Senate Voting on Abortion Legislation Over Two Decades: Testing a Reconstructed Partisanship Variable
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.1995.16.0.167-183Abstract
This paper argues that the ongoing debate over whether party or ideology is the primary determinant of legislative voting behavior has misdirected scholarly efforts. As conventionally modeled, analysts usually include a dichotomous party variable and an interval variable for ideology, but normally a dummy variable cannot outperform an interval variable when entered in multiple regressions. Because that methodology has been employed to assess voting on abortion in Congress, inevitably the results point to ideology as a strong predictor and party affiliation as, at best, a marginal influence. Also confounding this methodology is a recent concern that utilizing ADA scores as a proxy for ideology to predict voting behavior is a tautology, since votes are explaining votes. This study proposes a conceptual and methodological innovation by deriving a “reconstructed” partisanship variable for each Senator to determine how more partisan (conservative) Republicans and more partisan (liberal) Democrats voted on abortion legislation over the period 1973-1988. Besides partisanship, the eight regression models included three constituency influences (median family income, percent urban, and percent black) and the religious affiliation of each Senator (Catholic or non-Catholic). Overall the partisanship variable was the strongest predictor of senatorial voting on abortion bills and the results consistently showed that more partisan Democrats voted prochoice and more partisan Republicans voted pro-life.References
Abramowitz, Alan I. 1995. It's Abortion, Stupid: Policy Voting in the 1992 Presidential Election. Journal of Politics 57:176-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960276
Adams, Greg. 1992. Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting, Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
Bernstein, Robert A., and William W. Anthony. 1974. The ABM Issue in the Senate, 1968-1970: The Importance of Ideology. American Political Science Review 68: 1198-1206. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1959156
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.
Chandler, Marthe A., Elizabeth Adell Cook, Ted G. Jelen and Clyde Wilcox. 1994. Abortion in the United States and Canada: A Comparative Study of Public Opinion. In Ted G. Jelen and Marthe A. Chandler, eds., Abortion Politics in the United States and Canada: Studies in Public Opinion. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Chressanathis, George A., Kathie S. Gilbert, and Paul W. Grimes. 1991. Ideology, Constituent Interests, and Senatorial Voting: The Case of Abortion. Social Science Quarterly 72:588-600.
Combs, Michael W. and Susan Welch. 1982. Blacks, Whites, and Attitudes Toward Abortion. Public Opinion Quarterly 46:510-520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268748
Converse, Philip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In David E. Apter, ed., Ideology and Discontent. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Cook, Elizabeth Adell, Ted G. Jelen, and Clyde Wilcox. 1992. Between Two Absolutes: Public Opinion and the Politics of Abortion. Boulder: Westview Press.
Daynes, Byron W. and Raymond Tatalovich. 1992. Presidential Politics and Abortion, 1972-1988. Presidential Studies Quarterly 22:545-561.
Froman, Louis A. Jr. 1963. Congressmen and Their Constituencies. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Granberg, Donald. 1985. The United States Senate Votes to Uphold Roe v. Wade. Population Research and Policy Review 4:115-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00127547
Hall, Elaine J., and Myra Marx Ferree. 1986. Race Differences in Abortion Attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 50:193-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268974
Henshaw, Stanley K. and Jennifer Van Vort. 1994. Abortion Services in the United States, 1991 and 1992. Family Planning Perspectives. 26:100-106, 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136033
Hibbing, John R. and David Marsh. 1987. Accounting for the Voting Patterns of British MPs on Free Votes. Legislative Studies Quarterly. 12:275-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439924
Jackson, John E. and John W. Kingdon. 1992. Ideology, Interest Group Scores, and Legislative Votes. American Journal o f Political Science. 36:805-823. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111592
Kingdon, John W. 1989. Congressmen's Voting Decisions. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mpub.7354
Lindsay, James M. 1990. Parochialism, Policy, and Constituency Constraints: Congressional Voting on Strategic Weapons Systems. American Journal of Political Science 34:936-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111466
MacRae, Duncan, Jr. 1958. Dimensions o f Congressional Voting: A Statistical Study of the House of Representatives in the Eighty-first Congress. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
McCormick, James M. 1985. Congressional Voting on the Nuclear Freeze Resolutions. American Politics Quarterly 13:122-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X8501300106
McCormick, James M. and Michael Black. 1983. Ideology and Voting on the Panama Canal Treaties. Legislative Studies Quarterly 8:45-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439470
Mileti, Dennis S. and Larry D. Barnett. 1972. Nine Demographic Factors and Their Relationship to Attitudes Toward Abortion Legalization. Social Biology 19:43-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19485565.1972.9987964
Moyer, Wayne. 1973. House Voting on Defense: An Ideological Explanation Explanation. In B. Russett and Stephens, eds., Military Force and American Society. New York: Harper & Row.
