If one state has 100x as many abortions per capita as another, I'd be curious if that state has a widespread rape issue, excessive poverty, high rate of maternal death etc. Without the data we wouldn't know to investigate. Public health benefits from data.

Anonymously aggregating results of pregnancies, what doesnt kill moms and babies, what DOES kill moms and babies, what causes side effects, and various other outcomes of medical practice has been studied for millenia. Its the human race's business to figure out what works and what doesnt.

If your doctor isnt able to study patient outcome statistics to become an effective doctor, then...?

You do know what lemmy community you are in, right?

Anonymized data can inform funding decisions, as well as collect medical data like side effects, failure rates, and demographic information that is useful for research and policymaking. That's not what this government will use it for, but under normal circumstances there are genuinely good reasons to collect that data.

Health research needs accurate data, and it's how we figure out which medications/procedures are better/worse/harmful. In normal circumstances, that research would protect the people involved

However, in some situations, that potential benefit isn't worth the potential harm from the data being abused. I can see why people would prefer to limit that data in the states, even if that is to the detriment of those seeking care

Based on the way the new CDC director responded, it sounds like she wants the data for harmful reasons, rather than helping improve care