraction, these two authors will meet with the third author to resolve any discrepancies. A piloted standardized extraction form will be used to extract the following information: authors, date of publication, country of study, aim of study, policy reform year, type of policy reform, data source (surveys, medical records), years compared (before and after the reform), comparators (over time or between groups), participant characteristics (age, socioeconomic status), primary and secondary outcomes, evaluation design, methods used for statistical analysis (regression), estimates reported (means, rates, proportion), information to assess risk of bias (sensitivity analyses), sources of funding, and any potential conflicts of interest.

Risk of bias and quality assessment

Two independent reviewers with content and methodological expertise in methods for policy evaluation will assess the methodological quality of included studies using the quasi-experimental study designs series risk of bias checklist [ 52 ]. This checklist provides a list of criteria for grading the quality of quasi-experimental studies that relate directly to the intrinsic strength of the studies in inferring causality. These include [ 1 ] relevant comparison, [ 2 ] number of times outcome assessments were available, [ 3 ] intervention effect estimated by changes over time for the same or different groups, [ 4 ] control of confounding, [ 5 ] how groups of individuals or clusters were formed (time or location differences), and [ 6 ] assessment of outcome variables. Each of the following domains will be assigned a “yes,” “no,” or “possibly” bias classification. Any discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or a third reviewer with expertise in review methodology if required.

Confidence in cumulative evidence

The strength of the body of evidence will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system [ 53 ].

Data synthesis

We anticipate that risk of bias and heterogeneity in the studies included may preclude the use of meta-analyses to describe pooled effects. This may necessitate the presentation of our main findings through a narrative description. We will synthesize the findings from the included articles according to the following key headings:

Information on the differential aspects of the abortion policy reforms.

Information on the types of study design used to assess the impact of policy reforms.

Information on main effects of abortion law reforms on primary and secondary outcomes of interest.

Information on heterogeneity in the results that might be due to differences in study designs, individual-level characteristics, and contextual factors.

Potential meta-analysis

If outcomes are reported consistently across studies, we will construct forest plots and synthesize effect estimates using meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using the I 2 test where I 2 values over 50% indicate moderate to high heterogeneity [ 54 ]. If studies are sufficiently homogenous, we will use fixed effects. However, if there is evidence of heterogeneity, a random effects model will be adopted. Summary measures, including risk ratios or differences or prevalence ratios or differences will be calculated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Analysis of subgroups

If there are sufficient numbers of included studies, we will perform sub-group analyses according to type of policy reform, geographical location and type of participant characteristics such as age groups, socioeconomic status, urban/rural status, education, or marital status to examine the evidence for heterogeneous effects of abortion laws.

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analyses will be conducted if there are major differences in quality of the included articles to explore the influence of risk of bias on effect estimates.

Meta-biases

If available, studies will be compared to protocols and registers to identify potential reporting bias within studies. If appropriate and there are a sufficient number of studies included, funnel plots will be generated to determine potential publication bias.

This systematic review will synthesize current evidence on the impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health. It aims to identify which legislative reforms are effective, for which population sub-groups, and under which conditions.

Potential limitations may include the low quality of included studies as a result of suboptimal study design, invalid assumptions, lack of sensitivity analysis, imprecision of estimates, variability in results, missing data, and poor outcome measurements. Our review may also include a limited number of articles because we opted to focus on evidence from quasi-experimental study design due to the causal nature of the research question under review. Nonetheless, we will synthesize the literature, provide a critical evaluation of the quality of the evidence and discuss the potential effects of any limitations to our overall conclusions. Protocol amendments will be recorded and dated using the registration for this review on PROSPERO. We will also describe any amendments in our final manuscript.

Synthesizing available evidence on the impact of abortion law reforms represents an important step towards building our knowledge base regarding how abortion law reforms affect women’s health services and health outcomes; we will provide evidence on emerging strategies to influence policy reforms, implement abortion services, and scale up accessibility. This review will be of interest to service providers, policy makers and researchers seeking to improve women’s access to safe abortion around the world.

Abbreviations

Cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature

Excerpta medica database

Low- and middle-income countries

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols

International prospective register of systematic reviews

Ganatra B, Gerdts C, Rossier C, Johnson BR, Tuncalp O, Assifi A, et al. Global, regional, and subregional classification of abortions by safety, 2010-14: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lancet. 2017;390(10110):2372–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31794-4 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Guttmacher Institute. Induced Abortion Worldwide; Global Incidence and Trends 2018. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide . Accessed 15 Dec 2019.

Singh S, Remez L, Sedgh G, Kwok L, Onda T. Abortion worldwide 2017: uneven progress and unequal access. NewYork: Guttmacher Institute; 2018.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fusco CLB. Unsafe abortion: a serious public health issue in a poverty stricken population. Reprod Clim. 2013;2(8):2–9.

Google Scholar  

Rehnstrom Loi U, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Faxelid E, Klingberg-Allvin M. Health care providers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards induced abortions in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia: a systematic literature review of qualitative and quantitative data. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1502-2 .

Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tuncalp O, Moller AB, Daniels J, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(6):E323–E33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Benson J, Nicholson LA, Gaffikin L, Kinoti SN. Complications of unsafe abortion in sub-Saharan Africa: a review. Health Policy Plan. 1996;11(2):117–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/11.2.117 .

Abiodun OM, Balogun OR, Adeleke NA, Farinloye EO. Complications of unsafe abortion in South West Nigeria: a review of 96 cases. Afr J Med Med Sci. 2013;42(1):111–5.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Singh S, Maddow-Zimet I. Facility-based treatment for medical complications resulting from unsafe pregnancy termination in the developing world, 2012: a review of evidence from 26 countries. BJOG. 2016;123(9):1489–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13552 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vlassoff M, Walker D, Shearer J, Newlands D, Singh S. Estimates of health care system costs of unsafe abortion in Africa and Latin America. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2009;35(3):114–21. https://doi.org/10.1363/3511409 .

Singh S, Darroch JE. Adding it up: costs and benefits of contraceptive services. Estimates for 2012. New York: Guttmacher Institute and United Nations Population Fund; 2012.

Auger N, Bilodeau-Bertrand M, Sauve R. Abortion and infant mortality on the first day of life. Neonatology. 2016;109(2):147–53. https://doi.org/10.1159/000442279 .

Krieger N, Gruskin S, Singh N, Kiang MV, Chen JT, Waterman PD, et al. Reproductive justice & preventable deaths: state funding, family planning, abortion, and infant mortality, US 1980-2010. SSM Popul Health. 2016;2:277–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.03.007 .

Banaem LM, Majlessi F. A comparative study of low 5-minute Apgar scores (< 8) in newborns of wanted versus unwanted pregnancies in southern Tehran, Iran (2006-2007). J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008;21(12):898–901. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767050802372390 .

Bhandari A. Barriers in access to safe abortion services: perspectives of potential clients from a hilly district of Nepal. Trop Med Int Health. 2007;12:87.

Seid A, Yeneneh H, Sende B, Belete S, Eshete H, Fantahun M, et al. Barriers to access safe abortion services in East Shoa and Arsi Zones of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. J Health Dev. 2015;29(1):13–21.

Arroyave FAB, Moreno PA. A systematic bibliographical review: barriers and facilitators for access to legal abortion in low and middle income countries. Open J Prev Med. 2018;8(5):147–68. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpm.2018.85015 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Boland R, Katzive L. Developments in laws on induced abortion: 1998-2007. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2008;34(3):110–20. https://doi.org/10.1363/3411008 .

Lavelanet AF, Schlitt S, Johnson BR Jr, Ganatra B. Global Abortion Policies Database: a descriptive analysis of the legal categories of lawful abortion. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2018;18(1):44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-018-0183-1 .

United Nations Population Division. Abortion policies: A global review. Major dimensions of abortion policies. 2002 [Available from: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/abortion/abortion-policies-2002.asp .

Johnson BR, Lavelanet AF, Schlitt S. Global abortion policies database: a new approach to strengthening knowledge on laws, policies, and human rights standards. Bmc Int Health Hum Rights. 2018;18(1):35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-018-0174-2 .

Haaland MES, Haukanes H, Zulu JM, Moland KM, Michelo C, Munakampe MN, et al. Shaping the abortion policy - competing discourses on the Zambian termination of pregnancy act. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-018-0908-8 .

Schatz JJ. Zambia’s health-worker crisis. Lancet. 2008;371(9613):638–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60287-1 .

Erdman JN, Johnson BR. Access to knowledge and the Global Abortion Policies Database. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;142(1):120–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12509 .

Cleeve A, Oguttu M, Ganatra B, Atuhairwe S, Larsson EC, Makenzius M, et al. Time to act-comprehensive abortion care in east Africa. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(9):E601–E2. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30136-X .

Berer M, Hoggart L. Medical abortion pills have the potential to change everything about abortion. Contraception. 2018;97(2):79–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.12.006 .

Moseson H, Shaw J, Chandrasekaran S, Kimani E, Maina J, Malisau P, et al. Contextualizing medication abortion in seven African nations: A literature review. Health Care Women Int. 2019;40(7-9):950–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2019.1608207 .

Blystad A, Moland KM. Comparative cases of abortion laws and access to safe abortion services in sub-Saharan Africa. Trop Med Int Health. 2017;22:351.

Berer M. Abortion law and policy around the world: in search of decriminalization. Health Hum Rights. 2017;19(1):13–27.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Johnson BR, Mishra V, Lavelanet AF, Khosla R, Ganatra B. A global database of abortion laws, policies, health standards and guidelines. B World Health Organ. 2017;95(7):542–4. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.197442 .

Replogle J. Nicaragua tightens up abortion laws. Lancet. 2007;369(9555):15–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60011-7 .

Keogh LA, Newton D, Bayly C, McNamee K, Hardiman A, Webster A, et al. Intended and unintended consequences of abortion law reform: perspectives of abortion experts in Victoria, Australia. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2017;43(1):18–24. https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2016-101541 .

Levels M, Sluiter R, Need A. A review of abortion laws in Western-European countries. A cross-national comparison of legal developments between 1960 and 2010. Health Policy. 2014;118(1):95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.06.008 .

Serbanescu F, Morris L, Stupp P, Stanescu A. The impact of recent policy changes on fertility, abortion, and contraceptive use in Romania. Stud Fam Plann. 1995;26(2):76–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137933 .

Henderson JT, Puri M, Blum M, Harper CC, Rana A, Gurung G, et al. Effects of Abortion Legalization in Nepal, 2001-2010. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(5):e64775. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064775 .

Goncalves-Pinho M, Santos JV, Costa A, Costa-Pereira A, Freitas A. The impact of a liberalisation law on legally induced abortion hospitalisations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;203:142–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.05.037 .

Latt SM, Milner A, Kavanagh A. Abortion laws reform may reduce maternal mortality: an ecological study in 162 countries. BMC Women’s Health. 2019;19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-018-0705-y .

Clarke D, Muhlrad H. Abortion laws and women’s health. IZA discussion papers 11890. Bonn: IZA Institute of Labor Economics; 2018.

Benson J, Andersen K, Samandari G. Reductions in abortion-related mortality following policy reform: evidence from Romania, South Africa and Bangladesh. Reprod Health. 2011;8(39). https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4755-8-39 .

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Bmj-Brit Med J. 2015;349.

William R. Shadish, Thomas D. Cook, Donald T. Campbell. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, New York; 2002.

Bernal JL, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(1):348–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw098 .

Bernal JL, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. The use of controls in interrupted time series studies of public health interventions. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47(6):2082–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy135 .

Meyer BD. Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. J Bus Econ Stat. 1995;13(2):151–61.

Strumpf EC, Harper S, Kaufman JS. Fixed effects and difference in differences. In: Methods in Social Epidemiology ed. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass; 2017.

Abadie A, Diamond A, Hainmueller J. Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: estimating the effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program. J Am Stat Assoc. 2010;105(490):493–505. https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Abadie A, Diamond A, Hainmueller J. Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. Am J Polit Sci. 2015;59(2):495–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12116 .

Moscoe E, Bor J, Barnighausen T. Regression discontinuity designs are underutilized in medicine, epidemiology, and public health: a review of current and best practice. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2015;68(2):132–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.021 .

Dennis A, Blanchard K, Bessenaar T. Identifying indicators for quality abortion care: a systematic literature review. J Fam Plan Reprod H. 2017;43(1):7–15. https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2015-101427 .

Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 .

Jackson JL, Kuriyama A, Anton A, Choi A, Fournier JP, Geier AK, et al. The accuracy of Google Translate for abstracting data from non-English-language trials for systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2019.

Reeves BC, Wells GA, Waddington H. Quasi-experimental study designs series-paper 5: a checklist for classifying studies evaluating the effects on health interventions-a taxonomy without labels. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.016 .

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD .

Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Genevieve Gore, Liaison Librarian at McGill University, for her assistance with refining the research question, keywords, and Mesh terms for the preliminary search strategy.

The authors acknowledge funding from the Fonds de recherche du Quebec – Santé (FRQS) PhD doctoral awards and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Operating Grant, “Examining the impact of social policies on health equity” (ROH-115209).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Purvis Hall 1020 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1A2, Canada

Foluso Ishola, U. Vivian Ukah & Arijit Nandi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

FI and AN conceived and designed the protocol. FI drafted the manuscript. FI, UVU, and AN revised the manuscript and approved its final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Foluso Ishola .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:.

PRISMA-P 2015 Checklist. This checklist has been adapted for use with systematic review protocol submissions to BioMed Central journals from Table 3 in Moher D et al: Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews 2015 4:1

Additional File 2:.

LMICs according to World Bank Data Catalogue. Country classification specified in the World Bank Data Catalogue to identify low- and middle-income countries

Additional File 3: Table 1

. Search strategy in Embase. Detailed search terms and filters applied to generate our search in Embase

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ishola, F., Ukah, U.V. & Nandi, A. Impact of abortion law reforms on women’s health services and outcomes: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev 10 , 192 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01739-w

Download citation

Received : 02 January 2020

Accepted : 08 June 2021

Published : 28 June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01739-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Abortion law/policies; Impact
• Unsafe abortion
• Contraception

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 15 February 2024

Effectiveness and safety of telehealth medication abortion in the USA

• Ushma D. Upadhyay   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2731-2157 1 ,
• Leah R. Koenig 1 , 2 ,
• Karen Meckstroth 1 ,
• Jennifer Ko 1 ,
• Ena Suseth Valladares 3 &
• M. Antonia Biggs 1  

Nature Medicine volume  30 ,  pages 1191–1198 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

8 Citations

2411 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Adverse effects
• Epidemiology
• Health services
• Outcomes research

Telehealth abortion has become critical to addressing surges in demand in states where abortion remains legal but evidence on its effectiveness and safety is limited. California Home Abortion by Telehealth (CHAT) is a prospective study that follows pregnant people who obtained medication abortion via telehealth from three virtual clinics operating in 20 states and Washington, DC between April 2021 and January 2022. Individuals were screened using a standardized no-test protocol, primarily relying on their medical history to assess medical eligibility. We assessed effectiveness, defined as complete abortion after 200 mg mifepristone and 1,600 μg misoprostol (or lower) without additional intervention; safety was measured by the absence of serious adverse events. We estimated rates using multivariable logistic regression and multiple imputation to account for missing data. Among 6,034 abortions, 97.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 97.2–98.1%) were complete without subsequent known intervention or ongoing pregnancy after the initial treatment. Overall, 99.8% (99.6–99.9%) of abortions were not followed by serious adverse events. In total, 0.25% of patients experienced a serious abortion-related adverse event, 0.16% were treated for an ectopic pregnancy and 1.3% abortions were followed by emergency department visits. There were no differences in effectiveness or safety between synchronous and asynchronous models of care. Telehealth medication abortion is effective, safe and comparable to published rates of in-person medication abortion care.

Similar content being viewed by others

Videoconferencing to deliver genetics services: a systematic review of telegenetics in light of the COVID-19 pandemic

Asynchronous telemedicine for clinical genetics consultations in the NICU: a single center’s solution

First trimester abortion protocols by facility type in Switzerland and potential barriers to accessing the service

In 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed the in-person dispensing requirement on mifepristone, the first drug used in a medication abortion. This ruling allowed clinicians to begin offering a ‘no-test’ telehealth model of medication abortion care. Clinicians could now offer entirely remote consultations, using the patient’s self-reported medical history instead of ultrasonography or other tests to screen for medical eligibility.

Moving abortion out of the clinic reduced travel, cost and stigma-related barriers and increased convenience for patients 1 , 2 . While telehealth abortion is usually conducted through synchronous communication, with a real-time scheduled videoconference appointment with the patient, some virtual clinics rely on entirely asynchronous communication, using secure text messaging without a scheduled interaction. Follow-up for both models is usually asynchronous, through secure text messaging.

This expansion of services became critical after the June 2022 Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision allowed states to ban abortion. In states such as Illinois, Kansas and Colorado, where abortion remained legal but neighboring states banned abortion, clinics experienced large increases in patient volume 3 . Telehealth became vital to meeting increased demand by reducing appointment waiting times and serving patients from states with abortion bans 4 . Some individuals from US states with an abortion ban use methods such as mail forwarding and mailing medications to a friend or Post Office box close to the border in states where abortion is permitted, minimizing the travel required 5 . Additionally, some clinicians have begun to use the legal protections of their state’s “shield laws” to provide medication abortion via telehealth to patients in banned states 6 .

However, access to mifepristone for medication abortion has been under threat, with a federal court ruling to reverse FDA regulatory approvals of mifepristone, including the 2021 decision that allowed telehealth for abortion to continue even after the pandemic. This ruling was issued despite multiple FDA reviews and abundant evidence demonstrating the effectiveness and safety of mifepristone 7 . According to the mifepristone label, 97.4% of 16,794 patients in US clinical trials of in-person medication abortion had a complete abortion and less than 0.5% had a serious adverse event 8 .

While decades of evidence support the effectiveness and safety of mifepristone provided in person, the evidence supporting no-test direct-to-patient telehealth abortion is more limited. Before 2021, US research on the effectiveness and safety of telehealth abortion was limited to clinic-to-clinic 9 , 10 , 11 or direct-to-patient models that required pre-abortion ultrasonography or other tests 12 . To date, only five US studies have examined the outcomes of no-test direct-to-patient telehealth abortion models; four of these had small (fewer than 350) samples of patients receiving such care; thus, they were underpowered to examine outcomes as rare as serious adverse events 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 . The fifth study was a retrospective examination of no-test medication abortion provided either in-person or by telehealth and mail. Among 3,779 medication abortions, 95% were complete without procedural intervention and 0.5% experienced a serious adverse event. Effectiveness and safety were similar whether medications were dispensed in-person or by mail 17 , 18 . However, this study did not report the effectiveness and safety outcomes of asynchronous telehealth abortion.

In this study, we used data from the California Home Abortion by Telehealth (CHAT) study to follow a large sample of patients across the US from three virtual clinics to estimate the effectiveness and safety of medication abortion care provided via telehealth. Clinicians provided telehealth abortion care via either synchronous (video) or asynchronous (secure text messaging) methods. They screened patients using a published, standardized no-test protocol, primarily relying on patient medical history to assess medical eligibility 19 . Patients who had any risk factors for or symptoms of ectopic pregnancy or were potentially beyond the gestational limit of the virtual clinic were referred for pre-abortion ultrasonography. Eligible patients received 200 mg mifepristone and 800 or 1,600 μg buccal or vaginal misoprostol via mail order pharmacy. Outcome data were collected by scheduled follow-up interactions conducted remotely 3–7 days after intake and again 2–4 weeks after medication administration (Fig. 1 ). Our primary aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of telehealth medication abortion care. Our secondary aim was to compare effectiveness and safety outcomes between synchronous and asynchronous models of telehealth.

Timing and content of the electronic medical records and survey data analyzed in the CHAT study.

We received electronic medical records for 6,974 encounters. Among those, 6,154 patients met the eligibility criteria and had abortion medications dispensed to them in 20 states and Washington, DC. We excluded cases where the patient took neither mifepristone nor misoprostol ( n  = 120) leaving 6,034 patients in the analytical sample (Fig. 2 ). Among these, 1,600 patients provided supplementary self-reported data on their outcomes via surveys (Extended Data Table 1 ).

Patient flow chart depicting the exclusion criteria.

All patients were pregnant and seeking abortion. Half (50.3%) were 30 years or older and 4.6% were aged under 20 years (Table 1 ). Race, ethnicity or ethnic grouping was unknown for one-third (34.3%) of patients because one of the clinics did not record these data in their medical records for the first half of the study period. Among the subsample with known race, ethnicity or ethnic grouping, nearly two-thirds (62.7%) were white. Most (84.3%) patients had pregnancy durations under 7 weeks (≤49 days). Medical records did not document patient sex or gender.

Overall, 72.3% of patients received asynchronous care. Among patients of the clinic that offered asynchronous care but allowed patients to request a phone or video call, 0.3% requested a call with the provider. Patients who were younger (100.0% for 16–18 years, 79.3% for 18–19 years), Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (82.3%), Middle Eastern or North African (80.0%), living in an urban area (72.7%) and who had pregnancy durations over 56 days (74.8% for 50–56 days, 99.6% for 57–63 days and 100.0% for 64–70 days) were more likely to have received asynchronous care.

Of the sample, 76% (4,613 of 6,034) of cases had any follow-up contact with the virtual clinic or by surveys (Fig. 2 ). Abortion outcomes were known (ascertained using a test or the patient’s history) for 74% (4,454 of 6,034) of the analytical sample. There were few sociodemographic characteristics associated with unknown outcomes. Outcomes were less likely to be known for American Indian or Alaska Native patients (57.1%), Middle Eastern or North African patients (64.0%), patients with a previous birth (70.4%), patients with a pregnancy duration of 57–63 days (66.7%) and 64–70 days (68.4%), and patients receiving asynchronous care (69.6%) (Extended Data Table 2 ). Among patients with unknown outcomes, two requested abortion pill reversal after they took mifepristone but before misoprostol. Both were advised that evidence-based reversal treatment does not exist and referred to urgent in-person care. No further information on their outcomes was available.

Effectiveness

Overall, results from both the complete case analysis and the imputed models found that 97.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 97.2–98.1%) of abortions were complete without a subsequent known intervention or ongoing pregnancy after initial treatment (Table 2 and Extended Data Table 3 ). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous telehealth was similar; in the complete case analysis effectiveness was 98.3% (95% CI = 97.5–99.0%) in the synchronous group and 97.4% (95% CI = 96.9–98.0%) in the asynchronous group. In the final imputed analysis, effectiveness was 98.3% (95% CI = 97.7–99.0%) in the synchronous group and 97.4% (95% CI = 96.9–98.0%) in the asynchronous group. Effectiveness also did not differ according to patient age, pregnancy duration, race, ethnicity or ethnic grouping, urbanicity, previous birth, previous abortion or whether the patient had screening ultrasonography.

Among the 2.3% (95% CI = 1.9–2.8%) of patients whose abortion was not initially complete, 0.56% were treated with more than 200 mg mifepristone, more than 1,600 μg misoprostol or other uterotonic medication to complete the abortion, 1.4% were treated with an aspiration or other abortion procedure, 0.16% were treated for an ectopic pregnancy and 0.94% had a confirmed or suspected continuing pregnancy (Table 3 ).

Overall, six (0.16%) patients had ectopic pregnancies; three (0.12%) were suspected ectopic pregnancies treated with methotrexate; one (0.07%) was an ectopic pregnancy treated with an unknown treatment; one (0.12%) was a cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy treated with an unknown treatment; and one (0.09%) was a ruptured ectopic pregnancy treated with a salpingectomy.

Overall, the rate of abortions that were not followed by a serious adverse event was 99.7% (95% CI = 99.5–99.8%) in the complete case analysis and 99.8% (95% CI = 99.6–99.9%) in the final imputed model (Table 2 and Extended Data Table 3 ). Safety was similar between patients who received synchronous and asynchronous care; in the complete case analysis, the safety rate was 99.7% (95% CI = 99.4–100.0%) in the synchronous group and 99.6% (95% CI = 99.4–99.9%) in the asynchronous group. In the final imputed model, safety was 99.8% (95% CI = 99.5–100.0%) among synchronous patients and 99.7% (95% CI = 99.6–99.9%) among asynchronous patients. In the final imputed models, safety was lower among Black or African American patients (99.3%, 95% CI = 98.7–100.0%) than among white patients (99.8%, 95% CI = 97.0–100.0%). No other factors were significantly associated with reduced safety.

Among the 0.25% of patients who experienced a serious adverse event, 0.10% received blood transfusions and 0.02% had abdominal surgery to treat a ruptured ectopic pregnancy; 0.17% of patients had hospital admissions requiring overnight stays. Among the ten (0.17%) hospital admissions, four (0.12%) received inpatient aspiration procedures, two (0.10%) were treated for infection and received an aspiration, one (0.09%) involved a blood transfusion and aspiration, one (0.09%) underwent surgery to treat a ruptured ectopic pregnancy, one (0.08%) was treated with intravenous antibiotics and one (0.09%) had a uterine infection treated with unknown treatment.

Other outcomes

Overall, 1.3% (95% CI = 1.1–1.6%) of abortions were followed by a known emergency department visit, 38.3% of which resulted in no treatment. Emergency department visits were similar between synchronous patients (1.2%, 95% CI = 0.7–1.7%) and asynchronous patients (1.4%, 95% CI = 1.0–1.7%). We identified no cases where, at the subsequent follow-up, it was determined that the abortion occurred beyond 70 days’ gestation.

Sensitivity analyses

The first sensitivity analysis, where we conservatively categorized the 25 patients who were referred to in-person care and were subsequently lost to follow-up as requiring additional intervention to complete the abortion, resulted in effectiveness rates that were not significantly different from the primary analysis; overall 97.1% (95% CI = 96.5–97.6%), with 98.1% (95% CI = 97.3–98.8%) among synchronous patients and 96.7% (95% CI = 96.0–97.3%) among asynchronous patients.

