Skip to main content
Guttmacher Institute

Search

  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
Guttmacher Institute
Donate

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact
News Release
August 7, 2023

People Living with Low Incomes and Individuals Who Identify as Black Are Among Those More Likely to Have a Procedural Abortion than a Medication Abortion

National study examines characteristics of people obtaining medication and procedural abortions in clinical settings in the US

Individuals who identified as Black, those with incomes at or below the poverty level, and those paying with public or private insurance were more likely to have a procedural abortion than a medication abortion, according to a new study from the Guttmacher Institute that is based on its sixth Abortion Patient Survey.  

In addition, the analysis found that those who identified as Asian or White, had no prior births, had no prior abortions or were paying out of pocket were more likely to have a medication abortion. 

The study, published in Contraception, compares the characteristics of people obtaining medication and procedural abortions at 43 US facilities that offered both methods of abortion between June 2021 and July 2022. The analysis, which was restricted to those obtaining an abortion at less than 11 weeks of pregnancy, included responses from 4,717 individuals.  

“There is an abundance of research on the clinical aspects of medication abortion, such as efficacy and safety, but much less work has been done on the characteristics and potential preferences of people obtaining medication versus procedural abortions,” says Rachel Jones, principal research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute. “By centering individuals who obtain the abortions, this study sheds light on who may be most impacted in situations when procedural abortions are not available.” 

Key findings from the analysis include: 

  • More than half of respondents (57%) were having a medication abortion. 

  • Nearly one-quarter (24%) of respondents indicated they chose the clinic because it offered medication abortion, a proxy for preference, and 16% because it offered procedural abortion.  

  • Obtaining a medication abortion was highest among those who: 

    • Identified as Asian (69%) or White (65%),  

    • Had no prior abortions (62%), 

    • Had incomes at or above 100% the federal poverty level (60%–61%), 

    • Paid out of pocket (65%). 

  • Medication abortions were lowest among those who: 

    • Identified as Black (48%), 

    • Had family incomes below the poverty threshold (53%), 

    • Used insurance (Medicaid or private) to pay (49%). 

Even after controlling for preference, Black individuals and those with the lowest incomes were less likely to obtain a medication abortion, suggesting these groups may be more likely to opt for procedural abortions. These findings align with previous research showing that Black women and those who had had a previous abortion were less likely to prefer medication abortion and that White and Asian-identifying individuals were more likely to have medication abortion.    

The finding that poverty status is associated with procedural abortion is new. The authors suggest that individuals with limited financial resources may prefer a procedural abortion because of the brevity of the method compared with the time necessary to complete a medication abortion. However, further research is needed on the topic. 

“Prior to Dobbs, four in 10 clinics only offered medication abortion, and, post-Dobbs, research has documented an increase in the number abortions provided by virtual clinics, which only offer medication abortion,” says Jones, referring to the 2022 US Supreme Court decision that eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. “Our findings suggest that already marginalized populations may be most impacted when medication abortion is the only option available. Every person should have access to the method of abortion that best fits their specific needs and circumstances, including in-clinic procedural care.”    

The full analysis is available here.  

* The 2021–2022 Abortion Patient Survey contains data from a national sample of more than 6,600 individuals who obtained an abortion at a health care facility in the United States between June 2021 and July 2022. Guttmacher was ending data collection when the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  
 

 

Printer-friendly version

Share

Read More

Research Article

Characteristics of people obtaining medication versus procedural abortions in clinical settings in the United States: Findings from the 2021–2022 Abortion Patient Survey

Contraception
Research Article

Characteristics of abortion patients in protected and restricted states accessing clinic-based care 12 months prior to the elimination of the federal constitutional right to abortion in the United States

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (University of Ottawa)
Initiative

Roe v. Wade Overturned: Our Latest Resources

Policy Analysis

10 US States Would Be Hit Especially Hard by a Nationwide Ban on Medication Abortion Using Mifepristone

Policy Analysis

Anti-Abortion Judge Attempts to Ban Mifepristone Nationwide, Ignoring Science and More Than Two Decades of the Drug’s Safe Use in the United States

Media Contact

  • Media Office

    Guttmacher Institute
    [email protected]

Topic

United States

  • Abortion

Region

  • Northern America: United States

Tags

medication abortion
Guttmacher Institute

Center facts. Shape policy.
Advance sexual and reproductive rights.

Donate Now
Newsletter Signup  Contact Us 
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Footer

  • Privacy Policy
  • Accessibility Statement
© 2025 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.