Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
The ability to choose whether and when to bear children is
a fundamental aspect of reproductive health. Although some
unintended pregnancies come to be wanted, many do not
and may result in undesired consequences. About half of
unintended pregnancies end in abortion in the United
States,1and unintended pregnancies that are continued to
term are associated with an increased risk of detrimental
prenatal parental behaviors, such as smoking and drink-
ing,2as well as of negative health and social outcomes for
both mother and child.3
In 1994, the rate of unintended pregnancy (excluding
miscarriages) in the United States was 45 per 1,000 women
aged 15–44, and such pregnancies accounted for 49% of
all pregnancies.4However, the rate differed dramatically
among population subgroups. For example, the rate among
women whose income was below the federal poverty line
was three times that of women whose income was at least
double the poverty line.5These inequalities were manifested
in rates of both abortion and unintended births. Such gaps
have social justice implications, because they indicate that
some groups of women have more difficulty than others in
achieving their reproductive goals. Assessing these dispar-
ities may help policymakers and public health profession-
als identify these groups of women.
Moreover, there is reason to believe that the rate of un-
intended pregnancy may have increased since 1994, for
the U.S. population as a whole or for specific subgroups.
For example, between 1995 and 2002, the proportion of
women at risk of pregnancy who were currently using con-
traceptives decreased slightly,6and the proportion of births
that were unintended increased.7Furthermore, the rate of
abortion increased among poor and low-income women
between 1994 and 2000.8The purpose of the study de-
scribed here was to use newly available national data to ex-
amine trends in the rates of unintended pregnancy and re-
lated outcomes between 1994 and 2001, and to assess
whether disparities between subgroups of women have
grown or decreased.
DATA AND METHODS
Intendedness of Pregnancies
The primary source of information on intendedness of preg-
nancies in the United States is the National Survey of Fam-
ily Growth (NSFG), conducted by the National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS). Since 1982, NCHS has periodi-
cally surveyed a nationally representative sample of women
aged 15–44 in their homes. The most recent surveys, con-
ducted in 1995 and 2002, collected responses from 10,847
Disparities in Rates of Unintended Pregnancy
In the United States, 1994 and 2001
Lawrence B. Finer is
director of domestic
Stanley K. Henshaw is
senior fellow, at the
CONTEXT:Many pregnancies are unintended, particularly in certain population groups. Determining whether unin-
tended pregnancy rates and disparities in rates between subgroups are changing may help policymakers target re-
productive health services to those women most in need.
METHODS:To calculate rates of unintended pregnancy and related outcomes, data on pregnancy intendedness from
the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth were combined with birth, abortion and population data from federal,
state and nongovernmental sources.
RESULTS:In 2001, 49% of pregnancies in the United States were unintended. The unintended pregnancy rate was 51
per 1,000 women aged 15–44, meaning that 5% of this group had an unintended pregnancy. This level was un-
changed from 1994. The rate of unintended pregnancy in 2001 was substantially above average among women aged
18–24, unmarried (particularly cohabiting) women, low-income women, women who had not completed high school
and minority women. Between 1994 and 2001, the rate of unintended pregnancy declined among adolescents, col-
lege graduates and the wealthiest women, but increased among poor and less educated women. The abortion rate
and the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion among all women declined, while the unintended
birth rate increased. Forty-eight percent of unintended conceptions in 2001 occurred during a month when contra-
ceptives were used, compared with 51% in 1994.
CONCLUSIONS:More research is needed to determine the factors underlying the disparities in unintended pregnancy
rates by income and other characteristics. The findings may reflect a need for increased and more effective contracep-
tive use, particularly among high-risk groups.
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2006, 38(2):90–96
By Lawrence B.
Finer and Stanley
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
Survey of Family Growth, Vital and Health Statistics, 2005, Series
23, No. 25.
8. Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Patterns in the socio-
economic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in
2000–2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002,
9. Santelli J et al., The meaning and measurement of unintended
pregnancy, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2003, 35(2):
10. Bachrach CA and Newcomer S, Intended pregnancies and un-
intended pregnancies: distinct categories or opposite ends of a con-
tinuum? Family Planning Perspectives,1999, 31(5):251–252; Zabin
LS, Ambivalent feelings about parenthood may lead to inconsistent
contraceptive use—and pregnancy, Family Planning Perspectives,
1999, 31(5):250–251; and Joyce TJ, Kaestner R and Korenman S,
The stability of pregnancy intentions and pregnancy-related ma-
ternal behaviors, Maternal and Child Health Journal, 2000, 4(3):171–
11. Trussell J, Vaughan B and Stanford J, Are all contraceptive fail-
ures unintended pregnancies? evidence from the 1995 National
Survey of Family Growth, Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 31(5):
246–247 & 260.
12.Fu H et al., Measuring the extent of abortion underreporting in
the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, Family Planning
Perspectives, 1998, 30(3):128–133 & 138.
13.Martin JA et al., Births: final data for 2001, National Vital Statistics
Reports, 2003, Vol. 51, No. 2.
14. Dunn TD, 2001 Natality Data Set, CD-ROM, Hyattsville, MD:
National Center for Health Statistics, 2003.
15. Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Abortion incidence and services in
the United States in 2000, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive
Health, 2003, 35(1):6–15.
16.Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Estimates of U.S. abortion incidence
in 2001 and 2002, New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2005,
accessed June 6, 2005.
17. Strauss LT et al., Abortion surveillance—United States, 2001,
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2004, 53(9):1–32.
18. Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, 2002, op. cit. (see ref-
19.Ventura SJ et al., Estimated pregnancy rates for the United States,
1990–2000: an update, National Vital Statistics Reports, 2004, Series
52, No. 23; Ventura SJ et al., Trends in pregnancy rates for the United
States, 1976–97: an update, National Vital Statistics Reports, 2001,
Series 49, No. 4; and Ventura SJ et al., Trends in pregnancies and
pregnancy rates by outcome: estimates for the United States,
1976–96, Vital and Health Statistics, 2000, Series 21, No. 56.
20. Leridon H, Human Fertility: The Basic Components, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1977.
21.Ventura S, National Center for Health Statistics, personal com-
munication, Dec. 15, 2004.
22. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Annual Demographic Survey (March
Current Population Survey Supplement) 2001 Data, 2001, <http://www.
bls.census.gov/cps/ads/2001/sdata.htm>, accessed Oct. 3, 2005;
and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Annual Demographic Survey (March
Current Population Survey Supplement) 1994 Data, 1994, <http://www.
bls.census.gov/cps/ads/1994/sdata.htm>, accessed Oct. 3, 2005.
23.Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Contraceptive use among
U.S. women having abortions in 2000–2001, Perspectives on Sexual
and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(6):294–303.
24. Mosher WD et al., 2004, op. cit. (see reference 6).
26. Bachrach CA, Cohabitation and reproductive behavior in the
U.S., Demography, 1987, 24(4):623–637.
27. Fields J, America’s families and living arrangements: 2003, Current
Population Reports, 2003, Series P-20, No. 553, Table 8.
28. Goldscheider FK and Kaufman G, Fertility and commitment:
bringing men back in, Population and Development Review, 1996,
29.U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001, op. cit. (see reference 22); and
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994, op. cit. (see reference 22).
30. Abma JC et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity,
contraceptive use, and childbearing, 2002, Vital and Health Statistics,
2004, Vol. 23, No. 24.
31. Mosher WD et al., 2004, op. cit. (see reference 6).
32.Ranjit N et al., Contraceptive failure in the first two years of use:
differences across socioeconomic subgroups, Family Planning
Perspectives, 2001, 33(1):19–27.
33.Abma J et al., Fertility, family planning and women’s health: new
data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, Vital and
Health Statistics, 1997, Vol. 23, No. 19; and Mosher WD et al., 2004,
op. cit. (see reference 6).
34. Gold RB and Sonfield A, Bush health “reform” agenda: impli-
cations for reproductive health, Guttmacher Report on Public Policy,
Vol. 8, No. 1, 2005, pp. 8–11.
35.Sonfield A and Gold RB, Public funding for contraceptive, ster-
ilization and abortion services, FY 1980–2001, New York: The Alan
Guttmacher Institute, 2005, <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/
fpfunding/index.html>, accessed Dec. 9, 2005.
36. Finer LB and Henshaw SK, 2003, op. cit. (see reference 15).
37. The Gallup Organization, Public Opinion About Abortion—An
In-Depth Review, Princeton, N.J.: The Gallup Organization, 2003.
38. Williams L et al., PRAMS 2000 Surveillance Report, Atlanta:
Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and
39. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Fulfilling the Promise: Public
Policy and U.S. Family Planning Clinics, New York: AGI, 2000.
40. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Population Division, World Contraceptive Use 2003, New York: United
41. Hubacher D, The checkered history and bright future of intra-
uterine contraception in the United States, Perspectives on Sexual
and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(2):98–103.
The authors thank Rachel Jones and Susheela Singh for method-
ological assistance and for reviewing drafts of the paper; Joyce Abma,
Jo Jones and Barbara Vaughan for methodological assistance; and
Kathryn Kost and James Trussell for reviewing additional drafts.
The research on which this article is based was funded by the Na-
tional Institute of Child Health and Human Development under
grant HD40378. The conclusions and opinions expressed here are
those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funder.
Author contact: email@example.com
Disparities in Rates of Unintended Pregnancy