What federal or state datasets track reasons for abortion and how complete are they?
Executive summary
Federal surveillance systems and academic datasets together provide the primary public record on abortions in the United States, but virtually none of the routinely published, nationwide data sources systematically capture patients’ stated reasons for seeking abortion care, and the available counts and variables vary substantially in completeness across states and over time [1] [2] [3]. Major independent researchers such as the Guttmacher Institute supplement official counts with provider and survey data that improve national estimates, but even those efforts mix direct counts and modeled estimates and do not create a uniform, legally mandated national “reason for abortion” field [4] [5].
1. Federal surveillance: what the CDC asks for — scope but not reasons
The CDC’s Abortion Surveillance system gathers annually aggregated tables from central health agencies in reporting areas — typically states, DC and New York City — including counts by gestational age, method and basic patient characteristics, but the agency explicitly emphasizes that completeness and quality vary by year, variable and reporting area and that only jurisdictions meeting strict reporting standards are summarized in its reports [1] [2] [3]. The CDC’s public reports focus on clinical and demographic metrics (weeks’ gestation, method, counts by residence versus service area) rather than on patient-reported motivations, and the surveillance system excludes jurisdictions or variables that have high proportions of unknown values or fail to submit required categories [2] [3].
2. Guttmacher and academic efforts: richer estimates, mixed methods
The Guttmacher Institute compiles the most widely cited national and state abortion incidence datasets and supplements health department returns with questionnaires and direct surveys of providers; where providers do not respond Guttmacher imputes estimates, producing more complete national coverage than CDC in many years [4] [5] [6]. While Guttmacher’s public-use datasets extend back decades and include detailed incidence and service-availability measures, its methodology involves combining direct counts with modeled estimates when provider response is incomplete, and the institute’s role as an abortion-rights organization is well documented and acknowledged in coverage of its methods [4] [5] [7].
3. State datasets, legal trackers and related data sources — lots of law, little motive data
State-level reporting requirements differ widely: many states legally require clinicians or facilities to report abortions to a central agency, but reporting is uneven and some places do not require or do not fully capture all abortions, which undermines any consistent, national variable for reasons [1] [2] [8]. Parallel legal and policy datasets such as LawAtlas catalogue bans, gestational limits and reporting statutes across states and are invaluable for understanding the regulatory environment that shapes reporting behavior, yet these legal datasets document laws rather than reasons patients seek abortion care [9] [10] [11].
4. Completeness and the big gaps: patient motives are not a standardized field
Across the federal and state systems the recurring constraint is missingness: CDC excludes jurisdictions or variables with high unknown rates and notes that reporting completeness varies by characteristic and year, and third‑party compilations must reconcile state nonreporting and differences in categories [2] [3] [12]. Guttmacher’s fuller counts are still partly estimated — the institute reports that substantial shares of totals in some years are based on nonresponsive providers and imputation — and outside research projects and ad hoc surveys remain the primary way to learn about patient-reported reasons rather than routine public‑health surveillance [5] [7] [6].
5. What that means for researchers, advocates and reporters
Anyone seeking to analyze why people obtain abortions will find that federal surveillance offers robust trend and clinical-variable data but not standardized, population‑level motive data, while the best sources on reasons are research surveys and targeted reporting projects that supplement official counts [1] [2] [13]. Users should treat Guttmacher’s state and national incidence datasets as the most complete public numbers while recognizing their mixed methods and institutional perspective [4] [5], consult LawAtlas and similar legal trackers to understand reporting constraints driven by state law [9] [10], and expect substantial geographic and temporal gaps because states vary in reporting requirements and completeness [8] [3].