Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

State Abortion Policy and Unintended Birth Rates in the United States

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Restrictive state abortion laws make it more difficult and costly for women to obtain an abortion. The fundamental law of demand posits that an increase in the cost of an abortion should cause the number of abortions to decrease. This suggests that restrictive state abortion laws should cause women with unintended pregnancies to have fewer abortions and concomitantly more unintended births. This paper investigates the impact four restrictive state abortion laws—No Medicaid Funding, Parental Involvement, Mandatory Counseling and Waiting Periods—have on the unintended birth rates of the 50 US states for the year 2006. Using a variety of methodologies, the empirical results show that, contrary to the theoretical prediction, these four antiabortion laws do not have a significant positive effect on unintended birth rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cockrill, K., & Weitz, T. A. (2010). Abortion patients’ perceptions of abortion regulation. Women’s Health Issues, 20, 12–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. E., & Barrilleaux, C. (1993). Public opinion, interest groups and public policy making in the American states. In M. L. Goggin (Ed.), Understanding the new politics of abortion (pp. 203–221). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finer, L. B., & Kost, K. (2011). Unintended pregnancy rates at the state level. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 43, 78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finer, L. B., & Zolna, M. R. (2011). Unintended pregnancy in the United States: Incidence and disparities, 2006. Contraception, 84, 478–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folbre, N. (2001). The invisible heart: Economics and family values. New York: New York University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goggin, M. L., & Wlezien, C. (1993). Abortion opinion and policy in the American states. In M. L. Goggin (Ed.), Understanding the new politics of abortion (pp. 190–202). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttmacher Institute. (2008, 2006, 2004, 2002). State policies in brief. New York: Guttmacher Institute.

  • Haas-Wilson, D. (1997). Women’s reproductive choices: The impact of medicaid funding restrictions. Family Planning Perspectives, 29, 228–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, T. (2011). The supply-side economics of abortion. New England Journal of Medicine, 365, 1466–1469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. (1996). Teen motherhood and abortion access. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 467–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, P. B. (2003). Parental involvement laws and fertility behavior. Journal of Health Economics, 22, 861–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, P. B., Trainor, A. B., & Zimmerman, D. J. (1996). The effect of medicaid abortion funding on abortions, pregnancies and births. Journal of Health Economics, 15, 555–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, S., Ribar, D., & Wilhelm, M. (1997). The effects of economic conditions and access to reproductive health services on state abortion rates and birthrates. Family Planning Perspectives, 29, 52–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medoff, M. H. (2002). The determinants and impact of state abortion restrictions. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 61, 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medoff, M. H. (2007). Price, restrictions and abortion demand. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28, 583–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medoff, M. H., & Dennis, C. (2011). Public preferences, political party control and restrictive state abortion laws. American Review of Politics, 30, 307–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medoff, M. H., Dennis, C., & Stephens, K. (2011). The impact of party control on the diffusion of parental involvement laws in the US states. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 11, 325–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norrander, B., & Wilcox, C. (1999). Public opinion and policymaking in the states: The case of post-Roe abortion policy. Policy Studies Journal, 27, 702–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, B. (2003). An indirect test for whether restricting medicaid funding for abortion increases pregnancy-avoidance behavior. Economics Letters, 81, 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonfield, A., Kost, K., Gold, R. B., & Finer, L. B. (2011). The public costs of births resulting from unintended pregnancies: National and state-level estimates. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 43, 84–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA, 90840, USA

    Marshall H. Medoff

Authors
  1. Marshall H. Medoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marshall H. Medoff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Medoff, M.H. State Abortion Policy and Unintended Birth Rates in the United States. Soc Indic Res 129, 589–600 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1135-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1135-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation