- Advocate legislatively
- Support/collaborate with other groups/organizations on work that’s already being done
WHEREAS Minn. Stat. § 145.4131-4136 states requirement of providers to submit an induced abortion form for every elective termination of pregnancy;
WHEREAS demographic information collected from the form is published on Minnesota Department of Health website;
WHEREAS, per §145.4131, the information collected should not be used to determine medical care decisions;
WHEREAS the required form asks questions about education level and marital status, which are not required information for any other medication or procedure;
WHEREAS collecting, filling out and filing this form adds clerical and administrative burden to Minnesotan physicians;
WHEREAS asking patients these questions risks stigmatizing patients, which can influence their decision and harm the patient-physician relationship;
WHEREAS information collected with this form is not used for anything specific;
WHEREAS, with the removal of requirement of reporting abortions per statute 145.4131, the decreased burden of paperwork allows for better care;
BE IT RESOLVED that the MAFP Legislative Committee advocate to remove abortion reporting requirements.
Originally submitted resolution
BE IT RESOLVED that the MAFP Legislative Committee work with legislators to remove marital status and education questions from reporting documents if unable to remove reporting entirely.
Supporting information
Requirement of reporting demographic information: https://www.health.state.mn.us/data/mchs/pubs/abrpt/docs/reportinducedabortion-instructions.pdf
While answering the questions is not necessary for care, it is required by law. Fear of disclosure is reported as a barrier to care: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9577010/
Comments in support (14)
Julie Amaon – As a family medicine physician who provides abortion care in Minnesota, I whole heartedly agree with this resolution. The state reporting requirements add to the stigma that patients have when seeking this essential healthcare, specifically the demographic data is not used for anything in particular, and the reporting adds administrative burden and takes away from patient care.
Macaran Baird – These new reporting requirements could be used to restrict vital care for some patients.
Carrie Link – Reducing stigmatizing and unnecessary data collection on patients that is only an administrative burden to physicians—yes!
Elizabeth Ingersent – I am involved in abortion research and typically support collection of data for research, however mandatory government reporting of this undirected data does not contribute to patient care and should be eliminated.
Kenneth Ripp – Anything that can be done to lower the administrative burdens of practice is a good idea.
Nancy Baker – I agree that data on marital status and education level is not relevant to women seeking a termination of their pregnancy.
Andrew Slattengren – I support this resolution to remove documentation that does not impact the medical decision-making process.
Erin Westfall – We should strive to reduce the “red tape” burden when possible. Additionally, the requirement of marriage status and education level are vestiges of patriarchal bias and should not be a required reporting element for abortion care. In fact, as this type of care is well within the scope of family medicine care, reporting requirements at all are suspect, as many of the procedures we perform in family medicine carry considerably higher risk.
Paul Van Gorp – The requirement to report elective terminations of pregnancy has been in place for a long time, and I think its purpose is to act as a disincentive for practicing primary care physicians to provide abortion services, services which many would likely provide, but for fear of the repercussions of publicly available reports, do not provide. This is especially true since the availability of medical abortions. Minnesota has risen as a recognized site of safety for women in need of this type of healthcare, and it is time to eliminate the described reporting requirement as it serves as a hindrance and barrier to such care.
Kim Krohn – The demographic information currently required is an invasion of privacy.
Chris Reif – Strongly agree with other’s comments. And looking to the future – Trump & Musk are gathering all the data they can preparing to attack anyone they disagree with. Women, reproductive choice, and supportive providers are at the top of their list.
Keith Johnson – Demographic information is not relevant to the cafe if abortion patients and only increase the risk of protected information exposure.
Glenn Nemec – Agree with the other “yes” commenters. With respect to Dr. Seaworth’s comment, I do not believe that any of the currently unneeded and unused information that is collected has a place in any termination decision. whether the slice of termination care he refers to should be allowed or not is outside the topic addressed by this resolution.
Heidi Street – I support removing marital status and educational level from reporting.
Comments against (1)
Thomas Seaworth – Entire issue needs to be revisited with limits on second and third trimester elective abortions in otherwise healthy fetuses in otherwise healthy mothers.