Mueller, Keith J. 1986. An Analysis of Congressional Health Policy Voting in the 1970s. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 11:117-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/03616878-11-1-117
Nie, Norman, Sidney Verba, and John R. Petrocik. 1979. The Changing American Voter. Enlarged ed.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674429147
Overby, L. Marvin. 1991. Assessing Constituency Influence: Congressional Voting on the Nuclear Freeze, 1982-83. Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:297-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439983
Peltzman, Sam. 1984. Constituent Interest and Congressional Voting. Journal of Law and Economics 27:181-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467062
Poole, Keith T. 1988. Recent Developments in Analytical Models of Voting in the U.S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly 13:117-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439948
Poole, Keith T. and R. Steven Daniels. 1985. Ideology, Party, and Voting in the U.S. Congress, 1959-1980. American Political Science Review 79:373-398. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1956655
Russett, Bruce. 1970. What Price Vigilance: The Burden of National Defense. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schneider, Jerrold E. 1979. Ideological Coalitions in Congress.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Secret, P. 1989. The Impact of Region on Racial Differences in Attitudes Toward Legal Abortion. Journal of Black Studies 17:347-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002193478701700305
Segal, Jeffrey A., Charles M. Cameron, and Albert D. Cover. 1992. A Spatial Model of Roll Call Voting: Senators, Constituents, Presidents, and Interest Groups in Supreme Court Confirmations, American Journal of Political Science 36:96-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111426
Sharkansky, Ira. 1969. The Utility of Elazar's Political Culture. Polity 2:66-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3234089
Skerry, Peter. 1978. The Class Conflict Over Abortion. Public Interest. (Summer):69-84.
Smith, Steven T. 1981. The Consistency and Ideological Structure of U.S. Senate Voting Alignments, 1957-1976. American Journal o f Political Science 25:780-795.
Strickland, Ruth Ann and Marcia Lynn Whicker. 1986. Banning Abortion: An Analysis of Senate Votes on a Bimodal Issue. Women & Politics 6:41-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.1986.9970442
Tatalovich, Raymond and David Schier. 1993. The Persistence of Ideological Voting on Abortion Legislation in the House of Representatives, 1973-1988. American Politics Quarterly 21:125-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X9302100108
Tatalovich, Raymond and Byron W. Daynes. 1989. The Geographical Distribution of U.S. Hospitals with Abortion Facilities. Family Planning Perspectives 21:81-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135558
Truman, David B. 1959. The Congressional Party: A Case Study.New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959.
Turner, Julius. 1951. Party and Constituency: Pressures on Congress. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Vinovskis, Maris A. 1980. The Politics of Abortion in the House of Representatives in 1976. In Carl E. Schneider and Maris A. Vinovskis, eds., The Law and Politics of Abortion. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Wattier, Mark J., Byron W. Daynes and Raymond Tatalovich. 1996 (forthcoming). Abortion Attitudes, Gender, and Candidate Choice in Presidential Elections: 1972 to 1992. Women & Politics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j014v17n01_03 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554477x.1997.9970777
Wicker, Allan W. 1969. Attitudes versus Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavioral Responses to Attitude Objects. Journal of Social Issues 4:41-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.x
Wright, Gerald C., Roberts. Erikson, and John P. Mclver. 1985. Measuring State Partisanship and Ideology with Survey Data. Journal of Politics 47:469-489 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2130892
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.
