Guttmacher Institute - Center facts. Shape policy. Advance sexual and reproductive rights.

New legislation to protect the right to travel for abortion care in the US

gsinger — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:40:41 +0000

New legislation to protect the right to travel for abortion care in the US gsinger June 25, 2026

Exclude from search

Video Type

YouTube Short

Locked Away and Left to Expire: The Trump Administration's Destructive Denial of Contraceptive Care

sramashwar — Mon, 22 Jun 2026 18:32:16 +0000

Locked Away and Left to Expire: The Trump Administration's Destructive Denial of Contraceptive Care Policy Analysis sramashwar June 22, 2026 June 22, 2026

Exclude from search

Automatic Redirect

Off

Megan Willkens

sramashwar — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 13:45:51 +0000

Megan Willkens

sramashwar June 16, 2026

Senior Research Assistant, AIU

Megan Willkens (she/her) joined the Guttmacher Institute as a Senior Research Assistant in 2026. Her research interests include sexual and reproductive health equity, community-based approaches to health care service delivery, and health systems strengthening. Prior to joining Guttmacher, she worked as a Research Associate at Weill Cornell Medicine's Center for Global Health, where she supported trials and observational studies on HIV and other chronic disease outcomes in Tanzania. Ms. Willkens received her BS in public health and public policy analysis from Syracuse University, and MS in epidemiology from Columbia University.

RHITES (Reproductive Health Initiative for Telehealth Equity & Solutions)

sramashwar — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 17:08:12 +0000

RHITES (Reproductive Health Initiative for Telehealth Equity & Solutions) sramashwar June 11, 2026

State Policy Trends Midyear Analysis: Five Key Issues to Watch in 2026

sramashwar — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 13:07:54 +0000

State Policy Trends Midyear Analysis: Five Key Issues to Watch in 2026 Policy Analysis sramashwar June 11, 2026 June 16, 2026

Exclude from search

Automatic Redirect

Off

Sub-title

New attacks on patients and shield law providers threaten remaining access to care

How Innovative Uses of Telehealth Can Support Abortion Access

sramashwar — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:55:45 +0000

How Innovative Uses of Telehealth Can Support Abortion Access

Telehealth has become an increasingly critical lifeline for health equity, including in the realm of reproductive health care, and specifically in abortion care. Telehealth enables clinicians to treat patients virtually without an in-person appointment. Patients can connect directly with a health care provider from any location using video or phone calls (often referred to as synchronous care), or via secure chat or messaging (asynchronous care). Telehealth can provide essential medical services directly to patients in their homes, between clinical sites, or through a hybrid of in-person and virtual care. These different modalities of telehealth can also serve important functions for abortion care.

A substantial body of research shows that telehealth can be used to safely and effectively deliver some services without the need for in-person clinical visits. In particular, research has shown that telehealth for medication abortion is just as safe and effective as in-person care. Telehealth can help make comprehensive reproductive health care more readily available, accessible and patient-centered, regardless of a person’s location or their local clinical infrastructure.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telehealth has accelerated rapidly. As of 2022, roughly 39% of US adults reported using telehealth in the past year, with similar use rates across age, race, ethnicity and income. In 2024, some 71% of physicians reported using telehealth in their practice weekly—up from about 25% in 2018. This increase in the general prevalence of telehealth has been mirrored in the provision of abortion care, with the latest data showing that 29% of abortions are now provided via telehealth.

The expansion of telehealth abortion care has been shaped by shifts in federal and state policy. Since 2023, after an exhaustive review of the research on safety and efficacy, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has allowed telehealth, mail and pharmacy provision of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in the most common medication abortion regimen. In addition, eight states have passed shield laws that explicitly protect clinicians who provide telehealth abortion care to patients in states with total bans and other severe restrictions. However, anti-abortion activists have responded aggressively to the growing prevalence of telehealth for medication abortion and have challenged these evidence-based policies through legislation and in the federal courts. As a result, understanding the various models of telehealth abortion care is more important than ever. 

What Is Telehealth for Medication Abortion?

Medication abortion is a method of ending a pregnancy using pharmaceutical drugs. In the United States, this most commonly involves a two-drug regimen: mifepristone (an antiprogestin that blocks the hormone needed to sustain the pregnancy) followed by misoprostol (a prostaglandin that causes the uterus to contract and expel the pregnancy). Other drug regimens (such as misoprostol alone) can also be a safe and effective way to end a pregnancy. 

Telehealth for Medication Abortion (TMAB) generally refers to the use of phone and/or video calls for some or all of the interactions needed to prescribe and receive medication abortion pills. TMAB can be direct-to-patient, site-to-site, or accessed through a hybrid in-person/virtual care experience using different modalities. 

How Can Telehealth Be Used to Provide Medication Abortion?

Direct to patient:

The provider and patient are located in different places while using either a secure video-conferencing platform, audio platform, or an (asynchronous) messaging system. This is a fully remote model and often the patient is located outside of a clinical setting, such as in their home.

Example: Maya lives in rural Hawaii. She video calls her doctor in Honolulu from her bedroom. They talk through her pregnancy options, the doctor confirms her eligibility for medication abortion, and they complete the appointment entirely online. After the telehealth visit, the provider sends a prescription to a certified pharmacy or mails the abortion medications to Maya. If the former, Maya can pick up the medications at a pharmacy or the medications will arrive at Maya's location a few days later. She never has to leave her island.

Hybrid:

In this model, telehealth for medication abortion care is provided partly but not entirely by telehealth, often due to state policies requiring patients to have an in-person interaction with a clinician. This model of care was used extensively during the first years of the COVID-19 pandemic and could be vital to access if further restrictions are implemented.

Example: Jordan lives in a state that requires patients to have an in-person consultation before accessing abortion care. She has to drive to the clinic to meet her provider face-to-face before receiving pills in the clinic or at home, but can complete her follow-up appointment with a video call. 

Example: Alex meets with a telehealth provider, who determines they need an ultrasound prior to accessing medication abortion. The provider refers Alex to a brick-and-mortar clinic, which does all consenting and counseling via telehealth prior to the visit. Alex then goes to the clinic for the ultrasound and to pick up the pills from a clinician. 

Site to site:

The provider and patient are located in different clinical sites and use a secure video-conferencing platform for patient counseling, medication administration or supervised drug ingestion. 

Example: Priya lives in a small town with a local health clinic but no abortion provider. Her local clinic sets up a video call with a certified abortion provider at another clinic two hours away. The provider counsels her over video and then the local clinic staff, supervised remotely, give her a mifepristone pill.

Who Can Access Telehealth for Medication Abortion?

Just as telehealth in general has become a common mode of health care provision, telehealth for medication abortion has been increasingly adopted and preferred by many health care professionals and patients. As of December 2025, more than one in four clinician-provided abortions in the United States were accessed via direct-to-patient telehealth. As new legal restrictions have impacted abortion access throughout the country, telehealth for medication abortion has expanded to address unmet needs for care. A recent study of one online provider found that rates of telemedicine abortion provision were highest in Southern and Midwest, particularly in states with total abortion bans, and where care was provided under the protection of out-of-state shield laws. Additionally, the study found that rates of telehealth medication abortion were higher in counties that were further from brick-and-mortar clinics, as well as those with higher poverty rates. A different study examining one shield law provider’s patient demographics found that nearly two-thirds of their patients received subsidized care, due to financial hardships that would have made paying for care difficult or impossible.

Telehealth access to medication abortion can reduce the legal, financial and logistical barriers faced by many people seeking abortion care, and which can include state laws restricting or banning abortion provision; expenses associated with long-distance travel and accommodations; and the need to arrange childcare and time off work. However, structural barriers remain in accessing telehealth more broadly. These can include: a lack of broadband access or the lack of a private digital device (both of which can prevent patients from participating in virtual care consults); language barriers and other challenges navigating online platforms; lack of access to a personal credit card to pay for care; lack of a private mailbox to receive medication shipments; and financial barriers associated with out-of-pocket costs, underinsurance and lack of insurance coverage. These barriers are amplified in the context of general access barriers such as poverty, structural racism, and when the type of care sought is highly stigmatized, as is abortion care.

Who Regulates Telehealth for Medication Abortion?

The regulation of medication abortion care involves two overlapping systems of law, federal and state, that together determine what care is available, who can provide it, and how. 

Federal regulation of TMAB

At the federal level, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary regulatory authority over drugs and medical devices. 

In 2000, the FDA specifically approved mifepristone for use in medication abortion. Other medications commonly used in abortion care, including misoprostol, are FDA-approved for other indications and widely prescribed off-label for abortion, a practice that is both legal and common across medicine. 

The FDA has established Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) for some of the medications it approves, including mifepristone, which involves specific prescribing and dispensing requirements. Outside of their application to mifepristone, REMS are largely applied only to drugs with specific safety risks and are applied to fewer than 3% of FDA approved drugs. In recent years, anti-abortion actors have sued in federal court to reimpose an older set of REMS for mifepristone, which required that it be dispensed “only in clinics, medical offices and hospitals by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber”—stipulations which may limit telehealth provision of the drug. At present, all models of telehealth provision are permitted, as this case awaits full consideration by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the FDA has begun a safety review of the medication. Depending on the ultimate outcome of the case and the review, different models of telehealth abortion care, including hybrid models, may still be available to bridge some gaps in access.

Beyond drug approval, federal law also shapes the broader health care environment: the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects the privacy of patients' medical records and limits what information providers can share, and the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in health care markets, including misleading advertising about medical services. These federal frameworks set baseline standards that apply in every state regardless of local policies or regulations (such as those imposed by licensing boards). 

State regulation of TMAB

States, however, retain broad constitutional authority to regulate the practice of medicine and the delivery of health care within their borders. This means states can and do impose their own additional requirements on top of federal law, governing everything from who can prescribe medication, to what telehealth visits are legally valid, and to whether a clinic must have a physical location to operate legally. 

Currently, 26 states and Washington, DC allow all modes of TMAB provision, while six states allow only hybrid TMAB. In 18 states, TMAB provision is completely banned.

Examples of state laws and regulations impacting TMAB: 

Limitations on telehealth modalities: These legal and regulatory barriers restrict the ways that patients can access clinical care via telehealth (e.g., in some states, direct-to-patient telehealth abortion care is not permitted). They are often driven by political considerations, rather than clinical practice, reducing providers’ flexibility and patients’ access to care.
Limitations on provider scope of practice: These legal and regulatory barriers restrict medical professionals’ service provision under their license, (e.g., in some states only physicians are allowed to prescribe mifepristone). Like telehealth restrictions, they are often imposed based on policy preferences rather than evidence from clinical practice.
In-person visitation requirements: These are state policies mandating that abortion patients be physically present with their clinician during certain stages of the abortion care process, regardless of the health care provider’s medical judgment. For example, a state may require the medication to be dispensed in person or require in-person counseling prior to all abortion care.

The impact of shield laws on TMAB across state lines

A shield law is a state-based legal protection that may be established by legislation or by executive order. These laws are typically designed to protect abortion and TMAB providers, practical support organizations, abortion funds and others from out-of-state criminal and civil investigations and associated professional and financial consequences.

Eight of the 22 states with shield laws extend their protections to telehealth regardless of the patient’s location. This means that these eight states protect providers who offer care to residents of states with abortion bans or restrictions—with the providers prescribing and mailing abortion medication following a telehealth consultation. 

The result of these state policies is a patchwork: the same federal rules apply everywhere, but access to medication abortion via telehealth, and the type of telehealth available (e.g., asynchronous, synchronous or audio-only) varies dramatically depending on where a patient lives.

The various state laws and regulations on telehealth for medication abortion, along with state shield laws, all factor into the complicated web that providers must navigate to determine how and where they can provide medication abortion care through telehealth. Providers must consider whether the state in which they are located permits TMAB, if their state has a shield law and the scope of that shield law (i.e., whether the protections extend to telehealth across state lines or are limited to in-state care only), as well as licensure requirements and minimum standards of care.

