In the wake of sweeping changes to abortion laws and access across North America and the United Kingdom, new research and government initiatives are painting a complex, sometimes troubling, picture of reproductive health and policy in 2025. Recent findings from the UK, Canada, and the United States underscore both the intended and unintended consequences of evolving abortion regulations, with impacts stretching from hospital wards to the workplace and even to long-term choices around contraception.
In England, the introduction of the “pills-by-post” scheme in 2020 marked a significant shift in abortion provision, aiming to increase access by allowing women to manage abortions at home with medication sent by mail. However, according to a detailed report by Kevin Duffy, a former director at MSI Reproductive Choices turned pro-life researcher, the reality has been far more complicated than policymakers anticipated. As reported by Live Action News, Duffy’s analysis of official NHS England and Office for Health Improvement & Disparities (OHID) data reveals that more than 54,000 women have been admitted to NHS hospitals over the past five years for complications arising from the use of abortion pills—a figure that averages nearly 11,000 hospitalizations per year.
Duffy’s breakdown is striking: “1-in-17 of all women self-managing their abortion at home will subsequently be admitted for hospital treatment of an incomplete medical abortion or other complications arising from medical abortion.” He clarified for Live Action News that these admissions typically follow referrals from emergency rooms or outpatient settings, emphasizing that these are not minor incidents but cases requiring specialist inpatient care. The annual numbers have risen steadily, from 8,618 admissions in 2020-21 to 12,140 in 2024-25, according to NHS data published in September 2025.
Despite the scale of the issue, neither the UK government nor abortion providers report these complication figures annually. The pro-life Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) highlighted that “most abortions in England now occur at home, with 75 percent self-managed in 2022.” The two largest providers, BPAS and MSI Reproductive Choices, estimate a failure rate of 2 to 3 percent, but drug manufacturers warn the real risk could be as high as 7.8 percent, often requiring surgical intervention. The government itself admitted to incomplete reporting: in 2023, OHID found only 300 complications recorded through the Abortion Notification System, compared to over 11,000 hospital admissions for complications. Ministers have since declined to publish such data annually, despite the process being relatively straightforward.
Duffy’s findings echo concerns raised in the United States, where the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Biden-Harris administration relaxed safety regulations on abortion pills, allowing for mail-order and pharmacy dispensing. This has led to parallel increases in emergency department visits for abortion pill complications, with critics arguing that risks are being undercounted and that some providers are failing to follow basic safety protocols, such as screening for ectopic pregnancies or verifying gestational age.
“The government is fully aware of the numbers of women being admitted to hospital for treatment of abortion complications but for some reason seems unwilling to report these on an annual basis,” Duffy wrote. He called for greater transparency and accountability, arguing, “Deliberately minimising and misleading women about the reality of these risks is no longer acceptable.”
Across the Atlantic, Canada is taking a markedly different approach, investing millions to expand abortion access, particularly for marginalized populations. On October 23, 2025, the Canadian government announced $4.3 million in funding to researchers at the University of British Columbia (UBC) to study barriers to abortion among indigenous individuals, migrants, minorities, LGBTQ individuals, young people, and people with disabilities or health concerns. This initiative is part of a broader $13 million investment aimed at improving sexual and reproductive health services throughout the country.
The Canadian Minister of Health, the Honourable Marjorie Michel, was clear about the government’s rationale: “Through projects like the ones announced today, the government is taking concrete actions to advance health equity and gender equality, so more Canadians can fully participate in the workforce.” The funding will be used to update the Canadian Abortion Provider Support Website, host a national knowledge mobilization event, and create resources for abortion clients. Principal researcher Dr. Wendy Norman, interim co-head of UBC’s department of family practice, expressed gratitude for the support, saying, “This award will advance equitable access to respectful high-quality abortion care that is welcoming and appropriate for people from all cultures and identity groups.”
Critics, however, argue that the government’s motivations are not purely altruistic. They contend that by increasing abortion access, Canada avoids the costs associated with maternity and paternity leave, which can last up to 40 weeks and require the government to pay a significant portion of workers’ salaries. The policy, they claim, is as much about economic efficiency and maintaining workforce participation as it is about health equity.
Meanwhile, in the United States, the aftershocks of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision—which overturned Roe v. Wade and removed federal protections for abortion access—are rippling through reproductive health choices in ways that extend far beyond abortion itself. A study published in October 2025 in O&G Open and led by Penn obstetrics and gynecology assistant professor Alice Abernathy analyzed more than 450,000 permanent contraception procedures in Pennsylvania from January 2019 to March 2023. The research found a statistically significant increase in rates of permanent contraception, such as tubal ligations and vasectomies, following the Dobbs decision.
“Shortly after the Dobbs decision dropped, I had a number of patients come in to request permanent tubal contraception procedures. We wondered if it was just a fluke, or if people were really changing some of their decisions as a result,” Abernathy told The Daily Pennsylvanian. The study revealed that the increase was particularly notable among more-educated, higher-income women and those living further from abortion care facilities. Abernathy noted, “Those with higher incomes may simply find it easier to act on their desire for permanent contraception.”
The research, supported by the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at Penn, highlights what Abernathy called “the unseen fallout” of abortion-policy shifts: a change in reproductive behavior that goes beyond access to abortion itself. Past campus discourse has reflected similar concerns about reproductive autonomy, with advocacy groups at Penn working to promote reproductive justice and raise awareness about contraception and abortion care.
As the debate over abortion and reproductive rights continues to evolve, these findings from the UK, Canada, and the US illustrate the profound—and sometimes unexpected—ways in which policies can shape individual health decisions, public health outcomes, and broader societal trends. Whether through increased hospitalizations, expanded access for marginalized groups, or a rise in permanent contraception, the ripple effects of abortion policy are both far-reaching and deeply personal.
For policymakers, providers, and patients alike, the message is clear: the landscape of reproductive health is shifting rapidly, and the need for accurate data, transparent reporting, and patient-centered care has never been more urgent.
