Fact check: What percentage of US abortions are due to health risks or fetal abnormalities?

1. Why the supplied documents fail to answer your question — a direct read of the evidence

The three analysis summaries you supplied each state that their underlying texts are unrelated to abortion statistics and therefore contain no relevant numeric claims. One summary notes a map failure and cryptic error messages without reproductive‑health information, another discusses AI chatbot limitations, and the third covers input‑reduction methods for debugging; none include prevalence data about abortions for maternal health or fetal anomaly reasons ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Given that absence, there is no basis within your materials to extract key claims or to calculate percentages; any attempt to do so would require introducing outside data not present in the provided files.

2. What evidence would be needed to answer the question reliably — laying out the gold‑standard sources

To produce a defensible percentage estimate, one should consult national surveillance, clinic‑level datasets, and peer‑reviewed studies that classify abortion indications. Ideal sources include statutory reporting systems and population surveys that distinguish abortions performed for maternal health risks, fetal anomaly, psychosocial reasons, and other circumstances. These sources enable a breakdown of counts or proportions by indication and allow validation across institutions. Your supplied documentation lacks these data; therefore, the responsible next step is to retrieve empirical datasets from public‑health agencies and reproductive‑health research organizations rather than inferring from unrelated technical texts ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

3. How different data sources vary and why that matters — methodological caveats to watch

When seeking percentages, be aware that reporting practices and definitions vary, which influences the resulting figures. Administrative reporting may undercount or misclassify indications, clinic‑based samples may not be nationally representative, and research studies may differ in whether they treat “fetal anomaly” as a single category or split it by severity or gestational age. These methodological differences explain why different reputable sources sometimes report divergent percentages. Because the materials you provided do not address any of these methodological issues, they cannot be used to adjudicate between competing estimates or to quantify the role of maternal health risks and fetal abnormalities in U.S. abortion statistics ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. Multiple viewpoints and potential agendas when interpreting abortion‑cause data

Estimates about why abortions occur are often cited in policy debates and advocacy messaging, so different actors can emphasize particular categories to support contrasting arguments. Public‑health researchers typically emphasize transparent methods and uncertainty; advocacy groups may highlight specific causes to bolster policy claims; and policymakers may selectively cite figures that align with legislative goals. The three supplied analyses offer no content related to these debates, so they provide no means to assess possible agendas or to contextualize claims about the frequency of abortions for health risks or fetal anomalies ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

5. Practical next steps: where to look and what to verify before trusting a percentage

Because your current documents are irrelevant to the question, the necessary next steps are to obtain and cross‑check empirical sources: national public‑health surveillance reports, clinic network datasets, and recent peer‑reviewed studies that explicitly break down abortion indications. For any estimate you encounter, verify the publication date, sample frame, definition of indication categories, and whether refusals and missing data were handled transparently. The three summaries you provided underscore the need for this additional evidence because they contain no usable data for the specific question you asked ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

If you want, I can retrieve and analyze up‑to‑date empirical sources and produce a quantified, sourced estimate along with methodological notes and citations; please provide or authorize those sources, or permit me to fetch established public‑health and peer‑reviewed references.