Post #4472775

“The CDC collects data on abortions that are committed in the United States of America through a system called the Abortion Reporting System,” Senator Josh Hawley said when asking Erica Schwartz whether she would commit to collecting detailed data on abortions. “This system is voluntary, and so a number of states, not coincidentally large blue states, do not turn over any data, so that it’s difficult to get a picture of just how many abortions and under what circumstances are committed in this country. We do know the numbers are going way up.” “Senator, you have my commitment,” Schwartz replied. “Abortion surveillance is absolutely a critical component of what the CDC is currently doing.” “I also want to make sure that certain states are not conflating emergency services and hiding abortions in that emergency services case definition,” she added. “We need to make sure we’re pulling out true abortions and making sure that we’re really having clear case definitions regarding abortions so the data is actually accurate.” “Tremendous,” Hawley replied. He seemed very happy with her response. If you are concerned about the growing criminalization of abortion and surveillance of pregnant women in the US, then absolutely nothing about this is tremendous. I’ve quoted the majority of the exchange between Hawley and Schwartz instead of paraphrasing it, because the choice of language is so alarming. First, look at the way in which Hawley frames the issue. He talks about abortions being 💥committed: a loaded word which makes you think of murder. (Imagine it in another medical context: I’m having a mammogram committed tomorrow!) Then he insinuates that blue states are hiding abortion data for nefarious reasons. As it is, 44 states plus Washington DC have some form of mandated abortion reporting, according to the Guttmacher Institute, and there is no evidence that these states are hiding anything. New York is an outlier in that it only requires abortion reporting when a patient makes a request related to the disposition of the fetus’s remains. Which seems like a sensible policy that protects the privacy of people who have had abortions. Now look at Schwartz’s reply. Why would abortion surveillance be “a critical component” of what the CDC is doing? Data collection around abortions can serve legitimate purposes, sure, but isn’t it rather more important for the CDC to be, I dunno, controlling and preventing diseases? Her reference to “true abortions” (as opposed to fake ones?) and to states “hiding abortions” is also worrying. Pregnant people are already dying preventable deaths because providers in states with abortion bans are terrified of treating them. This sort of language from the CDC director is going to make the situation even worse. Donald Trump has called Schwartz “a STAR”. If her exchange with Hawley is anything to go by, however, she seems to be yet another stooge: happy to facilitate the Trump administration’s anti-abortion agenda and politicization of public health. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/08/cdc-abortion-surveillance-schwartz-hawley?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other