Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

 by Wm. Robert Johnston
last updated 9 October 2008

Summary: This report reviews available statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the United States, including surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah). The official data imply that AGI claims regarding "hard case" abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons.

Contents:

Introduction: The reasons given for having abortions are relevant to the policy debate on the abortion issue. In many countries, abortions are permissible only for limited reasons.[1] In the United States, abortion on demand and for any reason is the existing state of law (with a few limitations in some states[2]). As debate continues regarding this practice, advocates of unrestrained abortion often cite the "hard cases"--cases of rape, incest, life or health of the mother or baby--in defending access to abortion. It is widely acknowledged that such cases are rare; however, available data suggest that some commonly cited figures are exaggerated.

Further, the prevailing preferences of the American electorate are often cited in regard to U.S. abortion legislation. Some will claim, for example, that most Americans support legal abortion. While majority vote is an unconstitutional means of limiting human rights (regardless of what position on abortion one thinks is the one consistent with human rights), the claim itself is a half-truth. Most Americans would oppose banning abortions for hard cases, but at the same time most Americans would support limits on elective abortions, e.g. abortions for convenience or for sex selection.

This article will review some available data that addresses the reasons cited for abortions in the United States.

AGI studies: The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) has published several studies examining reasons for abortions in the United States. Two studies surveyed women obtaining abortions; these were conducted in 1987 and 2004. A third survey conducted in 2000-2001 surveyed abortion seekers about contraceptive use; this study provided limited data on reasons for abortions. These studies are discussed in chronological order.

The 1987 AGI study (published in 1988)[3] surveyed 1,900 women who had abortions. The results of this survey are among the most commonly cited figures regarding reasons for abortions in the United States. The 1,773 women who responded gave an average of 3.7 reasons from the list, with the most important reasons cited by respondents tabulated below. It should be noted that only rounded percentages, not raw numbers, were provided; an AGI review article in 1998 [4] cited the 1988 study but gave slightly different figures, shown below in parenthesis (the parenthetical figure for rape and incest is a range of uncertainty derived from breakdowns in the 1988 report).

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY, 1987 [3, 4]

reason% of abortions
rape or incest1(0.4-1.3)
mother has health problems3(2.8)
possible fetal health problems3(3.3)
unready for responsibility21
is too immature or young to have child11(12.2)
woman's parents want her to have abortion<0.5
has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood12(14.1)
husband or partner wants her to have abortion1
has all the children she wanted or all children are grown8(7.9)
can't afford baby now21(21.3)
concerned about how having baby would change her life16
doesn't want others to know she had relations or is pregnant1
other3

Another AGI study[5], conducted in 2000-2001, examined contraceptive use but provides some information relating to reasons for abortion. Some data from this survey of 10,683 women obtaining abortions is given below:

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY, 2000-2001 [5]

reason or situationnumber% of abortions
not using contraception4,95746.40
forced to have relations~640.6
using contraception5,72653.60
contraceptive failed despite proper use~1,80816.9
total10,683100

In this survey, 0.6% reported being forced to have relations (although a figure as high as 0.8% is possible depending on data breakdown). It is also interesting to note that 17% of abortions were for pregnancies following "proper" use of contraception. This would tend to undermine the claims regarding the efficacy of contraception methods, something highly promoted by groups such as Planned Parenthood.

An AGI study published in 2005 [6] was modeled after the 1987 study, providing an update to that work. This survey was conducted from December 2003 to March 2004; of approximately 2,000 women obtaining abortions who were surveyed, 1,209 completed questionnaires. As with the 1987, only rounded percentages as opposed to raw numbers were reported. Again, respondents could give multiple reasons, and the median number of four reasons were given. The table below gives reported percentages for the most important reason and for all reasons cited.

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY, 2004 [6]

reason% of abortions,
most important reason		% of abortions,
all reasons
rape <0.5(1)
incest (<0.5)
mother has health problems 4(12)
possible fetal health problems 3(13)
unready 25(32)
is too immature or young to have child 7(22)
woman's parents want her to have abortion <0.5(6)
has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood 8(48)
husband or partner wants her to have abortion <0.5(14)
has all the children she wanted or all children are grown 19(38)
can't afford baby now 23(73)
--unmarried (42)
--student or planning to study (34)
--can't afford baby and child care (28)
--can't afford basic life needs (23)
--unemployed (22)
--can't leave job to care for baby (21)
--would have to find new place to live (19)
--not enough support from husband/partner (14)
--husband/partner unemployed (12)
--currently on welfare or public assistance (8)
concerned about how having baby would change her life (74)
--would interfere with education plans 4(38)
--would interfere with career plans (38)
--would interfere with care of children or dependents (32)
doesn't want others to know she had relations or is pregnant <0.5(25)
other 6

Recent AGI literature has given figures of abortions following rape or incest. For example, an April 2005 information sheet [7] states that about 13,000 women have abortions following rape or incest. This is 1.0% of AGI-estimated annual abortions in 2000-2002. This figure appears to be derived from the 1987 survey percentage (or from preliminary results of the 2004 survey).

