The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has unexpectedly postponed the release of its annual abortion surveillance report, a critical federal document that has provided a national barometer of abortion trends for over half a century. This highly anticipated report, which was slated to contain the first full year of national data since the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, has been pushed back until the spring of 2026. The delay comes amid a storm of internal controversy, with conflicting explanations from health officials pointing to significant staffing shortages and deep-seated disputes within the agency. The postponement leaves a significant void in official federal data at a time when the landscape of abortion access in the United States is undergoing its most profound transformation in generations, forcing policymakers, researchers, and the public to rely on non-governmental sources for the most current information. The situation underscores a growing tension between data collection and political pressures within federal health agencies.
Conflicting Narratives Emerge From Health Officials
The reasons behind the report’s suspension are mired in contradiction, revealing a fractured relationship between federal health agencies. Officials at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have publicly attributed the halt to the actions of Dr. Debra Houry, the former Chief Medical Officer at the CDC. According to an HHS spokesperson, Dr. Houry single-handedly stopped the data analysis and directed staff to return the voluntarily submitted state-level data, effectively scuttling the project. However, Dr. Houry has vehemently refuted this account, offering a starkly different narrative. She asserts that the program was rendered non-operational not by her directive but by a catastrophic loss of personnel. Following extensive HHS-mandated layoffs in April, the program allegedly lost the staff necessary to perform the analysis. Dr. Houry claims that the agency’s political leadership was explicitly warned in April that without adequate funding, sufficient staff, and a statutory mandate, the vital surveillance program could not proceed.
The internal discord highlights a significant operational breakdown, with accountability remaining elusive. In response to Dr. Houry’s claims about staffing and funding, an HHS official offered a terse counterpoint, stating that the former CDC officer had failed to adhere to the correct approval process for the report, though the official declined to elaborate on what this process entailed or how it was violated. This vague accusation does little to clarify the situation, instead adding another layer of complexity to the internal power struggles. The core of Dr. Houry’s argument is that the program’s foundation had been eroded by administrative decisions beyond her control, specifically the April layoffs that decimated the team responsible for compiling and analyzing the data. The conflicting stories paint a picture of an agency in turmoil, where critical public health functions are caught in a crossfire of bureaucratic procedure and political maneuvering, ultimately leading to the delay of essential national health statistics.
Non-Governmental Data Fills the Void
In the absence of the official federal report, independent researchers have stepped in to provide a more current, albeit unofficial, picture of abortion trends across the country. A detailed report released on December 9, 2025, by #WeCount, a research initiative sponsored by the Society of Family Planning, presents a striking finding that contradicts many post-Dobbs predictions. The data indicates that the number of abortions performed in the United States has not decreased but has, in fact, risen. The #WeCount analysis estimates that an average of nearly 99,000 abortions occurred each month during the first half of 2025. This figure represents an approximate 4% increase when compared to the monthly average from the previous year. This rise suggests that while state-level bans have shuttered clinics and created significant access hurdles in many regions, patients are finding alternative pathways to care, leading to an overall increase in the national abortion rate. The findings underscore the dynamic and adaptive nature of healthcare access in a rapidly shifting legal environment.
A closer examination of the #WeCount data reveals that a fundamental transformation in the delivery of abortion care is driving this upward trend. The most significant development has been the explosive growth of medication abortions provided through telehealth services. These services, which involve remote consultation with a clinician and the mailing of abortion medication, now account for a remarkable 27% of all abortions in the nation. This is a dramatic surge from early 2023, when telehealth abortions constituted less than 10% of the total. This shift has been largely enabled by the implementation of new state “shield laws.” These innovative legal frameworks protect clinicians who are licensed in states where abortion remains legal, allowing them to prescribe and mail medication to patients residing in states with severe restrictions or outright bans. This legal protection has created a critical lifeline, with data showing that these interstate telehealth services provided care for approximately 15,000 abortions in the month of June alone.
The Enduring Value of Federal Data
Despite the timely insights provided by non-governmental groups, experts stressed that the delayed CDC report remained an irreplaceable resource for understanding the full scope of abortion in the United States. Dr. Alison Norris of the #WeCount project noted that while her group’s data offered a crucial real-time snapshot, the federal government’s report played a unique and vital role. Because of its consistent, year-over-year methodology for data collection and analysis, the CDC report has historically provided an unparalleled and reliable foundation for tracking long-term trends and demographic shifts with a level of authority that non-federal studies cannot replicate. This historical continuity was essential for researchers and policymakers to accurately assess the long-term impacts of legal and policy changes. The delay represented more than just a gap in data; it was a break in a decades-long record that has been fundamental to public health research and policy debates surrounding reproductive healthcare in the nation.
