Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 17, 2024 / 16:30 pm (CNA).
Although birth rate and fertility data have shown that pro-life laws throughout the country have saved thousands of preborn children’s lives, new data from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute found that more women are also traveling out of their states to obtain abortions.
The data, which tracks month-to-month abortion numbers in the United States, found that more than 171,000 Americans traveled out of state to obtain abortions in 2023 — nearly twice as many as the number of people who did the same in 2019, according to the New York Times. Out-of-state abortion procedures accounted for about one-fifth of total abortions in 2023. These numbers include both surgical abortions and chemical abortions.
Although most people who traveled to obtain abortions went to a neighboring state, thousands crossed multiple state lines for abortions. Longer travel to get an abortion was more common for people who live in states with strong pro-life laws that are also surrounded by other states that have similar pro-life protections.
For example, 3,500 people from Louisiana traveled through multiple states to procure abortions in states like Florida, Illinois, and Georgia because both Louisiana and its neighbors prohibit most abortions.
Some states with more permissive abortion policies that border pro-life states have seen a large influx of people traveling from another state to receive abortions. For example, about 71% of the abortions performed in New Mexico in 2023 were on women who traveled from a state with strong pro-life laws, such as Texas. In 2020, only about 38% of New Mexico’s abortions were performed on women traveling from another state.
Other states with a large increase in out-of-state people seeking abortions included Illinois, Kansas, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
Michael New, a senior associate scholar at the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, told CNA that he believes the Guttmacher analysis is intended “to downplay the impact of protective pro-life laws and make pro-life policies appear ineffective.”
“It is true that some women circumvent pro-life laws by obtaining abortions in states where the laws are more permissive,” New said. “However, it is also true that a substantial body of birth data from Texas and other states that have recently enacted protective pro-life laws shows that recently enacted pro-life laws have saved thousands of lives.”
A study last year by The Journal of the American Medical Association found that the state’s law that prohibits abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected led to nearly 9,800 more births over a nine-month period after it went into effect. Data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention earlier this year found that states with pro-life laws had slower declines in fertility rates than states that have permissive abortion laws.
“All of this is strong evidence that recently enforced pro-life laws have saved tens of thousands of lives,” New added.
Isaac Maddow-Zimet, a data scientist at the Guttmacher Institute and project lead for the Monthly Abortion Provision Study project, said in a statement that the “striking” findings from the new data are “how often people are traveling across multiple state lines to access abortion care.”
“Traveling for abortion care requires individuals to overcome huge financial and logistical barriers, and our findings show just how far people will travel to obtain the care they want and deserve,” Maddow-Zimet said. “Despite the amazing resiliency of abortion patients and providers, we can’t lose sight of the fact that this is neither normal nor acceptable: A person should not have to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to receive basic health care.”
Florida was another state to witness an increase in women traveling across state lines to obtain abortions. However, Guttmacher Vice President for Public Policy Kelly Baden noted in a statement that Florida’s law that outlaws abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected — which occurs at about six weeks of pregnancy — went into effect this May, which will mean Florida will no longer be a common destination for women traveling out of state to obtain abortions.
“We see that a state’s abortion policies affect thousands of people beyond that state’s borders,” Baden said.
The Guttmacher Institute’s data estimates nearly 1.04 million clinician-provided abortions took place in the United States in 2023 in states that do not prohibit most abortions.
Tessa Cox, a senior research associate, and Mia Steupert, a research associate, both at the Lozier Institute, told CNA in a joint statement that “a handful of pro-abortion states have driven up abortion rates by enacting increasingly extreme policies, including shipments of unregulated mail-order abortion drugs and abortionist shield laws.”
“There is a tendency to oversimplify abortion travel and conclude that the increase is solely attributable to Dobbs, but we know this is a complicated issue with many factors in play — just look at pro-abortion New York, where the largest group of out-of-state residents is women from New Jersey, accounting for nearly 3,000 abortions in 2023, according to Guttmacher,” they said.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Which is it, people or women?
Is abortion done to women or to their offspring?
Clarity, please.
We continue to generalize abortion. This article seems to advocate for life… ALL LIFE!
Excerpt: “Traveling for abortion care requires individuals to overcome huge financial and logistical barriers, and our findings show just how far people will travel to obtain the care they want and deserve,” Maddow-Zimet said.
Two recent serious Texas cases involve mothers whose lives were threatenned by their pregnancies. Kate Cox and Lauren Miller.
Lauren Miller recently testified before the Senate Judiciary committee to explain her medical dilemma forcing her to travel to Colorado.
Lauren was happily carrying twins. However, one twin was dying in early gestation. According to Texas doctors she needed the lifesaving procedure. Texas has one of the strictest abortion laws. The constitution does protect the mother in danger for her life. Enter Texas AG Ken Paxton who has his own legal issues. Apparently, he intervened in both cases even suing the OBGYN doctors. Lauren said, “My body is not my own, it is the states”! Lauren later gave birth to the healthy twin.
Mr. Morgan,
I just saw this in the news today about Mrs. Cox who had claimed her life was endangered by being pregnant. It was more about not wanting a disabled child & the child’s medical condition, not the mother’s. Sadly, if this new baby had the same diagnosis I guess it would suffer the same out of state death sentence as its late brother or sister.:
“Kate Cox, the woman whose medical condition prompted her to seek an exemption from Texas’ abortion ban last year, revealed on Thursday that she is pregnant.
In an interview on CNN’s “The Source with Kaitlin Collins,” Cox revealed she is expecting to have a boy.
“It’s our dream to expand our family,” Cox said. “So, I’m so grateful today to be here, to be pregnant, for us to get to expand our family.”
It really burns y’all up that non-Catholics exist and they can live however they want, doesn’t it?
Actually no, Mr. Kenneth. We’re burned up about the most vulnerable who are not allowed to live and have no voice.
No MrsCrackuser, I had it right. It has nothing to do with “the most vulnerable” or whatever nonsense it is your pretend to care about. It is clear that y’all are exceedingly bitter that you cannot control non-Catholics.
Why do you want to force your beliefs on people who don’t care? What’s wrong with you? You could just live your life and take care of your own family and leave everyone else alone. But that would require you having to be content with what you have and not acting like a bossy old bint towards other people who are of no relation or concern to you.
Mr. Whitmer, had you been around before the 1860’s you would probably have told the Abolitionists “Why do you want to force your beliefs on people who don’t care? What’s wrong with you? You could just live your life and take care of your own famiy and leave everyone else along. But that would require you having to be content with what you have and not acting like a bosssy old bint towrds other people who are of no relation or concern to you.”
Because the same arguments in favor of butchering babies because they are “not really persons” were used in favor of making slaves of millions of people who were “not really persons.” (And before you try the “3/5ths of a person” argument that the poorly educated use, that provision was put in solely to increase the representation in Congress of slave states, not to recognize the human dignity of the slaves).
Would you say the same thing about people who are fighting against the sex trafficking of children? Because, after all, the people doing the trafficking don’t care about the beliefs of those who are sickened and outraged by the abuse of the children.
Mr. Kenneth, human rights reforms are difficult to enact because you encounter so much cultural and generational resistance. It worked the same way enacting civil rights laws in previous generations.
Eventually people come around and acknowledge the innate value of all classes and sorts of human beings. We all share equally in Creation. I hope you can see that too one day. God bless.