In the second sensitivity analysis modeling effectiveness, we considered patients as having complete abortions regardless of the amount of misoprostol they received, which is consistent with the Medical Abortion Reporting of Efficacy (MARE) guidelines 20 . (Total misoprostol dosages according to pregnancy duration are reported in Extended Data Table 4 .) This also resulted in effectiveness rates that were not significantly different from the primary analysis: 97.9% (95% CI = 97.4–98.3%) overall, 98.4% (95% CI = 97.8–99.0%) among patients who received synchronous care and 97.7% (95% CI = 97.1–98.2%) among patients who received asynchronous care.

The third sensitivity analysis, where we examined effectiveness and safety only among the subsample of patients with supplementary self-reported data on their outcomes via surveys in addition to standard clinical follow-up ( n  = 1,600), resulted in effectiveness rates that were not significantly different from the primary analysis: 96.7% (95% CI = 95.7–97.6%), with 97.1% (95% CI = 95.6–98.6%) among those who received synchronous care and 96.4% (95% CI = 95.2–97.6%) among those who received asynchronous care. This sensitivity analysis resulted in a similar safety rate of 99.3% (95% CI = 98.9–99.7%), and rates of 99.4% (95% CI = 98.7–100.0%) among those who received synchronous care versus 99.3% (95% CI = 98.8–99.8%) of those who received asynchronous care.

In the fourth sensitivity analysis, we conducted delta-adjusted pattern-mixture modeling to examine the potential impact of loss to follow-up on the observed results (Extended Data Table 5 ). Across a range of delta values, we found that the results were largely consistent with the main analysis. Under an extreme scenario in which those with unknown outcomes had ten times the odds of an incomplete abortion or serious adverse event, effectiveness for the entire sample would be 93.3% (95% CI = 92.1–94.5%) and safety would be 98.9% (95% CI = 98.3–99.4%). Under this scenario, effectiveness would be higher in the synchronous group than the asynchronous group, but there would be no differences in safety. Under the opposite and also extreme scenario in which those with unknown outcomes had ten times lower odds of an incomplete abortion, effectiveness would be 98.2% (95% CI = 97.9–98.6%) and safety would be 99.7% (95% CI = 99.6–99.9%), with no significant differences in effectiveness and safety between synchronous and asynchronous groups.

In this large prospective cohort study, telehealth medication abortion provided primarily without tests was effective and safe. The overall 98% effectiveness rate of our primary analysis, and the effectiveness rates from the sensitivity analyses, were similar to previous large US studies of in-person medication abortion care, which found rates of 95–98% 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 . The serious adverse event rate of 0.25% and ectopic pregnancy rate of 0.14% were also similar to previous studies of in-person medication abortion care, which found adverse event rates of 0.2–0.5%, and ectopic pregnancy rates of 0.2% 8 , 23 , 24 , 25 . Both effectiveness and safety rates were similar to the rates for medication abortions with in-person screening tests as published on the FDA label (Fig. 3 ) 8 .

The gray bars represent published estimates from the FDA label for in-person dispensing of mifepristone; the blue bars represent the rates found in the CHAT study. Estimates for the CHAT study were calculated using marginal estimates from logistic regression analyses conducted on n  = 6,034 patients. The published estimates of in-person dispensing represent the published rates drawn from the FDA label for mifepristone in 2016. The 95% CIs are represented by the black error bars.

The effectiveness and safety rates found in this study are consistent with, although slightly lower than, those found in studies of no-test telehealth abortion in other countries. A national study in the UK, which included 18,435 telehealth medication abortions, found that 99% were complete without intervention and serious adverse events occurred in 0.02% (refs. 26 , 27 , 28 ). This higher documented effectiveness rate may be explained by the lack of routine follow-up after medication abortion care in the UK; additional interventions that patients may receive may not be systematically reported to the original abortion provider.

The rates in our study are also similar to the effectiveness and safety rates documented from self-managed medication abortion models (defined as using abortion pills to end a pregnancy outside of the formal healthcare system), in the USA 29 and internationally, including in contexts where abortion is legally restricted 30 , 31 .

The effectiveness rates for both synchronous and asynchronous services were very high and similar to in-person care. These findings have important implications for service delivery and health equity. Synchronous models with videoconferencing require strong Internet connectivity. Asynchronous models can be accessed using more types of devices; they may be more private, require shorter waiting times and can be more easily integrated into work or home schedules because no appointment is needed 32 , 33 , 34 . Offering patients a choice between synchronous and asynchronous care is consistent with patient-centered care and may increase access for people historically excluded from healthcare, particularly those living in rural areas or those who live far from an abortion-providing facility 1 , 35 , 36 .

We used a more conservative definition of effectiveness than recommended by the MARE guidelines 20 but used in previous studies 17 , 37 . Our definition included an additional 22 patients who received a second medication abortion (mifepristone plus misoprostol) or more than one additional dose of misoprostol. In the context of telehealth and in the wake of the Dobbs decision, patients living in states that have banned abortions may experience more barriers to procedural treatment for incomplete abortion and thus be more likely to obtain additional medications to complete the abortion. Therefore, our definition of effectiveness may better account for patient experience.

While safety was over 99% among all ethnic groups, Black patients had significantly higher rates of serious adverse events than white patients. This finding is consistent with research showing higher rates of adverse obstetric outcomes among Black patients. Growing consensus finds that these disparities in obstetric health are rooted in implicit biases and structural racism 38 , 39 .

This analysis provides an initial picture of the real-world effectiveness and safety of a rapidly expanding model of abortion care among a large US cohort. However, this analysis has several limitations. One is the lack of clinic-level variation in synchronous and asynchronous models, which may limit generalizability. However, each virtual clinic had multiple providers offering care, thereby increasing variation within each clinic and thus the generalizability of our findings. For example, different providers may use different thresholds or criteria for when to refer patients to in-person care for an ultrasound or exam, which may impact effectiveness rates. This natural variation strengthens the premise that these results could be applied to other providers offering synchronous or asynchronous care. While there was no direct comparison group, we were able to compare our results to widely accepted rates in the published literature using standardized guidelines for measuring medication abortion outcomes.

Additionally, we identified no cases of unexpected pregnancy durations beyond 70 days. This is surprising given that a previous study of no-test medication abortion found a rate of 0.38% 17 . This lack of evidence may be due to underreporting. Although most patients can accurately assess their pregnancy duration 40 , 41 , patients who later learned that they provided a date of last menstrual period that underestimated their pregnancies may have felt that they could be held responsible and thus not reported it to the virtual clinic, particularly if it resulted in an abortion beyond 70 days.

Finally, another limitation is the follow-up rate; at 74% it was similar or higher than other studies on abortion 17 , 31 , 42 , 43 ; attrition may have introduced selection bias given that some groups had lower follow-ups than others. In particular, we observed lower follow-up rates in the asynchronous group than the synchronous group. Telehealth is a less medicalized healthcare model, and asynchronous care even less so; those who opt for it may prefer a more autonomous experience. This differential follow-up may overestimate effectiveness and safety rates for asynchronous patients if those with concerning symptoms seek additional care without informing the virtual clinic. On the other hand, it might underestimate effectiveness rates if patients who have a negative pregnancy test or clear signs of complete abortion do not feel that they must report their outcome back to the virtual clinic. We attempted to limit this potential bias with multiple imputation. We also explored this limitation through a sensitivity analysis simulating higher and lower odds of incomplete abortions and serious adverse events among those lost to follow-up relative to those with known outcomes. This analysis demonstrated that differences in effectiveness between synchronous and asynchronous groups could reach significance under extreme scenarios, but differences in safety remained nonsignificant in all scenarios tested.

These findings provide evidence that telehealth for abortion is effective and safe, with rates similar to in-person care. Additionally, synchronous and asynchronous care are comparably effective and safe. Although telehealth models cannot serve the needs and preferences of everyone, such as those who do not have electronic devices or those who are beyond the first trimester of pregnancy, offering people telehealth options has the potential to expand access to abortion care. These results are reassuring as more clinicians begin to provide telehealth abortion care to patients in US states with a ban, under the legal protections of their state’s shield laws. At the same time, 11 states continue to permit abortion but have prohibitions on no-test telehealth abortion ( https://www.rhites.org/state-based-resources ). This study demonstrates that policies that restrict telehealth abortion owing to concerns or claims about effectiveness or safety need to be revisited and revised to ensure equitable access to this essential healthcare service.

The CHAT study was approved by the University of California, San Francisco institutional review board (no. 20-32951) and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (registration: NCT04432792 ). We used Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology guidelines to design and report the results of this study. All survey respondents provided consent to participate in the research.

Data source and study cohort

The CHAT study followed the patients of three US virtual abortion clinics: Choix (which opened in October 2020); Hey Jane (which opened in January 2021); and Abortion on Demand (which opened in April 2021). These virtual clinics were selected because they were among the first to open in the USA after the FDA temporarily suspended the in-person dispensing requirement during the COVID-19 emergency, and because they operated in states with large populations.

Medication protocols included 200 mg mifepristone orally and 800 µg misoprostol buccally or vaginally for pregnancy durations less than 63 days or 1,600 µg for pregnancy durations of 63 or more days. Care was provided based on a published protocol 19 by nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, physician assistants and physicians who specialize in abortion care. Clinics offered synchronous (video) or asynchronous (secure text messaging) telehealth abortion with mail order pharmacy delivery. One clinic offered only synchronous medication abortion care, one offered only asynchronous care and one offered asynchronous care with an option to have a phone or video call with the provider if preferred. Patients learned about the services through Web searches, social media or referrals.

During the study period, one clinic offered abortion care up to 56 days (8 weeks) of pregnancy, whereas the two other clinics offered it up to 70 days (10 weeks). As per the published protocol, patients were evaluated for medical eligibility based on the reported medical history. Pregnancy duration at intake was primarily based on self-reported date of last menstrual period or by ultrasonography, if available. Some patients had already had ultrasonography before contacting the virtual clinic. Additionally, patients were referred for pre-abortion ultrasonography if they had any risk factors for, or symptoms of, ectopic pregnancy 19 or were potentially beyond the gestational limit of the virtual clinic. Some of these patients returned to the virtual clinic after their eligibility was confirmed by ultrasonography and obtained a telehealth abortion; thus, they were included in the study. Others opted for in-person care and thus were excluded.

Each clinic had two scheduled follow-up interactions. The first confirmed medication administration and assessed symptoms of complete abortion 3–7 days after intake. The second was a low-sensitivity pregnancy test at 2 weeks or a high-sensitivity test at 4 weeks after medication administration. Follow-up interactions were conducted by text messaging, secure messaging or telephone. At each scheduled follow-up, clinicians made up to four attempts to contact patients. Clinicians referred patients to in-person care if any adverse event or incomplete abortion was suspected and outcomes of care were documented whenever possible.

For this analysis, we evaluated data collected from two sources, both imported into REDCap 44 . We obtained anonymized medical record data of consecutive patients receiving care from the participating virtual clinics between April 2021 and January 2022.

Additionally, each virtual clinic invited all patients seen between June 2021 and January 2022 to enroll in three surveys about their abortion experience, including any additional treatments received. After providing electronic informed consent, participants completed a baseline survey on the date of the intake, which included sociodemographic characteristics and medical history. Participants completed a second survey 3–7 days after the intake, to assess medication administration, additional medical care and any adverse events, and a final survey 4 weeks after the intake to assess additional medical care and adverse events (Fig. 1 ). The survey sample was powered to assess the acceptability of telehealth (published separately 2 ); thus, we aimed to collect complete sets of surveys from 1,600 participants. Survey participants received a US$50 electronic debit card on completion of all three surveys.

The primary outcomes were effectiveness and safety based on standard definitions in previous studies 17 , 24 , 37 , 45 . We generally followed the MARE guidelines for reporting outcomes 20 . We defined effectiveness as the proportion of medication abortions that were complete after initial treatment with 200 mg mifepristone and 1,600 µg or less of misoprostol without known subsequent intervention. Abortions were not considered complete if (1) the patient had an aspiration, dilation and evacuation, other procedure or surgical intervention to complete the abortion; (2) the patient received more than 200 mg mifepristone, more than 1,600 µg misoprostol, or a uterotonic medication to complete the abortion; (3) the patient received treatment for suspected or confirmed ectopic pregnancy; or (4) the patient had a continuing pregnancy confirmed by ultrasonography or suspected at last contact. While MARE guidelines define effectiveness as successful expulsion of pregnancy without the need for procedural intervention, we chose a more conservative definition, recognizing that patients may view the need to have what constitutes a second medication abortion treatment as a failure of the medication abortion protocol.

We defined safety using standardized definitions from the Procedural Abortion Incident Reporting and Surveillance Framework 45 and Standardizing Abortion Research Outcomes protocol 46 as the proportion of abortions that were not followed by a known abortion-related serious adverse event. Serious adverse events included: blood transfusion; abdominal surgery (including salpingectomy, laparotomy and laparoscopy to treat an ectopic pregnancy); hospital admission requiring overnight stay; or death.

Effectiveness and safety outcomes were determined from all information collected in the medical records and surveys. Abortion completion was determined based on the virtual clinic’s designation, either using a test (urine pregnancy test, ultrasonography or serum human chorionic gonadotrophin) or using the patient’s medical history (using a checklist reflecting symptoms of complete abortion) without further contact related to the abortion for at least 6 weeks after the intake visit. Patients without outcomes noted in the medical records were determined to have complete abortions if they completed a survey at least 28 days after screening and did not report an intervention or ongoing pregnancy.

Secondary outcomes included the number of cases where, at the subsequent follow-up, it was determined that at intake the patient had been beyond 70 days’ gestation. We also evaluated rates of suspected or confirmed ectopic pregnancy and emergency department visits.

We examined the categorical covariates reflecting participant age at abortion intake in years (16–17 years, 18–19 years, 20–24 years, 25–29 years, 30–34 years and 35 years or older), and pregnancy duration in days at abortion intake (less than 35 days, 35–49 days, 50–56 days, 57–63 days, 64–70 days or unknown). We also included a measure of race, ethnicity or ethnic grouping indicated by participants on an intake form or in the surveys (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, Middle Eastern or North African, White, Multiracial or Unknown). We included binary covariates for urbanicity (suburban or rural versus urban), whether the patient had a previous abortion, whether the patient had a previous birth and whether the patient had confirmatory pre-abortion ultrasonography.

The key exposure was a binary measure reflecting whether the patient received care synchronously (video) or asynchronously (secure text messaging).

Statistical analysis

The study was powered to detect differences in the rarest primary outcome, that is, serious adverse events. We aimed to have outcome data from 4,202 patients. The study was designed to detect a difference of 0.4% or more in the rate of serious adverse events compared to 0.5%, the rate for in-person medication abortions as published in the FDA label 8 , with 90% power and a two-sided alpha of 0.05. With a final sample size of 4,454, the study had more than 90% power to detect a difference of 2% or more in the effectiveness rate compared to the 3% rate for in-person medication abortions as published on the FDA label 8 .

We described the characteristics of the overall sample and the subsample of patients who completed the surveys. We examined the extent of loss to follow-up and whether loss to follow-up differed between those who obtained synchronous and asynchronous care. We then conducted multiple imputation by chained equations to account for missing covariate and outcome data with 100 replications for primary regression analyses, assuming that missing data were related to observed patient and abortion characteristics. Multiple imputation by chained equations iteratively impute missing data using predictive models based on other variables in the dataset, and accounts for statistical uncertainty in the imputations 47 . Imputation models included patient age, urbanicity, whether the patient obtained screening ultrasonography, whether the patient obtained synchronous or asynchronous telehealth care, whether the patient participated in CHAT surveys, virtual clinics, and whether the patient used an abortion fund to pay for any portion of their abortion.

We developed logistic regression models for all effectiveness and safety outcomes. We used multivariable models for outcomes n  > 15, adjusting for a binary measure of whether the patient received screening via synchronous or asynchronous methods. These models were also adjusted for baseline patient and abortion characteristics, including patient age, race, ethnicity or ethnic grouping, and pregnancy duration. We included binary measures reflecting whether the patient had a previous abortion or birth, and whether the patient had pre-abortion ultrasonography 21 . For rare outcomes ( n  < 15), we used unadjusted logistic regression models.

We calculated marginal estimates, the corresponding 95% CIs and P values from the logistic regression results to estimate the predicted probability of each effectiveness and safety outcome. Primary estimates came from logistic regression analyses performed on imputed data. P values correspond to a Wald test in the logistic regressions, comparing each group to the reference group. We then compared results with published estimates of effectiveness and safety. All statistical tests were two-tailed with significance set at 0.05. All analyses were conducted using Stata v.17.0 (StataCorp LLC).

We conducted several sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings. First, we replicated the effectiveness analysis, assuming that patients who were referred to in-person care after taking the medications and were then lost to follow-up required further intervention to complete the abortion. Second, we replicated the effectiveness analysis by categorizing all patients who received any additional misoprostol as completed abortions. This is consistent with the MARE guidelines and previous studies 26 , 48 , which classified patients who received more than 1,600 μg of misoprostol (more than two doses) as successful abortions. Third, we examined both effectiveness and safety outcomes only among the subsample of patients who completed the surveys to evaluate whether the main findings held true among this sample with supplementary self-reported data on their outcomes. Finally, to test how robust our results were to the follow-up rates, we used delta-adjusted pattern-mixture model imputation 49 to simulate the outcomes under different assumptions regarding patients with missing outcome data, hypothesizing results if they had lower or higher odds of incomplete abortion or serious adverse events than those with outcome data.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The datasets analyzed during this study are not publicly available because the patients who underwent an abortion did not consent to sharing their data beyond the primary researchers and because the legal status of abortion care is continually changing. The de-identified, individual-level data used to reach the study conclusions are available to qualified investigators from the corresponding author. Requesters must include a description of their research project, the qualifications of the research team, whether the analysis has institutional review board approval and how the results will be disseminated. Requesters must also sign a data use agreement to (1) use the data only for research purposes, (2) not attempt to re-identify the data or contact the study participants, (3) secure the data using appropriate computer technology and (4) destroy the data after the analyses are completed. Responses can be expected within 1 month of a request.

Code availability

Data analyses were carried out using Stata v.17.0 (StataCorp LLC) as specified in the Methods . The code is available on GitHub ( https://github.com/Upadhyay-Lab ).

Koenig, L. R., Becker, A., Ko, J. & Upadhyay, U. D. The role of telehealth in promoting equitable abortion access in the United States: a spatial analysis. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 9 , e45671 (2023).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Koenig, L. R. et al. Patient acceptability of telehealth medication abortion care in the United States, 2021‒2022: a cohort study. Am. J. Public Health 0 , e1–e10 (2024).

Google Scholar  

Society of Family Planning. #WeCount Report April 2022 to June 2023 ; https://doi.org/10.46621/218569qkgmbl (2023).

Thomson-DeVeaux, A. Virtual abortions surged after Roe was overturned—but the Texas ruling could change that. ABC News (11 April 2023).

Rowland, C. To get banned abortion pills, patients turn to legally risky tactics. Washington Post (6 July 2022).

Belluck, P. & Bazelon, E. New York passes bill to shield abortion providers sending pills into states with bans. The New York Times (20 June 2023).

Walker, A. S., Corum, J., Khurana, M. & Wu, A. Are Abortion Pills Safe? Here’s the Evidence. The New York Times (7 April 2023).

US Food and Drug Administration. Mifeprex Label. U.S. FDA Label for Mifepristone (2016); www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/020687s020lbl.pdf

Grossman, D. & Grindlay, K. Safety of medical abortion provided through telemedicine compared with in person. Obstet. Gynecol. 130 , 778–782 (2017).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Grossman, D., Grindlay, K., Buchacker, T., Lane, K. & Blanchard, K. Effectiveness and acceptability of medical abortion provided through telemedicine. Obstet. Gynecol. 118 , 296–303 (2011).

Kohn, J. E. et al. Medication abortion provided through telemedicine in four U.S. states. Obstet. Gynecol. 134 , 343–350 (2019).

Raymond, E. et al. TelAbortion: evaluation of a direct to patient telemedicine abortion service in the United States. Contraception 100 , 173–177 (2019).

Chong, E. et al. Expansion of a direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion service in the United States and experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Contraception 104 , 43–48 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Anger, H. A. et al. Clinical and service delivery implications of omitting ultrasound before medication abortion provided via direct-to-patient telemedicine and mail in the U.S. Contraception 104 , 659–665 (2021).

Upadhyay, U. D., Koenig, L. R. & Meckstroth, K. R. Safety and efficacy of telehealth medication abortions in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw. Open 4 , e2122320 (2021).

Kerestes, C. et al. Provision of medication abortion in Hawai’i during COVID-19: practical experience with multiple care delivery models. Contraception 104 , 49–53 (2021).

Upadhyay, U. D. et al. Outcomes and safety of history-based screening for medication abortion: a retrospective multicenter cohort study. JAMA Intern. Med. 182 , 482–491 (2022).

Koenig, L. R. et al. Mailing abortion pills does not delay care: a cohort study comparing mailed to in-person dispensing of abortion medications in the United States. Contraception 121 , 109962 (2023).

Raymond, E. G. et al. Commentary: no-test medication abortion: a sample protocol for increasing access during a pandemic and beyond. Contraception 101 , 361–366 (2020).

Creinin, M. D. & Chen, M. J. Medical abortion reporting of efficacy: the MARE guidelines. Contraception 94 , 97–103 (2016).

Gatter, M., Cleland, K. & Nucatola, D. L. Efficacy and safety of medical abortion using mifepristone and buccal misoprostol through 63 days. Contraception 91 , 269–273 (2015).

Abbas, D., Chong, E. & Raymond, E. G. Outpatient medical abortion is safe and effective through 70 days gestation. Contraception 92 , 197–199 (2015).

Raymond, E. G., Shannon, C., Weaver, M. A. & Winikoff, B. First-trimester medical abortion with mifepristone 200 mg and misoprostol: a systematic review. Contraception 87 , 26–37 (2013).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Upadhyay, U. D. et al. Incidence of emergency department visits and complications after abortion. Obstet. Gynecol. 125 , 175–183 (2015).

Cleland, K., Creinin, M. D., Nucatola, D., Nshom, M. & Trussell, J. Significant adverse events and outcomes after medical abortion. Obstet. Gynecol. 121 , 166–171 (2013).

Aiken, A., Lohr, P. A., Lord, J., Ghosh, N. & Starling, J. Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of no-test medical abortion (termination of pregnancy) provided via telemedicine: a national cohort study. BJOG 128 , 1464–1474 (2021).

Reynolds-Wright, J. J., Johnstone, A., McCabe, K., Evans, E. & Cameron, S. Telemedicine medical abortion at home under 12 weeks’ gestation: a prospective observational cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Sex. Reprod. Health 47 , 246–251 (2021).

Wiebe, E. R., Campbell, M., Ramasamy, H. & Kelly, M. Comparing telemedicine to in-clinic medication abortions induced with mifepristone and misoprostol. Contracept. X 2 , 100023 (2020).

Aiken, A. R. A., Romanova, E. P., Morber, J. R. & Gomperts, R. Safety and effectiveness of self-managed medication abortion provided using online telemedicine in the United States: a population based study. Lancet Reg. Health Am. 10 , 100200 (2022).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Moseson, H. et al. Effectiveness of self-managed medication abortion with accompaniment support in Argentina and Nigeria (SAFE): a prospective, observational cohort study and non-inferiority analysis with historical controls. Lancet Glob. Health 10 , e105–e113 (2022).

Endler, M., Beets, L., Gemzell Danielsson, K. & Gomperts, R. Safety and acceptability of medical abortion through telemedicine after 9 weeks of gestation: a population-based cohort study. BJOG 126 , 609–618 (2019).

Godfrey, E. M., Thayer, E. K., Fiastro, A. E., Aiken, A. R. A. & Gomperts, R. Family medicine provision of online medication abortion in three US states during COVID-19. Contraception 104 , 54–60 (2021).

Fiastro, A. E. et al. Remote delivery in reproductive health care: operation of direct-to-patient telehealth medication abortion services in diverse settings. Ann. Fam. Med. 20 , 336–342 (2022).

Stephens, J. & Greenberg, G. M. Asynchronous telehealth. Prim. Care 49 , 531–541 (2022).

Budhwani, S. et al. Challenges and strategies for promoting health equity in virtual care: findings and policy directions from a scoping review of reviews. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 29 , 990–999 (2022).

Fiastro, A. E., Zheng, Z., Ruben, M. R., Gipson, J. & Godfrey, E. M. Telehealth vs in-clinic medication abortion services. JAMA Netw. Open 6 , e2331900 (2023).

Raymond, E. G. et al. Clinical outcomes of medication abortion using misoprostol-only: a retrospective chart review at an abortion provider organization in the United States. Contraception 126 , 110109 (2023).

Montalmant, K. E. & Ettinger, A. K. The racial disparities in maternal mortality and impact of structural racism and implicit racial bias on pregnant black women: a review of the literature. J. Racial Ethn. Health Disparities https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-023-01816-x (2023).

Chambers, B. D. et al. Black women’s perspectives on structural racism across the reproductive lifespan: a conceptual framework for measurement development. Matern. Child Health J. 25 , 402–413 (2021).

Ralph, L. J. et al. Accuracy of self-assessment of gestational duration among people seeking abortion. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 226 , 710.e1–710.e21 (2022).

Bracken, H. et al. Alternatives to routine ultrasound for eligibility assessment prior to early termination of pregnancy with mifepristone-misoprostol: alternatives to ultrasound prior to medical abortion. BJOG 118 , 17–23 (2011).

Horning, E. L., Chen, B. A., Meyn, L. A. & Creinin, M. D. Comparison of medical abortion follow-up with serum human chorionic gonadotropin testing and in-office assessment. Contraception 85 , 402–407 (2012).

Upadhyay, U. D., Johns, N. E., Meckstroth, K. R. & Kerns, J. L. Distance traveled for an abortion and source of care after abortion. Obstet. Gynecol. 130 , 616–624 (2017).

Harris, P. A. et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J. Biomed. Inform. 42 , 377–381 (2009).

Taylor, D. et al. Standardizing the classification of abortion incidents: the Procedural Abortion Incident Reporting and Surveillance (PAIRS) Framework. Contraception 96 , 1–13 (2017).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Whitehouse, K. C. et al. Standardizing abortion research outcomes (STAR): results from an international consensus development study. Contraception 104 , 484–491 (2021).

White, I. R., Royston, P. & Wood, A. M. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat. Med. 30 , 377–399 (2011).

Grossman, D. et al. Mail-order pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone for medication abortion after in-person clinical assessment. Contraception 107 , 36–41 (2022).

White, I. R., Carpenter, J. & Horton, N. J. A mean score method for sensitivity analysis to departures from the missing at random assumption in randomised trials. Stat. Sin. 28 , 1985–2003 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Cervantes, L. Shin, K. Song, A. Becker and L. Peters for their contributions to data collection and management and other input on the CHAT study. We also thank C. Adam, M. Adam, K. Baron, S. Bussmann, L. Coplon, L. Dubey, L. DuBois, K. Freedman, G. Izarra, J. Phifer and A. Wagner for their support with data acquisition. We thank E. Wells and F. Coeytaux for their early input on study design, and E. Raymond for thoughtful guidance on classifying adverse events. We thank W. J. Boscardin for his input on pattern-mixture modeling. The CHAT study was supported by the BaSe Family Fund, the Erik E. and Edith H. Bergstrom Foundation, the Isabel Allende Foundation, Jess Jacobs, the Kahle/Austin Foundation, the Lisa and Douglas Goldman Fund, Preston-Werner Ventures (all to U.D.U.) and a Resource Allocation Program Award from the University of California, San Francisco National Center of Excellence in Women’s Health (to M.A.B.). L.R.K. was funded in part by a training grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under award no. F31HD111277 for the duration of the study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Ushma D. Upadhyay, Leah R. Koenig, Karen Meckstroth, Jennifer Ko & M. Antonia Biggs

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Leah R. Koenig

California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Ena Suseth Valladares

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

U.D.U. obtained the funding for the study. U.D.U., L.R.K., E.S.V. and K.M. conceptualized and designed the study. L.R.K. conducted the data analysis. U.D.U. supervised the data analysis. J.K. provided management and administration for the study. U.D.U., L.R.K. and M.A.B. drafted the manuscript. All authors interpreted the data, reviewed the manuscript drafts, provided substantive input on its content and approved the final version of the manuscript. U.D.U. had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ushma D. Upadhyay .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

K.M. reports receiving personal fees from Danco Laboratories, a distributor of mifepristone, for staffing a US Food and Drug Administration-mandated expert hotline. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Medicine thanks Alimu Dayimu and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Sonia Muliyil and Jennifer Sargent, in collaboration with the Nature Medicine team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Supplementary information, reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Upadhyay, U.D., Koenig, L.R., Meckstroth, K. et al. Effectiveness and safety of telehealth medication abortion in the USA. Nat Med 30 , 1191–1198 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02834-w

Download citation

Received : 15 September 2023

Accepted : 24 January 2024

Published : 15 February 2024

Issue Date : April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02834-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Primary care and abortion provider perspectives on mail-order medication abortion: a qualitative study.

• Sarah Raifman
• Tanvi Gurazada
• Daniel Grossman

BMC Women's Health (2024)

Telehealth enables safe medication abortion in shifting health and legal contexts

• Dana M. Johnson
• Abigail R. A. Aiken
• Terri-Ann Thompson

Nature Medicine (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Abortion Policy in the United States: The New Legal Landscape and Its Threats to Health and Socioeconomic Well-Being

Affiliations.

• 1 University of Michigan.
• 2 Ford School of Public Policy.
• 3 Michigan Medicine Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
• 4 Institute for Social Research.
• PMID: 36960973
• PMCID: PMC10126955
• DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12614

Policy Points The historic 2022 Supreme Court Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision has created a new public policy landscape in the United States that will restrict access to legal and safe abortion for a significant proportion of the population. Policies restricting access to abortion bring with them significant threats and harms to health by delaying or denying essential evidence-based medical care and increasing the risks for adverse maternal and infant outcomes, including death. Restrictive abortion policies will increase the number of children born into and living in poverty, increase the number of families experiencing serious financial instability and hardship, increase racial inequities in socioeconomic security, and put significant additional pressure on under-resourced social welfare systems.

Keywords: abortion policy; social welfare; state policy; women's health.

© 2023 The Authors. The Milbank Quarterly published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Milbank Memorial Fund.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Abortion Rights and the Child Welfare System: How Dobbs Exacerbates Existing Racial Inequities and Further Traumatizes Black Families. Tobin-Tyler E. Tobin-Tyler E. J Law Med Ethics. 2023;51(3):575-583. doi: 10.1017/jme.2023.111. Epub 2023 Dec 13. J Law Med Ethics. 2023. PMID: 38088614
• Abortion Access for Women in Custody in the Wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health . Herr A. Herr A. Am J Law Med. 2023 Dec;49(4):471-492. doi: 10.1017/amj.2024.4. Epub 2024 Apr 2. Am J Law Med. 2023. PMID: 38563269
• State Abortion Policy and Moral Distress Among Clinicians Providing Abortion After the Dobbs Decision. Rivlin K, Bornstein M, Wascher J, Norris Turner A, Norris AH, Howard D. Rivlin K, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Aug 1;7(8):e2426248. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.26248. JAMA Netw Open. 2024. PMID: 39088213 Free PMC article.
• The Impact of New and Renewed Restrictive State Abortion Laws on Pregnancy-Capable People with Diabetes. Sangtani A, Owens L, Broome DT, Gogineni P, Herman WH, Harris LH, Oshman L. Sangtani A, et al. Curr Diab Rep. 2023 Aug;23(8):175-184. doi: 10.1007/s11892-023-01512-4. Epub 2023 May 22. Curr Diab Rep. 2023. PMID: 37213059 Review.
• Counseling for the option of termination of pregnancy for severe fetal anomalies in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling to remove the constitutional right to an abortion. Grünebaum A, Moreno JD, Esq SP, Chervenak FA. Grünebaum A, et al. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2023 Jun;28(3):101441. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2023.101441. Epub 2023 Apr 24. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2023. PMID: 37121833 Review.
• Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 US ___ (2022).
• Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 (1973).
• Abortion in the United States . Kaiser Family Foundation. July 1, 2022. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://www.kff.org/womens‐health‐policy/press‐release/abortion‐in‐the‐u...
• Sawhill IV, Welch M. The end of Roe will create more inequality of opportunity for children. Brookings. June 30, 2022. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up‐front/2022/06/30/the‐end‐of‐roe‐will‐c...
• Unintended pregnancy and abortion worldwide . Guttmacher Institute. March 2022. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/factsheet/fb_iaw.pdf
• Search in MeSH

Related information

• Cited in Books

Grants and funding

• P2C HD041028/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• Ovid Technologies, Inc.
• PubMed Central
• MedlinePlus Health Information

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key facts about the abortion debate in America

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade – the decision that had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years – has shifted the legal battle over abortion to the states, with some prohibiting the procedure and others moving to safeguard it.

As the nation’s post-Roe chapter begins, here are key facts about Americans’ views on abortion, based on two Pew Research Center polls: one conducted from June 25-July 4 , just after this year’s high court ruling, and one conducted in March , before an earlier leaked draft of the opinion became public.

This analysis primarily draws from two Pew Research Center surveys, one surveying 10,441 U.S. adults conducted March 7-13, 2022, and another surveying 6,174 U.S. adults conducted June 27-July 4, 2022. Here are the questions used for the March survey , along with responses, and the questions used for the survey from June and July , along with responses.

Everyone who took part in these surveys is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories.  Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

A majority of the U.S. public disapproves of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe. About six-in-ten adults (57%) disapprove of the court’s decision that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion and that abortion laws can be set by states, including 43% who strongly disapprove, according to the summer survey. About four-in-ten (41%) approve, including 25% who strongly approve.

About eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (82%) disapprove of the court’s decision, including nearly two-thirds (66%) who strongly disapprove. Most Republicans and GOP leaners (70%) approve , including 48% who strongly approve.

Most women (62%) disapprove of the decision to end the federal right to an abortion. More than twice as many women strongly disapprove of the court’s decision (47%) as strongly approve of it (21%). Opinion among men is more divided: 52% disapprove (37% strongly), while 47% approve (28% strongly).

About six-in-ten Americans (62%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to the summer survey – little changed since the March survey conducted just before the ruling. That includes 29% of Americans who say it should be legal in all cases and 33% who say it should be legal in most cases. About a third of U.S. adults (36%) say abortion should be illegal in all (8%) or most (28%) cases.

Generally, Americans’ views of whether abortion should be legal remained relatively unchanged in the past few years , though support fluctuated somewhat in previous decades.

Relatively few Americans take an absolutist view on the legality of abortion – either supporting or opposing it at all times, regardless of circumstances. The March survey found that support or opposition to abortion varies substantially depending on such circumstances as when an abortion takes place during a pregnancy, whether the pregnancy is life-threatening or whether a baby would have severe health problems.

While Republicans’ and Democrats’ views on the legality of abortion have long differed, the 46 percentage point partisan gap today is considerably larger than it was in the recent past, according to the survey conducted after the court’s ruling. The wider gap has been largely driven by Democrats: Today, 84% of Democrats say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up from 72% in 2016 and 63% in 2007. Republicans’ views have shown far less change over time: Currently, 38% of Republicans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, nearly identical to the 39% who said this in 2007.

However, the partisan divisions over whether abortion should generally be legal tell only part of the story. According to the March survey, sizable shares of Democrats favor restrictions on abortion under certain circumstances, while majorities of Republicans favor abortion being legal in some situations , such as in cases of rape or when the pregnancy is life-threatening.

There are wide religious divides in views of whether abortion should be legal , the summer survey found. An overwhelming share of religiously unaffiliated adults (83%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do six-in-ten Catholics. Protestants are divided in their views: 48% say it should be legal in all or most cases, while 50% say it should be illegal in all or most cases. Majorities of Black Protestants (71%) and White non-evangelical Protestants (61%) take the position that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while about three-quarters of White evangelicals (73%) say it should be illegal in all (20%) or most cases (53%).

In the March survey, 72% of White evangelicals said that the statement “human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights” reflected their views extremely or very well . That’s much greater than the share of White non-evangelical Protestants (32%), Black Protestants (38%) and Catholics (44%) who said the same. Overall, 38% of Americans said that statement matched their views extremely or very well.

Catholics, meanwhile, are divided along religious and political lines in their attitudes about abortion, according to the same survey. Catholics who attend Mass regularly are among the country’s strongest opponents of abortion being legal, and they are also more likely than those who attend less frequently to believe that life begins at conception and that a fetus has rights. Catholic Republicans, meanwhile, are far more conservative on a range of abortion questions than are Catholic Democrats.

Women (66%) are more likely than men (57%) to say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to the survey conducted after the court’s ruling.

More than half of U.S. adults – including 60% of women and 51% of men – said in March that women should have a greater say than men in setting abortion policy . Just 3% of U.S. adults said men should have more influence over abortion policy than women, with the remainder (39%) saying women and men should have equal say.

The March survey also found that by some measures, women report being closer to the abortion issue than men . For example, women were more likely than men to say they had given “a lot” of thought to issues around abortion prior to taking the survey (40% vs. 30%). They were also considerably more likely than men to say they personally knew someone (such as a close friend, family member or themselves) who had had an abortion (66% vs. 51%) – a gender gap that was evident across age groups, political parties and religious groups.

Relatively few Americans view the morality of abortion in stark terms , the March survey found. Overall, just 7% of all U.S. adults say having an abortion is morally acceptable in all cases, and 13% say it is morally wrong in all cases. A third say that having an abortion is morally wrong in most cases, while about a quarter (24%) say it is morally acceptable in most cases. An additional 21% do not consider having an abortion a moral issue.

Among Republicans, most (68%) say that having an abortion is morally wrong either in most (48%) or all cases (20%). Only about three-in-ten Democrats (29%) hold a similar view. Instead, about four-in-ten Democrats say having an abortion is morally  acceptable  in most (32%) or all (11%) cases, while an additional 28% say it is not a moral issue. 

White evangelical Protestants overwhelmingly say having an abortion is morally wrong in most (51%) or all cases (30%). A slim majority of Catholics (53%) also view having an abortion as morally wrong, but many also say it is morally acceptable in most (24%) or all cases (4%), or that it is not a moral issue (17%). Among religiously unaffiliated Americans, about three-quarters see having an abortion as morally acceptable (45%) or not a moral issue (32%).

• Religion & Abortion

Carrie Blazina is a former digital producer at Pew Research Center .

Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in europe, public opinion on abortion, americans overwhelmingly say access to ivf is a good thing, broad public support for legal abortion persists 2 years after dobbs, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

The Most Important Study in the Abortion Debate

Researchers rigorously tested the persistent notion that abortion wounds the women who seek it.

The demographer Diana Greene Foster was in Orlando last month, preparing for the end of Roe v. Wade , when Politico published a leaked draft of a majority Supreme Court opinion striking down the landmark ruling. The opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, would revoke the constitutional right to abortion and thus give states the ability to ban the medical procedure.

Foster, the director of the Bixby Population Sciences Research Unit at UC San Francisco, was at a meeting of abortion providers, seeking their help recruiting people for a new study . And she was racing against time. She wanted to look, she told me, “at the last person served in, say, Nebraska, compared to the first person turned away in Nebraska.” Nearly two dozen red and purple states are expected to enact stringent limits or even bans on abortion as soon as the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade , as it is poised to do. Foster intends to study women with unwanted pregnancies just before and just after the right to an abortion vanishes.

Read: When a right becomes a privilege

When Alito’s draft surfaced, Foster told me, “I was struck by how little it considered the people who would be affected. The experience of someone who’s pregnant when they do not want to be and what happens to their life is absolutely not considered in that document.” Foster’s earlier work provides detailed insight into what does happen. The landmark Turnaway Study , which she led, is a crystal ball into our post- Roe future and, I would argue, the single most important piece of academic research in American life at this moment.

The legal and political debate about abortion in recent decades has tended to focus more on the rights and experience of embryos and fetuses than the people who gestate them. And some commentators—including ones seated on the Supreme Court—have speculated that termination is not just a cruel convenience, but one that harms women too . Foster and her colleagues rigorously tested that notion. Their research demonstrates that, in general, abortion does not wound women physically, psychologically, or financially. Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term does.

In a 2007 decision , Gonzales v. Carhart , the Supreme Court upheld a ban on one specific, uncommon abortion procedure. In his majority opinion , Justice Anthony Kennedy ventured a guess about abortion’s effect on women’s lives: “While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained,” he wrote. “Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.”

Was that really true? Activists insisted so, but social scientists were not sure . Indeed, they were not sure about a lot of things when it came to the effect of the termination of a pregnancy on a person’s life. Many papers compared individuals who had an abortion with people who carried a pregnancy to term. The problem is that those are two different groups of people; to state the obvious, most people seeking an abortion are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy, while a majority of people carrying to term intended to get pregnant.

Foster and her co-authors figured out a way to isolate the impact of abortion itself. Nearly all states bar the procedure after a certain gestational age or after the point that a fetus is considered viable outside the womb . The researchers could compare people who were “turned away” by a provider because they were too far along with people who had an abortion at the same clinics. (They did not include people who ended a pregnancy for medical reasons.) The women who got an abortion would be similar, in terms of demographics and socioeconomics, to those who were turned away; what would separate the two groups was only that some women got to the clinic on time, and some didn’t.

In time, 30 abortion providers—ones that had the latest gestational limit of any clinic within 150 miles, meaning that a person could not easily access an abortion if they were turned away—agreed to work with the researchers. They recruited nearly 1,000 women to be interviewed every six months for five years. The findings were voluminous, resulting in 50 publications and counting. They were also clear. Kennedy’s speculation was wrong: Women, as a general point, do not regret having an abortion at all.

Researchers found, among other things, that women who were denied abortions were more likely to end up living in poverty. They had worse credit scores and, even years later, were more likely to not have enough money for the basics, such as food and gas. They were more likely to be unemployed. They were more likely to go through bankruptcy or eviction. “The two groups were economically the same when they sought an abortion,” Foster told me. “One became poorer.”

Read: The calamity of unwanted motherhood

In addition, those denied a termination were more likely to be with a partner who abused them. They were more likely to end up as a single parent. They had more trouble bonding with their infants, were less likely to agree with the statement “I feel happy when my child laughs or smiles,” and were more likely to say they “feel trapped as a mother.” They experienced more anxiety and had lower self-esteem, though those effects faded in time. They were half as likely to be in a “very good” romantic relationship at two years. They were less likely to have “aspirational” life plans.

Their bodies were different too. The ones denied an abortion were in worse health, experiencing more hypertension and chronic pain. None of the women who had an abortion died from it. This is unsurprising; other research shows that the procedure has extremely low complication rates , as well as no known negative health or fertility effects . Yet in the Turnaway sample, pregnancy ended up killing two of the women who wanted a termination and did not get one.

The Turnaway Study also showed that abortion is a choice that women often make in order to take care of their family. Most of the women seeking an abortion were already mothers. In the years after they terminated a pregnancy, their kids were better off; they were more likely to hit their developmental milestones and less likely to live in poverty. Moreover, many women who had an abortion went on to have more children. Those pregnancies were much more likely to be planned, and those kids had better outcomes too.

The interviews made clear that women, far from taking a casual view of abortion, took the decision seriously. Most reported using contraception when they got pregnant, and most of the people who sought an abortion after their state’s limit simply did not realize they were pregnant until it was too late. (Many women have irregular periods, do not experience morning sickness, and do not feel fetal movement until late in the second trimester.) The women gave nuanced, compelling reasons for wanting to end their pregnancies.

Afterward, nearly all said that termination had been the right decision. At five years, only 14 percent felt any sadness about having an abortion; two in three ended up having no or very few emotions about it at all. “Relief” was the most common feeling, and an abiding one.

From the May 2022 issue: The future of abortion in a post- Roe America

The policy impact of the Turnaway research has been significant, even though it was published during a period when states have been restricting abortion access. In 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a law requiring a 72-hour waiting period between when a person seeks and has an abortion, noting that “the vast majority of abortion patients do not regret the procedure, even years later, and instead feel relief and acceptance”—a Turnaway finding. That same finding was cited by members of Chile’s constitutional court  as they allowed for the decriminalization of abortion in certain circumstances.

Yet the research has not swayed many people who advocate for abortion bans, believing that life begins at conception and that the law must prioritize the needs of the fetus. Other activists have argued that Turnaway is methodologically flawed; some women approached in the clinic waiting room declined to participate, and not all participating women completed all interviews . “The women who anticipate and experience the most negative reactions to abortion are the least likely to want to participate in interviews,” the activist David Reardon argued in a 2018 article in a Catholic Medical Association journal.

Still, four dozen papers analyzing the Turnaway Study’s findings have been published in peer-reviewed journals; the research is “the gold standard,” Emily M. Johnston, an Urban Institute health-policy expert who wasn’t involved with the project, told me. In the trajectories of women who received an abortion and those who were denied one, “we can understand the impact of abortion on women’s lives,” Foster told me. “They don’t have to represent all women seeking abortion for the findings to be valid.” And her work has been buttressed by other surveys, showing that women fear the repercussions of unplanned pregnancies for good reason and do not tend to regret having a termination. “Among the women we spoke with, they did not regret either choice,” whether that was having an abortion or carrying to term, Johnston told me. “These women were thinking about their desires for themselves, but also were thinking very thoughtfully about what kind of life they could provide for a child.”

The Turnaway study , for Foster, underscored that nobody needs the government to decide whether they need an abortion. If and when America’s highest court overturns Roe , though, an estimated 34 million women of reproductive age will lose some or all access to the procedure in the state where they live. Some people will travel to an out-of-state clinic to terminate a pregnancy; some will get pills by mail to manage their abortions at home; some will “try and do things that are less safe,” as Foster put it. Many will carry to term: The Guttmacher Institute has estimated that there will be roughly 100,000 fewer legal abortions per year post- Roe . “The question now is who is able to circumvent the law, what that costs, and who suffers from these bans,” Foster told me. “The burden of this will be disproportionately put on people who are least able to support a pregnancy and to support a child.”

Ellen Gruber Garvey: I helped women get abortions in pre- Roe America

Foster said that there is a lot we still do not know about how the end of Roe might alter the course of people’s lives—the topic of her new research. “In the Turnaway Study, people were too late to get an abortion, but they didn’t have to feel like the police were going to knock on their door,” she told me. “Now, if you’re able to find an abortion somewhere and you have a complication, do you get health care? Do you seek health care out if you’re having a miscarriage, or are you too scared? If you’re going to travel across state lines, can you tell your mother or your boss what you’re doing?”

In addition, she said that she was uncertain about the role that abortion funds —local, on-the-ground organizations that help people find, travel to, and pay for terminations—might play. “We really don’t know who is calling these hotlines,” she said. “When people call, what support do they need? What is enough, and who falls through the cracks?” She added that many people are unaware that such services exist, and might have trouble accessing them.

People are resourceful when seeking a termination and resilient when denied an abortion, Foster told me. But looking into the post- Roe future, she predicted, “There’s going to be some widespread and scary consequences just from the fact that we’ve made this common health-care practice against the law.” Foster, to her dismay, is about to have a lot more research to do.

About the Author

More Stories

The Truth About High Prices

Poor Black Kids Are Doing Better. Poor White Kids Are Doing Worse.

• University of Michigan Library
• Research Guides

Abortion Research and Policy

• Global Sexual & Reproductive Health This link opens in a new window
• Obstetrics/Gynecology
• Women's and Gender Studies This link opens in a new window
• US and State Policy Research This link opens in a new window
• Health Services and Policy Research This link opens in a new window
• Public Policy This link opens in a new window
• Books and Multimedia
• Health Statistics This link opens in a new window
• News Sources This link opens in a new window
• SPH Population Healthy podcast: Abortion access and reproductive justice Listen to Part 1 here. Listen to Part 2 here.
• Before Roe: The University of Michigan’s Task Force for Problem Pregnancy Counseling This report uses materials from the Bentley Historical Library to explore how the University of Michigan supported students, faculty, and staff seeking abortion care before the legalization of abortion in the state.
• Meet the Experts: Women’s Health Post-Roe (Video) 8 Sept 2022. Michigan Medicine experts answer questions about changes to reproductive rights taking place and being discussed here and across the country.
• Navigating Loss of Abortion Services - A Large Academic Medical Center Prepares for the Overturn of Roe v. Wade Lisa H. Harris, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Michigan Medicine. June 2, 2022.

PubMed feed

• Kaiser Health News | Latest News On Abortion
• Associated Press | Abortion - Latest News
• Access World News: Michigan | Topic: Abortion / Reproductive Rights Access to full text of Michigan newspapers including Detroit News and Ann Arbor News. U-M users only.

Navigation links

On this page..., u-m spotlight |  michigan & u-m  |  us policy resources |  data |   international resources, legislative tracking  |  case law |  think tanks & organizations |  news  |  pubmed articles , michigan-specific and university of michigan information.

• US Supreme Court Ruling: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
• The Michigan Penal Code Act 328 of 1931, 328-1931-III
• Kaiser Family Foundation | Abortion Policies by State: MICHIGAN
• Guttmacher Institute | State Facts About Abortion: Michigan
• Michigan Court of Claims ruling declaring unconstitutional the state's 1931 abortion ban
• Executive Office of the Governor of Michigan | Abortion: Press Releases and Actions
• University of Michigan/Michigan Medicine | 24 June 2022: Access to Abortion Care
• Michigan Department of Health & Human Services | Natality, Pregnancy & Abortion Statistics
• Access World News: Michigan | Topic: Abortion Access to full text of Michigan newspapers including Detroit News and Ann Arbor News. U-M users only.
• Michigan Executive Order 2022-4 Unavailability of Interstate Extradition Executive Order from July 13, 2022 protecting abortion providers and patients from extradition

US Policy Resources

• AJPH September 2022 issue: Over the Precipice Into a Post-Roe World The September 2022 issue of the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) features a special section on abortion and reproductive rights.
• American Health Law Association | Reproductive Health Law Hub
• Center for Reproductive Rights | "What if Roe Fell?"
• CQ Researcher Reports addressing health, social trends, criminal justice, international affairs, education, technology, and the economy. U-M users only.
• CQ Researcher | Topic: Abortion, Contraception and Reproductive Issues U-M users only
• Guttmacher | US Abortion STATE POLICIES ON ABORTION
• Kaiser Family Foundation | Abortion at the Supreme Court
• Kaiser Family Foundation | State and Federal Reproductive Rights Litigation Tracker
• Kaiser Family Foundation | State Profiles for Women’s Health
• Overton Search for Reproductive Rights Search Query: abortion* OR "reproductive health" OR "reproductive rights" Limits: USA, published after 2021, sorted by publication date Overton is a policy database allowing users to find and access policy reports and documents from diverse sources. One-year trial ending March 15, 2023.
• Pew Research Center | Abortion
• Post-Dobbs State Abortion Restrictions and Protections A high-level overview of state abortion restrictions and protections enacted post-Dobbs. developed by the Center for Public Health Law Research at Temple University in partnership with the Society of Family Planning.
• Statista | Dossier: Abortion in the U.S. U-M users only
• UCSF | The Turnaway Study A prospective longitudinal study examining the effects of unwanted pregnancy on women’s lives.
• MDHHS | Natality, Pregnancy & Abortion Statistics
• CDC | Abortion Surveillance -- United States, 2019
• Kaiser Family Foundation | Abortion in the U.S. Dashboard
• Guttmacher Institute | Data Center
• Guttmacher Institute | Monthly Abortion Provision Study national and state estimates of the number of abortions provided within the formal health care system in the United States
• Global Health Data Exchange | Dataset Records: Abortion Data Catalog.
• FiveThirtyEight | public opinion and analysis on abortion
• Gallup | polling data on public opinion
• Roper iPoll U-M users only. Polling data from over 650,000 questions asked on national public opinion surveys from major polling organizations and news organizations.
• Gallup Analytics U-M users only. Polling data from Gallup. Users can create tables, charts, scatterplots and maps for individual poll question responses.

International Resources

• WHO Global Abortion Policies Database
• Population Reference Bureau | Abortion: A Global Overview " In the wake of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, PRB surveyed the state of abortion worldwide and links between access to safe abortion and maternal health outcomes."
• First ever country level estimates of unintended pregnancy and abortion 24 March 2022
• WHO Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Policy Portal Regional and country data.
• WHO Sexual and reproductive health and rights: Infographic country snapshots, 2021 An overview of national data for 194 countries relating to sexual and reproductive health and rights.
• U-M Library: Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Research Guide

Legislative Tracking

• Nexis Uni Search for state and federal bill text, or create alerts for tracking.
• National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) Track legislation at the state level for a variety of issues. Provides summaries of statutes and case laws by state.

Case law is based on judicial rulings rather than legislative statutes.

Use Nexis Uni to search for specific cases (either federal or state) [example: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org   or   Planned Parenthood v. Casey ​​505 U.S. 833 ]

CNN interactive on the differences between the draft of Dobbs leaked in May 2022 and the final opinion issued in June 2022

• Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse: cases and documents on reproductive issues in Michigan Documents related to cases Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General of Michigan and Whitmer v. Linderman
• Leaked Draft of Dobbs Draft opinion of Dobbs that leaked in May 2022

Think Tanks & Organizations

• Guttmacher Institute
• Kaiser Family Foundation
• Policy Commons
• Center for Reproductive Rights

Vance Championed 2017 Report on Families From Architects of Project 2025

JD Vance, as he was dipping his toe into politics, praised the Heritage Foundation report — 29 essays opposing abortion and seeking to instruct Americans on how to raise children — as “admirable.”

In his introduction to the 2017 Heritage Foundation report, JD Vance argued that economic struggles were inextricable from what he saw as cultural decay. Credit... Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By Lisa Lerer

• Sept. 3, 2024

Years before he became the Republican vice-presidential nominee, JD Vance endorsed a little-noticed 2017 report by the Heritage Foundation that proposed a sweeping conservative agenda to restrict sexual and reproductive freedoms and remake American families.

In a series of 29 separate essays, conservative commentators, policy experts, community leaders and Christian clergy members opposed the spread of in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments, describing those treatments as harmful to women. They praised the rapidly expanding number of state laws restricting abortion rights and access, saying that the procedure should become “unthinkable” in America. And they cited hunger as a “great motivation” for Americans to find work.

Mr. Vance, then known as the author of a best-selling memoir, became a champion of the project. He wrote the introduction and praised the volume as “admirable,” and was the keynote speaker at the public release of the report at Heritage’s offices in Washington.

The report was released just months after Donald J. Trump became president, as social conservatives were laying the foundation for an aggressive agenda restricting sexual freedom and reproductive rights. Those policies became a hallmark of the Trump administration and Mr. Vance’s political career.

Taken together, the pieces in the report amount to an effort to instruct Americans on what their families should be, when to grow them and the best way to raise their children. Authors argued in the 2017 report that women should become pregnant at younger ages and that a two-parent, heterosexual household was the “ideal” environment for children.

“The ideal situation for any child is growing up with the mother and father who brought that child into the world,” wrote Katrina Trinko, a conservative journalist, in an essay detailing the “tragedy” of babies born to single mothers.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Factors Influencing Abortion Decision-Making Processes among Young Women

Mónica frederico.

1 International Centre for Reproductive Health (ICRH), Ghent University, 9000 Gent, Belgium; [email protected]

2 Centro de Estudos Africanos, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, C. P. 1993, Maputo, Mozambique; [email protected]

Kristien Michielsen

Carlos arnaldo, peter decat.

3 Department of Family Medicine and primary health care, Ghent University, 9000 Gent, Belgium; [email protected]

Background: Decision-making about if and how to terminate a pregnancy is a dilemma for young women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. Those women are subject to sociocultural and economic barriers that limit their autonomy and make them vulnerable to pressures that influence or force decisions about abortion. Objective : The objective of this study was to explore the individual, interpersonal and environmental factors behind the abortion decision-making process among young Mozambican women. Methods : A qualitative study was conducted in Maputo and Quelimane. Participants were identified during a cross-sectional survey with women in the reproductive age (15–49). In total, 14 women aged 15 to 24 who had had an abortion participated in in-depth interviews. A thematic analysis was used. Results : The study found determinants at different levels, including the low degree of autonomy for women, the limited availability of health facilities providing abortion services and a lack of patient-centeredness of health services. Conclusions : Based on the results of the study, the authors suggest strategies to increase knowledge of abortion rights and services and to improve the quality and accessibility of abortion services in Mozambique.

1. Introduction

Abortion among adolescents and youth is a major public health issue, especially in developing countries. Estimates indicate that 2.2 million unplanned pregnancies and 25% (2.5 million) unsafe abortions occur each year, in sub-Saharan Africa, among adolescents [ 1 ]. In 2008, of the 43.8 million induced abortions, 21.6 million were estimated to be unsafe, and nearly all of them (98%) took place in developing countries, with 41% (8.7 million) being performed on women aged 15 to 24 [ 2 ].

The consequences of abortion, especially unsafe abortion, are well documented and include physical complications (e.g., sepsis, hemorrhage, genital trauma), and even death [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. The physical complications are more severe among adolescents than older women and increase the risk of morbidity and mortality [ 6 , 7 ]. However, the detrimental effects of unsafe abortion are not limited to the individual but also affect the entire healthcare system, with the treatment of complications consuming a significant share of resources (e.g., including hospital beds, blood supply, drugs) [ 5 , 8 ].

The decision if and how to terminate a pregnancy is influenced by a variety of factors at different levels [ 9 ]. At the individual level these factors include: their marital status, whether they were the victim of rape or incest [ 10 , 11 ], their economic independence and their education level [ 10 , 12 ]. Interpersonally factors include support from one’s partner and parental support [ 12 ]. Societal determinants include social norms, religion [ 9 , 13 ], the stigma of premarital and extra-marital sex [ 14 ], adolescents’ status, and autonomy within society [ 12 ]. At the organizational level, the existence of sex education [ 10 , 14 ], the health care system, and abortion laws influence the decisions if and where to have an abortion.

Those factors are related to power and (gender) inequalities. They limit young women’s autonomy and make them vulnerable to pressure. Additionally, the situation is exacerbated when there is a lack of clarity and information on abortion status, despite the existence of a progressive law in this regard.

For example, Mozambican law has allowed abortion if the woman’s health is at risk since the 1980s [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. In 2014, a new abortion law was established that broadened the scope of the original law: women are now also allowed to terminate their pregnancy: (1) if they requested it and it is performed during the first 12 weeks; (2) in the first 16 weeks if it was the result of rape or incest, or (3) in the first 24 weeks if the mother’s physical or mental health was in danger or in cases of fetus disease or anomaly. Women younger than 16 or psychically incapable of deciding need parental consent [ 19 , 20 ].

Notwithstanding the progressive abortion laws in Mozambique, hospital-based studies report that unsafe abortion remains one of the main causes of maternal death in Mozambique [ 3 ]. However, hospital cases are only a small share of unsafe abortions in the country. Many women undergo an abortion in illegal and unsafe circumstances for a variety of reasons [ 3 ], such as legal restrictions, the fear of stigma [ 21 , 22 , 23 ], and a lack of knowledge of the availability of abortion services [ 3 , 9 , 23 ].

According to the 2011 Mozambican Demographic Health Survey (DHS), at least 4.5% of all adolescents reported having terminated a pregnancy [ 24 ]. Unpublished data from the records of Mozambican Association for Family Development (AMODEFA) which has a clinic that offers sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion, indicate that from 2010 to 2016 a total of 70,895 women had an induced abortion in this clinic, of which 43% were aged 15 to 24. Of the 1500 women that had an induced abortion in the AMODEFA clinic in the first three months of 2017, 27.9% were also in this age group [ 25 ]. These data show the high demand for (safe) abortion among young women.

For all this described above, Mozambique is an interesting place to study this decision-making process; given the changing legal framework, women may have to navigate gray areas in terms of legality, safety, and access when seeking abortion, which is stigmatized but necessary for the health, well-being, and social position of many young women.

The objective of this study is to explore the individual, interpersonal and environmental factors behind the abortion decision-making process. This entails both the decision to have an abortion and the decision on how to have the abortion. By examining fourteen stories of young women with an episode of induced abortion, we contribute to the documentation of the circumstances around the abortion decision making, and also to inform the policymakers on complexity of this issue for, which in turn can contribute to improve the strategies designed to reduce the cases of maternal morbidity and mortality in Mozambique.

2. Materials and Methods

This is an exploratory study using in-depth interview to explore factors related to abortion decision-making in a changing context. As research on this topic is limited, we opted for a qualitative research framework that aims to identify factors influencing this decision-making process.

2.1. Location of the Study

The study was conducted in two Mozambican cities, Maputo and Quelimane. These cities were selected because they registered more abortions than other cities in the same region. According to the 2014 data from the Direcção Nacional de Planificação, 629 and 698 women, respectively, were admitted to the hospital due to induced abortion complications in Maputo and Quelimane [ 26 ]. Furthermore, the two differ radically in terms of culture, with Maputo in the South being patrilineal and Quelimane in the Central Region matrilineal, which could influence the abortion decision-making process. The fieldwork took place between July–August 2016 and January–February 2017.

2.2. Data Collection

The data were collected through in-depth interviews, asking participants about their experiences with induced abortion and what motivated them to get an abortion. To approach and recruit participants ( Figure 1 ), we used the information collected during a cross-sectional survey with women in the reproductive age (15–49), These women were selected randomly applying multistage cluster based on household registers. The survey was designed to understand women’s sexual and reproductive health and included filter questions that allowed us to identify participants who had undergone an abortion. The information sheet and informed consent form for this household survey included information about a possible follow-up study.

The process of recruitment of the participants.

Participants who were within the age-range 15–24 years and who reported having had an abortion were contacted by phone. In this contact, the researcher (MF) introduced herself, reminded the participant of the study she took part in, explained the follow-up study and asked whether she was willing to participate in this. If she did, an appointment was made at a convenient location. Before each interview, we explained to each participant why she was invited to the second interview. Participants were also informed of interview procedures, confidentiality and anonymity in the management of the data, and the possibility to withdraw from the interview at any time. In total 14, young women (15–24) agreed to participate: nine in Maputo and five in Quelimane. Six of them were interviewed twice to explore further aspects that remained unclear after the first interview. The interviews were conducted in Portuguese.

To start the interview, the participant was invited to tell her life history from puberty until the moment when the abortion occurred. During the conversation, we used probing questions to elicit more details. Gradually, we added questions related to the abortion and factors that influenced the decision process. The main questions were related to the pregnancy history, abortion decision-making, and help-seeking behaviour. The guideline was adapted from WHO tools [ 27 , 28 ]. Before the implementation of the guideline, it was discussed first with another Mozambican researcher to see how they fell regarding the question. After those questions were revised or removed from the guideline.

2.3. Data Analysis

The analysis consisted of three steps: transcription, reading, and codification with NVivo version 11(QSR International Pty Ltd., Doncaster, Australia). After an initial reading, one of the authors (MF) developed a coding tree on factors determining the decision-making. A structured thematic analysis was used to make inferences and elicit key emerging themes from the text-based data [ 29 , 30 ]. The coding tree was based on the ecological model, which is a comprehensive framework that emphasizes the interaction between, and interdependence of factors within and across all levels of a health problem since it considers that the behaviour affects and is affected by multiple levels of influence [ 31 , 32 ].

Next, the codes and the classification were discussed among the researchers (Mónica Frederico, Kristien Michielsen, Carlos Arnaldo and Peter Decat). Finally, the data was interpreted, and conclusions were drawn [ 33 ].

2.4. Ethical Consideration

Before the implementation of this research, we obtained ethical approval from the Institutional Committee of the Faculty of Medicine and Nacional Bioethical Committee for Health (IRB00002657). We also asked for the institutional approval of the Minister of Health and authorities at the provincial and community levels. The participants gave their informed consent after the objectives and interview procedures had been explained to them. The participants were informed that they might be contacted and invited, within six months, to participate in another interview.

2.5. Concepts

The providers are the people who carried out the abortion procedure. These may be categorized into skilled and unskilled providers: the former refers to a professional (i.e., nurse or doctor) offering abortion services to a client, while the latter is someone without any medical training. Another concept that requires further explanation is the legal procedure. This corresponds to a set of steps to be followed to comply with the law [ 19 , 20 ]. Specifically, this means that a committee should authorize the induced abortion and an identification document should be available, as well as an informed consent form from the pregnant woman. If the woman is a minor, consent is given by her legal guardian. An ultrasound exam is required to determine the gestational age.

3.1. Characteristics of the Participants

The characteristics of the interviewees are summarized in Table 1 . The 14 participants were aged 17 to 24 years. Eight had completed secondary school, four had achieved the second level of primary school, and two were university students. Almost all (13) were Christian. Five participants were studying, eight were unemployed, and one was working. The median age of their first sexual intercourse was 15.5 years. Participants reported living with one or both parents (12), with their uncle (1) or alone (1). They lived in suburban areas of Maputo and Quelimane, which are slums with poor living conditions. In these areas, most households earn their income through small businesses that also involve child labour (e.g., selling food or drinks).

Socio-demographic characteristics and abortion procedure.

