Skip to main content
Guttmacher Institute

Search

  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
Guttmacher Institute
Donate

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact
News Release
January 16, 2018

Abortion Policy Landscape Shapes the Type of Care Available in U.S. States

Women Living in States That Are Supportive of Abortion Rights Can Access Expanded Services, While Those in Hostile States Face Limitations

State policies shape the landscape for abortion service provision and access, according to a new analysis by Guttmacher researchers Rachel Jones, Meghan Ingerick and Jenna Jerman. Supportive states increase access to abortion care by expanding the options available to clinics and patients alike, while hostile states decrease access to care by limiting these options. In 2014, 57% of U.S. women of reproductive age lived in states that were hostile toward abortion rights. These states accounted for the same share of abortions nationwide as supportive states—44% in each group—but were home to only 25% of abortion-providing facilities.

The authors analyzed data from the Guttmacher Institute’s 2014 Abortion Provider Census to examine differences between hostile, middle-ground and supportive states in key measures of service delivery, including type of clinic and type of abortion procedures offered, provision of abortion by advanced practice clinicians and how much patients paid for abortions. They found that abortion service delivery is more limited and isolated from the provision of other reproductive health care in hostile states than in supportive states.

"We know that state restrictions are designed to make it harder for individuals to access abortion services," says Rachel Jones, lead author of the analysis. "Our new findings demonstrate that state policies also shape the type of abortion services that can be provided, whether they take the form of supportive policies that allow providers to expand their services or restrictions that limit provision of care."

In 2014, 37% of clinics in supportive states provided only medication abortion, compared with 8% of clinics in hostile states. Medication abortion requires less equipment and provider specialization, so clinics providing only early medication abortion have fewer overhead costs. However, 35 states have passed restrictions that make it more challenging for clinics to offer medication abortion, in turn making it more costly and difficult for patients to access this abortion method.

Nationwide, 40% of clinics reported that advanced practice clinicians provided abortions at their facility in 2014. This included 65% of clinics in supportive states, but only 3% of clinics in hostile states. Many hostile states allow only licensed physicians to perform abortions; however, other qualified medical providers known as advanced practice clinicians—including nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives and physician assistants—have become increasingly integrated into the U.S. health care system, and several supportive states explicitly authorize these types of providers to perform abortions. Expanding abortion provision to advanced practice clinicians may increase access to care, and particularly to medication abortion.

"State policies are key to ensuring that individuals seeking abortion can obtain the care they need," says Elizabeth Nash, Guttmacher state policy expert. "States that implement abortion restrictions have fewer abortion-providing facilities and offer fewer options to patients compared with states that are supportive of abortion rights."

"Differences in Abortion Service Delivery in Hostile, Middle-ground and Supportive States in 2014," by Rachel Jones, Meghan Ingerick and Jenna Jerman, is currently available online and will appear in a forthcoming issue of Women’s Health Issues.

Printer-friendly version

Share

Read More

Research Article

Differences in Abortion Service Delivery in Hostile, Middle-ground and Supportive States in 2014

Women's Health Issues
Research Article

Abortion Incidence and Service Availability In the United States, 2014

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
Report

Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008

Policy Analysis

In Just the Last Four Years, States Have Enacted 231 Abortion Restrictions

Policy Analysis

Flouting the Facts: State Abortion Restrictions Flying in the Face of Science

Guttmacher Policy Review
Fact Sheet

Abortion in the United States

Fact Sheet

State Facts About Abortion

Media Contact

  • Rebecca Wind

    Guttmacher Institute
    212 248 1953
    media@guttmacher.org

Topic

United States

  • Abortion: State Policies on Abortion

Region

  • Northern America: United States
Guttmacher Institute

Center facts. Shape policy.
Advance sexual and reproductive rights.

Donate Now
Newsletter Signup  Contact Us 
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Footer

  • Privacy Policy
  • Accessibility Statement
© 2025 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.