As an OB-GYN physician, submitting data and filing reports was not a favorite activity. For every live and still birth, data is collected as required by the National Vital Statistics System. There are at least 48 data items that are recorded, not including subsections. Though this is a lot of data, the purpose of collecting data for vital statistical analysis is critical to identify trends in health, to identify needs and disparities, to determine the impact of strategies and programs on health, and for the development of programs to improve health and health care.

We measure what we care about. I know that we all care about women and their health. Both the American College of OB-GYN (ACOG) and Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health and rights research and policy organization, support and recommend improved abortion reporting. ACOG specifically notes that accurate data is necessary to improve “quality (of medical care), access to care, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities on maternal and infant health care.” However, research quality depends on the accuracy of the data collected. Garbage in, garbage out.

Colorado has required abortion reporting of only nine items, but the current system has not been effective. Abortion data may also be voluntarily reported to the Guttmacher Institute; their abortion data for Colorado are 40% higher than Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) data, and rates for later-term abortions can vary as much as 55% from year to year, suggesting inaccurate reporting. The most prominent late-term abortion provider in Colorado has not reported their data for years.

Though there are currently fees that might be assessed for non-reporting, there remains non-compliance. Bill HB22-1075 adds a referral for unprofessional conduct, as an additional impetus for reporting. The individual woman’s identity is protected and not included. The data may only be released for research and public-policy purposes.

Bill HB 22-1075 would add only two items to the nine data items that are already required: the reason(s) the woman chose to pursue abortion, using reasons previously published by Guttmacher Institute, and the family planning method being used, if any.

How would this data be helpful? Understanding why women choose to pursue abortion is especially important when many women say they felt they had “no choice,” and may have chosen otherwise if they had support and resources available. How can we help, so that women have true choice? What will be the impact of paid-family-leave in Colorado on abortion rates? One of the great racial disparities in health care is preterm birth, with black women experiencing a rate three times as high as white women, and a similar disparity in abortion frequency. Are late-term abortions and/or multiple abortions associated with subsequent preterm births? What forms of contraception are most recently used for each age group? How might that information improve programs and education for prevention?

Another area data collection could significantly impact is human trafficking and sexual abuse. Colorado, like all states, has the hidden scourge of human trafficking, with an estimated $60 billion in annual profits in Denver alone. Human trafficking exists within the web of economic distress, drugs and abortion. How can we identify and help these women? We start by requiring abortion providers to inquire about the circumstances that have led the women to seek an abortion, which is part of HB22-1075.

Colorado is not alone in collecting data on abortion; other states include Arizona, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Louisiana. Countries with similar abortion data collection include the United Kingdom and Finland, which is able to link abortion data to longitudinal health outcomes due to the single-payer health-care system.

Bill HB22-1075 is about collecting health-care data. Regardless of how one feels about abortion, I believe we can all agree that improving women’s health and health care matters. Helping women have expanded options in their decision making is a worthy endeavor. This requires data collection, and is standard in all fields of health care. Eleven data items, by a simple electronic form, are not onerous to the provider. There is precedent in other states and countries. There is evidence for great benefit. What is the downside? Why would we not want accurate data?

Catherine J. Wheeler, MD, of Divide, is a board-certified Ob/Gyn physician, with 24 years of practice experience.