Study: Temporary ban led to delayed abortions
Texas’ temporary abortion ban this spring amid the pandemic prevented some women from obtaining the services and delayed others until later in their pregnancies, exposing them to increased health risks, a new study has found.
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s March 22, 2020, executive order to clear space for COVID-19 patients put a stop to all surgeries and procedures that were not considered “medically necessary,” which by the state’s definition included abortion care. Abortion providers sued to overturn the ban — resulting in dizzying back-and-forth decisions as the case wound its way through the courts — but the issue became moot when the order expired in April 2020 and clinics resumed offering care.
Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin found that during the ban, the number of abortions in Texas declined 38 percent in April 2020 — from 4,608 to 2,856 — compared to the same time the previous year.
Meanwhile, the number of Texas residents receiving care at out- of- state facilities reviewed in the study increased from 157 in February 2020 to 947 in April 2020. The study also examined second-trimester abortions and found a 61percent jump after the order expired.
Such abortions, while generally considered very safe, are associated with a higher risk of complications and may require additional doctor’s visits compared to those during earlier term, the study noted.
Dr. Kari White, UT associate professor of social work and sociology and lead investigator of the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, said the numbers indicate that the order both prevented some women from obtaining abortion services and delayed others.
The out- of- state numbers don’t make up for the decrease and a corresponding increase of in-state abortions never materialized, she said.
“Our research shows just how disruptive the executive order was for Texans seeking abortion care,” White said in a statement. “Delayed care and out- of-state travel imposed risks and costs that were completely unnecessary because these services could have been provided in a safe and timely manner closer to home.”
Abbott had said that the purpose of the ban was to limit the use of personal protective equipment for purposes other than COVID-19 care, though providers disputed the idea that abortion services require much of the protective gear.
Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton supported the order in court, saying in a statement at the time that it was necessary to “ensure that our health care professionals and facilities have all the resources they need to fight the virus.”
In a second study also published this month, UT researchers interviewed 10 Texans seeking an abortion while the order was in effect who reported they faced barriers to access, increased exposure to COVID-19 and economic and emotional hardship.
“I don’t think that I’ve ever been more depressed in my life, to the point where I didn’t see a future formyself,” said one study subject, a 35-year- old with two children who traveled nearly 750 miles one way to New Mexico. “I think every day I sat there, it just got worse and worse and worse and worse, and I felt like I didn’t have any options since they (abortion clinics) had closed down.”
Another subject, a 23-year- old from South Texas, spent weeks waiting for an appointment for an abortion at an in-state clinic while the ban was in place because she could not afford to travel out of state as was recommended to her.
By the time she was able to get an appointment in Texas, however, she was told she was too far along for a medication abortion and had to schedule a procedural abortion. The entire process took her about nine weeks and cost her $1,200.
“I just feel like itwas definitely unnecessary,” she said about the delay. “It could have been avoided.”