Issues with rape-related statistics: The AGI-based figure of 1% of abortions for cases of rape or incest is widely cited. However, it is the product of a limited survey by an organization with a stated objective of advocating unlimited access to abortion services. It is thus desirable to seek an independent source of such figures, such as that provided by the state reported statistics reviewed below. Evaluating this claim involves issues of reliability of rape-related statistics.

If the AGI figure for 1987 is correct, it would imply that 15,600 abortions in 1987 were for such cases.[8] Since the FBI only reported 91,110 forcible rapes in the U.S. in that year[9], this would imply that one out of six rapes resulted in pregnancy. This is higher fraction than appears to be supported by medical research--although the degree to which rapes go unreported is an issue here.

According to the FBI, reported annual numbers of rapes rose from just over 90,000 in the late 1980s to a peak of 109,000 in 1992, then dropped to about 90,000 for the years 1999-2002. Some sources estimate much larger unreported numbers. Stewart and Trussell [10] cite 333,000 rapes and sexual assaults reported in 1998, and additionally cite a National Women's Study which claimed 683,000 rapes in 1992. The latter figure would mean 5.3 unreported rapes for every reported rape. The wide range in estimates of unreported rapes is evidence of the problem of quantifying these figures.

Another issue is the frequency of rape-related pregnancy. Some sources claim very low frequencies, citing medical studies, and concluding the total number of pregnancies resulting from rape each year is on the order of 200-500.[11] Others obtain somewhat higher frequencies. Holmes et al. [12] surveyed 4,008 women and found a rate of pregnancy following rape of 5%. Additionally, of 34 cases of pregnancy after rape, they found 17 (50%) had an abortion, 11 (32%) kept the baby, 2 (6%) gave the baby up for adoption, and 4 (12%) miscarried. This frequency of 5% is representative of cited values.

Taking currently reported rapes of 90,000 per year and assuming 5% result in pregnancy and 50% of these are aborted, this implies 4,500 pregancies per year following rape of which 2,250 are aborted. The most extreme claimed rates of underreporting are necessary to bring this in line with AGI's claim of 13,000 rape-related abortions per year. Even higher levels of rape-related pregnancies have been claimed: Stewart and Trussell [10] cite the previously mentioned National Women's Study claiming 32,000 per year in 1992, and this figure is repeated by Holmes et al. [12] and by an AGI article in 2002 [13]. Stewart and Trussell extrapolate this to 25,000 per year in 1998 merely by considering lower crime rates. These higher rates are required to support the AGI claim of 1% of abortions for rape. Alternately, if only 50% of rapes are unreported then (using Holmes et al. data) a percentage of only 0.35% of abortions for rape is implied.

Such statistical approaches are very uncertain. The reasons for abortion are of course self-reported by the abortion seeker and thus not verifiable. It could be hypothesized that for various reasons women seeking abortions might falsely give rape as a reason, or alternately conceal rape as a reason. Apart from the issue of the rate of underreporting, certainly it is the case that many rapes go unreported. Thus, rape-related abortion data interpretation is hampered by the particularly traumatic circumstances of such cases. Nonetheless, it will be seen below that the larger sampling in states that report figures for rape-related abortions give consistent results, supporting the reasoning for lower figures than the AGI figures.

Abortions for sex selection: While not a major issue in the United States, abortions for the purpose of selecting the sex of the child are quite common in Asia, where they are generally used to abort female fetuses. Several Asian countries, including the People's Republic of China, India, and South Korea, are beginning to show significant demographic impacts resulting from such practices. India and the PRC have both been compelled to legislate against sex-selection abortions despite their otherwise broad support of abortion practice.[14]

Regarding the United States, in 1998 JAMA published a study[15] reporting a 0.2% decrease in the ratio of male to female live births from 1970 to 1990. The authors of the 1998 study discuss a variety of health factors that could influence this ratio. Data from the CDC in 2002[16] suggested that the decrease in the male/female birth ratio was 0.3% from 1970 to 2000. In 2005 the CDC completed a more detailed analysis[17] of trends in the U.S. male/female birth ratio. The authors identified several up or down trends in the ratio between 1940 and 2002, including a 0.6% decline in the male/female birth ratio from 1970 to 2002. They analyzed possible factors (age of mother, birth order, ethnicity) and noted additional parental/environmental characteristics that naturally influence the birth ratio. They did note that family preference can affect the birth ratio (although they did not explicitly point out that this is via such means as sex selection abortions) and that this does affect it in some countries, but do not report any indication that it is a factor in the United States. The historical variation in U.S. male/female birth ratio is within the range observed in connection to biological influences (e.g. parental/environmental).

Nonetheless, of reported trends in male/female birth ratio by ethnic group, the 2005 CDC study finds the greatest increase from 1970 to 2002 among children of Chinese and Japanese ethnicity: a trend of an increase of 0.022 for Chinese and 0.013 Japanese children, respectively. The result is that births of Chinese ethnicity have the highest average male/female ratio in 1998-2002, 1.076 versus the national average of 1.048.[17]

The overall change in the male/female birth ratio from 1970 to 2002 represents about 13,000 fewer annual male births by 2002, which would correspond to about 1% of abortions.[18] Still, this is too small a change in sex ratio to be distinguished among other potential causes for the population at large. Some observers suggest that this is an issue in some ethnic groups[14]. Were the change in birth ratio among Asian Americans to be attributed to abortions, it would represent on the order of 1,000-2,000 abortions per year, or about 0.1% of abortions. This may be considered an upper limit.

State statistics: In the United States, limited official statistics are available. Abortion reporting varies significantly from state to state. Seven states report data on the reasons given for obtaining abortions (with varying definitions and levels of detail). These figures are self-reported by women obtaining abortions, as in the case of the AGI studies discussed above. However, they are independent data and involve a larger sample. Below are results for these states--Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah:

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: ARIZONA [19]

reason19851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998
medical 16 7 11 11 7 10 3 6 11 9 17 10 6 12
elective15,27414,30015,22814,06811,07813,07513,50412,70911,73911,89110,58810,76811,01214,144
unknown 314 148 376 271 490 805 375 178 102 360 1,133 90 3 450
total 15,60414,45515,61514,35011,57513,89013,88212,89311,85212,26011,73810,86811,02114,606

reason19992000200120022003200420052006total
1985-2006		% of abortions% of abortions,
known reasons
medical 19 15 10 21 43 207 78 8 537 0.20 0.21
elective10,3909,6148,210 9,910 9,60210,770 9,98710,436258,297 96.79 99.79
unknown 247 2 6 466 449 1,324 381 62 8,032 3.01 N/A
total 10,6569,6318,22610,39710,09412,30110,44610,506266,866100.00100.00

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: FLORIDA [20]

reason199819992000200120022003200420052006total
1998-2006		% of abortions% of abortions,
known reason
physical condition 401 346 453 350 439 514 460 514 649 4,126 0.52 0.52
mental condition 159 150 143 109 72 80 19 54 144 930 0.12 0.12
abnormal fetus 470 474 430 454 482 457 501 606 676 4,550 0.57 0.57
personal choice 80,88982,58987,19984,34386,44588,40990,31590,86693,541784,596 98.29 98.30
other 416 412 330 314 521 535 411 473 574 3,986 0.50 0.50
unknown 0 0 8 19 5 0 4 0 2 38 0.00 N/A
total 82,33583,97188,56385,58987,96489,99591,71092,51395,586798,226100.00100.00

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: LOUISIANA [21]

reason1996199719981999200020012002total
1996-2002		% of abortions% of abortions,
known reason
rape or incest 4 4 3 1 1 1 0 14 0.02 0.49
physical health 8 17 19 16 14 8 3 85 0.11 2.98
mental health 392 415 164 77 140 52 37 1,277 1.60 44.84
risk of fetal deformity 9 21 7 9 13 10 7 76 0.10 2.67
other 114 421 250 258 192 143 18 1,396 1.75 49.02
unknown 11,35710,86110,90811,64711,02410,71810,38676,901 96.43 N/A
total 11,88411,73911,35112,00811,38410,93210,45179,749100.00100.00

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: MINNESOTA [22]

reason*Oct-Dec1998199920002001200220032004200520062007total
Oct1998-Dec2007		% of abortions% of abortions,
known reason
rape 30 113 124 98 81 75 69 71 90 91 842 0.64 0.92
incest 2 3 6 7 14 9 6 6 12 7 72 0.06 0.08
emotional health 270 653 793 859 844 1,001 1,019 1,206 699 828 8,172 6.26 8.89
physical health 149 510 584 636 622 844 778 808 588 651 6,170 4.73 6.71
pregnancy will impair major bodily function 22 49 44 34 30 27 31 20 30 21 308 0.24 0.34
fetal anomalies 86 177 210 158 113 147 133 129 162 155 1,470 1.13 1.60
economic reasons 734 1,601 2,379 2,512 2,546 2,499 2,647 4,091 5,020 5,148 29,177 22.34 31.74
does not want children now 1,215 4,449 5,618 6,482 6,080 5,655 5,576 8,281 9,59810,190 63,144 48.36 68.69
other elective* 779 2,854 3,315 3,227 2,239 2,479 2,510 3,536 3,145 3,334 27,418 21.00 29.83
--single parent   749 788 724 359 802 752 793 791 1,024 6,782 5.19 7.38
--to pursue educational goals   551 754 872 419 500 270 838 616 886 5,706 4.37 6.21
--already have enough children   362 406 369 368 351 230 434 485 341 3,346 2.56 3.64
--relationship issues   307 490 498 356 335 182 417 318 364 3,267 2.50 3.55
--other   885 1,604 1,294 1,009 1,109 1,242 1,558 1,413 1,519 11,633 8.91 12.66
unknown 1,371 6,674 4,767 4,618 5,054 5,460 5,443 2,310 1,681 1,280 38,658 29.60 N/A
total 3,50814,34214,47714,83314,18614,17413,79113,36214,06513,843130,581100.00100.00
Note: The Minnesota questionnaire allows respondents to indicate more than one reason. The category identified as "other elective" includes other reasons (some listed) from which respondents may select more than one.

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: NEBRASKA [23]

reason*20002001200220032004200520062007total
2000-2007		% of abortions
rape 35 18 11 10 18 10 6 5 113 0.40
incest 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0.01
maternal life endangered 2 6 1 6 8 3 1 2 29 0.10
maternal physical health 33 48 45 160 85 67 45 2 485 1.73
mental health 654 691 667 733 316 14 1 1 3,077 10.95
fetal anomaly 16 25 17 35 11 8 25 24 161 0.57
socio-economic 2,8782,5502,5673,0963,2402,8532,8542,44722,485 80.05
contraceptive failure 664 750 687 7661,047 734 619 623 5,890 20.97
no contraception used 808 850 7661,185 850 831 8521,113 7,255 25.83
unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
total 4,1783,9823,7753,9903,5843,1732,9272,48128,090100.00
Note: The Nebraska questionnaire allows respondents to indicate multiple reasons, so numbers add to more than total abortions.

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: SOUTH DAKOTA [24]

reason*19992000200120022003200420052006total
1999-2006		% of abortions% of abortions,
known reason
rape or incest 12 16 14 20 21 23 9 3 118 1.81 1.85
substantial/irreversible bodily impairment 7 9 19 16 16 29 22 11 129 1.98 2.03
emotional health 28 51 84 94104119 58 16 554 8.49 8.70
fetal abnormality*      6 16 14 16 52 1.63 1.66
can't afford child 176 233 353 3843663972051602,274 34.85 35.71
doesn't want child 459 503 547 5365255766406334,419 67.72 69.39
other 110 139 144 103124127103 48 898 13.76 14.10
unknown 15 41 34 27 33 5 2 0 157 2.41 N/A
total 740 878 895 8268198148057486,525100.00100.00
Note: The South Dakota questionnaire allows respondents to indicate multiple reasons, so numbers add to more than total abortions. Number of abortions for reason of fetal abnormality is not reported, but number of abortions where a fetal abnormality was reported present (regardless of the reason for the abortion) is provided.

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: UTAH [25]

reason19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006total
1996-2006		% of abortions% of abortions,
known reason
rape 38 39 28 40 44 30 11 3 4 2 1 240 0.66 0.66
incest 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0.02 0.02
maternal life endangered 19 10 5 6 8 6 11 10 12 22 18 127 0.35 0.35
fetal malformation 21 17 5 8 7 20 8 8 11 13 32 150 0.41 0.42
HIV positive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0.01 0.01
therapeutic 3,1543,0543,1843,0923,2063,2893,2513,3043,3273,2203,20735,288 97.42 97.67
elective 3 2 0 0 4 25 13 4 17 19 181 268 0.74 0.74
other 39 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 49 0.14 0.14
unknown 17 13 13 11 10 2 6 8 8 1 1 90 0.25 N/A
total 3,2933,1403,2373,1603,2793,3723,3003,3383,3793,2793,44436,221100.00100.00

Together, the available statistics from these seven states represent 1,346,258 abortions from 1985 to 2007. The definitions and reporting of reasons vary from state to state. It should be noted that these states are not necessarily representative of the nation as a whole; some implications of this are analyzed below.

Adjusted figures: Use of these figures to estimate nationwide percentages is affected by differences from state to state. As an example, consider the figures for abortions in cases of rape. The occurrence of rape varies from state to state and also has declined nationwide by 14% since the 1987 AGI study [9]. Further, the fraction of pregnancies that end in abortion varies considerably from state to state, with these figures dominated by abortions for personal choice and not particularly linked to hard cases. The following table illustrates the adjustments implied by making a few assumptions. (In this table and those that follow, figures for rapes, pregnancies, etc., for recent years are extrapolated if not yet available.)

ADJUSTED FIGURES FOR ABORTIONS IN THE CASE OF RAPE

regionyear(s)abortions where rape is citedforcible rapes during sample period [9]abortions in cases of rape as a percentage of reported rapesimplied U.S. number of abortions in cases of rape in 2005% of 2005 abortions [26]
%number
Louisiana 1996-20020.49 14 11,098 0.13 1200.01
Minnesota 1998-20070.64 842 19,660 4.28 4,0200.33
Nebraska 2000-20070.40 113 4,100 2.76 2,5900.21
South Dakota 1999-20061.81 118 2,741 4.30 4,0400.33
Utah 1996-20060.66 240 9,844 2.44 2,2900.19
USA (AGI survey) 1987 1 91,11017.1116,1001.33
USA (AGI survey) 2000-20010.6 180,677 8.69 8,1600.68
USA (AGI survey) 2004 0.5
1		 72,2408.95
17.90		8,410
16,800		0.70
1.39

The data for the five states listed give results significantly below figures based on AGI studies. The correlation between the numbers of abortions reported in cases of rape and respective state rates of forcible rape tend to support the credibility of these figures. If the various assumptions used here are valid, they would imply only about 0.3% of abortions nationwide are in cases of rape.

Similarly, if it is assumed that abortions in cases where there are maternal or fetal health problems are a consistent fraction of pregnancies, the implied nationwide percentages in such cases would be as given below. Note that "total known pregnancies" for states includes only pregnancies ending in live births or reported abortions; this excludes miscarriages, stillbirths, and additional abortions represented in AGI estimates; U.S. figures for abortions and pregnancies use AGI abortion figures.

ADJUSTED FIGURES FOR ABORTIONS IN THE CASE OF MATERNAL HEALTH PROBLEMS

regionyear(s)abortions where mother's health is citedtotal known pregancies [27]cited abortions as a percentage of known pregnanciesimplied U.S. number of abortions in such cases in 2005% of 2005 abortions [26]
%number
Arizona 1985-20060.20 5371,949,5620.028 1,4700.12
Florida 1998-20060.524,1262,699,7870.153 8,1700.68
Louisiana 1996-20020.11 85 543,1240.016 8400.07
Minnesota 1998-20064.976,478 687,3520.94250,3704.18
Nebraska 2000-20061.83 514 205,5850.25013,3601.11
South Dakota 1999-20061.98 129 94,3190.137 7,3100.61
Utah 1996-20060.35 127 562,7120.023 1,2100.10
USA (AGI survey) 1987 3 0.86746,3003.84
USA (AGI survey) 2004 4 0.97352,0004.31

ADJUSTED FIGURES FOR ABORTIONS IN THE CASE OF FETAL HEALTH PROBLEMS

regionyear(s)% of abortions where fetal health is citedtotal known pregancies [27]cited abortions as a percentage of known pregnanciesimplied U.S. number of abortions in such cases in 2005% of 2005 abortions [26]
%number
Florida 1998-20060.574,5502,699,7870.169 9,0100.75
Louisiana 1996-20020.10 76 543,1240.014 7500.06
Minnesota 1998-20061.131,470 687,3520.21411,4300.95
Nebraska 2000-20060.57 161 205,5850.078 4,1900.35
South Dakota* 2003-20061.63 52 48,9300.106 5,6800.47
Utah 1996-20060.41 152 562,7120.027 1,4400.12
USA (AGI survey) 1987 3 0.86746,3003.84
USA (AGI survey) 2004 3 0.73039,0003.23

In the case of South Dakota, data by reason for abortion is not available; figures are for abortions where fetal abnormalities were reported, regardless of the indicated reason for the abortion.

Data on federally-funded abortions: Federal medicare funds may currently be used to pay for abortions in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life. Some state-level data on these abortions emerged in 2008 in an inquiry from Congress to the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding a significant increase in such payments in one state. [28] Specifically, claims from Illinois for abortions in cases of rape increased by a factor of 18 from FY 2005 to FY 2007. Data are shown below:

FEDERALLY-FUNDED ABORTIONS IN THE CASE OF RAPE [28]

stateFY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
Alabama000
Alaska000
Arizona001
Delaware000
Georgia010
Idaho000
Iowa010
Illinois2084363
Kentucky000
Maine000
Michigan000
Minnesota783
New Hampshire000
North Carolina400
North Dakota000
Ohio210
South Carolina011
South Dakota000
Texas000
Virginia000
Wyoming000
(unknown)1300
TOTAL4696368

FEDERALLY-FUNDED ABORTIONS IN THE CASE OF INCEST [28]

stateFY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
Alabama000
Alaska000
Arizona001
Delaware000
Georgia000
Idaho000
Iowa000
Illinois005
Kentucky000
Maine000
Michigan000
Minnesota353
New Hampshire000
North Carolina000
North Dakota000
Ohio000
South Carolina000
South Dakota000
Texas000
Virginia000
Wyoming000
TOTAL359

FEDERALLY-FUNDED ABORTIONS IN THE CASE OF RISK TO MOTHER'S LIFE [28]

stateFY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
Alabama6210
Alaska010
Arizona001
Delaware026
Georgia161
Idaho500
Iowa130
Illinois5513
Kentucky100
Maine1811
Michigan003
Minnesota102
New Hampshire111
North Carolina734
North Dakota100
Ohio141810
South Carolina17116
South Dakota100
Texas1744
Virginia20319
Wyoming200
TOTAL1019581

In the next table, the figures for abortions in the case of rape in Illinois are adjusted in the same manner as previously applied to state statistics, using AGI estimated annual abortions of about 50,000. Assuming that all abortions in cases of rape in Illinois were payed by federal Medicare, the FY 2007 figures are compatible with rates of rape-related abortions claimed by AGI, but they are 2-3 times higher than rates supported by analysis of data from other states. More importantly, the dramatic increase from FY 2005 to FY 2007 casts doubt on the reliability of the Illinois figures.

ILLINOIS CLAIMED FIGURES FOR ABORTIONS IN THE CASE OF RAPE

regionyear(s)abortions where rape is citedforcible rapes during sample period [9]abortions in cases of rape as a percentage of reported rapesimplied U.S. number of abortions in cases of rape in 2005% of 2005 abortions [26]
%number
Illinois FY 2005 0.04 20 4,280 0.47 4400.04
Illinois FY 2006 0.17 84 4,130 2.03 1,9100.16
Illinois FY 2007 0.73 363 4,100 8.86 8,3200.69

"Partial-birth abortions" and other late-term abortions: Because of the particularly controversial nature of late-term and "partial-birth abortions" (PBAs), some statistics regarding these abortions has emerged. Partial-birth abortion roughly corresponding to what the medical community describes as intact dilation and extraction. Available data indicates that PBAs are mostly performed for reasons other that for the life or physical health of the mother, reasons including either fetal defects (minor or major) or purely elective reasons.

Kansas requires physicians to report reasons for performing PBAs. Of the 240 PBAs reported in Kansas in 1998 and 1999, there were none where the mother's life was at risk; in every case the attending physician certified "that continuing the pregnancy will constitute a substantial and irreversible impairment of the patient's mental function" and that there was not a substantial physical risk to the mother from the pregnancy.[29] No PBAs have been reported since 1999 in Kansas, but other abortions performed at 22 weeks gestation or later must similarly be reported. For these as well, few if any are cited as involving risk to the mother's life; typically, risk to the mother of "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" is cited.[29]

Physicians who perform large numbers of PBAs have stated that many are performed for elective reasons. In an interview with American Medical News, M. Haskell stated that about 80% of the PBAs he performed were purely elective, with the remainder performed for genetic reasons.[30] In testimony to Congress, J. McMahon reported that for about 2,000-2,100 PBAs he had performed, 1,183 (56%) were for fetal "flaws" or "indicators", 175 (9%) were for maternal "indicators", and the remainder (about 700, or 35%) were elective.[31] McMahon further indicated that elective abortions comprised 20% of those he performed after 21 weeks gestation, and none of those he performed after 26 weeks.[32]

McMahon's 1995 testimony to the House Judiciary Committee gave more detailed statistics, which have been analyzed by physicians P. Smith and K. Dowling. Among maternal indicators, the single most frequent was maternal depression (39, or 1.9% of total), with 28 attributed to maternal health conditions "consistent with the birth of a normal child (e.g. sickle cell trait, prolapsed uterus, small pelvis)" (1.3% of total) and the remainder (5% of total) for other maternal factors ranging from maternal health risk to "spousal drug exposure" and "substance abuse". Those performed for fetal indicators included some for lesser conditions such as 9 (0.4% of total) for cleft lip-palate, 24 (1.1% of total) for cystic hydroma, and other for conditions either surgically correctable or involving lesser degrees of neurologic/mental impairment.[32, 33]

Estimates of the annual numbers of PBAs in the United States range from 2,200 to 5,000, with documented annual numbers between 1996 and 2005 ranging from 76 to 1,642.[34]

Summary and conclusions: Based on these figures, the following estimated percentages are suggested (along with ranges of values from the above studies and analyses):

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES

rape0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest0.03 % (0.01-0.1 %)
physical life of mother0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of motherdepends on definition
"personal choice"
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
--economic
--to avoid adjusting life
--mother single or in poor relationship
--enough children already
--sex selection 		98% (78-99 %)
--(32 %)
--30% (21-36 %)
--(16 %)
--(12-13 %)
--(4-8 %)
--(<0.1 %)

Quantifying cases involving the "mental health" of the mother is difficult due to the highly subjective use of this term (as demonstrated by the wide range in percentage of abortions reported for this reason). It is likely that the number of cases involving clinical mental illness falls towards the low end of the range given above.

These official state statistics suggest that the commonly cited AGI figures for the "hard cases" are high, perhaps by a factor of three. In any case, however, there appears to be consensus that the hard cases--rape, incest, life/health of mother or baby--are a very small fraction of cases. They are arguably a poor premise for formulating general public policy regarding abortion. At the other extreme, AGI's surveys of 1987 and 2004 (as well as the detailed statistics from Minnesota) suggest that a significant fraction of abortions are obtained by mothers who have the means to care for a child but do not want their lives inconvenienced. This is an example of the consequences of the current extreme policy in the United States regarding abortion.

Sources:

  1. United Nations Population Division, Abortion Policies: A Global Review, 2002, United Nations (New York, NY), on line at United Nations [http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abt/fabt.htm].
  2. Alan Guttmacher Institute, "State Policies in Brief," 2008, Alan Guttmacher Institute, on line [http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/index.html].
  3. Torres, Aida, and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest, "Why Do Women Have Abortions?", July/Aug. 1988, Family Planning Perspectives (20:4:169-176).
  4. Bankole, Akinrinola, Sushella Singh, and Taylor Hass, "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries," Aug. 1998, International Family Planning Perspectives (24:3:117-127,152), on line [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html].
  5. Jones, Rachel K., Jacqueline E. Darroch, and Stanley K. Henshaw, "Contraceptive Use Among Women Having Abortions in 2000-2001," Nov./Dec. 2002, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (34:6), on line at AGI [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html].
  6. Finer, Lawrence B., Lori F. Frohwirth, Lindsay A. Dauphinee, Susheela Singh, and Ann M. Moore, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives," Sept. 2005, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3):110-118, on line at AGI [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf].
  7. AGI, "Induced Abortion in the United States," April 2005, AGI, on line [http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.pdf].
  8. Based on 1,559,100 abortions in 1987, from Henshaw, Stanley K., "Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States, 1995-1996," Nov./Dec. 1998, Family Planning Perspectives (30:6), on line at AGI [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3026398.html].
  9. Federal Bureau of Investigation (Uniform Crime Reports), "Crime Statistics," 2001-2005, Federal Bureau of Investigation, on line [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm].
  10. Stewart, Felicia H., and James Trussell, "Prevention of pregnancy resulting from rape: A neglected preventive health measure," Nov. 2000, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19(4):228-229.
  11. Willke, J. C., and Willke, "Why Can't We Love Them Both?", on line [http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/]; Hilger, Thomas W., cited in "Abortion: What About Rape & Incest?" at Lutherans for Life, on line [http://www.lutheransforlife.org/abortion/rape_or_incest.htm].
  12. Holmes, M. M., H. S. Resnick, D. G. Kilpatrick, and C. L. Best, "Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women," Aug. 1996, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 175(2):320-324.
  13. Boonstra, Heather, "Emergency Contraception: Steps Being Taken to Improve Access," Dec. 2002, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 5(5):10-13, on line at AGI [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/5/gr050510.pdf].
  14. Chamie, Joseph, 29 May 2008, "The Global Abortion Bind," YaleGlobal, on line [http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10886].
  15. Davis, Devra Lee, Michelle B. Gottlieb, and Julie R. Stampnitzky, "Reduced Ratio of Male to Female Births in Several Industrial Countries: A Sentinel Health Indicator?", 1 April 1998, Journal of the American Medical Association (279:13:1018-1023) [abstract on line at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/13/1018].
  16. Centers for Disease Control, "Births: Final Data for 2000," 12 Feb. 2002, National Vital Statistics Reports (50:5), on line at CDC [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_05.pdf].
  17. Mathews, T. J., and Brady E. Hamilton, "Trend Analysis of the Sex Ratio at Birth in the United States," 14 Jun. 2005, National Vital Statistics Reports (53:20), on line at CDC [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_20.pdf].
  18. Based on 1,269,000 abortions in 2002, from Henshaw, Stanley K., and Kathryn Kost, Aug. 2008, "Trends in the characteristics of women obtaining abortions, 1974 to 2004," Alan Guttmacher Institute, on line [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/09/18/Report_Trends_Women_Obtaining_Abortions.pdf].
  19. Mrela, Christopher K., "Abortion Surveillance Report, Arizona, 1985-1995," 2001, Arizona Dept. of Health Services, on line [http://www.hs.state.az.us/plan/abortion/abortion.htm]; Batsche, Kurt, "Abortions by Reason for Termination and Year, Arizona, 1985-1995," Arizona Dept. of Health Services, on line [http://www.hs.state.az.us/plan/abortion/tables/abt9.htm]; "Abortions by Reason for Termination and Year, Arizona, 1993-2003," Arizona Dept. of Health Services, on line [http://www.hs.state.az.us/plan/abortion/]; "Characteristics of women receiving abortions, Arizona, 1994-2004", Arizona Dept. of Health Services, on line [http://azdhs.gov/plan/report/ahs/ahs2004/pdf/1d1.pdf]; "Characteristics of women receiving abortions, Arizona, 1996-2006", Arizona Dept. of Health Services, on line [http://azdhs.gov/plan/report/ahs/ahs2006/pdf/1d1.pdf].
  20. Florida Department of Health, Florida Department of Health, on line: 1999, "Induced Terminations of Pregnancy," [http://www.flpublichealth.com/VSBOOK/pdf/1998/termination.pdf]; 2000, "Induced Terminations of Pregnancy," [http://www.flpublichealth.com/VSBOOK/pdf/1999/termination.pdf]; 2001, "Induced Terminations of Pregnancy," [http://www.flpublichealth.com/VSBOOK/pdf/2000/termination.pdf]; 2002, "Induced Terminations of Pregnancy," [http://www.flpublichealth.com/VSBOOK/pdf/2001/termination.pdf]; 2003, "Induced Terminations of Pregnancy," [http://www.flpublichealth.com/VSBOOK/pdf/2002/termination.pdf]; 2004, "Induced Terminations of Pregnancy," [http://www.flpublichealth.com/VSBOOK/pdf/2003/termination.pdf]; 2005, "Induced Terminations of Pregnancy," [http://www.flpublichealth.com/VSBOOK/pdf/2004/termination.pdf]; 2006, "Induced Terminations of Pregnancy," [http://www.flpublichealth.com/VSBOOK/pdf/2005/termination.pdf]; 2007, "Induced Terminations of Pregnancy," [http://www.flpublichealth.com/VSBOOK/pdf/2006/termination.pdf].
  21. Louisiana State Center for Health Statistics, Louisiana Vital Statistics Report annual reports, 1996-2002, 1997-2003, on line [http://oph.dhh.state.la.us/recordsstatistics/statistics/page0cda.html].