Conclusion

Telehealth is available in multiple ways to provide and support access to abortion care, whether through direct-to-patient, hybrid, or site-to-site models, or to support pre- and post-abortion care. Nevertheless, the patchwork of state telehealth regulations and structural barriers can make trying to access medication abortion a challenging experience, particularly for patients who are already marginalized by the health care system or live in underserved health care deserts. In this context, utilizing a range of telehealth models or alternate medication abortion regimens may facilitate access to care or help providers pivot to continue care should federal or state law change. Even in environments of confusion and care restrictions, it remains vital to ensure that people with the capacity for pregnancy have accurate information and access to the broadest possible range of sexual and reproductive health care options.

sramashwar June 10, 2026

Exclude from search

Facebook Image

rhites social@4x.png

Twitter Image

rhites social@4x.png

Misinformation

mmartin — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 13:50:47 +0000

Misinformation mmartin June 10, 2026

New research shows pharmacies can help fill gaps in abortion care in Ethiopia

jloewenberg — Tue, 09 Jun 2026 13:27:26 +0000

New research shows pharmacies can help fill gaps in abortion care in Ethiopia June 9, 2026jloewenberg June 9, 2026 News Release

Use link

Facebook Image

Guttmacher generic Preview NEW social.png

Twitter Image

Guttmacher generic Preview NEW social.png

Director of State Policy

lkhan — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 15:41:17 +0000

Director of State Policy

Organization

Founded in 1968, the Guttmacher Institute is a global leader in advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights. Through a unique and interrelated program of high-quality research, evidence-based advocacy and strategic communications, the Institute works to generate new ideas, encourage enlightened public debate, and promote sound policy and program development; its overarching goal is to ensure the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health and rights for all people worldwide. The Institute is engaged in building a more inclusive, transparent and equitable organization.

Position summary

The Director of State Policy is a senior position responsible for managing all aspects of Guttmacher’s work to lead a state policy and partnerships strategy to advance abortion and contraception rights, health and access. Reporting to the Vice President for Public Policy, the Director works with a broad range of stakeholders to bring Guttmacher data, analysis, partnerships and convening power, and strategic expertise to bear to support state partnerships and policy agendas, and manages the State Policy Team. An expectation of this position is to take an active role in advancing an organizational culture that centers equity and justice, collaboration, integrity, nimbleness and a global perspective, seeing connections across SRHR issues and different contexts throughout the world. The Director must be committed to supporting an equitable and inclusive work environment and managing relations with a diverse staff, including staff under their own supervision.

Responsibilities

Strategic Leadership

Work with the Vice President of Public Policy and other programmatic directors to translate the Institute’s Strategic Plan into actionable initiatives with measurable milestones and results.
Serve as a member of the division’s Management Team responsible for managing the division’s work in pursuit of the Institute’s vision, goals and priorities; collaborate with the Executive Leadership Team and other division Management Teams to create a high-performing, impactful and collaborative organization.
Ensure that program and policy strategies have clear objectives, outputs and outcomes, and that those efforts are integrated and complementary across the division and the Institute.
Inform nimble strategy iteration by monitoring the state policy and legal landscape, watching trends and consulting with key informants, resulting in rich intelligence gathering.
Stimulate, encourage and contribute to the development of new ideas and approaches and work with the VP to create a culture of innovation in policy analysis, partnerships and advocacy.

Direct the Institute’s State Public Policy and Partnerships Agenda

Develop a program aimed at deepening the Institute’s impact in states through collaborative partnerships with state advocates, legislators and other stakeholders.
Provide day-to-day management of the State Policy team.
Build trust and strong partnerships with a broad base of progressive allies, legal experts, providers and more; seek their input to help shape the Institute’s priorities; and ensure they are equipped with timely evidence and incisive analysis in support of their policy goals.
Maintain deep expertise of state policy issues and provide or oversee provision of technical expertise to policymakers and advocates.
Collaborate with the Institute’s research and communications staff to support creation of policy-relevant research and shape and disseminate policy-related messaging.
Represent the Institute with the media and at external meetings and conferences, including at high-level events and with critical stakeholders.
Collaborate with staff across the Institute to bring an innovative policy perspective to Guttmacher’s research and communications.
Develop and review written materials in a range of formats and for a range of audiences. Serve as a key national thought leader on state reproductive rights policy.
Represent the Institute in meetings with donors and contribute to grant proposals.

Division Management and Supervision

Guide and supervise state policy staff, including setting clear direction and performance expectations, building individual skills and assessing progress.
Work with division leadership and Finance and Administration staff to coordinate budgetary and administrative work of the division.
Manage project-specific work to ensure that it meets its objectives, is completed within a set timeframe and budget, and is high-quality.
Promote a culture of high-performance grounded in the Institute’s guiding principles of equity and justice, collaboration, integrity, nimbleness and a global perspective, seeing connections across SRHR issues and different contexts throughout the world.
Performs other job-related tasks as appropriate.

Qualifications and Skills

A minimum of 10 years of relevant work experience in the fields of sexual and reproductive health and rights; deep state policy expertise and experience.
Deep understanding of the role of state advocates in the SRHR policy-making landscape and a network of relationships.
Proven track record on collaborative partnerships; understanding the value of mutually beneficial and impactful working partnerships.
Strong supervisory skills, with the ability to assess and manage performance in pursuit of ambitious goals, retain high-performers and develop staff.
Strong management and organizational skills with a capacity to marshal the talents of a diverse, competent and creative team and build a culture of belonging and inclusion.
Strong leadership skills, with the foresight and ability to design new initiatives, and steer a program toward maintaining its strategic focus.
Deep commitment to the impact of the programs they oversee, including possessing the ability to overcome obstacles individually or as a team, make hard decisions, and move everyone forward productively.
Excellent writing and oral communication skills.
Ability to develop solid working relationships with senior leadership across the Institute and represent the Institute in high-level contexts externally.
Ability to foster an inclusive workplace, where all staff feel respected, heard, engaged and valued.
Compelling and thoughtful communication style that meets the needs of internal and external audiences and engenders trust and collaboration.
Able to travel up to 20% of time.

Salary and Benefits

The salary range for this position is between $188,800 to $217,100 and will be commensurate with experience. This range is specific to the New York and DC area, and base pay may vary depending on a wide range of factors. New hires are typically brought into the organization between the minimum to midpoint of the salary range posted depending on knowledge, skills and experience, and qualifications. Internal equity considerations will be reviewed before making a final offer. The Guttmacher Institute practices a hybrid work schedule, requiring in-office attendance currently 4 days per month.

We offer excellent benefits, including medical, dental, vision, and life insurance; vacation, personal, and sick time; paid parental leave; tuition reimbursement; commuting subsidy; and a 401(k) plan with employer match.

Guttmacher Institute strives to provide the training and support for staff needed to be successful in their positions and to grow professionally.

lkhan June 3, 2026

How to Counter 10 False Narratives About Abortion in an Age of Misinformation

sramashwar — Thu, 28 May 2026 13:46:56 +0000

How to Counter 10 False Narratives About Abortion in an Age of Misinformation

Misinformation about abortion care is rampant and being weaponized at state and federal levels to justify wide-ranging restrictions across the United States.

Ensuring awareness of these narratives, and combatting them with rigorous data and evidence, is critical both for preventing them from becoming entrenched in law and for rolling back harmful policies rooted in misinformation.

This fact sheet offers evidence-based statements to counter 10 common but false narratives about abortion, and offers readers additional ways to dive deeper into the following topics:

1. Safety of medication abortion

Mifepristone—one of two drugs used in the most common medication abortion regimen in the United States—is safe and effective.

Anti-abortion policymakers and activists are using false and misleading claims to cast doubt on mifepristone’s safety and efficacy, and to push the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reimpose medically unnecessary restrictions.
65% of abortions in the United States were medication abortions in 2023, and decades of evidence from the United States and around the world have clearly established mifepristone’s strong safety profile. Other medication abortion regimens, such as those that use misoprostol alone, also have a long-established safety record.
Evidence shows that telehealth provision of medication abortion—where patients receive abortion pills by mail after consulting virtually with a US-based clinician—is also safe and effective. Restrictions that limit telehealth provision and instead require in-person dispensing of pills are based on political ideology and run counter to robust evidence.

2. Follow-up care for medication abortion

People may seek care at emergency rooms during or after a medication abortion for a range of reasons and their seeking such care does not call mifepristone’s safety into question.

A common false narrative weaponized against medication abortion relies on junk science that, because of its serious methodological flaws, dramatically overstates the rate at which medication abortion patients experience serious complications. This includes classifying all or most visits to the emergency room following a medication abortion as “serious adverse events.”
Many people seek care during or after a medication abortion to confirm they are no longer pregnant, or because they are concerned about expected symptoms, such as bleeding and cramping, that are not evidence of medical complications. Serious adverse events—like sepsis, blood loss requiring a transfusion, or other complications requiring hospitalization—occur in well below 1% of all medication abortions using mifepristone.
Even if their symptoms are standard and expected, people should be able to seek care during or after a medication abortion. The primary risks of seeking this care are legal, not medical. The risks of being criminalized for reproductive health choices and outcomes are particularly high for residents of states where abortion is banned.

3. Claims of coerced medication abortions

Efforts to restrict mifepristone based on claims about reproductive coercion are rooted in politics, not facts.

Reproductive coercion refers to abusive behavior that interferes with an individual’s decision-making around pregnancy and reproductive health. Anti-abortion activists and policymakers are attempting to distort the reality of reproductive coercion with false narratives suggesting mifepristone must be restricted to prevent such abuse. True bodily autonomy—including the ability to choose whether or not to become or stay pregnant—requires the absence of reproductive coercion in the form of both interpersonal violence and state control.
Relying on a handful of anecdotal allegations, some of which have been demonstrated to be unfounded, these coercion narratives are designed to justify restrictions on medication abortion, especially telehealth provision, and to target shield law providers with baseless claims that they are complicit in coerced abortions.
By contrast, research indicates that reproductive coercion more commonly involves people being forced or pressured into becoming or staying pregnant against their will, rather than terminating a wanted pregnancy. Moreover, rigorous research shows that abortion bans actually increase the risk of intimate partner violence.

4. Environmental claims related to medication abortion

There is no evidence to support the claim that abortion pills impact drinking water quality or harm the environment.

Anti-abortion policymakers and advocates have mobilized around the false claim that abortion pills contaminate drinking water, including the introduction of the federal “Clean Water for All Life Act” in March 2026, which would require anyone using abortion pills to use a “catch-kit” when ending their pregnancy.
Anti-abortion activists and policymakers are not focused on addressing the well-studied environmental hazards that are known to contaminate drinking water, such as the impacts of pesticides used by the agricultural industry, by forever chemicals, and by the industrial polluting sites that often placed near communities of color.
With no evidence that abortion pills are contaminating water, it is clear that these are not good-faith efforts to protect the environment or US water supplies.

5. Mental health and abortion

There is no evidence which indicates that having an abortion causes subsequent mental health problems.

The narrative that obtaining an abortion causes negative mental health outcomes is often used to justify restrictions on access to abortion, but such claims are not supported by evidence.
High-quality studies show no causal link between abortion and subsequent mental health problems, with many women reporting relief rather than distress. Negative emotions are more strongly linked to low social support or prior history of poor mental health.
Research shows that in the short-term, not being able to have a wanted abortion is associated with greater risk of adverse psychological outcomes.

6. Abortion later in pregnancy

Inflammatory language about abortion later in pregnancy—a phrase generally used to describe abortions accessed at 21 or more weeks—does not reflect medical realities or lived experiences of those obtaining such care.

There is no precise clinical definition of when “later in pregnancy” begins, and policies that restrict access to abortion at various gestational limits are based on politics, not medicine.
Anti-abortion activists and policymakers often use blatantly false language about abortions occurring “at“ or “after birth” when describing abortions later in pregnancy. These claims have no basis in evidence, facts or medical standards of care and serve only to increase stigma around abortion later in pregnancy or add additional restrictions on this care.
People need and obtain abortion care during many different stages of pregnancy, and their experiences are varied. However, the barriers increase steeply for those seeking care after 21 weeks—due to arbitrary legal limits based on gestational duration, high costs and the low number of providers that offer this care.

