Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Race, Restrictive State Abortion Laws and Abortion Demand

  • Published:
The Review of Black Political Economy

Abstract

A disproportionately large number of abortions are performed on black and Hispanic women. This study empirically investigates whether restrictive state abortion laws differentially affect the abortion demand of white, black and Hispanic women for the year 2005. A state Medicaid abortion funding restriction significantly decreases the abortion rate of all three races. However, Hispanic women’s abortion demand is more sensitive to a Medicaid funding restriction than either white women or black women. Parental involvement laws and mandatory counseling laws have no significant impact on the abortion rates of the three racial groups. Two-visit laws are associated with a significant decrease in the abortion rate of white women, but have no significant effect on the abortion rates of black and Hispanic women.

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

Notes

  1. States which did not fund Medicaid abortions in 2005 are: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI and WY.

  2. States with parental involvement laws in 2005 are: AL, AZ, AR, CO, DE, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NC, ND, OH, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA,WV, WI and WY.

  3. States with mandatory counseling laws in 2005 are: AL, AR, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, VA, WV, and WI.

  4. States with two-visit laws in 2005 are: IN, LA, MO, VT and WI.

  5. The exact formula to calculate the percentage change in the abortion rate is 100*(eb –1), where b is the Medicaid funding restriction coefficient.

  6. An anonymous referee suggested using mandatory counseling data from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), an organization whose sole objective to ban all abortions. The dataset contains a subset of states that have mandatory counseling laws that the NRLC considers effective in dissuading women from having an abortion. Even though there is the problem of ideological selection bias, the abortion demand equation was reestimated for all three racial groups using the NRLC’s list of effective mandatory counseling states. For all three racial groups, No Medicaid funding was still significantly negative and parental involvement laws and two-visit laws were still insignificant. The NRLC’s mandatory counseling law variable was insignificant for blacks, significantly positive (rather than negative) for whites and significantly negative for Hispanic women. The numerical value of the negative coefficient showed that a NRLC mandatory counseling law lowered the abortion rate of Hispanic women by more than an implausible 100 %.

References

  • Althaus FA, Henshaw SK. The effects of mandatory delay laws on abortion patients and providers. Fam Plan Perspect. 1994;26(5):228–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker GS. An economic analysis of fertility. In: Christ C, editor. Demographic and economic change in developed countries. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1960. p. 209–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitler M, Zavodny M. The effect of abortion restrictions on the timing of abortions. J Health Econ. 2001;20(6):1011–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank RM, George CG, London RA. State abortion rates: the impact of policies, providers, politics, demographics, and economic environment. J Health Econ. 1996;15:513–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centers for Disease Control. Contraception use: United States and territories. Behavioral risk surveillance system 2002. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centers for Disease Control. Abortion surveillance- United States, 2005. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centers for Disease Control. Abortion surveillance- United States, 2009. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook PJ, Parnell AM, Moore MJ, Pagnini D. The effects of short-term variation in abortion funding on pregnancy outcomes. J Health Econ. 1999;18(2):241–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis A, Henshaw SK, Joyce TJ, Finer LB, Blanchard K. The impact of laws requiring parental involvement for abortion: a literature review. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttmacher Institute. State policies in brief. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas-Wilson D. The impact of state abortion restrictions on minors’ demand for abortions. J Hum Resour. 1996;31:140–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas-Wilson D. Women’s reproductive choices: the impact of Medicaid funding restrictions. Fam Plan Perspect. 1997;29(5):228–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henshaw SK, Kost K. Parental involvement in minors’ abortion decisions. Fam Plan Perspect. 1992;24(5):196–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henshaw SK, Joyce TJ, Dennis A, Finer LB, Blanchard K. Restrictions on Medicaid funding for abortions: a literature review. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute for Women’s Policy Research. The status of women in the states. Washington: Institute for Women’s Policy Research; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce T. The supply-side economics of abortion. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(16):1466–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce T, Kaestner R. State reproductive policies and adolescent pregnancy resolution: the case of parental involvement laws. J Health Econ. 1996;15(5):579–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce T, Kaestner R. The impact of Mississippi’s mandatory delay law on the timing of abortions. Fam Plan Perspect. 2000;32(1):4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce T, Kaestner R. The impact of mandatory waiting periods and parental consent laws on the timing of abortion and state of occurrence among adolescents in Mississippi and South Carolina. J Pol Anal Manag. 2001;20(2):263–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce T, Henshaw SK, Skatrud JD. The impact of Mississippi’s mandatory delay law on abortions and births. J Am Med Assoc. 1997;278(8):653–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce T, Kaestner R, Colman S. Changes in abortions and births and the Texas parental notification law. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(10):1031–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce TJ, Henshaw SK, Dennis A, Finer LB, Blanchard K. The impact of state mandatory counseling and waiting period laws: a literature review. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine PB. Parental involvement laws and fertility behavior. J Health Econ. 2003;22(5):861–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine PB, Trainor AB, Zimmerman DJ. The effect of Medicaid abortion funding on abortions, pregnancies and births. J Health Econ. 1996;15(5):555–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews D, Ribar D, Wilhelm M. The effects of economic conditions and access to reproductive health services on state abortion rates and birthrates. Fam Plan Perspect. 1997;29(2):52–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey DN, Ziliak ST. The standard error of regressions. J Econ Lit. 1996;34:97–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medoff MH. An economic analysis of the demand for abortions. Econ Inq. 1988;36(3):353–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medoff MH. A pooled time-series analysis of abortion demand. Popul Res Policy Rev. 1997;16(4):597–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medoff MH. Price, restrictions and abortion demand. J Fam Econ Iss. 2007;28(5):583–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medoff MH. The response of abortion demand to changes in abortion costs. Soc Ind Res. 2008;87(2):329–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier KJ, McFarlane DR. Abortion politics and abortion funding policy. In: Goggin ML, editor. Understanding the new politics of abortion. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1993. p. 249–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael RT. Education and the derived demand for children. J Polit Econ. 1973;81(2):128–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan SP, Parnell AM. Effects on pregnancy outcomes of changes in the North Carolina state abortion fund. Popul Res Policy Rev. 2002;21(4):319–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norrander B. State politics measuring state public opinion with the Senate National Election Study. State Pol Pol Q. 2001;1(1):111–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohsfeldt RL, Gohmann SF. Do parental involvement laws reduce adolescent abortion rates? Cont Econ Pol. 1994;12(2):65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington: Government Printing Office; 2006.

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.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 Regression coefficients of abortion demand equation
Full size table

About this article

Cite this article

Medoff, M.H. Race, Restrictive State Abortion Laws and Abortion Demand. Rev Black Polit Econ 41, 225–240 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12114-014-9183-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12114-014-9183-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation