(LifeSiteNews) — The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute has come out against state requirements for abortion facilities to collect and report abortion data, framing the stance as a way to protect abortion seekers when in reality it would shield the abortion industry from scrutiny.

The March 2025 report notes that 46 states plus the District of Columbia have “some form” of abortion reporting requirements, but there is no uniform nationwide standard. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) acknowledges that it only collects abortion data voluntarily submitted by states, whose reporting rules vary significantly. California, Maryland, and New Hampshire – three states that are significantly pro-abortion – have historically submitted no data whatsoever, further limiting the public’s understanding of the frequency of things such as late-term abortion and abortion complications.

Guttmacher acknowledges that abortion data is “critical for understanding changes in the abortion access landscape and, in turn, can be vital in shaping public policies to improve” what it calls “reproductive health access and outcomes” but alleges that the “current climate has escalated the risk of mandated data collection being used to stigmatize, harass, or even prosecute” abortionists and women who obtain abortions.

Instead, the group encourages policymakers to “work to remove existing reporting requirements and vigorously oppose new ones, along with any attempt to tie federal funding to abortion reporting” and “consider alternative models of data collection, such as voluntary surveys of providers.” 

Writing at National Review, Catholic University of America professor and Charlotte Lozier Institute scholar Dr. Michael New responds that it is “very unlikely that aggregate abortion data could be used in a punitive way against anyone,” while comprehensive abortion information is more important than ever with the proliferation of self-administered abortion pills flouting state laws and obscuring the results from public view.

“Furthermore, regardless of the legal status of abortion, accurate abortion data can provide valuable information about the impact of contraception programs, sex education curricula, and various pro-life policies,” New writes. 

“Groups that support legal abortion often claim to be on the side of science and good public health,” he adds. “However, this new report clearly shows that Guttmacher’s primary interest is to reduce government oversight of abortion facilities. It is sad, but unsurprising, that Guttmacher is prioritizing permissive abortion policies over data that could improve public health outcomes for women, children, and families.”

Despite the current limitations of abortion reporting, what data currently exists often debunks common pro-abortion narratives. For example, fewer than five percent of all abortions are sought for rape, incest, or “medical emergencies” despite the so-called “hard cases” dominating debates about abortion’s legality, prohibiting abortion does not increase maternal deaths, and elective late-term abortions and infanticide cases do happen, despite being derided as myths by the abortion lobby.