A Comparative Analysis of the Determinants of State Reproductive Healthcare Policies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2011.32.0.281-299Abstract
This paper is a state comparative analysis of the determinants of a state's policies towards reproductive healthcare. While much of the literature focuses solely on abortion, our analysis employs a more comprehensive measure of access to reproductive healthcare. Three explanationsreligious, socioeconomic, and politicalare tested to see which has the most significant impact on a state's likeliness to enact restrictive policies towards reproductive healthcare. We find that the political model is the best predictor of the level of state restrictiveness, and that the percent of women in the legislature is the most powerful variable. Combining the most significant variables from the three previous models into a single model, we find that the percent of women in the legislature, per capita income, and Democratic party control of the state House are the most influential predictors of variation in state restrictiveness towards abortion and reproductive healthcare policies. Lastly, we suggest several avenues for future research.References
Baker, Ross K., Laurily K. Epstein, and Rodney D. Forth. 1981. Matters of Life and Death: Social, Political and Religious Correlates of Attitudes on Abortion. American Politics Quarterly 9:89-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X8100900105
Berkman, M.B., and R.E. O.Conner. 1993. Do Women Legislators Matter? Female Legislators and State Abortion Policy. American Politics Research 21:102-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X9302100107
Berry, William D., Evan Ringquist, Richard Fording, and Russell Hanson. 1998. Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-1993. American Journal of Politics 42:327-348. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2991759
Blake, Judith, and Jorge H. Del Pinal. 1981. Negativism, Equivocation and Wobbly Assent: Public 'Support' for the Pro-Choice Platform on Abortion. Demography 18:309-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2060999
Brace, Paul, and Aubrey Jewett. 1995. The State of State Politics Research. Political Research Quarterly 48:643-681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299504800310 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/449007
Byrnes, Timothy A., and Mary C. Segers, eds. 1992. The Catholic Church and the Politics of Abortion: A View from the States. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Caiazza, Amy. 2004. Does Women's Representation in Elected Office Lead to Women-Friendly Policy? Analysis of State Level Data. Women & Politics 26:35-70. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2000. Abortion Surveillance-United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J014v26n01_03 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2004.9971034
Conway, Karen Smith, and Michael R. Butler. 1992. State Abortion Legislation as a Public Good-Before and After Roe v. Wade. Economic Inquiry 30:609-626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1992.tb01284.x
Cook, Elizabeth A., Ted G. Jelen, and Clyde Wilcox. 1993. Catholicism and Abortion Attitudes in the American States: A Contextual Analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32:375-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1386661
Dryzek, John S., and James P. Lester. 1989. Alternative Views of the Environmental Problematic. In Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence, ed. James P. Lester. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Evans, John H. 2002. Polarization in Abortion Attitudes in U.S. Religious Traditions,1972-1998. Sociological Forum 17:397-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1019627006778
Gohmann, Stephan F., and Robert L. Ohsfeldt. 1994. Which States Will Restrict Abortions? Predictions from Votes in the House of Representatives. Policy Studies Review 13:19-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1994.tb00577.x
Haas-Wilson, D. 1996. The Impact of State Abortion Restrictions on Minors. Demand for Abortion. Journal of Human Resources 31(1):140-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/146045
Hansen, Susan B. 1980. State Implementation of Supreme Court Decisions: Abortion Rates Since Roe v Wade. Journal of Politics 42:372-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2130465
Heft, James L. 2005. U.S. Catholics and the Presidential Election: Abortion and Proportionate Reasons. New Blackfriars 86:259-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0028-4289.2005.00082.x
Holbrook, Thomas M., and Emily Van Dunk. 1993. Electoral Competition in the American States. American Political Science Review 87:955-962. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2938827
Jelen, Ted G., and Clyde Wilcox. 2003. Causes and Consequences of Public Attitudes 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
Kahane, Leo H. 1994. Political, Ideological, and Economic Determinants of Abortion Position: An Empirical Analysis of State Legislatures and Governors. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 53:347-360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.1994.tb02604.x
Key, V.O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Knopf.
Legge, J. 1983. The Determinants of Attitudes toward Abortion in the American Electorate. Western Political Quarterly 36(3):479-490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591298303600312 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448404
Medoff, Marshall. 2002. The Determinants and Impact of State Abortion Restrictions. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 61:481-493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1536-7150.00169
Medoff, Marshall H., Christopher Dennis, and B.G. Bishin. 1995. Bimodal Issues, the Median Voter Model, Legislator's Ideology, and Abortion. Atlantic Economic Journal 23:293-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02298765
National Abortion Rights Action League. 2006. Who Decides? The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States, 15th ed. Washington, DC: National Abortion Rights Action League.
Norrander, Barbara, and Clyde Wilcox. 1999. Public Opinion and Policymaking in the States: The Case of Post-Roe Abortion Policy. Policy Studies Journal 27:707-722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1999.tb01998.x
Oakley, Maureen Rand. 2003. Abortion Restrictions and Abortion Rates: Has State Abortion Policy Been Successful? Politics and Policy 31:472-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2003.tb00158.x
Open Letter To Those Who Would Outlaw Abortion. 1989. The New York Times, Feb. 28.
Peterson, Larry R. 2001. Religion, Plausibility Structures, and Education's Effects on Attitudes toward Abortion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:187-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0021-8294.00050
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. 1992. 505 US 833.
Ringquist, Evan J. 1993. Environmental Protection at the State Level: Politics and Progress in Controlling Pollution. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharp.
Schecter, D. 2001. What Drives the Voting on Abortion Policy? Investigating Partisanship and Religion in the State Legislative Arena. Women & Politics 3:61-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2001.9970974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J014v23n04_03
Soss, Joe, Sanford F. Schram, Thomas P. Vartanian, and Erin O.Brien. 2001. Setting the Terms of Relief: Explaining State Policy Choices in the Devolution Revolution. American Journal of Political Science 45:378-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2669347
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
Strickler, Jennifer, and Nicholas L. Danigelis. 2002. Changing Frameworks in Attitudes Toward Abortion. Sociological Forum 17:187-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016033012225
Sullins, D. Paul. 1999. Catholic/Protestant Trends on Abortion: Convergence and Polarity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38:354-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1387757
Tedrow, Lucky M., and E.R. Mahoney. 1979. Trends in Attitudes towards Abortion: 1972-1976. Public Opinion Quarterly 43:181-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268510
The Alan Guttmacher Institute. 2008. Facts on Induced Abortion in the U.S. In brief (January). Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1998. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. 1989. 492 US 490.
Wetstein, Matthew E., and Robert B. Albritton. 1995. Effects of Public Opinion on Abortion Policies and Use in the American States. Publius 25:91-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3330814
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.
