Skip to main content
NCBI home page
American Journal of Public Health logoLink to American Journal of Public Health
. 1994 Sep;84(9):1468–1472. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.9.1468

State family planning and abortion expenditures: their effect on public health.

K J Meier 1, D R McFarlane 1
PMCID: PMC1615165  PMID: 8092373

Abstract

OBJECTIVES. This study examines whether state family planning expenditures and abortion funding for Medicaid-eligible women might reduce the number of low-birthweight babies, babies with late or no prenatal care, and premature births, as well as the rates of infant and neonatal mortality. METHODS. Using a pooled time-series analysis from 1982 to 1988 with the 50 states as units of analysis, this study assessed the impact of family planning expenditures and abortion funding on several public health outcomes while controlling for other important variables and statistical problems inherent in pooled time-series studies. RESULTS. States that funded abortions had a significantly higher rate of abortions and significantly lower rates of teen pregnancy, low-birthweight babies, premature births, and births with late or no prenatal care. States that had higher expenditures for family planning had significantly fewer abortions, low-birthweight babies, births with late or no prenatal care, infant deaths, and neonatal deaths. CONCLUSIONS. Funding abortions for Medicaid-eligible women and increasing the level of expenditures for family planning are associated with major differences in infant and maternal health in the United States.

Full text

PDF
1468

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brown S. S. Can low birth weight be prevented? Fam Plann Perspect. 1985 May-Jun;17(3):112–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Corman H., Grossman M. Determinants of neonatal mortality rates in the U.S. A reduced form model. J Health Econ. 1985 Sep;4(3):213–236. doi: 10.1016/0167-6296(85)90030-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dryfoos J. G. What President Bush can do about family planning. Am J Public Health. 1989 Jun;79(6):689–690. doi: 10.2105/ajph.79.6.689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gold R. B., Daley D. Public funding of contraceptive, sterilization and abortion services, fiscal year 1990. Fam Plann Perspect. 1991 Sep-Oct;23(5):204–211. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gold R. B., Guardado S. Public funding of family planning, sterilization and abortion services, 1987. Fam Plann Perspect. 1988 Sep-Oct;20(5):228–233. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gold R. B., Macias J. Public funding of contraceptive, sterilization and abortion services, 1985. Fam Plann Perspect. 1986 Nov-Dec;18(6):259–264. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gold R. B., Nestor B. Public funding of contraceptive, sterilization and abortion services, 1983. Fam Plann Perspect. 1985 Jan-Feb;17(1):25–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Grossman M., Jacobowitz S. Variations in infant mortality rates among counties of the United States: the roles of public policies and programs. Demography. 1981 Nov;18(4):695–713. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Henshaw S. K., Koonin L. M., Smith J. C. Characteristics of U.S. women having abortions, 1987. Fam Plann Perspect. 1991 Mar-Apr;23(2):75–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Henshaw S. K., Torres A. Family planning agencies: services, policies and funding. Fam Plann Perspect. 1994 Mar-Apr;26(2):52-9, 82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Henshaw S. K., Van Vort J. Abortion services in the United States, 1987 and 1988. Fam Plann Perspect. 1990 May-Jun;22(3):102-8, 142. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Joyce T. J., Grossman M. Pregnancy wantedness and the early initiation of prenatal care. Demography. 1990 Feb;27(1):1–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Joyce T. The impact of induced abortion on black and white birth outcomes in the United States. Demography. 1987 May;24(2):229–244. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Medoff Marshall H. An economic analysis of the demand for abortions. Econ Inq. 1988 Apr;26(2):353–359. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1988.tb01499.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Meier Kenneth J., McFarlane Deborah R. The politics of funding abortion: state responses to the political environment. Am Polit Q. 1993 Jan;21(1):81–101. doi: 10.1177/1532673x9302100106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Shelton J. D., Brann E. A., Schulz K. F. Abortion utilization: does travel distance matter? Fam Plann Perspect. 1976 Nov-Dec;8(6):260–262. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Singh S., Torres A., Forrest J. D. The need for prenatal care in the United States: evidence from the 1980 National Natality Survey. Fam Plann Perspect. 1985 May-Jun;17(3):118–124. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Torres A., Donovan P., Dittes N., Forrest J. D. Public benefits and costs of government funding for abortion. Fam Plann Perspect. 1986 May-Jun;18(3):111–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Weller R. H., Eberstein I. W., Bailey M. Pregnancy wantedness and maternal behavior during pregnancy. Demography. 1987 Aug;24(3):407–412. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

RESOURCES