This study examines the effect restrictive state abortion laws have on the pregnancy resolution decisions of women with unintended pregnancies. The empirical results find that the abortion ratio and the abortion rate of unintended pregnancies are more sensitive to increases in the abortion price than previous estimates that analyzed total pregnancies (unintended and intended). A Medicaid funding restriction has very little effect on a state's abortion rate of unintended pregnancies, but causes a larger decrease in the number of abortions of unintended pregnancies than previous estimates. A parental involvement law is associated with a significant reduction in a state's abortion ratio and the abortion rate of unintended pregnancies, which suggests that the law may have a behavioral modification effect. Neither a mandatory counseling law nor a two-visit law has a significant effect on a state's abortion ratio and the abortion rate of unintended pregnancies. 1. Introduction The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion recognized that states have the right to regulate the procedure. The Court ruled that, during the first trimester of pregnancy, states could not enact any laws that restricted a woman’s access to an abortion. During the second trimester, states could enact laws regulating abortion access, but only if the law had a compelling interest in protecting a pregnant woman’s maternal health. During the third trimester, when the fetus is viable, states could enact laws restricting or even prohibiting abortions provided there was a medical exception to protect the life or health of the pregnant woman. In 1992, the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey rejected Roe’s rigid trimester pregnancy framework of state abortion regulation and replaced it with the “undue burden” standard. The Court declared that states could impose restrictions on a woman’s access to an abortion provided that the state law or regulation did not have “… the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” Restrictive state abortion laws may influence the likelihood of women terminating an unintended pregnancy in two ways. First, restrictive abortion laws increase the financial costs (e.g., out-of-pocket expenses on travel and accommodations, the price of the abortion procedure, lost work time, and childcare expenses) and the emotional costs (e.g., guilt, psychological trauma, remorse, regret, and humiliation) incurred by women seeking an abortion.
References
[1]
L. B. Finer and K. Kost, “Unintended pregnancy rates at the state level,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 78–87, 2011.
[2]
M. Bitler and M. Zavodny, “The effect of abortion restrictions on the timing of abortions,” Journal of Health Economics, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1011–1032, 2001.
[3]
R. M. Blank, C. C. George, and R. A. London, “State abortion rates. The impact of policies, providers, politics, demographics, and economic environment,” Journal of Health Economics, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 513–553, 1996.
[4]
D. Haas-Wilson, “Women's reproductive choices: the impact of medicaid funding restrictions,” Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 228–233, 1997.
[5]
P. B. Levine, A. B. Trainor, and D. J. Zimmerman, “The effect of Medicaid abortion funding restrictions on abortions, pregnancies and births,” Journal of Health Economics, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 555–578, 1996.
[6]
M. H. Medoff, “Price, restrictions and abortion demand,” Journal of Family and Economic Issues, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 583–599, 2007.
[7]
S. Matthews, D. Ribar, and M. Wilhelm, “The effects of economic conditions and access to reproductive health services on state abortion rates and birthrates,” Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 52–60, 1997.
[8]
M. H. Medoff, “State abortion policies, targeted regulation of abortion provider laws, and abortion demand,” Review of Policy Research, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 577–594, 2010.
[9]
M. H. Medoff, “State abortion policy and the long-term impact of parental involvement laws,” Politics and Policy, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 193–221, 2010.
[10]
M. H. Medoff, “The response of abortion demand to changes in abortion costs,” Social Indicators Research, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 329–346, 2008.
[11]
U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Census of the Population, State Reports, 2000, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
[12]
Association of Religious Data Archives, U. S. Membership Report: Religious Traditions, http://www.thearda.com.
[13]
Guttmacher Institute, State Policies in Brief, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, USA, 2006.
[14]
G. S. Becker, “An economic analysis of fertility,” in Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries, C. Christ, Ed., pp. 209–231, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1960.
[15]
R. T. Michael, “Education and the derived demand for children,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 128–164, 1973.
[16]
R. J. Willis, “A new approach to the economic theory of fertility behavior,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 14–64, 1973.
[17]
M. P. Gius, “The impact of provider availability and legal restrictions on the demand for abortions by young women,” Social Science Journal, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 495–506, 2007.
[18]
R. T. Jewell and R. W. Brown, “An economic analysis of abortion: the effect of travel cost on teenagers,” Social Science Journal, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 113–124, 2000.
[19]
M. H. Medoff, “A pooled time-series analysis of abortion demand,” Population Research and Policy Review, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 597–605, 1997.
[20]
NARAL Foundation, Who Decides? The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States, NARAL Foundation, Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
[21]
P. B. Levine, Sex and Consequences: Abortion Policy and the Economics of Fertility, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 2004.
[22]
W. H. Greene, Econometric Analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2007.
[23]
D. N. McCloskey and S. Ziliak, “The standard error of regressions,” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 97–114, 1996.
[24]
D. Gujarati, Basic Econometrics, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 1995.
[25]
C. Garbacz, “Abortion demand,” Population Research & Policy Review, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 151–160, 1990.
[26]
S. F. Gohmann and R. L. Ohsfeldt, “Effects of price and availability on abortion demand,” Contemporary Policy Issues, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 42–55, 1993.
[27]
T. J. Kane and D. Staiger, “Teen motherhood and abortion access,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 467–506, 1996.
[28]
T. Joyce and R. Kaestner, “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,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 263–282, 2001.
[29]
A. Tomal, “Parental involvement laws and minor and non-minor teen abortion and birth rates,” Journal of Family and Economic Issues, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 149–162, 1999.
[30]
W. Marsiglio and F. L. Mott, “Does wanting to become pregnant with a first child affect subsequent maternal behaviors and infant birth weight?” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1023–1036, 1988.
[31]
T. J. Joyce and M. Grossman, “Pregnancy wantedness and the early initiation of prenatal care,” Demography, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 1990.
