Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T07:12:00.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Critical Reexamination of the Effect of Antiabortion Legislation in the Post-Casey Era

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Marshall H. Medoff  and
Christopher Dennis
Marshall H. Medoff*
Affiliation:
California State University, Long Beach, CA, USA
Christopher Dennis
Affiliation:
California State University, Long Beach, CA, USA
*
Marshall H. Medoff, California State University, Long Beach, Department of Economics, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA, 90840, USA. Email: marshall.medoff@csulb.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Michael J. New, in a recent article in this journal, argues that a major reason for the decline in the incidence of abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1992 Casey decision was the increased number of antiabortion laws—parental involvement laws and informed consent laws—enacted at the state level. However, New's analysis contained critical data, measurement, methodological and estimation errors. This article details all the errors and then reexamines the effect of restrictive state abortion laws on the incidence of abortion over the period 1985–2005. The empirical results find little evidence that the decline in the number of abortions performed since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1992 Casey decision was due to the increase in the number of informed consent and parental involvement laws enacted.

Keywords

abortionantiabortion legislationpro-life legislation
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 207 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altman-Palm, Nancy, and Tremblay, Carol H.. 1998. “The Effects of Parental Involvement Laws and the AIDS Epidemic on the Pregnancy and Abortion Rates of Minors.” Social Science Quarterly 79:846–62.Google Scholar
Berkman, Michael B., and O'Connor, Robert E.. 1993. “Do Women Legislators Matter?” In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Goggin, Malcolm L.. Newbury Park: SAGE, 268–84.Google Scholar
Blank, Rebecca M., George, Christine C., and London, Rebecca A.. 1996. “State Abortion Rates: The Impact of Policies, Providers, Politics, Demographics, and Economic Environment.” Journal of Health Economics 15:513–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camobreco, John F., and Barnello, Michelle A.. 2008. “Democratic Responsiveness and Policy Shock: The Case of State Abortion Policy.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 8:48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centers for Disease Control. 2003. Abortion Surveillance—United States, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Cook, Philip J., Parnell, Allan M., Moore, Michael J., and Pagnini, Deanna. 1999. “The Effects of Short-Term Variation in Abortion Funding on Pregnancy Outcomes.” Journal of Health Economics 18:241–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gius, Mark P. 2007. “The Impact of Availability and Legal Restrictions on the Demand for Abortions by Young Women.” Social Science Journal 44:495–506.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. 2000. Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice- Hall.Google Scholar
Haas-Wilson, Deborah. 1996. “The Impact of State Abortion Restrictions on Minors' Demand for Abortion.” Journal of Human Resources 31:140–58.Google ScholarPubMed
Haas-Wilson, Deborah. 1997. “Women's Reproductive Choices: The Impact of Medicaid Funding Restrictions.” Family Planning Perspectives 29:228–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, Susan B. 1993. “Differences in Public Policies Toward Abortion: Electoral and Policy Context.” In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Goggin, Malcolm L.. Newbury Park: SAGE, 222–48.Google Scholar
Henshaw, Stanley K. 1998. “Unintended Pregnancy in the United States.” Family Planning Perspectives 30:24–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henshaw, Stanley K., and Kost, Kathryn. 2008. Trends in the Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortions, 1974 to 2004. New York: Guttmacher Institute.Google Scholar
Hussey, Laura S. 2010. “Welfare Generosity, Abortion Access, and Abortion Rates: A Comparison of State Policy Tools.” Social Science Quarterly 91:266–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Rachel K., Zolna, Mia R., Henshaw, Stanley K., and Finer, Lawrence B.. 2008. “Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 40:6–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyce, Theodore J., Henshaw, Stanley K., Dennis, Amanda, Finer, Lawrence B., and Blanchard, Kelly. 2009. The Impact of State Mandatory Counseling and Waiting Period Laws on Abortion: A Literature Review. New York: Guttmacher Institute.Google Scholar
Kelly, Kimberly, and Grant, Linda. 2007. “State Abortion and Nonmarital Birthrates in the Post Welfare Reform Era: The Impact of Economic Incentives on Reproductive Behaviors of Teenage and Adult Women.” Gender & Society 21:878–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Phillip B., Trainor, Amy B., and Zimmerman, David J.. 1996. “The Effects of Medicaid Abortion Funding Restrictions on Abortions, Pregnancies, and Births.” Journal of Health Economics 15:555–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medoff, Marshall H. 2009. “Biased Abortion Counseling Laws and Abortion Demand.” Social Science Journal 46:632–43.Google Scholar
Medoff, Marshall H. 2012. “Restrictive Abortion Laws, Antiabortion Attitudes and Women's Contraceptive Use.” Social Science Research 41:160–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meier, Kenneth, and McFarlane, Deborah R.. 1993. “Abortion Politics and Abortion Funding Policy.” In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Goggin, Malcolm L.. Newbury Park: SAGE, 249–67.Google Scholar
National Cancer Institute. 1996. Abortion Risk of Breast Cancer Associated with Abortion. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
National Center for Health Statistics. 2010. Use of Contraception in the United States, 1982–2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
New, Michael J. 2005. “Analyzing the Impact of State Level Anti-Abortion Legislation in the Post-Casey Era.” Paper presented at the 2005 State Politics and Policy Conference.Google Scholar
New, Michael J. 2011. “Analyzing the Effect of Anti-abortion U.S. State Legislation in the Post-Casey Era.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11:28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrander, Barbara, and Wilcox, Clyde. 1999. “Public Opinion and Policymaking in the States: The Case of Post-Roe Abortion Policy.” Policy Studies Journal 27:702–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oakley, Maureen R. 2003. “Abortion Restrictions and Abortion Rates: Has State Abortion Policy Been Successful?” Politics & Policy 32:472–87.Google Scholar
Steinberg, Julia R., and Finer, Lawrence B.. 2011. “Examining the Association of Abortion History and Current Mental Health: A Reanalysis of the National Comorbidity Survey Using a Common-Risk-Factors Model.” Social Science & Medicine 72:72–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed