Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using the Synthetic Control Method to Determine the Effect of Ultrasound Laws on State-Level Abortion Rates

  • Published:
Atlantic Economic Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to determine if laws requiring ultrasounds prior to an abortion being performed have any effect on the demand for abortions. Using state-level data, a synthetic control model (SCM) and a fixed effects model, results of the present study suggest that ultrasound laws have no statistically-significant effects on state-level abortion rates. In the SCM analysis, 21 states were in the treatment group (state had enacted an ultrasound law) and 22 states were in the potential control group. Results also suggest that states with lower per capita incomes, more non-Whites, and more abortion providers had higher abortion rates. This study is important because it is the first to use an SCM analysis to examine the effects of any type of restrictive abortion law on the demand for abortions.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abadie, A., & Gardeazabal, J. (2003). The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque Country. The American Economic Review, 93(1), 113–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105(490), 493–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2011). Synth: An R package for synthetic control methods in comparative case studies. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(13), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2015). Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 495–510.

  • Berger, M. (2004). National laws and unsafe abortion: The parameters of change. Reproductive Health Matters, 12, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitler, M., & Zavodny, M. (2001). The effect of abortion restrictions on the timing of abortions. Journal of Health Economics, 20, 1011–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R., & Jewell, R. T. (1996). The impact of provider availability on abortion demand. Contemporary Economic Policy, 14(2), 95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R., Jewell, R. T., & Rous, J. (2001). Provider availability, race, and abortion demand. Southern Economic Journal, 67(3), 656–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, C., Gelbach, J., & Miller, D. (2008). Bootstrap-based improvements for inference with clustered errors. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(3), 414–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1990-2014), Abortion Surveillance, https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm.

  • Contrada, A. (2002). “Saving more babies with ultrasound, Massachusetts News, February 2002. https://web.archive.org/web/20030626145842/http://www.massnews.com:80/2002_editions/01_Jan/12302preg.htm.

  • Ellertson, C. (1997). Mandatory parental involvement in Minor’s abortions: Effects of the Laws in Minnesota, Missouri, and Indiana. American Journal of Public Health, 87(8), 1367–1374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbacz, C. (1990). Abortion demand. Population Research and Policy Review, 9(2), 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatter, M., Kimport, K., Foster, D. G., Weitz, T., & Udadhyay, U. (2014). Relationship between ultrasound viewing and proceeding to abortion. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 123(1), 81–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerdts, C., Fuentes, L., Grossman, D., White, K., Keefe-Oates, B., Baum, S., Hopkins, K., Stolp, C., & Potter, J. (2016). Impact of clinic closures on women obtaining abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas. American Journal of Public Health, 106(5), 857–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gius, M. P. (2007). The impact of provider availability and legal restrictions on the demand for abortions by young women. Social Science Journal, 44(3), 495–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gius, M. (2011). The effect of ultrasound Laws on abortions: A state-level analysis. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 12(5), 2011 http://www.na-businesspress.com/JABE/GiusM_Web12_5_.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gober, P. (1994). Why abortion rates vary: A geographical examination of the supply of and demand for abortion Services in the United States in 1988. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 84(2), 230–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gohman, S., & Ohsfeldt, R. (1993). Effects of price and availability on abortion demand. Contemporary Policy Issues, 11(4), 457–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, D., Baum, S., Fuentes, L., White, K., Hopkins, K., Stevenson, A., & Potter, J. (2014). Change in abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas. Contraception, 90, 496–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guttmacher Institute (2018). Induced abortion in the United States. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states.

  • Haas-Wilson, D. (1996). The impact of state abortion restrictions on minor's demand for abortions. The Journal of Human Resources, 31(1), 140–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, R., Myers, S., & Byrne, D. (1991). A note on the economic determinants of teenage abortion. Atlantic Economic Journal, 19(3), 70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreif, N., Grieve, R., Hangartner, D., Turner, A. J., Nikolova, S., & Sutton, M. (2016). Examination of the synthetic control method for evaluating health policies with multiple treated units. Health Economics, 25, 1514–1528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leibowitz, A., Eisen, M., & Chow, W. (1986). An economic model of teenage pregnancy decision-making. Demography, 23(1), 67–77.

    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(2), 52–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medoff, M. (2002). The determinants and impact of state abortion restrictions. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 61(2), 481–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, K., Haider-Markel, D., Stanislawski, A., & McFarlane, D. (1996). The impact of state-level restrictions on abortion. Demography, 33(3), 307–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merz, J., Jackson, C., & Klerman, J. (1995). A review of abortion policy: Legality, Medicaid funding, and parental involvement, 1967-1994. Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 17(1), 1–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Right to Life Committee. (1990-2014) https://www.nrlc.org/site/statelegislation/.

  • New, M. (2004). Analyzing the effects of state legislation on the incidence of abortion during the 1990s. Heritage Foundation Report https://www.lifeissues.org/pdf/Analyzing_Effects_of_Legislation.pdf.

  • New, M. (2011). Analyzing the effect of anti-abortion U.S. state legislation in the post-Casey era. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 11(1), 28–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell-Griner, E., & Trent, K. (1987). Sociodemographic determinants of abortion in the United States. Demography, 24(4), 553–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siddique, J., Lauderdale, D., VanderWeele, T., & Lantos, J. (2009). Trends in prenatal ultrasound use in the United States. Medical Care, 47(11), 1129–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (1990-2014). American Community Surveys, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT, 06518, USA

    Mark Gius

Authors
  1. Mark Gius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Gius.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(DOCX 321 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gius, M. Using the Synthetic Control Method to Determine the Effect of Ultrasound Laws on State-Level Abortion Rates. Atl Econ J 47, 205–215 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-019-09619-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-019-09619-4

Keywords

JEL

Search

Navigation