  22. Center for Health Statistics, Minnesota Dept. of Health, Report to the Legislature: Induced Abortions in Minnesota--, on line at MDH: Oct. 2000, October 1998-December 1999, [http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt99.pdf]; July 2001, January-December 2000, [http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt00.pdf]; July 2002, January-December 2001, [http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt01.pdf]; July 2003, January-December 2002, [http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/abrpt02.pdf]; July 2004, January-December 2003, [http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2003abrpt.pdf]; July 2005, January-December 2004, [http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2004abrpt.pdf]; July 2006, January-December 2005, MDH, on line [http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2005abrpt.pdf]; July 2007, January-December 2006, [http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf]; July 2008, January-December 2007, [http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2007abrpt.pdf].
  23. Nebraska Health and Human Services System, Nebraska Health and Human Services System, on line: March 2001, "Nebraska 2000 Statistical Report of Abortions," [http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/ced/]; March 2002, "Nebraska 2001 Statistical Report of Abortions," [http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/ced/ABORTION2001RPT.pdf]; March 2003, "Nebraska 2002 Statistical Report of Abortion," [http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/srd/2002Abortion.pdf]; 22 March 2004, "Nebraska 2003 Statistical Report of Abortion," [http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/srd/2003Abortion.pdf]; 6 April 2005, "Nebraska 2004 Statistical Report of Abortion," [http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/srd/abortion-report2004.pdf]; April 2006, "Nebraska 2005 Statistical Report of Abortions," [http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/srd/ABORTION2005RPT.PDF]; 18 Jan. 2008, "Nebraska 2006 Statistical Report of Abortions," [http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/srd/ABORTION2006RPT.PDF]; Oct. 2008, "Nebraska 2007 Statistical Report of Abortions," 2008, Nebraska Health and Human Services System, on line [http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/srd/ABORTION2007RPT.PDF].
  24. South Dakota Department of Health, South Dakota Department of Health, on line: 2004, "Induced Abortion," [http://www.state.sd.us/doh/Stats/10-InducedAbortion.pdf]; 2005, "Induced Abortion," [http://www.state.sd.us/doh/Stats/2004VitalStats/Abortion.pdf]; 2006, "Induced Abortion," [http://www.state.sd.us/doh/Stats/2005VitalStats/Abortion.pdf]; 2007, "Induced Abortion," [http://doh.sd.gov/Statistics/2006Vital/Abortion.pdf].
  25. Utah Department of Health, Utah Department of Health, on line: 1997, "Utah's Vital Statistics, Abortions, 1996," [http://health.utah.gov/vitalrecords/pub_vs/96abrpub.pdf]; 1998, "Utah's Vital Statistics, Abortions, 1997," [http://health.utah.gov/vitalrecords/pub_vs/]; 1999, "Utah's Vital Statistics, Abortions, 1998," [http://health.utah.gov/vitalrecords/pub_vs/]; 2000, "Utah's Vital Statistics, Abortions, 1999," [http://health.utah.gov/vitalrecords/pub_vs/]; 30 Jan. 2002, "Utah's Vital Statistics, Abortions, 2000," [http://health.utah.gov/vitalrecords/pub_vs/ia00/00abor.pdf]; 2003, "Utah's Vital Statistics, Abortions, 2001," [http://health.utah.gov/vitalrecords/pub_vs/]; 20 Dec. 2004, "Utah's Vital Statistics, Abortions, 2002 and 2003," [http://health.utah.gov/vitalrecords/pub_vs/ia03/03a.pdf]; 2006, "Utah's Vital Statistics, Abortions, 2004," [http://health.utah.gov/vitalrecords/pub_vs/]; 16 Feb. 2007, "Utah's Vital Statistics, Abortions, 2005," [http://health.utah.gov/vitalrecords/pub_vs/ia05/05a.pdf]; Jan. 2008, "Utah's Vital Statistics, Abortions, 2006," [http://health.utah.gov/vitalrecords/pub_vs/ia06/06a.pdf].
  26. Henshaw, Stanley K., and Kathryn Kost, Aug. 2008, "Trends in the characteristics of women obtaining abortions, 1974 to 2004," Alan Guttmacher Institute, on line [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/09/18/Report_Trends_Women_Obtaining_Abortions.pdf].
  27. Based on compiled figures by Johnston, W. R., "Abortion Statistics," 2008, Johnston's Archive, on line [http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/]; figures are compiled from CDC's MMWR and NVSR and respective state health departments.
  28. Smith, Chris, and Bart Stupak, 26 Sept. 2008, letter to Michael Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services, on line [].
  29. Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, on line: 29 March 1999, "Abortions in Kansas 1998, Preliminary Report," [http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/98itop1.pdf]; 24 March 2000, "Abortions in Kansas 1999, Preliminary Report," [http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/99itop1.pdf]; March 2006, "Abortions in Kansas 2005, Preliminary Report," [http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/05itop1.pdf]; March 2008, "Abortions in Kansas 2007, Preliminary Report," [http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/07itop1.pdf].
  30. Gianelli, D. M., 3 March 1997, "Abortion rights leader urges end to 'half truths'," American Medical News, pp. 3-4, 55-56; Statement of representative Charles T. Canady (R-Fla), 27 March 1996, Congressional Record; Sprang, M. LeRoy, and Mark G. Neerhof, 1998, "Rationale for banning abortions late in pregnancy," Journal of the American Medical Association, 280:744-747.
  31. National Right to Life, 1996, "For what reasons are partial-birth abortions usually performed?," NRLC, on line [http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html]; Statement of representative Charles T. Canady (R-Fla), 27 March 1996, Congressional Record; Sprang, M. LeRoy, and Mark G. Neerhof, 1998, "Rationale for banning abortions late in pregnancy," Journal of the American Medical Association, 280:744-747.
  32. Statement of representative Charles T. Canady (R-Fla), 27 March 1996, Congressional Record.
  33. National Right to Life, 1996, "For what reasons are partial-birth abortions usually performed?," NRLC, on line [http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html].
  34. Johnston, W. R., 19 April 2007, "Data on 'partial-birth' abortion in the United States," Johnston's Archive, on line [http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/pba.html].

© 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008 by Wm. Robert Johnston.
Last modified 9 October 2008.
Return to Home. Return to Other Policy Issues. Return to Abortion Statistics.