CDC Remains Silent on Tracking Abortion Ban-Related Deaths, States Left in the Dark

The Biden administration has faced criticism for its handling of maternal health care in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. Following this landmark decision, President Biden issued an executive order aimed at evaluating the consequences of state-level abortion bans on women’s health. Experts voiced concerns that these restrictions would pose serious risks to critical medical care, potentially leading to avoidable fatalities.

Biden mandated the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure federal agencies accurately measure how access to reproductive healthcare influences maternal health outcomes. Notably, he tasked the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with driving research and data collection efforts. However, a recent examination suggests the administration has not taken full advantage of this opportunity to investigate the maternal health implications of abortion bans.

Specifically, the CDC has not directed state committees tasked with reviewing maternal deaths to consider how the new laws might have influenced their findings. These committees analyze maternal fatalities to identify trends and inform preventive strategies, yet they lack clear guidance on the implications of state abortion policies.

Despite the CDC’s significant investments in tracking maternal mortality—nearly $90 million in the past five years—there remains no directive to examine the impact of recent abortion restrictions. State officials cite the absence of guidance from the CDC as a barrier to integrating such considerations into their reviews. “The committee must follow national guidelines in maternal mortality review committee death investigations,” stated a spokesperson for Oklahoma’s health department.

Researcher Maeve Wallace from the University of Arizona expressed concerns about the lack of attention to abortion bans within these reviews. “It’s pushing it under the rug — like we don’t want to count it,” she remarked, highlighting that ignoring this aspect could obscure the true impact of such laws on maternal health.

While the CDC maintains that existing data from states provides a comprehensive view of maternal deaths, critics argue that the agency’s current framework does not adequately reflect the role of abortion access in these fatalities. For instance, Georgia’s maternal mortality review committee identified state abortion laws as a factor in one woman’s death. Candi Miller, a 41-year-old mother, suffered complications after ordering abortion medication online. Her family noted a reluctance to seek medical care due to the prevailing legislation.

Another case involved Amber Thurman, who faced delays in care for similar complications after using abortion medication. Although the committee recognized her case’s preventable nature, they lacked the means to identify legislative impacts on her treatment options, which is critical for understanding the broader implications of abortion restrictions.

Nancy L. Cohen, president of the Gender Equity Policy Institute, stated that data indicates a disturbing rise in maternal mortality rates in states banning abortion, suggesting that these laws are directly contributing to this trend. In response to inquiries about data collection related to abortion access, officials indicated that existing frameworks suffice for understanding maternal mortality but have yet to develop standardized methods to assess the impact of abortion bans specifically.

Former CDC officials have expressed concern over the agency’s hesitance to delve deeper into such a politically charged issue. In states where leaders actively endorse abortion bans, efforts to investigate the harmful effects of these policies may encounter resistance. Dr. Zsakeba Henderson, another former CDC employee, noted potential backlash against requests for more detailed data from maternal mortality review committees.

The Biden administration has highlighted its initiatives aimed at improving data availability related to maternal health care outcomes, yet critics argue that the lack of specific attention to abortion access indicates a significant oversight. Ushma Upadhyay, a public health scientist at the University of California, San Francisco, called for immediate action, noting that understanding abortion restrictions’ effects on maternal health is vital for informed policy-making.

As the political landscape shifts, there are fears that future administrations may not prioritize or even hinder efforts to study the impacts of abortion bans. Last week, former President Trump proposed a blueprint that could significantly alter how reproductive health data is collected and interpreted, which may further complicate research into maternal health in the context of abortion restrictions.