Industry

California law allowing anonymous abortion pill prescriptions endangers women, experts say

Members of Students for Liberty protest chemical abortions at March for Life, Jan. 24, 2025. / Credit: Tyler Arnold/CNA

CNA Staff, Oct 6, 2025 / 08:00 am (CNA).

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill last week allowing doctors to anonymously prescribe abortion pills, a move ethicists and medical professionals say will endanger women.  

The law, designed to protect abortionists, allows them to prescribe the pill anonymously, protecting them from any professional, legal, or ethical oversight and from lawsuits filed by other states. 

California abortionists are already facing lawsuits for prescribing abortion drugs in states where they are illegal. In some cases, women maintain that they were coerced or deceived into taking the drugs by the father of their unborn child.

According to the new law, the doctor remains anonymous — even to the patient being prescribed the pill. His or her identity is only accessible via a subpoena within the state of California. 

Even the pharmacists dispensing the abortion drug may do so without including their names, or the names of the patient or prescriber, on the bottle. 

Abandoning women 

Dolores Meehan, a nurse practitioner and the executive director of Bella Primary Care in San Francisco, said the law is “codifying a type of back-alley abortion.”

“There’s no safety oversight at all from the perspective of the patient,” she told CNA. “It’s such a violation of patients’ rights.”

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, a senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, called the policy “patient abandonment.” 

Health care professionals “have a duty to provide careful medical supervision and oversight to patients who seek to obtain dangerous pharmaceuticals,” he told CNA.

“This oversight calls for significant patient scrutiny, medical testing, interviews, and in-person exams to assure that any prescribed medications will be appropriate for the specific medical situation of the patient,” Pacholczyk continued. “Such attentive oversight gets thrown to the wind when lawmakers and politicians like Gov. Newsom seek to pass unprincipled laws.”

Offering anonymous prescriptions, Pacholczyk said, “is a significant dereliction of duty.”

To do so implies “a willingness to look past important procedural requirements and duties, whether it’s health screening of the woman, obtaining her emergency contact information, or assuring follow-up care and support for her,” he continued.

The policy, Pacholczyk said, “works to corrode the very core of authentic medicine.”

Meehan expressed similar concerns about the anonymity of doctors prescribing abortion pills. 

She noted that licenses exist to ensure that “individuals are clear of any malfeasance or any malpractice.” 

“You can look up my license, and you can look up everything about me,” she said. “But if you don’t know my license, you don’t know who I am, you can’t.”

She noted that patients are turned into consumers but without any recourse should something go wrong. 

“You might as well go on Craigslist,” Meehan said. 

Not an informed choice

After he signed the bill, Newsom said that “California stands for a woman’s right to choose.” 

But Meehan noted that women don’t always know what they are choosing when they take the abortion pills. 

“It’s not about women’s rights, and it’s certainly not about women’s safety, and women’s health, and women’s choice,” Meehan said. “Because choice should always, always, always be accompanied by informed consent.”

“The gross misunderstanding about the abortion pill is that it’s somehow easy,” Meehan said. “But what so many women don’t understand is that they’re going to miscarry at home.” 

They’ll go through this “loss,” she noted, “by themselves.” 

“Women are really ill-prepared for what’s going to happen in their bodies. There’s the whole idea of women’s choice, but you’re not giving them informed choice,” she said. 

Pacholczyk shared similar concerns for women undergoing chemical abortions, saying that self-administered chemical abortions are a “harsh reality.”  

The abortion “often takes place in a bathroom, with psychological trauma experienced by a mother who may see her aborted baby floating in a toilet,” he said.  

Chemical abortions can sometimes lead to “serious medical complications — including sepsis, hemorrhage, or a need for repeated attempts to expel the child’s body” — for 1 in 10 women within 45 days of taking the abortion pill, he added. 

If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, “administering the abortion pill could increase the risk of complications or delay urgently needed treatment,” he added.  

“Rather than treating women as anonymous entities and forcing them into greater isolation … mothers deserve the supportive medical attention and active care of their health care team,” he said. 

“Ideally, such attentive care should help them feel strengthened and empowered to carry their pregnancies to term rather than defaulting to a fear-driven and desperate attempt to end their child’s life,” he said.

Lower standard of care 

Jordan Butler, spokesperson for pro-life advocacy group Students for Life of America, called the policy “reckless.” 

“Eliminating requirements for identification and pregnancy verification creates dangerous loopholes that allow sexual abusers to evade accountability,” Butler said. 

Through the policy, Newsom and the abortion industry are “exploiting vulnerable women and children for profit,” she said. 

Pacholczyk and Meehan expressed similar concerns for the lower standard of care women — especially vulnerable women — would receive under the law. 

For women and girls facing human trafficking or coercion, protections “don’t exist,” Meehan said.  

“You could have your local pedophile, a sex offender, stockpiling them,” Meehan said.  

“Politicians, the media, and many in the medical profession have decided that abortion deserves an entirely different and lower standard than the rest of medicine,” Pacholczyk said. 

“We would never sanction such a loose approach with other potent pharmaceuticals like opioids or cancer medications,” Pacholczyk said.

Read More
Possible U.S. government shutdown could disrupt military Masses, meals for preschoolers

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Andrea Izzotti/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Sep 27, 2025 / 08:30 am (CNA).

A looming U.S. government shutdown could affect Roman Catholic churches and Catholic institutions that depend on government funding.

The closure, which will come about if lawmakers cannot agree on a spending package to fund the federal government, could pause military members’ ability to attend Mass, interrupt subsidized meals for preschoolers in Catholic schools and limit assistance with church security. Congress so far lacks agreement on funding federal agencies when the budget year begins on Oct. 1.

A shutdown would mean housing, health and food programs for people in need could experience cascading delays, according to a Sept. 26 statement by Catholic Charities USA.

“A government shutdown would result in more people falling into poverty, and the recovery from such a setback could take several months or even years,” the statement said. 

“One thing we can all agree on is that the poorest of the poor and the most vulnerable in society should not suffer because lawmakers cannot come to an agreement.”

Besides Church-related programs, a shutdown would affect a range of other services, including education for at-risk preschoolers, scientific research, and grants to charitable organizations. 

Many Catholic entities rely on federal funding from Head Start, an early childhood education program that offers health screenings and meals to families below the federal poverty level. 

Military Masses, Church security

Military worship services could be affected in a lengthy shutdown. In an extended shutdown in 2013, the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA said it would lack a Catholic priest to celebrate Sunday Mass at chapels at some U.S. military installations where non-active-duty priests serve as government contractors.

A spokesperson for the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Federal efforts to “maintain safe and secure houses of worship” also could be degraded at the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency in a government shutdown. Two children died in August in a mass shooting at the Church of the Annunciation in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

The federal agency provides resources that assist houses of worship in securing physical and digital infrastructure. The department said in anticipation of a narrowly avoided government shutdown in 2023 that it “would also be forced to suspend both physical and cybersecurity assessments for government and industry partners.”

Federal agencies have not yet issued contingency plans for a potential shutdown, and the security agency did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Read More
Pro-life group pledges  million to Georgia and Michigan Senate races

null / Credit: Andy via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

CNA Staff, Sep 26, 2025 / 16:28 pm (CNA).

Here is a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news:

Pro-life group pledges $9 million to Georgia and Michigan Senate races

A pro-life advocacy group is launching a massive $9 million campaign in the Senate races of Georgia and Michigan.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and its partner group, Women Speak Out PAC, are working to flip the U.S. Senate in Michigan, pouring $4.5 million into a field effort for the state’s open Senate seat.

Focused in Lansing, Detroit, and Grand Rapids, the pro-life groups aim to expand the U.S. Senate’s pro-life majority. In Michigan, four Planned Parenthoods have closed this year after Congress paused funding for abortion providers.

In Georgia, the same groups will pour $4.5 million into a field effort for Georgia’s U.S. Senate election. The campaign — aiming to defeat U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Georgia senator who has backed pro-abortion policies — will be focused in Savannah, Augusta, Columbus, and Chattanooga.

SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a Sept. 24 statement that the group aims to “stop the abortion lobby from clawing back $500 million in annual Medicaid dollars for their own political machine.” 

“No American should be forced to bankroll a brutal industry that kills over 1.1 million unborn children each year, harms women with substandard care, and funnels millions into partisan politics — especially when better, more accessible health care alternatives outnumber Planned Parenthood 15 to 1,” Dannenfelser said.

Pro-life groups celebrate as Google admits to political censorship 

Pro-life groups that have experienced censorship in the past are celebrating after Google admitted to political censorship under the Biden administration.

The tech giant admitted the censorship to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and said it was taking steps to open previously banned YouTube accounts.

Kelsey Pritchard, the political communications director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said companies like Google have a pattern of targeting pro-life advocacy groups.  

“We are not at all surprised by Google’s admissions of censorship,” Pritchard told CNA. 

“For years, tech giants have demonstrated a pattern of bias, actively undermining, suppressing, and censoring groups like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, who share the pro-life message in a highly effective way.”

In a timeline on its website, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America detailed censorship and suppression of pro-life groups since 2015 by sites such as Facebook, Yelp, and Google. 

For instance, in 2022, Google allegedly shadow banned an online educational resource by Life Issues Institute. In 2021, Google banned Live Action and Heartbeat International’s abortion pill reversal advertisements, including Live Action’s Baby Olivia video, detailing the growth of an unborn child. 

SBA Pro-Life America also criticized the Biden administration for allegedly targeting pro-life activists with the law. 

“The Biden administration, too, weaponized federal might to target pro-life Americans and even put peaceful activists in jail,” Pritchard said. “The right to voice one’s convictions is a foundational American value and the pro-life movement will always fight back against censorship.”

Students for Life of America spokesperson Jordan Butler, meanwhile, told CNA that the pro-life group “is no stranger to the challenges of free speech in the digital age.”

“While we’ve been fortunate to avoid censorship on platforms like YouTube and Google, TikTok has proven to be a battleground: banning our content 180 times in just 24 hours,” Butler said. 

After outcry from pro-life advocates, Butler said the TikTok account, belonging to Lydia Taylor Davis, was restored

She sees this as “proof that when we stand together, we can push back.” 

“That’s why unity matters now more than ever in defending pro-life free speech across America,” Butler said.

“Abortion propaganda is everywhere online, saturating platforms from social media to search engines,” she continued. “Whether it’s digital censorship or campus pushback, we fight relentlessly to protect our voice and our values.”

‘Second-chance-at-life’ bill could protect unborn children across the nation

A group of U.S. congressmen is introducing a bill that could give unborn children a second chance at life even if a mother takes the first pill in the chemical abortion regimen.

U.S. Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, recently introduced the Second Chance at Life Act, which is designed to protect unborn children and mothers from the harms of abortion.

The act, co-sponsored by 16 representatives from 13 states, would establish federal informed consent requirements for abortion pills. This would require abortion providers to inform women seeking to terminate their pregnancies that a chemical abortion can be reversible after the first abortion pill is taken.

Pfluger said many women “are pressured into taking the abortion pill without being fully informed of all their options” and later “express deep regret as they come to terms with the loss of their unborn child.” 

“It is unacceptable that so many women are never told by their provider that the effects of the first pill can be reversible,” Pfluger said in a Sept. 18 statement.  

Pfluger said the legislation will “empower women to make fully informed choices at every stage of the process, protecting their right to know the full details” about the drugs. 

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, supported the bill in a statement, noting that women are often pressured into abortion.  

“Many mothers regret their abortions and wish they had been told about abortion pill reversal before it was too late,” she said. “And too many women are exposed to the deadly pills by those who are coercing them.”

Senate investigates alleged abortion facilitation by Virginia school faculty 

U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, is investigating allegations that school officials in Virginia facilitated an abortion for a minor and attempted to do the same for another student without notifying their parents. 

Cassidy, who chairs the U.S. Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, sent a letter to Superintendent Michelle Reid demanding answers after an investigative reporter broke the news that officials at Fairfax County’s Centreville High School reportedly pressured students to have abortions.

Missouri judge approves pro-life ballot measure, requires plainer language  

A Cole County Circuit judge approved a ballot measure that would protect minors and unborn children from transgender surgeries and abortion, respectively, if passed by Missouri voters.  

Because the ballot combines protections for minors against transgender surgeries and pro-life protections, activists challenged it in court. But Judge Daniel Green approved the combination in a Sept. 19 ruling, with the caveat that the ballot measure language must explicitly state that it would repeal a previous ballot measure.

The previous ballot measure, passed in 2024, created a right to abortion in the Missouri Constitution.

Wisconsin Planned Parenthood pauses abortions after federal funding cut 

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin will stop scheduling abortions beginning Oct. 1 following federal funding cuts by the Trump administration.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin President and CEO Tanya Atkinson said the pause is meant to be temporary as the group deals with Medicaid funding cuts following the “Big Beautiful Bill.” The location will continue to operate and offer other services in the meantime.

The Trump administration temporarily paused any funding for abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. At least 40 Planned Parenthoods are closing this year.

Read More
Abortion pill complications are underreported, report finds  

Credit: Ivanko80/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Sep 24, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Abortion pill complications go underreported in abortion industry studies and mainstream media, according to a recent report by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

Abortion industry studies claim that serious complications are incredibly rare — occurring in less than half a percent of cases, according to the report “Missed, Misclassified, and Minimized: Why Abortion Pill Complications Are Underreported.”

But a study last year found that more than 1 in 10 women who took the abortion pill experienced serious complications such as hemorrhaging, infection, failed abortions, and surgical follow-up.

The author of the report, Randall O’Bannon, set out to investigate the discrepancy.

O’Bannon, director of education and research for the National Right to Life, found several factors contributing to the discrepancies. For one, he found that abortion providers often encourage women to conceal negative side effects and tell doctors they are symptoms of a miscarriage. O’Bannon also observed what he called a “contemptible lack of curiosity in the media” toward stories of women hurt by abortion drugs. Finally, serious complications are often categorized as “minor,” O’Bannon found.

O’Bannon said the “flawed or slanted industry studies” are “not good enough.”

“The public — and policymakers — deserve accurate, transparent reporting on the dangers of chemical abortion,” he said in a statement.

Dr. Ingrid Skop, vice president and director of medical affairs for Charlotte Lozier Institute and a board-certified OB-GYN, said she has encountered these medical complications in her own career as a medical provider.

“I have cared for dozens of women presenting to the ER with abortion drug complications, and they are told by abortion advocates there’s no need to report the use of abortion drugs,” she told CNA.

“When I see a woman in the ER with continued pain and bleeding sometimes weeks or even months after taking abortion drugs, she usually has retained pregnancy tissue and/or the dead baby, which the drugs have failed to expel,” Skop continued. “An unaware ER doctor is likely to give her more of the drugs that already failed rather than expediting the surgical aspiration she needs.”

“As a researcher and practicing OB-GYN, I can attest that the lived experience for many women reflects the data documented in this report,” Skop said.

“So where are all the women some of these later reports and studies say have been injured and abused by these drugs and their prescribers?” O’Bannon asked. “Once again, we see that they have been silenced and minimized, told their pain and blood and trauma are ‘minor complications’ that somehow just don’t rise to the level worthy of being noticed. But they suffer and bleed just the same.”

Looking at the numbers  

Michael New, assistant professor of practice at the Busch School of Business for The Catholic University of America, noted that “the FDA’s own data shows that there are a number of health risks involved with chemical abortions.”

“Since the FDA approved the chemical abortion pill in 2000, the FDA’s own data indicates that there have been 32 deaths, 4,218 adverse events, 1,049 hospitalizations, 604 cases of blood loss requiring a transfusion, 418 infections, and 75 severe infections,” New, a senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, told CNA. 

The FDA figures “are underreported” due to a change in the reporting requirements implemented nearly a decade ago, according to New.

“In 2016, the FDA quit requiring that health care professionals report complications from chemical abortion drugs,” New said. “Since 2016, the reporting of complications has been voluntary.” 

In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA removed the requirement for women to have an in-person medical exam before being prescribed chemical abortion drugs.

Since then, “the number of complications has almost certainly increased,” New said.

Without a medical exam, abortion providers may unwittingly provide abortion drugs to women whose pregnancies are further along than is recommended for chemical abortions, as well as women who have ectopic pregnancies (a life-threatening condition where the embryo implants outside the uterus). 

Trump administration continues to implement ‘unwise policy’

“The Biden administration FDA and thus far the Trump administration FDA have continued with this unwise policy,” New said. 

Chemical abortions are sometimes falsely advertised as “safer than Tylenol.” But a chemical abortion is far less safe than even a surgical abortion, Skop noted. 

Complications occur at least four times as frequently following drug-induced abortions compared to surgical abortions, causing at least 1 in 15 women to require emergency care when the drugs are used as the FDA recommends,” Skop said. “Even more women suffer when they are taken at advanced gestational ages.” 

“The abortion pill is being sold as safe, but independent data tell another story,” Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, said in a statement. “Women are being harmed, and the dangers are being ignored or hidden.” 

“Abortion industry spin makes mifepristone abortions sound easy, but the truth is each abortion takes the life of a living preborn child and places the woman in danger,” Tobias said.

How can policymakers respond?

New noted that public officials could take several steps “to protect mothers and children” from these dangers, including requiring that “medical professionals report complications that arise from chemical abortions.” 

In addition, the FDA “could require that women obtaining chemical abortions first have an in-person medical exam,” a change that New said the Trump administration could make “right away.” 

“Thus far, it is disappointing that the Trump administration has not prioritized keeping women safe from unregulated chemical abortion drugs,” New said. 

Skop added that “policymakers need better abortion data.” 

“Extensive deficiencies affect abortion data collection in the U.S., including a lack of anonymized national reporting requirements,” Skop said. 

“Women also need to know the true risk of abortion and potential complications, which are both physical and mental,” she continued. 

Skop noted that “the majority of women with a history of abortion would have preferred to give birth if they had the necessary support.” 

“Women also should know there are 2,750 pregnancy resource centers that want to walk alongside women facing an unintended pregnancy to provide any support they need,” Skop said. 

Nonprofit organizations across the country exist to provide pregnant women and mothers with support — from baby clothes to ultrasounds to parenting classes. 

“The abortion industry’s goal is to promote all-trimester abortion on demand,” Skop noted. “And lawmakers, the public, and most importantly, women considering abortion, must understand abortion advocates will mislead them to achieve that goal.”

Read More
Amid debate over arming teachers, what does the Catholic Church teach about self-defense?

Police gather at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis on Aug. 27, 2025, following a mass shooting that killed two children and injured 17 others, 14 of them children. / Credit: Chad Davis, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

CNA Staff, Sep 10, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).

“It would have to be studied.” That was President Donald Trump’s take on the proposal to arm teachers in schools in order to counteract mass shooters.

The president made those remarks on Sept. 2, nearly a week after the deadly mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis. That attack claimed the lives of two children, injured many others, and once again raised the question of whether or not teachers should be permitted to carry guns in schools.

Policymakers will likely debate the matter for some time. In some cases it has already been decided: A handful of states, including Florida, Idaho, and Texas, allow for public school teachers to carry guns in some circumstances.

Whether or not it will be adopted broadly in Catholic schools is another question. Although the debate is deeply, and at times bitterly, contentious, Catholic Church teaching would appear to allow it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has never pronounced directly on the morality of carrying firearms, much less in a school environment. But the text does stipulate that “legitimate defense” can include the act of a “lethal blow,” though it must be done in defense of one’s life and not as an end to itself.

Perhaps most notably, the catechism stipulates that “legitimate defense” can “be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life” (No. 2265).

“[T]hose holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge,” it states. 

This would seem to at least allow for the possibility of arming teachers to counteract mass shooters. But whether or not this is a good or defensible idea is another matter. 

“I’m not convinced we are in a social situation where arming teachers is justifiable,” Professor Jacob Kohlhaas told CNA.

Kohlhaas is a professor of moral theology at Loras College in Dubuque, Iowa. He described himself as “not absolutely pacifist” but said the proposal to arm teachers is “profoundly misguided” and that it “utilizes some parts of the Catholic moral tradition while neglecting others.”

“I can actually imagine scenarios where armed teachers might be justifiable, but I can only imagine this in the context of widespread security issues or civil unrest,” he said. 

“In a functioning democracy, increasing the capability for deadly response without questioning why such force is needed runs contrary to our obligations to the common good,” he said. 

Kohlhaas said his own state has lately made gun ownership much more accessible, rendering it “more difficult to remove [firearms] from potentially violent individuals.” 

“It is hard for me to imagine how a drastic response is justified when we are actively creating an environment that is more conducive to the underlying problem,” he said. 

In contrast, Patrick Toner, a professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University, has argued that it is “not a bad idea” to put guns in the hands of teachers. 

Following the 2022 shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, which claimed the lives of 19 students and two teachers, Toner wrote that laws prohibiting lawful gun carrying on school campuses means shooters can “generally assume that schools are truly gun-free zones,” making them “soft targets” for would-be killers. 

“It’s unsettling to write about hardening up our schools. Don’t we wish there were no crazed murderers … looking to massacre harmless children?” Toner said. “And yet, in our depraved culture, unsurprisingly, we find no shortage of hopeful murderers.”

Toner told CNA that his beliefs on the matter “lie mainly in the realm of prudential judgment rather than in the direct application of any Church teachings.” 

Still, he said, the Church does clearly state that Catholics “do indeed have a right to defend ourselves and a profound obligation to protect the helpless.”

Whether or not that obligation extends to carrying guns in schools is, of course, a matter of debate.

The catechism quotes St. Thomas Aquinas in saying that any self-defense that incorporates “more than necessary violence” is “unlawful” but that repelling an attack with “moderation” is appropriate (No. 2264). 

Yet Aquinas further stipulates that in acts of self-defense it is not necessary to moderate one’s response solely “to avoid killing,” since “one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.” 

The saint further writes that those with “public authority” have more latitude to use lethal defense insofar as they “refer [the killing] to the public good.”

Though Church authorities in the U.S. have not explicitly weighed in on the question, some have expressed misgivings about the proposal to arm teachers. 

Following the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, in 2018, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a statement that the “idea of arming teachers seems to raise more concerns than it addresses.”

“We must always remember what is at stake as we take actions to safeguard our communities and honor human life,” the bishops said at the time. 

Unsurprisingly, no pope has ever commented directly on the question, but popes have regularly spoken out against the proliferation of firearms. 

Pope Francis was a consistent critic of the arms industry, though mostly in the context of war; following the Minneapolis shooting, meanwhile, Pope Leo XIV prayed for God “to stop the pandemic of arms, large and small, which infects our world.”

Kohlhaas, meanwhile, acknowledged that there are “people charged with protecting society who should possess and responsibly use firearms,” but he argued that “extending that to teachers without seriously asking why and how we got to this point is a problem.”

Gun violence, he said, is not inevitable, and humans have “an obligation to craft and adapt human products towards the common good.”

“[W]hen we simply give up and think that a particular form of violence that occurs in a very particular type of society is somehow beyond our control, we profoundly fail to acknowledge our responsibilities for assessing and reshaping that society,” he said.

Read More
Study: Mental health-related hospitalizations rates doubled for women who had abortions

null / Credit: GBALLGIGGSPHOTO/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Sep 1, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

A recent study found that the rate of mental-health-related hospitalizations doubled for women who had abortions compared with women who gave birth. 

The study, published this summer in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, compared abortions with other pregnancies in hospitals in Quebec, Canada, between 2006 and 2022, tracking data on women for up to 17 years.

The study, which compared more than 1.2 million women who gave birth in Quebec hospitals with more than 28,000 women who had abortions, found that “rates of mental-health-related hospitalization were higher following induced abortions than other pregnancies.” 

Abortion was associated with a number of mental-health-related difficulties including hospitalization for psychiatric disorders, substance use disorders, and suicide attempts, the study found.

This association was especially high for women who were younger than 25 years at the time of their abortions, as well as for patients who already had an existing mental illness.

The risk of mental health hospitalization was highest within five years of the abortion. The risk decreased gradually after the five-year point, but only after 17 years did the risk begin “to resemble” pregnancies carried to term, according to the study.

Tessa Cox, senior research associate at the think tank Charlotte Lozier Institute, said the study was “particularly powerful.” 

“This recent study out of Canada, which has more comprehensive health care data than the U.S., adds to a mounting body of research suggesting that abortion can harm women’s mental health,” Cox said.

“The abortion industry downplays the evidence, so the fact that this new study included more than a million women and took prior mental health and other related factors into account makes it particularly powerful,” she told CNA.

“Women deserve to have all the facts — and women and men who have been harmed by abortion need to know that forgiveness and healing are possible,” Cox said.

Another scholar called the study “robust,” noting that it followed the data over an extended period of time and had constants that enabled the information to be more accurate.

Michael New, senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute and assistant professor of practice at The Catholic University of America, noted that the study “provides strong statistical evidence that abortion increases the risk of a range of mental health problems.”

New said the study had many strengths, including its large sample size, the way it tracked women over an extended period of time, and how the authors analyzed data from an extended period of time.

This method was rare, according to the study, which noted that “large population-based studies with long-term follow-up are rare yet necessary to understand the mental health needs of women post abortion.”

New called this study’s results “robust,” noting that this study stands firm against criticism that similar studies have faced.

The study is one of several that have investigated correlation between mental health challenges and abortion.

“While other research has found that women who obtain abortions are likely to suffer from mental health disorders, critics of these studies have argued that women with mental health problems are more likely to obtain abortions in the first place,” New said.

“Most importantly it holds constant whether or not the women in the study had been hospitalized with mental health problems in the past,” he said of the Canadian study.

Read More