Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T16:39:27.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Democratic Responsiveness and Policy Shock: The Case of State Abortion Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

John F. Camobreco  and
Michelle A. Barnello
John F. Camobreco
Affiliation:
Christopher Newport University
Michelle A. Barnello
Affiliation:
Christopher Newport University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Past research has shown that elected officials are generally responsive to the public's attitudes on policy, particularly in domains such as morality policy. But will this responsiveness survive an externally imposed, non-incremental policy “shock”? The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade represents such a shock regarding abortion policy. We examine the responsiveness of state lawmakers to mass abortion attitudes in the post-Roe period through a longitudinal analysis of state abortion policies. We find that the connection between mass abortion attitudes and abortion policies has grown stronger over time, and that mass preferences have become the primary determinant of such policies. Mass abortion attitudes are now a stronger predictor of abortion policies than elite abortion attitudes, and certain elite abortion attitudes that once moderated the link between mass abortion attitudes and policy no longer do so. These findings suggest that lawmakers will attempt to respond to public preferences about contentious morality policies despite the imposition of an external policy constraint.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Spring 2008 , pp. 48 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

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

Adams, Greg D. 1997. “Abortion: Evidence of Issue Evolution.” American Journal of Political Science 41:718–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alan Guttmacher Institute. 2003. “State Policies in Brief.” http://www.gutttmacher.org/pubs/spib.html. (April 11, 2004).Google Scholar
Barnello, Michelle A. 1999. “Gender and Roll Call Voting in the New York State Assembly.” Women and Politics 20:77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkman, Michael B., and O'Connor, Robert E.. 1993. “Do Women Legislators Matter?: Female Legislators and State Abortion Policy.” In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Goggin, Malcolm L.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Bradley, Martin B., Green, Norman M. Jr., Jones, Dale E., Lynn, Mac, and McNeil, Lou. 1992. Churches and Church Membership in the United States 1990: An Enumeration by Region, State, and County Based on Data Reported for 133 Church Groupings. Atlanta, GA: Glenmary Research Center.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A., and Haynie, Kerry L.. 1999. “Agenda Setting and Legislative Success in State Legislatures: The Effects of Gender and Race.” Journal of Politics 61:658–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, Diane. 1983. “Fertility-Related State Laws Enacted in 1982.” Family Planning Perspectives 15:111–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Center for the American Woman and Politics. 2001. “State by State Historical Summaries.” http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cawp/Facts4.html. (April 11, 2004).Google Scholar
Cohen, Jeffrey E., and Barrilleaux, Charles. 1993. “Public Opinion, Interest Groups, and Public Policy Making: Abortion Policy in the American States.” In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Goggin, Malcolm L.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fabrizio, Paul J. 2001. “Evolving into Morality Politics: U.S. Catholics Bishops' Statements on U.S. Politics from 1792 to the Present.” In The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, ed. Mooney, Christopher Z.. New York, NY: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Goggin, Malcolm L., and Wlezien, Christopher. 1993. “Abortion Opinion and Policy in the American States.” In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Goggin, Malcolm L.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halva-Neubauer, Glen A. 1993. “The States After Roe: No ‘Paper Tigers.‘” In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Goggin, Malcolm L.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hansen, Susan B. 1993. “Differences in Public Polices Toward Abortion: Electoral and Policy Context.” In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Goggin, Malcolm L.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Jaccard, James, and Turrisi, Robert. 2003. Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelen, Ted G., and Wilcox, Clyde. 2003. “Causes and Consequences of Public Attitudes Toward Abortion: A Review and Research Agenda.” Political Research Quarterly 56:489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Dale E., Doty, Sherri, Grammich, Clifford, Horsch, James E., Houseal, Richard, Lynn, Mac, Marcum, John P., Sanchagrin, Kenneth M., and Taylor, Richard H.. 2002. Religious Congregations and Membership in the United States 2000. Nashville, TN: Glenmary Research Center.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1989. Unifying Political Methodology: The Likelihood Theory of Statistical Inference. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1998. “Foreword: New Dimensions in Policy and Politics.” In Moral Controversies in American Politics: Cases in Social Regulatory Policy, eds. Tatalovich, Raymond and Daynes, Byron W.. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J. 2001. “Drugs, Sex, and Rock and Roll: A Theory of Morality Politics.” In The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, ed. Mooney, Christopher Z.. New York, NY: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J., and McFarlane, Deborah R.. 1993. “Abortion Politics and Abortion Funding Policy.” In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Goggin, Malcolm L.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. 2001. “The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy.” In The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, ed. Mooney, Christopher Z.. New York, NY: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z., and Lee, Mei-Hsien. 1995. “Legislating Morality in the American States: The Case of Pre-Roe Abortion Regulation Reform.” American Journal of Political Science 39:599–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z., and Lee, Mei-Hsien 2000. “The Influence of Values on Consensus and Contentious Morality Policy: U.S. Death Penalty Reform, 1956–82.” The Journal of Politics 62:223–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. 1993. A State-by-State Review of Abortion Rights. Washington, DC: The NARAL Foundation.Google Scholar
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League 2003. A State-by-State Review of Abortion and Reproductive Rights. Washington, DC: The NARAL Foundation.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 2001. “Measuring State Public Opinion with the Senate National Election Study.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1:111–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrander, Barbara, and Wilcox, Clyde. 2001. “Public Opinion and Policymaking in the States: The Case of Post-Roe Abortion Policy.” In The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, ed. Mooney, Christopher Z.. New York, NY: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara, and Wilcox, Clyde. 2006. “State Residency, State Laws, and Public Opinion.” In Public Opinion in State Politics, ed. Cohen, Jeffrey E.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Robert E., and Berkman, Michael B.. 1995. “Religious Determinants of State Abortion Policy.” Social Science Quarterly 76:447–59.Google Scholar
Quinn, Bernard, Anderson, Herman, Bradley, Martin, Goetting, Paul, and Shriver, Peggy. 1982. Churches and Church Membership in the United States 1980: An Enumeration by Region, State, and County Based on Data Reported by 111 Religious Bodies. Atlanta, GA: Glenmary Research Center.Google Scholar
Saletan, William. 2003. Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Strickland, Ruth Ann, and Whicker, Marcia Lynn. 1992. “Political and Socio-Economic Indicators of State Restrictiveness Toward Abortion.” Policy Studies Journal 20:598–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatalovich, Raymond, and Daynes, Byron W.. 1998. “Social Regulations and Moral Conduct.” In Moral Controversies in American Politics: Cases in Social Regulatory Policy, eds. Tatalovich, Raymond and Daynes, Byron W.. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Wetstein, Matthew E. 1996. Abortion Rates in the United States: The Influence of Opinion and Policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Wetstein, Matthew E., and Albritton, Robert B.. 1995. “Effects of Public Opinion on Abortion Policies and Use in the American States.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 25:91–105.Google ScholarPubMed
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39:981–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 2004. “Patterns of Representation: Dynamics of Public Preferences and Policy.” The Journal of Politics 66:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar