In Montana, 80% of abortions are now by pill

Montana is witnessing a noticeable change in how women seek out abortion. In‑person surgical procedures have been decreasing, while the use of abortion pills continues to drastically rise.

Key Takeaways:

• More than 80% of the recorded abortions in Montana are carried out by the abortion pill.

• Abortion supporters cite economic hardships as the reason the abortion pill has been used so prevalently.

• Intentionally killing preborn children as a "solution" for economic concerns is unethical. Rather, resources should be made more readily available to help families overcome hardships without sacrificing their children.

The Details:

Figures in recent years reveal that most abortions in Montana are now drug‑induced, not surgical, echoing a nationwide trend toward abortion pill use. In 2023, more than 80% of recorded abortions in Montana were committed using abortion pills, up from 58% in 2019. In 2023, surgical abortions made up fewer than one in five abortion procedures in Montana.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute reported in 2025 regarding the state's 2023 abortion statistics: 

Over 80% of Montana abortions were drug-induced (82%), and 18% were surgical. Eighty-two percent of Montana abortions occurred at eight weeks of gestation or earlier. Thirteen percent were performed between nine and 13 weeks, and 2% were performed from 14 to 15 weeks. One percent were performed between 16 and 17 weeks of gestation, and 16 abortions (0.7%) occurred between 18 and 20 weeks. Four abortions were performed after 21 weeks and five were performed at unknown gestational ages.

Likewise, the Daily Montanan concurred in December 2025, “In Montana, the number of patients accessing telehealth abortions averaged around 45 before Dobbs; today, that number is above 50 per month. Meanwhile, in-person visits are slowly getting less frequent. Before Dobbs, nearly 95% of visits for people seeking abortion were in-person. Today, that number has fallen to 73%. Montana’s average mirrors the national trend: Twenty-six percent of abortions in the state utilize telehealth.”

Notably, abortion supporters have pointed out economic struggles—escalating rent, childcare costs, medical bills, as well as lack of paid parental leave—as key reasons women obtain abortion, particularly in states with high rural poverty and limited social support. As the Daily Montanan claimed, “[T]hat challenge boils down to economics — less money for healthcare, less money for raising children and less money for travel.”

“This isn’t just about a family, it’s about finances,” Erin Case, the executive director of Montana Abortion Access Program, alleged. “Some people just can’t add a child because of the barriers.”

Instead of pushing for life-affirming assistance that would enable mothers to carry their babies to term, abortion enthusiasts argue that women need easier access to abortion, such as abortion pills by mail or assistance to travel for abortion, as if helping to kill children is superior to helping women overcome economic challenges with their families intact.

Singling out economic uncertainties or financial stress as a catalyst to abort a baby is highly disturbing. Such a mindset signals that a preborn child’s ability to live is contingent on her mother’s economic circumstances. Abortion supporters’ default reaction to seek abortion as an economic “solution” merely sweeps real policy problems — lack of community support, poor maternity care, and inadequate crisis resources — under the rug.  

The Bottom Line:

The increased use of abortion pills and telehealth in Montana is a sign of society's growing reliance on induced abortion — the direct and intentional killing of preborn babies — as the false "solution" to complex pregnancies and economic struggles. Under the guise of personal ease, at-home abortions leave women on their own for the lonely and traumatic process that sends countless women to emergency rooms due to complications, and do nothing to help alleviate their financial stresses.

Rather than expanding abortion pills by mail as an unethical attempt to "solve" pregnancy-related concerns, support for wider access to life-affirming alternatives should take precedence.​