The Review of Black Political Economy

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 225–240 | Cite as

Race, Restrictive State Abortion Laws and Abortion Demand

Article

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.

Keywords

Race State abortion policy Abortion demand 

References

  1. Althaus FA, Henshaw SK. The effects of mandatory delay laws on abortion patients and providers. Fam Plan Perspect. 1994;26(5):228–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bitler M, Zavodny M. The effect of abortion restrictions on the timing of abortions. J Health Econ. 2001;20(6):1011–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Centers for Disease Control. Contraception use: United States and territories. Behavioral risk surveillance system 2002. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control; 2005.Google Scholar
  6. Centers for Disease Control. Abortion surveillance- United States, 2005. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control; 2008.Google Scholar
  7. Centers for Disease Control. Abortion surveillance- United States, 2009. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control; 2012.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Guttmacher Institute. State policies in brief. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute; 2005.Google Scholar
  11. Haas-Wilson D. The impact of state abortion restrictions on minors’ demand for abortions. J Hum Resour. 1996;31:140–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haas-Wilson D. Women’s reproductive choices: the impact of Medicaid funding restrictions. Fam Plan Perspect. 1997;29(5):228–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henshaw SK, Kost K. Parental involvement in minors’ abortion decisions. Fam Plan Perspect. 1992;24(5):196–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Institute for Women’s Policy Research. The status of women in the states. Washington: Institute for Women’s Policy Research; 2002.Google Scholar
  16. Joyce T. The supply-side economics of abortion. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(16):1466–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Levine PB. Parental involvement laws and fertility behavior. J Health Econ. 2003;22(5):861–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCloskey DN, Ziliak ST. The standard error of regressions. J Econ Lit. 1996;34:97–114.Google Scholar
  27. Medoff MH. An economic analysis of the demand for abortions. Econ Inq. 1988;36(3):353–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Medoff MH. A pooled time-series analysis of abortion demand. Popul Res Policy Rev. 1997;16(4):597–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Medoff MH. Price, restrictions and abortion demand. J Fam Econ Iss. 2007;28(5):583–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Medoff MH. The response of abortion demand to changes in abortion costs. Soc Ind Res. 2008;87(2):329–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Michael RT. Education and the derived demand for children. J Polit Econ. 1973;81(2):128–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Ohsfeldt RL, Gohmann SF. Do parental involvement laws reduce adolescent abortion rates? Cont Econ Pol. 1994;12(2):65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington: Government Printing Office; 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsCalifornia State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations