Strategy Watch: Abortion Reporting
Anti-choice groups & lawmakers are increasingly focused on data
Anti-abortion groups and legislators are increasingly using data and abortion reports as a way to make and keep abortion illegal. Last year, for example, I published an investigation into how Texas Republicans were forcing doctors to report false abortion ‘complications’. The idea was to compile fake data that would give them ammunition to claim abortion is dangerous.
Since Roe was overturned, conservatives have been weaponizing data in all sorts of ways—from state abortion reporting to sowing distrust in maternal mortality numbers. Most recently, I’ve had my eye on what’s happening in Kansas and Indiana.
Kansas Republicans, for example, have been advancing a bill that would require abortion providers to ask patients why they’re ending their pregnancy—and then report those answers to the state. Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly is expected to veto the legislation, but as you know, it’s vital that we’re paying attention to what Republicans are doing no matter where their bills end up.
Naturally, anti-abortion lawmakers claim the reports would be in women’s best interest. Republican Rep. Brenda Landwehr said, “We have an opportunity to have more services for women when they get in these positions…as policy makers we need to understand what is occurring and what else we can do to help these women make a more informed decision.”
In reality, the reports are a shame tactic. Forcing doctors to ask patients why they’re getting an abortion is a way to make women feel put on the spot, and as if they need to justify why they’re getting care. They don’t.
But there’s something else going on, too: abortion reporting is part of a broader strategy that anti-choice legislators and activists want to enact across the entire country.
Project 2025, for example—the conservative blueprint for action if Donald Trump is elected—has a whole section on abortion data collection. They want to require that states provide abortion data. And just as the legislation in Kansas mandates, these reports wouldn’t only relay medical information, but women’s “reasons for terminating a pregnancy.”
Why do Republicans want to know all of this? In addition to shame, it’s about divorcing abortion from healthcare. After all, it’s not as if anyone is mandating reports on appendectomies.
By making abortions distinct from other kinds of healthcare, conservatives can further stigmatize it—and scare women out of getting legal care. Legislators realize that if women know their abortions will be reported to the state, patients will be much less likely to seek them out. And while Republicans claim that the reports would be confidential, I don’t know anyone who would trust the government with their sensitive health information.
Abortion reports are also be a way for Republicans to enshrine their limited definition of abortion. For months, I’ve been tracking the way that anti-choice groups and legislators are trying to redefine abortion as an ‘intention’ rather than a medical intervention. Indeed, in Project 2025, abortion reports wouldn’t include treatment for ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, life-threatening pregnancies and the like: “[A]bortion should be clearly defined as only those procedures that intentionally end an unborn child’s life.”
But that’s not all: Republicans want to use abortion reports as a way to find people to prosecute.
In Indiana right now, Attorney General Todd Rokita is bent out of shape because the state changed its abortion reporting—using a new system that the Republican says won’t let him arrest people.
Instead of releasing data on each individual abortion in Indiana, the state health department will now release aggregated reports. That’s because Indiana’s ban has cut down abortions to almost nothing; given that, there’s a concern over patient confidentiality. The Indiana Department of Health noted in December that individual reports could be “reverse engineered to identify patients—especially in smaller communities.”
But Rokita—best known for his harassment campaign against Dr. Caitlin Bernard, the abortion provider who treated a 10-year-old rape victim—is pissed. He’s been sending letters to the governor and legislative leadership complaining about the new reporting process, saying it stops him from pursuing abortion cases.
Specifically, Rokita says that because individual abortion reports are no longer available to the public, he’s not getting tips from snitches anymore:
“Without the public being able to review the reports, no member of the public can file a licensing complaint against an abortion provider with my office. Without a complaint by a third party, a licensing enforcement action against an abortion provider cannot be initiated because state statute currently requires such a third-party complaint as a prerequisite to a licensing investigation.”
Rokita wants the state to either restore public individual reports—so that anti-abortion wackos can comb them for reasons to turn people in—or to allow his office to go after abortion providers without a complaint by a third party. Meaning, Rokita would be able to pursue investigations against doctors and hospitals without cause.
I’ll be keeping an eye on how things pan out in Indiana, but the point is applicable everywhere: these reports are a way for law enforcement to target healthcare providers.
What makes the focus on abortion reporting so insidious, of course, is that Republicans are using science, medicine and information as a shield. They’re hoping that voters—who are already furious over bans—won’t understand what these reports are really about. What sounds so bad about collecting data?!
That’s why it’s incredibly important that we’re raising the alarm about every bit of anti-choice strategy; not just the bans and restrictions, but the ‘boring’ tactics Republicans think we’ll ignore.
There's also the fact that 18th-early 19th century abortion law was influenced by whether, with the contemporary state of medical knowledge, abortion was more or less dangerous than childbirth--so women's health was actually taken into consideration.
I had to take a break from the news today, but then the first thing I opened was an article from Media Matters about how the Heritage Foundation 🤮 published new policy guidelines suggesting that the term “reproductive health” be eliminated from all federal rules and regulations. The audacity of these people is next level.