The Case for Remote Abortions

Video conference is just as safe as an in-person doctor visit when administering the abortion pill, a new study finds.

A doctor in Des Moines, Iowa, and a nurse in a clinic in another city demonstrate a telemedicine program through which doctors can remotely prescribe the abortion-inducing drug RU-486. Charlie Neibergall/AP

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.

In order to be prescribed abortion-inducing medication, pregnant women are usually required to have an in-person appointment with a doctor who administers the drugs. In rural places, that can be difficult: Many women must drive for hours to the nearest abortion clinic. One promising solution to this problem is telemedicine, where a doctor meets with the patient via video conference at an office close to the patient’s home. A new study found that these virtual abortion-pill procedures are just as safe as the in-person versions.

This conclusion comes after seven years of examining a telemedicine program in Iowa Planned Parenthood clinics. University of California-San Francisco researchers analyzed 8,765 medical abortions that were performed by telemedicine and 10,405 that were done in an in-person visit. Overall, 0.18 percent of the telemedicine patients experienced a complication compared with 0.32 percent of in-person patients.

The UCSF researchers also found that the program increased access to early abortion for Iowa women, meaning there were fewer abortions at later gestational terms. A prior study from the same group showed that women who used telemedicine for their abortion procedure were more likely to recommend that method to a friend and generally had a very high rate of satisfaction. The program persisted, despite a hostile political climate: In 2015, when the telemedicine program was specifically targeted in Iowa’s Republican-led state legislature, a measure that required physicians to administer the drugs in person was struck down by the Iowa Supreme Court.

18 states currently ban using telemedicine for abortion, citing safety concerns. Yet complications in abortion procedures—in-person or virtual—are extremely rare. A 2014 study by the same UCSF researchers concluded that they occur at about the same rate as complications from a standard colonoscopy. Dr. Daniel Grossman, lead author of the study, noted that the risk of death is 14 times higher and the risk of needing a blood transfusion is 10 times higher for women who choose to carry a pregnancy to term. “The reality is that pregnancy is dangerous,” Grossman said. “I think it’s very important to put these risks in context.”

Grossman said the fact that in-person abortions had a slightly higher complication rate than telemedicine abortions was not “statistically significant” for the sample size but “there definitely seems to be a trend.” 

“It’s something to examine moving forward,” he said. “Maybe the in-person patients are getting some unnecessary medical intervention, maybe a blood transfusion when they don’t really need it…as a precaution.”

REAL QUICK, REAL URGENT

Minority rule, corruption, disinformation, attacks on those who dare tell the truth: There is a direct line from what's happening in Russia and Ukraine to what's happening here at home. And that's what MoJo's Monika Bauerlein writes about in "Their Fight Is Our Fight" to unpack the information war we find ourselves in and share a few examples to show why the power of independent, reader-supported journalism is such a threat to authoritarians.

Corrupt leaders the world over can (and will) try to shut down the truth, but when the truth has millions of people on its side, you can't keep it down for good. And there's no more powerful or urgent argument for your support of Mother Jones' journalism right now than that. We need to raise about $450,000 to hit our online fundraising budget in these next few months, so please read more from Monika and pitch in if you can.

payment methods

REAL QUICK, REAL URGENT

Minority rule, corruption, disinformation, attacks on those who dare tell the truth: There is a direct line from what's happening in Russia and Ukraine to what's happening here at home. And that's what MoJo's Monika Bauerlein writes about in "Their Fight Is Our Fight" to unpack the information war we find ourselves in and share a few examples to show why the power of independent, reader-supported journalism is such a threat to authoritarians.

Corrupt leaders the world over can (and will) try to shut down the truth, but when the truth has millions of people on its side, you can't keep it down for good. And there's no more powerful or urgent argument for your support of Mother Jones' journalism right now than that. We need to raise about $450,000 to hit our online fundraising budget in these next few months, so please read more from Monika and pitch in if you can.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

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

Subscribe

Support our journalism

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

Donate