This New Study Punches Holes in the Red-State Push for Abortion Counseling

<a href="">Monkey Business Images</a>/Shutterstock

In thirty-eight US states, women are required by law to receive abortion counseling from their physician before undergoing the procedure. But often these women are getting medically inaccurate and misleading information about the procedure from government-authored informational brochures, according to a new study from Rutgers University.

Informed consent laws became popular among state legislatures after the Supreme Court’s 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, which said, among other things, that states could require abortion counseling to ensure women’s decisions are “informed.” Though the laws vary state by state, they most commonly require that an abortion physician give women, either verbally or in writing, specific, state-authored information on gestational development, physical characteristics of the fetus, and risks associated with abortion. The laws often go hand-in-hand with waiting period requirements. In Missouri, for example, a 2014 law requires that women receive in-person counseling on abortion 72 hours ahead of the appointment.

“States say women are ignorant of the health risks of abortion and the development of the fetus, so these laws will inform them” says Cynthia R. Daniels, a political science professor at Rutgers and the study’s lead author. “That’s justified because lawmakers say women often come to regret their decision, so counseling will help them avoid regret.”

But nearly onethird of that counseling, and over 40 percent in some states, includes information that’s scientifically or medically inaccurate, according to Daniels’ report. To study the counseling, Daniels and her team compiled the informed consent brochures from 23 states and brought in a team of experts in embryonic and fetal development from the American Association of Anatomists to review the material and rate each statement of fact for scientific and biological accuracy as well as the extent to which the statement is misleading.

The researchers found that just over 40 percent of information in the materials, which are prepared by the state and given to doctors, is completely accurate, and that 31 percent of that information is inaccurate (the remaining 27 percent were rated more accurate than inaccurate). Thirty-three percent of the materials was also misleading, meaning it gives the wrong impression, according to the researchers.

The highest percentage of inaccuracies were related to the first trimester of pregnancy, when 90 percent of abortions occur. In Michigan, where informational texts were 45 percent inaccurate, women learn that in the fourth week of pregnancy, the embryo’s head forms, by week six brain activity can be recorded and the fetus’s eyes open, and by the twelfth week, soft nails have grown on the fingers and toes. And in North Carolina, women read that by six weeks “the heart is pumping the embryo’s own blood to the brain and body,” and by week nine, the hands move and the neck turns. The researchers rated each of these statements as completely inaccurate.

“This is giving people the wrong impression of what is happening to them” says Grace Howard, a PhD candidate at Rutgers and one of the study’s authors. “It also undermines the legitimacy of the medical profession, because physicians are being compelled by law to make these inaccurate statements.”

Daniels and Howard also say that, given the level of misinformation, the state-authored brochures may be unconstitutional. Though the Supreme Court’s 1992 Casey decision upheld the constitutionality of informed consent laws, the content also must be “truthful and not misleading” and designed “to convey only accurate scientific information about the unborn child.”

“There aren’t many of us who would want a state legislator sitting in our doctor’s office with us,” says Daniels, “We want to feel that relationship is unconstrained by politics, and this study suggests they are not.”


The more we thought about how MoJo's journalism can have the most impact heading into the 2020 election, the more we realized that so many of today's stories come down to corruption: democracy and the rule of law being undermined by the wealthy and powerful for their own gain.

So we're launching a new Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption. We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We'll publish what we find as a major series in the summer of 2020, including a special issue of our magazine, a dedicated online portal, and video and podcast series so it doesn't get lost in the daily deluge of breaking news.

It's unlike anything we've done before and we've got seed funding to get started, but we're asking readers to help crowdfund this new beat with an additional $500,000 so we can go even bigger. You can read why we're taking this approach and what we want to accomplish in "Corruption Isn't Just Another Scandal. It's the Rot Beneath All of Them," and if you like how it sounds, please help fund it with a tax-deductible donation today.

We Recommend


Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.


Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.