At her confirmation hearing, Dr. Erica Schwartz warned that the nation is flying blind on abortion because the federal government’s main tracking system is built on voluntary, incomplete reporting.
Story Snapshot
- Dr. Erica Schwartz told senators that strong abortion surveillance is “absolutely critical” for public health and honest national statistics.
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) relies on states choosing to share abortion data, so there is no full national count.
- Large states like California, Maryland, and New Hampshire have not reported basic abortion data to CDC for years, leaving big gaps.
- Experts across the spectrum say poor data lets politicians spin numbers while everyday Americans lose trust in federal reporting.
Schwartz’s warning about weak national abortion data
During her confirmation hearing to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Erica Schwartz told senators that “abortion surveillance is absolutely critical” and promised to improve the agency’s statistics if confirmed. She pointed to a basic problem: the CDC does not receive abortion data because it is required by law, but because states choose to send it. The CDC’s own description of its system says states and jurisdictions “voluntarily report aggregate data” and that there is “no national requirement for data submission or reporting.” That means the official federal numbers many Americans assume are complete are, in fact, stitched together from whatever each state decides to share.
For 2022, the CDC reported 613,383 legal induced abortions from 48 reporting areas, out of 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. The CDC notes that abortion data are requested each year, but not all areas respond, and the level of detail varies by place and by year. In some states, reporting is tied to state law requiring hospitals or doctors to send information to a health agency, but even with these rules, reporting “is not complete in all areas.” When Schwartz calls the current system inadequate, she is echoing what the agency itself admits in print: the federal government’s abortion figures are estimates built on voluntary, uneven data.
Decades of gaps from key states
Public health experts have been warning about these data gaps for years, long before Schwartz’s hearing. The Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion using its own surveys of clinics, wrote in 2015 that three states—California, Maryland, and New Hampshire—“do not report any basic data on abortion incidence and patient characteristics” to the CDC and that reporting in some other states is “incomplete and unreliable.” Later analysis from the Heritage Foundation argued that the CDC’s totals “are a considerable underestimate” because those same three states have “consistently failed” to submit data and together account for roughly one-fifth of all abortions nationwide. When large states stay out of a voluntary system year after year, the national picture becomes skewed, and both sides of the abortion debate can pick the numbers that help their case.
The CDC’s own reports reflect this uneven map. In its 2022 surveillance summary, the agency explains that data came from 48 reporting areas rather than the full set of 52 possible areas it usually seeks. Earlier counts, such as the 2018 report, also show fewer than all states providing information. Outside groups have stepped in to fill the gaps. Guttmacher estimates 1,126,000 abortions by United States clinicians in 2025, a figure much higher than CDC’s 2022 count, because Guttmacher uses direct surveys of providers rather than waiting for states to send aggregate numbers. These differences do not mean one group is necessarily right and the other wrong, but they highlight Schwartz’s point: without clear rules, strong definitions, and complete reporting, Americans are getting a patchwork view of one of the most contested issues in national life.
Why better surveillance matters beyond the abortion fight
Schwartz’s focus on “absolutely critical” abortion surveillance fits into a larger struggle over trust in government data. Many conservatives argue that elites in Washington hide the real impact of abortion, crime, and immigration behind polished numbers. Many liberals worry that conservative leaders cut funding and weaken reporting systems to downplay social harms. In this case, both sides share a basic concern: the system is not giving the full truth. Even the CDC’s frequently asked questions page admits there is “no national requirement” to send abortion data, which means federal leaders lack a firm baseline for policy and debate. When numbers are incomplete, it becomes easier for politicians, media, and advocacy groups to cherry-pick statistics that fit their narrative.
If confirmed to CDC director, Erica Schwartz says she will improve abortion surveillance statistics.
SCHWARTZ: "Abortion surveillance is absolutely a critical component of what the CDC is currently doing. To your point, it may be moved to another agency within HHS…. I also…
— Gabrielle M. Etzel (@UnvarnishedGME) July 15, 2026
Past studies show what better surveillance can do. A classic analysis of abortion-related deaths in the 1970s found that combining abortion surveillance data with vital statistics allowed researchers to identify about 94 percent of deaths linked to abortion. That kind of accurate counting matters no matter where someone stands on abortion itself. It helps doctors see risks, helps lawmakers judge the impact of regulations, and helps citizens weigh claims from both pro-life and pro-choice organizations. Schwartz’s promise to tighten definitions, push for more consistent state reporting, and modernize data collection would not settle the moral debate over abortion. But it could reduce the fog of uncertainty that now lets the “deep state” narrative grow—that government numbers are rigged or useless—and give Americans a clearer, shared picture of reality.
Sources:
youtube.com, cdc.gov, datalumos.org, guttmacher.org, kff.org, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