Among the participants, five reported more than one pregnancy. One interviewee first had a stillbirth and then two abortions. Another woman gave birth to a girl and afterward terminated two pregnancies. Two interviewees reported two pregnancies, the first of which was brought to full term and the second one terminated. One woman first had an abortion and afterward gave birth to a child. In short, 14 interviewees in total reported on the experiences and decision-making of 16 abortions. One participant stated that the pregnancy was the consequence of rape. Of the 16 reported abortions, seven were performed after the new law came into force at the end of 2014, and nine were carried out before this time.

3.2. Abortions Stories

In this study, 12 abortions were done by skilled providers and two by unskilled providers. The unskilled providers were a mother and a husband, respectively. None of the cases, whose abortion was done by a skilled provider, included in this study followed the legal procedure.

In the analysis of the interviews, we studied the personal, interpersonal and environmental factors that influenced six different types of abortion stories, see Table 2 : (1) an abortion was performed because the pregnancy was unwanted; (2) an abortion was carried out although the pregnancy was wanted; (3) the abortion was done by an unskilled provider at home; (4) an abortion was carried out by a skilled provider outside the hospital; (5) a particular abortion procedure (medical or chirurgical) was chosen, and (6) the legal procedure was not followed in the hospital. Factors influencing the choice for a particular technical procedure were also examined.

Summary of induced abortion stories. (We changed the table format, please confirm.)

* The result of rape; ** Seven participants; *** six participants.

3.3. Abortion Following an Unwanted Pregnancy

In the stories about unwanted pregnancies, mostly personal factors were mentioned as reasons, with some interviewees stating that they felt unable to be a mother at the time of the pregnancy: “ (It) was at the time that I was taking pills that I got pregnant, and I induced abortion because I was not prepared (for motherhood). ” (24 years)

Some had had a bad experience in the past: “ Maybe I would be abandoned and it would be the same. (Sigh)... I learned with my first pregnancy. ” (23 years)

Also, the existence of another child was mentioned as a reason to have an abortion: “ I got pregnant when I was 20, and I had a baby. When I became pregnant again, my daughter was a child, and I could not have another child. ” (23 years)

For other participants, studies were the main reason why the pregnancy was not wanted: “ He was informed about it, and he said that I should keep it. However, as I wanted to continue my studies, I told him no, no (I) do not. ” (17 years)

At the interpersonal level, a lack of support from the partner was often mentioned as a reason for not wanting the baby: “ He said that he recognizes the paternity, but it is not to keep that pregnancy. ” (22 years)

Women frequently mentioned environmental circumstances related to their poor socio-economic situation: “ I am staying at Mom's house; it is not okay to still be having babies there.” (23 years)

“ At home, we do not have any resources to take care of this child! ” (20 years)

3.4. Abortion Following a Wanted Pregnancy

In these cases, the decision to abort the pregnancy was not made by the woman herself but imposed by others or by the circumstances.

Some participants reported that their parents/family had decided what had to be done: “ They decided while I was at school. If (it) was my decision I would keep it because I wanted it. ” (18 years).

Other young women indicated the refusal of paternity as a reason to terminate the pregnancy.

“ Because my son’s father did not accept the (second) pregnancy. There was a time, we argued with each other, and we terminated the relationship. Later, we started dating again, and I got pregnant. He said it was not possible. ” (21 years)

“ (he) impregnated me and after that, he dumped me, (smiles)… I went to him, and I said that I was pregnant. He said eee: I do not know, that is not my child. ” (20 years).

Some women told the interviewers that they were convinced by their boyfriend to have an abortion: “ I talked to him, and he said okay we are going to have an abortion and I accepted. ” (22 years)

Others mentioned their partner’s indecision and changing attitude as a reason to get an abortion, even though they did want the baby:

“ I told him I was pregnant. First, he said to keep it. (Next) He was different. Sometimes he was calling me, and other times not. I understood that he did not want me. ” (20 years)

The fear of being excluded from their family due to their pregnancy was another reason reported by participants: “ So I went to talk with my older sister, and she said eee, you must abort because daddy will kick you out of our home. ” (20 years)

“ As I am an orphan, and I live with my uncle, they were going to kick me out. No one would assist me. ” (20 years)

3.5. Location of the Abortion: Home-Based Versus Hospital-Based

Two young women reported having had the abortion at home by an unskilled provider. It seems that these unskilled providers than the women (i.e. family members, partner) made the decisions.

“ It was mammy and my sister (who provided the induced abortion services). My sister knows these things. ” (18 years)

“ He (the father of the child) came to my house and took me back to his house. It was that moment when I aborted. ” (21 years)

Of the 16 abortions, seven were performed through health services, by a skilled provider. For some of them, the choice for a health service was influenced by the fact of knowing someone at the health facility.

“ I went to talk to her (friend), and she said that “I have an aunt who works at the hospital, she can help you. Just take money”. ” (20 years)

“ I Already knew who could induce it (abortion). No, I knew that person. I went to the hospital, and I talked to her, (and) she helped me. ” (22 years)

Other participants went to the health facility, but due to the lack of money to pay for an abortion at the facilities they sought help out of the health facility: “ They charged us money that we did not have. The ladies did not want to negotiate anything. I think they wanted 1200 mt (17.1 euros) if I am not wrong. He had a job, but he (boyfriend) did not have that amount of money. ” (22 years)

Some participants reported that they had an abortion outside regular facilities because the health provider recommended going to his house: “ She (mother) was the one who accompanied me. She is the one who knows the doctor. We went to the central hospital, but he (the doctor) was very busy, and he told us to go to his house. ” (17 years)

Others reported the fear of signing a document as a reason to seek help outside of official channels: “ I heard that to induce abortion at the hospital it is necessary for an adult to sign a consent form. I was afraid because I did not know who could accompany me. Because at that time I only wanted to hide it from others. ” (22 years).

3.6. Abortion Procedure

The women were not able to explain why a particular abortion procedure (i.e., pills or aspiration, curettage) was used. It appears that they were not given the opportunity to choose and that they submitted themselves to the procedure proposed by the provider.

“ The abortion was done here at home. They just went to the pharmacy, bought pills and gave them to me. ” (18 years)

3.7. Legal Procedure

None of those treated at the hospital stated that legal procedures were followed. They also mentioned that they had to pay without receiving any official receipt.

“ First we got there and talked to a servant (a helper of the hospital). The servant asked for money for a refreshment so he could talk to a doctor. After we spoke (with servant), he went to the doctor, and the doctor came, and we arranged everything with him. ” (22 years)

“ We went to the health center, and we talked to those doctors or nurses I mean, they said that they could provide that service. It was 1200 mt (17.1 euros), and they were going to deal with everything. They did not give us the chance to sign a document and follow those procedures. ” (20 years)

4. Discussion

The objective of this study was to describe abortion procedures and to explore factors influencing the abortion decision-making process among young women in Maputo and Quelimane.

The study pointed out determinants at the personal, interpersonal and environmental level. Analysing the results, we were confronted with four recurring factors that negatively impacted on the decision-making process: (1) women’s lack of autonomy to make their own decisions regarding the termination of the pregnancy, (2) their general lack of knowledge, (3) the poor availability of local abortion services, and (4) the overpowering influence of providers on the decisions made.

The first factor involves women’s lack of autonomy. In our study, most women indicate that decisions regarding the termination of a pregnancy are mostly taken by others, sometimes against their will. Parents, family members, partners, and providers decide what should happen. As shown in the literature, this lack of autonomy in abortion decision-making is linked to power and gender inequality [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]. On the one hand, power reflects the degree to which individuals or groups can impose their will on others, with or without the consent of those others [ 34 , 37 , 38 ]. In this case, the power of the parent/family is observed when they, directly or indirectly, influence their daughters to induce an abortion, for instance by threatening to kick them out of their home. On the other hand, gender inequality is also a factor. This refers to the power imbalance between men and women and is reflected by cases in which the partner makes the decision to terminate the pregnancy [ 38 ]. Besides this, the contextual environment of male chauvinism in Mozambique also makes it more socially acceptable for men to reject responsibility for a pregnancy [ 34 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 40 ]. Finally, women’s economic dependence makes them more vulnerable, dependent and subordinated. For economic reasons, women, have no other choice but to obey and follow the family or partner’s decisions. Closely linked with women’s lack of autonomy is their lack of knowledge. Interviewees report that they do not know where abortion services are provided. They are not acquainted with the legal procedures and do not know their sexual rights. This lack of knowledge among women contributes to the high prevalence of pregnancy termination outside of health facilities and not in accordance with legal procedures.

Our participants often report that abortion services are absent at a local level, as has also been pointed out by Ngwena [ 41 ]. This is a particular problem in Mozambique. Not all tertiary or quaternary health facilities are authorized to perform abortions. The fact that only some tertiary and quaternary facilities are allowed to do so creates a shortage of abortion centres to cover the demand. In fact, only people with a certain level of education and a sufficiently large social network have access to legal and proper abortion procedures.

Finally, our study shows that providers mostly decide on the location, the methods used and the legality of abortion procedures. Patients are highly dependent on the health providers’ commitment, professionality and accuracy and the selected procedures are not mutually decided by the provider and the patient. Providers often do not refer the client to the reference health facility or do not inform them of the legal procedures, creating a gap between law and practice that stimulates illegal and unsafe procedures. The reasons for this are unclear. It might be due to a lack of knowledge among health providers too, and, perhaps, provider saw here an opportunity to supplement the low salary [ 42 ]. Participants who seek help at the health facility they do so contacting the provider in particular, as indication given by someone.

This corroborates with studies conducted by Ngwena [ 41 , 43 ], Doran et al. [ 44 ], Pickles [ 45 ], Mantshi [ 46 ], and Ngwena [ 47 ], which pointed out the obstacles related to the availability of services and providers’ attitudes towards safe abortion, although the law grants the population this right [ 41 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ]. As Ngwena [ 41 , 43 ] argues, the liberalization of abortion laws is not always put into practice and abortion rights merely exist on paper. Braam’ study [ 48 ] therefore highlights the necessity of clarifying and informing women and providers of the current legislation and ensuring that abortion services are available in all circumstances described in the law.

Finally, despite cultural differences between Maputo and Quelimane, the result did not suggest differences between two areas studied regarding factors influencing the decision to terminate and how the abortion is done. However, the Figure 1 suggests that there was trend to have more participants from Maputo reporting abortion episode in her life than Quelimane. This difference maybe be because Maputo is much more multicultural and the people of this city have more access to information that gives them the opportunity to learn about matter of reproductive health including abortion, than Quelimane. So, due to this there is trend decrease the taboo relation to abortion in Maputo than in Quelimane.

These abortion stories illustrate the lack of autonomy in decision-making process given the power and gender inequalities between adults and young women, and also between man and women . They also show the lack of knowledge not only on the availability of abortion services at some health facilities, as well as, on the new law on abortion. All these lacks that women have are reinforced by poor availability of abortion services and the fact that the providers we not taking their role to help those women, as it is exposed in the next sections.

This study interviewed young women who had an induced abortion at some point in their lives (15 years up to their age at interview date). As such, it does not provide any information on the factors behind the decisions of those who did not terminate their pregnancy.

The results presented in this paper only reflect the perceptions of the young women who had an induced abortion, not those of their parents or partners. The paper is based on qualitative data that provides insights into factors influencing abortion decision-making. Since the sample included in the study is not representative for the population of young women in Mozambique, the results cannot be generalized.

5. Conclusions

Based on the results of the study, we recommend the following measures to improve the abortion decision-making process among young women:

First, strategies should be implemented to increase women's autonomy in decision-making: The study highlighted that gender and power inequalities obstructed young women to make their decision with autonomy. We reiterate the Chandra-Mouli and colleges [ 49 ] message. There is a need to address gender and power inequalities. Addressing gender inequality, and promotion of more equitable power relations leads to improved health outcomes. The interventions to promote gender-equitable and power relationships, as well as human rights, need to be central to all future programming and policies [ 49 ].

Second, patients and the whole population should be better informed about national abortion laws, the recommended and legal procedures and the location of abortion services, since, despite the decision to terminate pregnancy resulted to the imposition, if they were well informed on that, maybe they could be decide on safe and legal abortion, avoiding double autonomy deprivation. At the same time, providers must be informed about the status of national abortion laws. Additionally, they should be trained in communication skills to promote shared decision-making and patient orientation in abortion counseling.

Third, the number of health facilities providing abortions services should be increased, particularly in remote areas.

Finally, health providers should be trained in communication skills to promote shared decision-making and patient orientation in abortion counseling.

The abortion decision-making by young women is an important topic because it refers the decision made during the transitional period from childhood to adulthood. The decision may have life-long consequences, compromising the individual health, career, psychological well-being, and social acceptance. This paper, on abortion decision-making, calls attention to some attitudes that lead to the illegality of abortion despite it was done at a health facility.

Acknowledgments

Authors gratefully acknowledge the support, contribution, and comments from all those who collaborated direct or indirectly, especially Olivier Degomme, Eunice Remane Jethá, Emilia Gonçalves, Cátia Taibo, Beatriz Chongo, Hélio Maúngue and Rehana Capruchand.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed significantly to the manuscript. Mónica Frederico collected data and developed the first analysis. The themes were intensively discussed with Kristien Michielsen, Carlos Arnaldo and Peter Decat. The subsequent versions of the article were written with the active participation of all authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.