Social Indicators Research

, Volume 97, Issue 2, pp 177–189 | Cite as

The Impact of State Abortion Policies on Teen Pregnancy Rates

  • Marshall Medoff


The availability of abortion provides insurance against unwanted pregnancies since abortion is the only birth control method which allows women to avoid an unwanted birth once they are pregnant. Restrictive state abortion policies, which increase the cost of obtaining an abortion, may increase women’s incentive to alter their pregnancy avoidance behavior, thereby reducing the likelihood of unwanted pregnancies. This study, using state-level data for the years 1982, 1992, and 2000, examines the impact of restrictive state abortion laws on teen pregnancy rates. The empirical results indicate that the price of an abortion, Medicaid funding restrictions, and informed consent laws reduce teen, minor teen and non-minor teen pregnancy rates. The empirical results suggest that these abortion policy restrictions affect the unprotected sexual activity of teens resulting in fewer unwanted teen pregnancies.


Restrictive abortion policies Teen pregnancy rates 


  1. Afxentiou, D., & Hawley, C. B. (1997). Explaining female teenagers’ sexual behavior and outcomes: A bivariate probit analysis with selectivity correction. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 18, 91–106. doi: 10.1023/A:1024925418314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alan Guttmacher Institute. (2004). State policies in brief. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.Google Scholar
  3. An, C. -B., Haveman, R., & Wolfe, B. (1993). Teen out-of-wedlock births and welfare receipt: The role of childhood events and economic circumstances. Review of Economics and Statistics, 75, 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Averett, S. L., Rees, D. I., & Argys, L. M. (2002). The impact of government policies and neighborhood characteristics on teenage sexual activity and contraceptive use. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 1773–1778. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.92.11.1773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellotti v. Baird (1979) 443 US 622.Google Scholar
  6. Blank, R. M., George, C. C., & London, R. A. (1996). State abortion rates: The impact of policies, providers, politics, demographics, and economic environment. Journal of Health Economics, 15, 513–553. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00494-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. E., & Barrilleaux, C. B. (1993). Public opinion, interest groups, and public policy making; Abortion policy in the American states. In M. L. Goggin (Ed.), Understanding the new politics of abortion (pp. 190–202). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Duncan, G. J., & Hoffman, S. D. (1990). Welfare benefits, economic opportunities, and out-of- wedlock births among black teenagers. Demography, 27, 519–535. doi: 10.2307/2061568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Furstenberg, F. F., & Teitler, J. O. (1994). Reconsidering the effects of marital disruption: What happens to children of divorce in early childhood. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 173–190. doi: 10.1177/0192513X94015002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gujarati, D. N. (2007). Basic econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Hanson, S. L., Myers, D. E., & Ginsburg, A. L. (1987). The role of responsibility and knowledge in reducing teenage out-of-wedlock childbearing. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 241–256. doi: 10.2307/352297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harris v. McRae (1980) 448 US 297.Google Scholar
  14. Henshaw, S. K. (2004). US teenage pregnancy statistics with comparative statistics for women aged 20–24. New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute.Google Scholar
  15. Henshaw, S. K., & Kost, K. (1992). Parental involvement in minors’ abortion decisions. Family Planning Perspectives, 24, 196–207. doi: 10.2307/2135870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hofferth, S. L. (1987). Factors affecting initiation of sexual intercourse. In S. L. Hofferth & C. D. Hayes (Eds.), Risking the future: Adolescent sexuality, pregnancy and childbearing (pp. 7–35). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hoffman, S. D. (2006). By the numbers: The public costs of teen childbearing. Washington, DC: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.Google Scholar
  18. Kahn, J. R., & Anderson, K. E. (1992). Intergenerational pattern of teenage fertility. Demography, 29, 39–57. doi: 10.2307/2061362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. (1996). Teen motherhood and abortion access. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 467–506. doi: 10.2307/2946685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levine, P. B. (2001). The sexual activity and birth control use of American teenagers. In J. Gruber (Ed.), An economic analysis of risky behavior among youths (pp. 167–218). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Levine, P. B. (2003). Parental involvement laws and fertility behavior. Journal of Health Economics, 22, 861–878. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(03)00063-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lundberg, S., & Plotnick, R. D. (1995). Adolescent premarital childbearing: Do economic incentives matter? Journal of Labor Economics, 13, 177–200. doi: 10.1086/298372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. H. L. v. Matheson (1981) 450 US 398.Google Scholar
  24. McLanahan, S., & Bumpass, L. (1988). Intergenerational consequences of family disruption. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 130–152. doi: 10.1086/228954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Medoff, M. H. (2002). The determinants and impact of state abortion restrictions. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 61, 481–494. doi: 10.1111/1536-7150.00169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Merz, J. F., Jackson, C. A., & Klerman, J. A. (1995). A review of abortion policy: Legality, Medicaid funding, and parental involvement, 1967–1994. Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 17, 1–61.Google Scholar
  27. Mezey, S. G. (1992). In pursuit of equality: Women, public policy, and the federal courts. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  28. Moore, K. A., Miller, B. C., Glei, D., & Morrison, D. R. (1995a). Adolescent sex, contraception, and childbearing: A review of recent research. Washington, DC: Child Trends, Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Moore, K. A., Morrison, D. R., & Glei, D. (1995b). Welfare and adolescent sex: The effects of family history, benefit levels, and community context. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 16, 207–237. doi: 10.1007/BF02353709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) 112 US 2791.Google Scholar
  31. Posner, R. (1997). Sex and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 US 113.Google Scholar
  33. Sanger, C. (2004). Regulating teenage abortion in the United States: Politics and Policy. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 18, 305–318. doi: 10.1093/lawfam/18.3.305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sen, B. (2006). Frequency of sexual activity among unmarried adolescent girl: Do state policies pertaining to abortion access matter? Eastern Economic Journal, 32, 313–330.Google Scholar
  35. Statistical Abstract of the United States. (1983, 1993, 2003). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  36. Tomal, A. (1999). Parental involvement laws and minor and non-minor teen abortion and birth rates. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 20, 149–162. doi: 10.1023/A:1022154710245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Urdy, J. R., Kovenock, J., & Morris, N. M. (1996). Early predictors of nonmarital first pregnancy and abortion. Family Planning Perspectives, 28, 113–116. doi: 10.2307/2136223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. US Bureau of the Census. (1983). US Census of Population, State Reports, 1993, 2003.Google Scholar
  39. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) 492 US 490.Google Scholar
  40. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Yamaguchi, K., & Kandel, D. (1987). Drug use and other determinants of premarital pregnancy and its outcomes: A dynamic analysis of competing life events. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 257–270. doi: 10.2307/352298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California State UniversityLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations