Public Preferences, Political Party Control, and Restrictive State Abortion Laws
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2010.31.0.307-331Abstract
This study examines the process by which state legislators respond to the public’s preferences about abortion policy over time. We examine the determinants of the enactment by a state of a parental involvement law employing the event history analysis approach. The empirical results suggest that, in the short-term, neither the public’s abortion preferences nor institutional control of state government by the generally prolife Republican Party has a significant impact on the enactment of a parental involvement law, while institutional control by the generally prochoice Democratic Party significantly decreases the likelihood of the passage of a parental involvement law. In the long-term, the public’s abortion preferences are positively associated with the enactment of a parental involvement law. However, when the Republican Party or the Democratic Party have institutional control of the executive and legislative branches of state government, this allows each political party to support or oppose the enactment of a parental involvement law consistent with each party’s public position on the abortion issue, regardless of the public’s abortion preferences or the competitive electoral environment. The empirical results remain robust for a variety of alternative specifications.References
Adams, Greg D. 1997. Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution. American Journal of Political Science 41:718-737. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111673
Alt, James E., and Robert C. Lowry. 2000. A Dynamic Model of State Budget Outcomes Under Divided Partisan Government. Journal of Politics 62:1035-1069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00045
Alt, James E., and Robert C. Lowry. 1994. Divided Government, Fiscal Institutions, and Budget Deficits: Evidence from the States. American Political Science Review 88: 811-828. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2082709
Berkman, Michael B., and Robert E. O'Connor. 1993. Do Women Legislators Matter? Pp. 268-284in Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Malcolm Goggin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673x9302100107
Berry, Frances S., and William D. Berry. 1990. State Lottery Adoption as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis. American Political Science Review 84:395-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1963526
Berry, William D., Evan J. Rinquist, Richard C. Fording, and Russell L. Hanson. 1998. Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-93. American Journal of Political Science 12:327-348. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2991759
Bishin, Benjamin G. 2009. Tyranny of the Minority: The Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Burstein, Paul. 1981. The Sociology of Democratic Politics and Government. Annual Review of Sociology 7:291-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.07.080181.001451
Cohen, Jeffrey E., and Charles Barrilleaux. 1993. Public Opinion, Interest Groups and Public Policy Making. Pp. 203-221 in Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Malcolm Goggin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Cook, Elizabeth Adell, Ted G. Jelen, and Clyde Wilcox. 1993. State Political Cultures and Public Opinion about Abortion. Political Research Quarterly 46:771-781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299304600405 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448930
Erikson, Robert S., Gerald C. Wright, and John P. McIver. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1996. Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives. American Journal of Political Science 40:99-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111696
Goggin, Malcolm L. 1993. A Framework for Understanding the New Politics of Abortion. Pp. 1-18 in Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Malcolm Goggin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Goggin, Malcolm L., and Christopher Wlezien. 1993. Abortion Opinion and Policy in the American States. Pp. 190-202 in Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Malcolm Goggin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Greenberg, Stanley. 2004. The Two Americas: Our Current Political Deadlock and How to Break It. New York: Thomas Dunne Books.
Hansen, Susan B. 1993. Differences in Public Policies Toward Abortion: Electoral and Policy Context. Pp. 222-248 in Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Malcolm L. Goggin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Jelen, Ted G., and Clyde Wilcox. 2003. Causes and Consequences toward Abortion: A Review and Research Agenda. Political Research Quarterly 56:489-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600410 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3219809
Jennings, Edward T. 1979. Competition, Constituencies, and Welfare Policies in American States. American Political Science Review 73:414-429. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1954888
Jones, Dale E., Sherri Doti, Clifford Grammich, James E. Horsch, Richard Houseal, Mac Lynn, and Richard H. Taylor. 2002. Religious Congregations and Membership in the United States 2000. Nashville, TN: Glenmary Research Center.
Jones, Rachel K., Mia R.S. Zolna, Stanley K. Henshaw, and Lawrence B. Finer. 2008. Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 40:6-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1363/4000608
Layman, Geoffrey C., and Thomas M. Carsey 2002. Party Polarization and ëConflict Extensioní in the American Electorate. American Journal of Political Science 46:786-802. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088434
Layman, Geoffrey C., Thomas M. Carsey, and Juliana Menasce Horowitz. 2006. Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences. Annual Review of Political Science 9:83-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138
Medoff, Marshall H. 1989. Constituencies, Ideology, and the Demand for Abortion Legislation. Public Choice 60:185-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00149245
Medoff, Marshall H. 2007. Price, Restrictions and Abortion Demand. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 28: 583-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10834-007-9080-9
Meier, Kenneth, and Deborah R. McFarlane. 1993. Abortion Politics and Abortion Funding Policy. Pp. 249-267 in Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Malcolm Goggin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Merz, Jon F., Catherine A. Jackson, and Jacob Klerman. 1995. A Review of Abortion Policy: Legality, Medicaid Funding and Parental Involvement. Women's Rights Law Reporter 17:1-61.
Mooney, Christopher Z., and Mei-Hsien Lee. 1995. Legislating Morality in the American States: The Case of Pre-Roe Abortion Regulation Reform. American Journal of Political Science 39:599-627. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111646
NARAL Foundation. 1991 and various years. Who Decides? A State-By-State Review of Abortion Rights. Washington, DC: National Abortion Rights Action League.
Norrander, Barbara. 2001. State Politics Measuring State Public Opinion with the Senate National Election Study. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1:111-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/153244000100100107
Norrander, Barbara, and Clyde Wilcox. 1999. Public Opinion and Policymaking in the States: The Case of Post-Roe Abortion Policy. Policy Studies Journal 27:702-722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1999.tb01998.x
O'Connor, Robert E., and Michael B. Berkman. 1995. Religious Determinants of State Abortion Policy. Social Science Quarterly 76:447-459.
Quinn, Bernard, Herman Andersen, Martin Bradley, Paul Goettinghall, and Peggy Shriver. 1982. Churches and Church Membership in the United States 1980. Atlanta, GA: Glenmary Research Center.
Quinn, Bernard, Martin Bradley, Paul Goettinghall, and Peggy Shriver. 1992. Churches and Church Membership in the United States 1990. Atlanta, GA: Glenmary Research Center.
Roh, Jongho, and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 2003. All Politics is not Local: National Forces in State Abortion Initiatives. Social Science Quarterly 84:15-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.t01-1-8401002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00138
Stimson, James A. 2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791024
Soroka, Stuart N., and Christopher Wlezien 2005. Opinion Dynamics: Public Preferences and Public Expenditures in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Political Science 35:665-689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123405000347
Strickland, Ruth Ann, and Marcia Lynn Whicker 1992. Political and Socioeconomic Indicators of State Restrictiveness Toward Abortion. Policy Studies Journal 20:598-617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1992.tb00185.x
Wetstein, Matthew E. 1996. Abortion Rates in the United States: The Influence of Opinion and Policy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Wetstein, Matthew E. 1993. A LISREL Model of Public Opinion on Abortion. Pp. 57-70 in Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Malcolm L. Goggin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Wilcox, Clyde, and Julia Riches. 2002. Pills in the Public's Mind: RU486 and the Framing of the Abortion Issue. Women & Politics 24:61-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2003.9970996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J014v24n03_04
Winters, Richard. 1976. Party Control and Policy Change. American Journal of Political Science 20:597-636. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2110563
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending. American Journal of Political Science 39:981-1000. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111666
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:
The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;
Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:
the Work is the Author’s original work;
the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
the Work has not previously been published;
the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
