Abortion travel within the United States: An observational study of cross-state movement to obtain abortion care in 2017
- PMID: 36777689
- PMCID: PMC9903901
- DOI: 10.1016/j.lana.2022.100214
Abortion travel within the United States: An observational study of cross-state movement to obtain abortion care in 2017
Abstract
Background: In the United States, abortion access is often more limited for people who live in states with few abortion facilities and restrictive abortion legislation. Pregnant people seeking an abortion thus often travel to access care.
Methods: We calculated state-specific abortion rate (number of abortions per thousand women ages 15 to 44) and percentage of patients leaving for abortion care using CDC 2017 Abortion Surveillance data, the Guttmacher Institute's Abortion Provider Census and Pregnancies, Births and Abortions in the United States report, and US Census data. We categorized percent leaving by abortion policy landscape using the Guttmacher Institute's classification of state abortion laws, and by facility density (number of abortion facilities per million women ages 15 to 44), calculated using Census and Guttmacher data. We ran correlational tests between each of our variables (percent leaving, facility density, and policy environment), as well as between percent leaving and facility density within policy environment.
Findings: In 2017, an average of 8% of US patients left their state of residence for abortion care. Percent leaving varied widely by state: 74% left Wyoming, 57% left South Carolina, and 56% left Missouri, while 13 states had fewer than 4% of patients leaving. States with more restrictive laws averaged 12% of patients leaving, while states with middle ground or supportive laws averaged 10% and 3% leaving, respectively. Pairwise correlations between percent leaving, facility density, and policy score were all statistically significant, though correlations between percent leaving and facility density within policy environment were not.
Interpretation: Many patients travel across state lines for abortion care. While patients may leave for a range of reasons, restrictive state-level abortion policy and facility scarcity are associated with patients leaving their state of residence.
Funding: This study was supported by a philanthropic foundation that makes grants anonymously.
© 2022 The Authors.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Figures


Similar articles
-
Kentucky's abortion landscape, 2010 to 2019: an analysis of pre-Dobbs abortion disparities in a rural, restrictive state.Lancet Reg Health Am. 2023 Feb 15;19:100441. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2023.100441. eCollection 2023 Mar. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2023. PMID: 36852333 Free PMC article.
-
Abortion in the United States, 1977-1978.Fam Plann Perspect. 1979 Nov-Dec;11(6):329-41. Fam Plann Perspect. 1979. PMID: 401078
-
Abortion service delivery in clinics by state policy climate in 2017.Contracept X. 2020;2:100043. doi: 10.1016/j.conx.2020.100043. Epub 2020 Oct 16. Contracept X. 2020. PMID: 33083783 Free PMC article.
-
Identifying National Availability of Abortion Care and Distance From Major US Cities: Systematic Online Search.J Med Internet Res. 2018 May 14;20(5):e186. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9717. J Med Internet Res. 2018. PMID: 29759954 Free PMC article.
-
The economic impact of state restrictions on abortion: parental consent and notification laws and Medicaid funding restrictions.J Policy Anal Manage. 1993 Summer;12(3):498-511. J Policy Anal Manage. 1993. PMID: 10127357 Review.
Cited by
-
Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2020.MMWR Surveill Summ. 2022 Nov 25;71(10):1-27. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss7110a1. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2022. PMID: 36417304 Free PMC article.
-
Experiences of delay-causing obstacles and mental health at the time of abortion seeking.Contracept X. 2024 Mar 6;6:100105. doi: 10.1016/j.conx.2024.100105. eCollection 2024. Contracept X. 2024. PMID: 38544923 Free PMC article.
-
Improving healthcare quality by unifying the American electronic medical report system: time for change.Egypt Heart J. 2024 Mar 15;76(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s43044-024-00463-9. Egypt Heart J. 2024. PMID: 38489094 Free PMC article.
-
The Future of Medical Abortion Care: an Internal Medicine Obligation.J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Dec;37(16):4268-4269. doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07798-6. Epub 2022 Sep 29. J Gen Intern Med. 2022. PMID: 36175756 Free PMC article.
-
Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2022.MMWR Surveill Summ. 2024 Nov 28;73(7):1-28. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss7307a1. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2024. PMID: 39602470 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Library of Congress. US. Reports: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Library of Congress, Washington, DC. 20540 USA. Published 1973. Accessed July 6, 2021. https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep410113/
-
- Guttmacher Institute . Guttmacher Institute; 2021. An Overview of Abortion Laws.https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws Accessed January 9, 2019.
-
- Guttmacher Institute . Guttmacher Institute; 2021. Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers.https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/targeted-regulation-abor... Accessed August 20, 2021.
-
- Medoff M.H., Dennis C. TRAp abortion laws and partisan political party control of state government. Am J Econ Sociol. 2011;70(4):951–973. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous