Conducting evidence-based advocacy to improve abortion access: Lessons from the field

Background:

From 2011-2013 more state-level restrictions on abortion were enacted than in the previous decade. Anti-choice stakeholders claim such restrictions are necessary to improve the lives and health of women and children. Little work has been done to examine the veracity of their claims.

Methods:

We evaluated anti-choice claims-making by examining 76 state-level policies and outcomes specific to the health of women and children. Using scatter plots, we determined how those policies and outcomes align with the level of abortion restrictiveness in a state.

Results:

Overall, we found states with more abortion restrictions passed into law perform worse on indicators of women and children’s health outcomes, and have fewer evidence-based policies that support women and children. At the state-level, we identified which outcomes and policies states are performing well on and which are in need of improvement. We have begun and will continue to share the results of these state-specific analyses via national and in-state briefings with advocates, elected officials, and the media. Dissemination efforts are and will continue to be broad as we hope to identify potential new allies and form new cross-movement partnerships with stakeholders focused on improving social determinants of health and women’s and children’s well-being generally.

Conclusion:

This straightforward analysis helps dismantle claims made by anti-choice stakeholders that they are working to improve the health or lives of women and children. It also points to needed evidence-based policies that could be advanced by policymakers with sincere interest in the health and lives of women and children.