1 States by Guttmacher Rating

States by Guttmacher Rating
Guttmacher Rating States Number of States
Most restrictive AL, AR, FL, IA, ID, IN, KY, LA, MS, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, WV 15
Very restrictive GA, NE, UT 3
Restrictive AZ, KS, MO, NC, ND, PA, WI, WY 8
Some restrictions/protections NH, NV, OH, VA 4
Protective AK, CT, DE, HI, IL, MA, ME, MT, RI 9
Very protective CO, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, WA 7
Most protective CA, DC, MD, OR, VT 5
States by Guttmacher Rating (Grouped)
Guttmacher Rating (Grouped) States Number of States
Restrictive AL, AR, AZ, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI, WV, WY 26
Middle ground NH, NV, OH, VA 4
Protective AK, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA 21

States were classified according to the Guttmacher Institute’s abortion policy rating (Restrictive, Some restrictions/protections, Protective).


2 Commonwealth Fund Rankings and Indicator Rates by Guttmacher Rating

2.1 Commonwealth Fund Rankings by Guttmacher Rating

The figure presents boxplots comparing Commonwealth Fund rankings across levels of Guttmacher reproductive health policy ratings. The indicators span measures of overall quality, outcomes, access, affordability, preventive care, maternal and infant health, insurance coverage, and reproductive health services. State-level outliers are labeled by state abbreviation, allowing easy identification of states that differ substantially from their peers.



2.2 Commonwealth Fund Rankings by Guttmacher Rating (Grouped)

The figure presents boxplots of Commonwealth Fund rankings across grouped Guttmacher reproductive health policy ratings (Restrictive, Middle Ground, Protective). Statistical differences are evaluated using the Kruskal–Wallis test (Overall p), with significant pairwise contrasts denoted by Dunn’s post-hoc comparisons (p with brackets). State-level outliers are labeled by abbreviation, enabling clear identification of states that differ notably from their peers.



2.3 Commonwealth Fund Indicator Rates by Guttmacher Rating

The figure presents boxplots comparing Commonwealth Fund indicator rates across levels of Guttmacher reproductive health policy ratings. The indicators encompass measures of maternal and infant health, insurance coverage, preventive care, and reproductive health services. State-level outliers are labeled by abbreviation, allowing clear identification of states that differ substantially from their peers.



2.4 Commonwealth Fund Indicator Rates by Guttmacher Rating (Grouped)

The figure presents boxplots of Commonwealth Fund indicator rates across grouped Guttmacher reproductive health policy ratings (Restrictive, Middle Ground, Protective). Statistical differences are evaluated using the Kruskal–Wallis test (Overall p), with significant pairwise contrasts denoted by Dunn’s post-hoc comparisons (p with brackets). State-level outliers are labeled by abbreviation, enabling clear identification of states that differ notably from their peers.

The included indicators are: maternal mortality, infant mortality, breast and cervical cancer deaths, preterm birth, syphilis and congenital syphilis rates, self-reported physical and mental health, insurance coverage gaps, barriers to care, maternity care workforce, abortion clinic availability, cesarean deliveries, prenatal and postpartum care, recommended screenings (breast, cervical, colon cancer, HIV), influenza vaccination during pregnancy, and postpartum depression screening.

3 Rural Population and Its Relationship to Reproductive Health Policy and Commentwelath Health Indicators

3.1 Rural Population by Guttmacher Reproductive Health Policy Rating

Two complementary visualizations of state-level rural population rates by Guttmacher reproductive health policy ratings:
• A boxplot comparing rural population rates across individual Guttmacher rating levels.
• A boxplot with Dunn’s post-hoc tests highlighting statistically significant pairwise differences across grouped Guttmacher categories.



3.2 Rural Population and Commonwealth Indicator Rates: Correlation Analysis

Commonwealth Fund indicators and their association with state-level rural population percentages. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) and p-values are reported, with significant associations flagged.
• Indicators with significant associations are highlighted with a gold background and an asterisk in the facet title.
• Each scatterplot shows state-level data points, a fitted regression line, and annotated correlation results.
• Faceting enables side-by-side comparison of rurality–indicator relationships across multiple measures in a single figure.





4 OBGYNs Participating in Medicaid

4.1 OBGYN Participation in Medicaid by State and Year

This interactive table reports the number and percentage of obstetrician–gynecologists (OBGYNs) participating in Medicaid across U.S. states and years. For each state, the table shows the total OBGYN workforce, the subset engaged in Medicaid, and the resulting participation rate. Results are organized by state and Guttmacher reproductive health policy category, with filtering and sorting enabled to facilitate comparisons across states and over time.



4.3 Female Population Aged 15–44 per OBGYN by Guttmacher Reproductive Health Policy Rating

This figure compares the number of women of reproductive age (15–44) per practicing OBGYN across states (Year = 2019), stratified by reproductive health policy environments. The left panel shows variation across individual Guttmacher ratings, with state-level outliers labeled. The right panel summarizes differences across grouped categories (Restrictive, Middle Ground, Protective) and evaluates statistical significance using the Kruskal–Wallis test (Overall p) with Dunn’s post-hoc pairwise comparisons. Together, these plots highlight disparities in access to OBGYN care relative to population needs under differing policy contexts.