The future of abortion is now: Mifepristone by mail and in-clinic abortion access in the United States


      The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care delivery in all aspects of medicine, including abortion care. For 6 months, the mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) was temporarily blocked, allowing for the remote provision of medication abortion. Remote medication abortion may become a dominant model of care in the future, either through the formal health system or through self-sourced, self-managed abortion. Clinics already face pressure from falling abortion rates and excessive regulation and with a transition to remote abortion, may not be able to sustain services. Although remote medication abortion improves access for many, those who need or want in-clinic care such as people later in pregnancy, people for whom abortion at home is not safe or feasible, or people who are not eligible for medication abortion, will need comprehensive support to access safe and appropriate care. To understand how we may adapt to remote abortion without leaving people behind, we can look outside of the U.S. to become familiar with emerging and alternative models of abortion care.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Raymond EG
        • Grossman D
        • Mark A
        • Upadhyay UD
        • Dean G
        • Creinin MD
        • et al.
        Commentary: no-test medication abortion: a sample protocol for increasing access during a pandemic and beyond.
        Contraception. 2020; 101: 361-366
        • National Abortion Federation
        Clinical Policy Guidelines for Abortion Care.
        NAF, Washington, DC2020 (Available from:)
        • Chong E
        • Shochet T
        • Raymond E
        • Platais I
        • Anger H
        • Raidoo S.
        • et al.
        Expansion of a direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion service in the United States and experience during the COVID-19 pandemic.
        Contraception. 2021; (forthicomingIN THIS ISSUE)
      1. ACLU. Federal court blocks FDA restriction that unnecessarily imposes CoVID-19 risks on patients seeking abortion care,; 2020. [accessed 26 February 2021].

        • Nash E
        • Dreweke J.
        The U.S. abortion rate continues to drop: once again, state abortion restrictions are not the main driver.
        Guttmacher Policy Rev. 2019; 22: 41-48
        • Kortsmit K
        • Jatlaoui TC
        • Mandel MG
        • Reeves JA
        • Oduyebo T
        • Petersen E
        • et al.
        Abortion surveillance - United States, 2018.
        MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020; 69: 1-29
        • MacCallum-Bridges CL
        • Margerison CE.
        The Affordable Care Act contraception mandate & unintended pregnancy in women of reproductive age: an analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth, 2008-2010 v. 2013-2015.
        Contraception. 2020; 101: 34-39
        • ACOG
        Committee Opinion No. 539: adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120: 983-988
        • Baldwin MK
        • Edelman AB.
        The effect of long-acting reversible contraception on rapid repeat pregnancy in adolescents: a review.
        J Adolesc Health. 2013; 52: S47-S53
        • Makins A
        • Cameron S.
        Post pregnancy contraception.
        Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2020; 66: 41-54
        • Raymond E
        • Chong E
        • Winikoff B
        • Platais I
        • Mary M
        • Lotarevich T
        • et al.
        TelAbortion: evaluation of a direct to patient telemedicine abortion service in the United States.
        Contraception. 2019; 100: 173-177
      2. Mifeprex (mifepristone) information 2018. [Accessed 26 February 2021].

        • Hyland P
        • Raymond EG
        • Chong E.
        A direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion service in Australia: retrospective analysis of the first 18 months.
        Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018; 58: 335-340
        • Aiken ARA
        • Digol I
        • Trussell J
        • Gomperts R.
        Self reported outcomes and adverse events after medical abortion through online telemedicine: population based study in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
        BMJ. 2017; 357: j2011
        • Aiken A
        • Lohr PA
        • Lord J
        • Ghosh N
        • Starling J.
        Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of no-test medical abortion provided via telemedicine: a national cohort study.
        BJOG. 2021; ([epub ahead of print])
      3. Baker CN. How telemedicine startups are revolutionizing abortion health care in the U.S. Ms. Magazine. November 11, 2020. Available from [accessed 26 February 2021].

        • Mark A
        • Foster AM
        • Grossman D
        • Prager SW
        • Reeves M
        • Velásquez CV
        • et al.
        Foregoing Rh testing and anti-D immunoglobulin for women presenting for early abortion: a recommendation from the National Abortion Federation's Clinical Policies Committee.
        Contraception. 2019; 99: 265-266
      4. Ollstein AM. Democratic lawmakers push FDA to lift restrictions on abortion pill. Politico; 2021. [accessed 26 February 2021].

        • Donovan MK.
        Improving access to abortion via telehealth.
        Guttmacher Policy Rev. 2019; : 22
        • Aiken ARA
        • Starling JE
        • Gomperts R
        • Tec M
        • Scott JG
        • Aiken CE.
        Demand for self-managed online telemedicine abortion in the United States during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 136: 835-837
      5. Jones RK, Witwer E, Jerman J. Abortion Incidence and Service Availability In the United States, 2017: Guttmacher Institute.; 2019 [accessed 26 February 2021].

      6. National Abortion Federation. 2019 Violence and Disruption Statistics.; 2020. [accessed 26 February 2021].

        • Gerdts C
        • Fuentes L
        • Grossman D
        • White K
        • Keefe-Oates B
        • Baum SE
        • et al.
        Impact of clinic closures on women obtaining abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas.
        Am J Public Health. 2016; 106: 857-864
      7. Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count. New York Times.; 2021. [accessed 26 February 2021].

        • Witwer E
        • Jones RK
        • Fuentes L
        • Castle SK.
        Abortion service delivery in clinics by state policy climate in 2017.
        ContraceptionX. 2020; 2100043
        • Jones RK
        • Jerman J.
        Characteristics and circumstances of U.S. Women who obtain very early and second-trimester abortions.
        PLoS One. 2017; 12e0169969
        • Jones RK
        • Finer LB.
        Who has second-trimester abortions in the United States?.
        Contraception. 2012; 85: 544-551
        • Foster DG
        • Kimport K.
        Who seeks abortions at or after 20 weeks?.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2013; 45: 210-218
        • Yalahow A
        • Doctoroff J
        • Mark A
        • Foster AM.
        Trends in medication abortion provision before and after the introduction of mifepristone: a study of the National Abortion Federation's Canadian member services.
        Contraception. 2020; 102: 119-121
      8. Gilmore R. Abortion access will be maintained across Canada amid COVID-19 outbreak. CTVNews. 2020 March 26.; [accessed 26 February 2021].

        • LaRoche KJ
        • Labetca-Gordon IN
        • Foster AM.
        How did the introduction of mifepristone impact the availability of abortion care in Ottawa? A qualitative study with abortion patients.
        FACETS. 2020; 5
        • Vogel L.
        More doctors providing abortion after federal rules change.
        CMAJ. 2018; 190 (E147-E8)
      9. Kaiser Family Foundation. Coverage for abortion services in Medicaid, marketplace plans, and private plans [press release].; June 2019. [accessed 26 February 2021].

        • Makleff S
        • Labandera A
        • Chiribao F
        • Friedman J
        • Cardenas R
        • Sa E
        • et al.
        Experience obtaining legal abortion in Uruguay: knowledge, attitudes, and stigma among abortion clients.
        BMC Womens Health. 2019; 19: 155
        • Stifani BM
        • Couto M
        • Lopez Gomez A
        From harm reduction to legalization: the Uruguayan model for safe abortion.
        Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 143: 45-51
        • Tousaw E
        • La RK
        • Arnott G
        • Chinthakanan O
        • Foster AM.
        Without this program, women can lose their lives": migrant women's experiences with the Safe Abortion Referral Programme in Chiang Mai, Thailand.
        Reprod Health Matters. 2017; 25: 58-68
        • Foster AM
        • Arnott G
        • Hobstetter M.
        Community-based distribution of misoprostol for early abortion: evaluation of a program along the Thailand-Burma border.
        Contraception. 2017; 96: 242-247
        • Gomperts RJ
        • Jelinska K
        • Davies S
        • Gemzell-Danielsson K
        • Kleiverda G.
        Using telemedicine for termination of pregnancy with mifepristone and misoprostol in settings where there is no access to safe services.
        BJOG. 2008; 115: 1171-1175
        • Moseson H
        • Bullard KA
        • Cisternas C
        • Grosso B
        • Vera V
        • Gerdts C.
        Effectiveness of self-managed medication abortion between 13 and 24 weeks gestation: a retrospective review of case records from accompaniment groups in Argentina, Chile, and Ecuador.
        Contraception. 2020; 102: 91-98
        • Drovetta RI.
        Safe abortion information hotlines: an effective strategy for increasing women's access to safe abortions in Latin America.
        Reprod Health Matters. 2015; 23: 47-57
        • Gerdts C
        • Hudaya I.
        Quality of care in a safe-abortion hotline in Indonesia: beyond harm reduction.
        Am J Public Health. 2016; 106: 2071-2075
        • Keenan K
        • Footman K
        • Sadekin M
        • Reiss K
        • Yasmin R
        • Franklin H
        • et al.
        Using a call center to reduce harm from self-administration of reproductive health medicines in Bangladesh: interrupted time-series.
        JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2019; 5: e12233
        • Harris LH
        • Grossman D.
        Complications of unsafe and self-managed abortion.
        N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 1029-1040