7. Exceptions to abortion bans

Adding narrow exceptions to abortion bans often only serves to make them appear less draconian and does not ensure people receive the care they need.

Despite some states granting narrow exceptions to their abortion bans (e.g., for medical emergencies or pregnancies resulting from sexual assault), abortion restrictions and legal threats have continued to limit clinicians’ provision of abortion care for people facing life-threatening pregnancy complications and for survivors of rape and incest.
Abortion bans have also impacted the provision of other kinds of reproductive health care, including care for pregnancy loss. Denials of this care, sometimes prompted by fears of legal repercussions, have resulted in a series of preventable deaths and serious medical complications.
Rather than address these harms, policymakers have instead used exception laws to interfere in medical decision-making and attempted to carve out pregnancy loss care from the legal definition of abortion. Such strategies disregard evidence that the best way to ensure essential care provision for people in medical emergencies and for those who have experienced sexual violence is to expand and protect abortion access for all.

8. Restrictions on minors’ access to abortion

Parental involvement laws do not help young people—they increase barriers to accessing abortion care and can put young people at risk.

Young people face unique barriers in accessing abortion care, as they often experience delays in recognizing pregnancy and have the fewest resources to overcome bans and restrictions.
Parental involvement laws—which include parental consent and notification laws and which are in effect in 38 states—only amplify these barriers. Some states are going even further in efforts to restrict young people's access, with legislation that would eliminate judicial bypass options and that threaten the support organizations and individuals that help young people travel out of state for care.
Research shows that most young people involve a parent in their decision to have an abortion, and those who choose not to do so commonly fear coercion or conflict. Despite offering a critical mechanism for young people to access abortion care, the judicial bypass process can also cause harm to young people because of the added logistical and emotional challenges of this process.

9. The prevalence of abortion

Abortion is a common reproductive health experience, accessed by people across regions and demographic groups, and abortion restrictions do not reduce demand for abortion.

One in four US women of reproductive age will have an abortion by age 45, an estimate based on the 2020 abortion rate. Because the overall number of abortions has increased since 2020, the share of women projected to have an abortion may also be higher today.

The number of abortions provided by US clinicians has increased since Roe v. Wade was overturned. This increase underscores the ongoing need for abortion care, even as bans and restrictions continue to prevent many people from accessing care in their own communities.
People with diverse gender and sexual orientation identities obtain abortion care. Guttmacher research from 2021‒2022 shows that as many as 16% of people obtaining abortions do not identify as heterosexual women, which includes trans and gender non-binary abortion seekers. Using gender-inclusive language accurately reflects the diversity of the people seeking abortion care.

10. Ripple effects of abortion restrictions

Restrictions on abortion care do not just impact people’s access to abortion—they implicate the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive health care.

Policymakers are using a playbook that has been successful in attacks against abortion to restrict a wide range of sexual and reproductive health services, including contraception, infertility care and gender-affirming care.
Anti-abortion policymakers also often justify restricting programs like Title X based on anti-abortion ideology, cutting off essential resources to federal family planning programs that have never funded abortion care.
These actors have relied on similar anti-abortion claims to defund providers like Planned Parenthood, a strategy which also threatens people’s access to birth control, primary care, cancer screenings, pre-natal care, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and behavioral health services.
Care for people experiencing pregnancy loss involves many of the same medications and procedures as abortion care—and access to these services is also threatened by efforts to restrict abortion care.
These interconnected attacks demonstrate that restricting abortion is not the endgame: the goal is pervasive state control over people’s reproductive lives and health decisions.

sramashwar May 28, 2026

Policy Resources

Abortion

Exclude from search

Homepage: Featured Title

Countering False Narratives About Abortion in an Age of Misinformation

Facebook Image

misinfo social@4x.png

Twitter Image

misinfo social@4x.png