The Effects of State Abortion Policies on States' Abortion Rates

• Date: 01 December 1999
• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X9903100104
• Published date: 01 December 1999
• Subject Matter: General Interest

43Winter 1999

State an d Local Government Review

Vol. 31, No. 1 (Winter 1999): 43-52

FOLLOWING THE ROE decision, anti-

abortion act ivists shifted energy and

resources to state legislatures, and

the subsequent debate over issues such as pa-

rental involvement and Medicaid funding mo-

bilized pro-choice activists. The stakes in this

struggle increased rec ently when the Supreme

Court in the We b st e r (1989) and Casey (1992)

decisions permitted states to enforce more

aborti on restrictions.1 As a res ult o f the se d e-

cisions, the fate of abortion policy now ap-

pears to be significantly more in the hands of

state politicians. These developments high-

light the importance of understanding the

role of stat e governments in the policymaking

process that influences a woman’s ability to

obtain an abortio n.

In 1988 (prior to the We bs t e r decision)

the Supreme Court permitted state govern-

ments to regulate access to abor tion only by

increasing the costs of obtaining an abortion

for two subgroups of women

—

those eligible

for Medica id and minor, unmarried women.

The court has held that a state may require

an unmarried minor who seeks an abortion

to notify or obtain the consent of one or both

of her par ents, provided that if she does not

wish to do so, she must also be able to ob-

tain permission from a judge.2 In 1980, the

Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. McRae that

The Effects of State Abortion Policies

on States’ Abortion Rates

Anita Pritchard and Sharon Kay Parsons

the federal and state governments could ex-

clude coverage of abortions from Medicaid.

As a consequence of these decisions, state

abortio n policies necessar ily involve the issue

of distr ibution of costs among women seek-

ing abortions.

However, the radical nature of state abor-

tion politics suggests that the issue at stake

is not only the fairness of imposing higher

costs on some groups of women but whether

or not a woman may obtain an abortion in

her state of residence. Certainly the partici-

pants in the antiabortion movement indicate

that their intention is to reduce the number

of abor tions. Thus, the public debate creates

the impression that state legislatures are im-

portant sites of abortion policymaking. If

this is the case, the strategy of imposing higher

costs on some groups of women should suc-

ceed in regulating access to abortion, and

states with more restrictive regulations should

have lower abortion rates than states with less

restrictive laws. The following analysis evalu-

ates this expectation by examining whether

or not the two major state abortion policies

in effect in 1988

—

state restrictions on Medi-

caid financing of abortion and state require-

ments for parental consent/notification for

minors

—

explain var iation in state abor tion

rates.