Abstract
This article empirically assesses whether age-restricted access to abortion and the birth control pill influence minors’ fertility in the United States. There is not a strong consensus in previous literature regarding the relationship between laws restricting minors’ access to abortion and minors’ birthrates. This is the first study to recognize that state laws in place prior to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision enabled minors to legally consent to surgical treatment—including abortion—in some states but not in others, and to construct abortion access variables reflecting this. In this article, age-specific policy variables measure either a minor’s legal ability to obtain an abortion or to obtain the birth control pill without parental involvement. I find fairly strong evidence that young women’s birthrates dropped as a result of abortion access as well as evidence that birth control pill access led to a drop in birthrates among whites.
Previous studies examining the impact of abortion legalization on birthrates have not recognized that at the time of abortion legalization, minors’ access to abortion was limited by parental involvement laws in some U.S. states; and these studies have not considered the impact of a minor’s access to the birth control pill (Levine 2004; Levine et al. 1999). Although the finding of a negative relationship between abortion legalization and birthrates is robust across studies, these results suffer from potential omitted variables bias because they do not account for minors’ access to birth control pills (the Pill). More recently, authors have considered abortion legalization and legal access to the Pill in the same analysis. However, abortion access is measured by whether abortion is legal for adults in the state when a woman is a particular age (usually 18 or 21), and not by whether a minor had legal access to abortion (Ananat and Hungerman 2007; Bailey 2006; and Goldin and Katz 2002). Although these authors have found a negative relationship between early legal access to the Pill and births, the impact that minors’ access to oral contraceptives had on birthrates during this period has not been studied extensively, and the contemporaneous impact of minors’ legal access to abortion has not been examined. Unlike previous research, this study constructs policy variables to measure minors’ legal access to abortion during the late 1960s and early 1970s and examines the impact that minors’ access to abortion and the Pill have on birthrates.
Laws changing minors’ access to abortion or the Pill alter the costs of preventing or terminating pregnancies. These cost changes have theoretically ambiguous impacts on birthrates.1 Consequently, to determine the size and direction of the change in birthrates attributable to changes in minor access, data must be examined empirically.
It is important to understand how large the behavioral response to the policy is because changes may affect minors’ own outcomes as well as outcomes of the next generation. Recent work has shown that women’s short- and long-term fertility as well as career and labor force outcomes are influenced by access to abortion and/or the Pill (Ananat, Gruber, and Levine 2007; Ananat and Hungerman 2007; Bailey 2006; and Goldin and Katz 2002). Additionally, children’s outcomes—such as educational attainment, welfare use, criminal activity, and child fatal injury rates—have been associated with access to abortion and/or the Pill (Ananat et al. 2006; Charles and Stephens 2006; Donohue and Levitt 2001; Gruber, Levine, and Staiger 1999; Lott and Whitley 2007; Pantano 2007; Sen 2007). Some authors have argued that the impact on the next generation operates via a change in cohort size, while others have argued that the impact is due to a selection mechanism (Ananat et al. 2006; Lott and Whitley 2007). Still others have questioned the magnitude of the effect on the next generation (Foote and Goetz 2005; Joyce 2004). Regardless, it is important to understand how much fertility policies influence birthrates. This article explores the relative impacts of minors’ access to abortion and the Pill on birthrates.
Previous work has found that abortion legalization decreased the teen birthrate by 2%–13% (Angrist and Evans 1999; Levine et al. 1999; Sklar and Berkov 1974). Other state-level research shows that laws restricting minors’ access to abortion (beginning in the mid-1970s) had little effect on the birthrate (Bitler and Zavodny 2001; Blank, George, and London 1996; Cartoof and Klerman 1986; Joyce and Kaestner 1996; Joyce, Kaestner, and Colman 2006; Kane and Staiger 1996; Levine 2003; Rogers et al. 1991). However, these authors generally failed to account for access to contraception, and no author has examined the relationship between the birthrate and parental involvement laws that governed minors’ access to abortion in the United States during the late 1960s and the 1970s.
This article explores the relationship among minors’ access to abortion, minors’ access to the Pill, and the birthrate. The impact of state law changes on the birthrates of women ages 15–21 is analyzed using a model that controls for age, state, year, and unrestricted state-year fixed effects. I find that for whites, providing minors with abortion access and/or access to the Pill leads to a reduction in birthrates. These effects are strongest among unmarried first-time mothers.
STATE LAWS REGULATING MINORS’ ACCESS TO THE PILL AND TO ABORTION
The cost of pregnancy prevention was drastically reduced when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the nearly 100%-effective birth control pill (the Pill) in 1960. Almost immediately, married women began using it to control their fertility. However, unmarried women and minors were not afforded the same access as married women. The age at which a minor could obtain contraception without the consent of her parent(s) varied by state during the late 1960s and early 1970s. For some states during this period, the age of consent was simply the age of majority; for others, it was governed by a mature minor doctrine or an explicit medical consent law for minors.2 Table 1 shows the number of states where minors of a particular age had legal access to the Pill without parental involvement for each year examined in this article.3
Table 1.
Year | Age | Access Measure |
Year | Age | Access Measure |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pill | Abortion | Both | Pill | Abortion | Both | ||||
1968 | 15 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1972 | 15 | 14 | 3 | 0 |
1968 | 16 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1972 | 16 | 16 | 3 | 0 |
1968 | 17 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1972 | 17 | 16 | 4 | 1 |
1968 | 18 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1972 | 18 | 32 | 7 | 5 |
1968 | 19 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1972 | 19 | 35 | 7 | 6 |
1968 | 20 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1972 | 20 | 37 | 7 | 6 |
1968 | 21 | 51 | 0 | 0 | 1972 | 21 | 51 | 7 | 7 |
1969 | 15 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1973 | 15 | 17 | 14 | 8 |
1969 | 16 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1973 | 16 | 20 | 14 | 9 |
1969 | 17 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1973 | 17 | 20 | 15 | 10 |
1969 | 18 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1973 | 18 | 43 | 42 | 38 |
1969 | 19 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1973 | 19 | 46 | 44 | 42 |
1969 | 20 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 1973 | 20 | 46 | 44 | 42 |
1969 | 21 | 51 | 0 | 0 | 1973 | 21 | 51 | 51 | 51 |
1970 | 15 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1974 | 15 | 17 | 17 | 8 |
1970 | 16 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1974 | 16 | 20 | 18 | 10 |
1970 | 17 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1974 | 17 | 20 | 19 | 11 |
1970 | 18 | 13 | 1 | 0 | 1974 | 18 | 49 | 48 | 47 |
1970 | 19 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 1974 | 19 | 51 | 50 | 50 |
1970 | 20 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1974 | 20 | 51 | 50 | 50 |
1970 | 21 | 51 | 2 | 2 | 1974 | 21 | 51 | 51 | 51 |
1971 | 15 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1975 | 15 | 21 | 22 | 12 |
1971 | 16 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 1975 | 16 | 24 | 23 | 14 |
1971 | 17 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 1975 | 17 | 24 | 24 | 15 |
1971 | 18 | 13 | 5 | 0 | 1975 | 18 | 50 | 49 | 49 |
1971 | 19 | 15 | 5 | 2 | 1975 | 19 | 51 | 51 | 51 |
1971 | 20 | 17 | 5 | 2 | 1975 | 20 | 51 | 51 | 51 |
1971 | 21 | 51 | 5 | 5 | 1975 | 21 | 51 | 51 | 51 |
1976 | 15 | 26 | 26 | 17 | 1977 | 19 | 51 | 51 | 51 |
1976 | 16 | 28 | 27 | 19 | 1977 | 20 | 51 | 51 | 51 |
1976 | 17 | 28 | 28 | 20 | 1977 | 21 | 51 | 51 | 51 |
1976 | 18 | 50 | 50 | 49 | 1978 | 15 | 27 | 35 | 19 |
1976 | 19 | 51 | 51 | 51 | 1978 | 16 | 29 | 35 | 21 |
1976 | 20 | 51 | 51 | 51 | 1978 | 17 | 29 | 36 | 22 |
1976 | 21 | 51 | 51 | 51 | 1978 | 18 | 50 | 50 | 49 |
1977 | 15 | 27 | 35 | 20 | 1978 | 19 | 51 | 51 | 51 |
1977 | 16 | 29 | 35 | 22 | 1978 | 20 | 51 | 51 | 51 |
1977 | 17 | 29 | 36 | 23 | 1978 | 21 | 51 | 51 | 51 |
1977 | 18 | 50 | 50 | 49 |
Notes: Number of states that would have allowed a minor mother giving birth at age a access to the Pill at the time of pregnancy or to abortion within the first three months of pregnancy. Minors acquire access when state laws enable them to obtain an abortion or the Pill without parental involvement. Across data sources, there is sometimes disagreement with regard to laws governing minor access. When this is the case, I use the age that is most consistent across sources. This necessarily results in some mismatch relative to other articles using similar policy variables. If no specific access age is given in the data source or if the minimum falls below age 14, I code the age as 14 because this is the youngest age in the data I use.
Even with the availability of the Pill, the cost of terminating unplanned pregnancies remained high until legislative and judicial action gave adult women legal access to abortions beginning in the late 1960s.4 In 1973, the landmark Roe v. Wade court decision legalized abortion for adult women, although not necessarily minors, in all states. Prior to Roe v. Wade, some states had reformed laws to allow for abortion under a number of circumstances, such as rape, incest, severe defect of the fetus, or when the health or life of the woman was in danger (Alan Guttmacher Institute 2003). Nine of these states incorporated a parental involvement feature into their reformed statutes. Even after Roe v. Wade, some states continued to enforce the parental involvement component of the existing abortion laws, at least for some period. For example, South Carolina passed a parental consent law in January 1970. Although this law was ruled unconstitutional in July 1973, a new parental consent law was passed in 1974 (Merz et al. 1995; U.S. DHEW 1974). Also, some states passed parental involvement laws very shortly after Roe v. Wade. For example, South Dakota had a parental consent law for abortions beginning March 1973 (Merz et al. 1995). However, the majority of states did not have explicit parental involvement laws during the early 1970s, and such legislation did not become widespread until the 1980s (Greenberger and Connor 1991; Haas-Wilson 1996; Levine 2004; Merz et al. 1995).
The absence of parental involvement laws did not necessarily mean that minors had legal access to abortion. Abortion is considered a surgical procedure. Consequently, without an explicit parental involvement law, the legal ability of a minor to consent to medical treatment governed whether a minor had legal access to abortion. For some states, the laws that determined a minor’s access to abortion and oral contraceptives were the same. In other states, minors of a certain age had access to the Pill but not to abortion (e.g., California and South Carolina) or vice versa (e.g., Nebraska and Washington).
States that enacted parental consent laws during the 1970s sometimes did not include a health exception. This meant that even if a young woman’s life were at risk, parental consent would still be required to obtain an abortion. In July 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this to be unconstitutional in the case of Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth. Consequently, state parental consent laws without health exceptions were invalidated and presumably unenforceable after this ruling. After this ruling, minors in a subset of states gained legal access to abortion. In contrast, state parental-consent laws with a health exception but without a judicial-bypass feature could have been enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court decision for Bellotti v. Baird in July 1979 (Paul and Pilpel 1979). Table 1 shows the number of states where minors could legally consent to having an abortion, taking the Pill, or doing both without parental involvement by age for each year from 1968 to 1978.
EMPIRICAL MODEL
Vital statistics data (U.S. DHHS 1968–1979), U.S. census data (1970–1980), and state-level policy variables described in Table 1 are combined into one data set. The dependent variable is the natural log of the birthrate. The birthrate is constructed by dividing the number of births by population (in thousands) for each age, race, and state group constructed. The empirical model employs a difference-of-difference-of-difference (DoDoD) estimator (Gruber 1994; Meyer 1995), which measures the impact of access to abortion and oral contraceptives on the birthrates of young women. Regressions are of the following form:
(1) |
where s is state of residence, a represents age of mother at birth, and t is the year when the mother gives birth. The dependent variable is the natural log of the number of births per thousand women in an age (see Eq. (2)):
(2) |
Access is measured with two variables—Pillsat and Abortionsat—and is determined by laws in place during the year in which a minor would have become pregnant (year t − 1) instead of the year when she would have given birth (year t) to take account of the difference in timing between law change and birth outcome. Pillsat is an indicator equal to 1 if a minor age a in state s in year t was old enough in the previous year to obtain birth control pills without her parent’s consent. Abortionsat is an indicator equal to 1 if a minor of age a in state s and year t was old enough to obtain an abortion without parental consent in year t − 1.5 Summary statistics are provided in Table 2.
Table 2.
Observations | Mean | SD | Minimum | Maximum | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pill | 8,568 | 0.480 | 0.500 | 0 | 1 |
Abortion | 8,568 | 0.373 | 0.484 | 0 | 1 |
Age | 8,568 | 18 | 2 | 15 | 21 |
Year | 8,568 | 1973.5 | 3.5 | 1968 | 1979 |
Whites | |||||
Birthrate | 4,283 | 70.23 | 49.11 | 1.49 | 332.40 |
Ln(Birthrate) | 4,284 | 3.89 | 0.99 | −0.69 | 5.81 |
Population | 4,284 | 33,154 | 34,876 | 652 | 192,621 |
Nonwhites | |||||
Birthrate | 4,194 | 127.19 | 64.86 | 4.20 | 602.57 |
Ln(Birthrate) | 4,284 | 4.57 | 0.99 | −0.69 | 6.40 |
Population | 4,284 | 5,806 | 6,609 | 9 | 34,069 |
Notes: Each observation is at the state-year-age cell. Birthrate is the number of births per 1,000 women in the state-year-age cell, computed separately by race. When the birthrate = 0, ln(Birthrate) is replaced with ln(1 / 2). Pill = 1 if minor age a in state s in year t had access to the birth control pill without parental involvement in year t − 1. Abortion = 1 if minor age a in state s in year t had access to an abortion without parental involvement in year t − 1.
Source: As described in the text of the article, data on births come from the 1968–1979 Vital Statistics Natality Detail Files, and population estimates come from the U.S. Census Bureau. Policy Variables come from sources listed in the notes to Table 1.
The differences by race in minors’ responses to changes in access to either the Pill or abortion (Angrist and Evans 1999; Henshaw and Kost 1992; Levine et al. 1999; Reddy, Fleming, and Swain 2002; and Zavodny 2004) suggest that it is important to examine the impact of these policies by race rather than by averaging the effect over a less-stratified group. Therefore, I perform the analysis separately by race. Age, state, and year fixed effects, as well as state-year fixed effects (a full set of indicator variables for state and year, fully interacted, that create coefficient vector β7), are included in all regressions to control for factors that may be correlated with the policy as well as the birthrate. The baseline specification compares different-aged individuals within states using age, state, year, and state-year fixed effects. The data are analyzed using ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression, weighted by the population of the state-year-age cell. Estimated heteroskedastic, robust standard errors take into account clustering6 at the state level because errors may be serially correlated within state (Bertrand, Duflo, and Mullainathan 2004).
RESULTS
Results are presented in Table 3 separately for whites and nonwhites. Each column represents a separate regression. All regressions control for age, state, and year fixed effects, as well as state-year fixed effects.7 Among whites, a minor’s access to abortion and the Pill are associated with a drop in birthrates, whereas the evidence is much weaker for nonwhites. The findings are fairly robust across different specifications for abortion access, but less so for access to oral contraceptives.
Table 3.
Births Data Used to Compute Dependent Variable |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
All Births (1) | Nonmarital Births (2) | First Births (3) | Nonmarital First Births (4) | Second+ Births (5) | All Births Monthly (6) | All Births (7) | All Births in Levels (8) | |
Whites | ||||||||
Access to the Pill | −0.085* (0.041) | −0.052 (0.038) | −0.090† (0.045) | −0.083* (0.038) | −0.036 (0.059) | 0.019 (0.032) | −0.020 (0.045) | −7.599* (3.243) |
Access to abortion | −0.100† (0.054) | −0.172** (0.049) | −0.098 (0.063) | −0.164** (0.029) | −0.080 (0.053) | −0.155** (0.032) | −0.137** (0.037) | −14.412** (3.654) |
Nonwhites | ||||||||
Access to the Pill | 0.009 (0.051) | 0.016 (0.036) | −0.005 (0.062) | −0.048 (0.057) | 0.088 (0.066) | 0.051 (0.037) | 0.051 (0.077) | −5.971 (3.846) |
Access to abortion | −0.030 (0.058) | −0.080* (0.034) | −0.012 (0.077) | −0.001 (0.070) | 0.006 (0.068) | −0.052 (0.034) | −0.104† (0.054) | −12.834** (3.293) |
Different Between Races? | ||||||||
Access to the Pill | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | No |
Access to abortion | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | No |
Age, State, Year Fixed Effects | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
State × Year Unrestricted Fixed Effects | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
Month Fixed Effects | x | |||||||
Weighted by Population? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
Number of Observations | 4,284 | 4,284 | 4,284 | 4,284 | 4,284 | 47,124 | 4,284 | 4,284 |
Notes: Robust standard errors taking account of clustering at the state level are shown in parentheses. Regressions are weighted by population for each state-year-age cell. Each column in each panel represents a different regression. When birthrate = 0, ln(Birthrate) is replaced with ln(1 / 2) except in column 8, where it is zero. Access to the Pill = 1 if minor age a in state s in year t had access to the birth control pill without parental involvement in year t − 1. Access to abortion = 1 if minor age a in state s in year t had access to abortion without parental involvement in year t − 1. Because of space constraints, the coefficient estimates for the other variables are not reported.
p < .10;
p < .05;
p < .01
The baseline results are reported in column 1 of Table 3. Access to the Pill (Pillsat) is associated with a 8.5% drop in whites’ birthrates, which is consistent with previous work showing that access to oral contraceptives increases age at first birth (Ananat and Hungerman 2007; Bailey 2006). Abortion access (Abortionsat) is associated with a 10% drop in whites’ birthrates.8 This is in contrast to the near zero effect found by other authors examining 1980s state laws restricting minors’ access to abortion (Bitler and Zavodny 2001; Blank et al. 1996; Cartoof and Klerman 1986; Joyce and Kaestner 1996; Joyce et al. 2006; Kane and Staiger 1996; Levine 2003; Rogers et al. 1991). The estimates in column 1 indicate that access to oral contraceptives and abortion have similar negative effects on whites’ birthrates. In the baseline specification, no statistically significant relationship is found for nonwhites.
Birth Order, Nonmarital Births, and Marital Births
During the period considered, minors who were married or who were already mothers were usually emancipated, meaning that they would have had access to the Pill and/or abortion prior to many of the law changes discussed earlier in this article. Consequently, changes in laws governing minors’ access would be expected to have little or no effect on the fertility decisions of minors who were already mothers or who were married when they became pregnant. This could attenuate the estimated relationship between births and access in the current analysis. To address this issue, I first perform the analysis using only births to unmarried women to construct birthrates. Although marital status cannot be accurately measured in the vital statistics data for all states over the period, using proxies for marital status—such as fathers’ characteristics reported (or not reported) on the birth certificate in conjunction with marital status information9—I construct birthrates of unmarried mothers. These results (column 2, Table 3) show that abortion access is associated with a larger decrease in the nonmarital birthrate (17.2% for whites; 8% for nonwhites) relative to the baseline, which is expected if the original results were attenuated by including marital births in the analysis. Access to oral contraceptives is not measured with statistical significance. Next, I examine first births (column 3, Table 3). There is weak evidence that access to the Pill decreases first birthrates for whites. However, no other conclusions can be drawn. This leads to the next specification. If the group of women most likely to have been affected by any law changes is unmarried women having first births, then the estimate for each policy variable should be least attenuated for this group. When only nonmarital first-time births are used to construct birthrates, estimates show that access to the Pill and access to abortion each have a significant negative relationship with whites’ birthrates (column 4, Table 3). All estimates based on second or higher-order births are statistically insignificant (column 5, Table 3). A test of the null hypothesis that there are no differences by race indicates that when differences do exist, both access to abortion and access to the Pill have a larger (more negative) relationship with birthrates for whites than nonwhites. Taken together, these results indicate that abortion access has a slightly larger impact on birthrates than access to oral contraceptives; whites responded to laws governing minors’ access to the Pill, whereas conclusions cannot be drawn for nonwhites. Finally, adjusting for birth order and/or marital status increases the magnitude of the abortion estimates.
Robustness Checks
The results from the baseline specification are compared with regressions performed on monthly data, regressions in which the dependent variable is measured in levels rather than logs, and regressions performed without weighting by population. Tightening the time period between observed policy change and observed birth, using monthly data, reduces measurement error attributable to (1) the different timing of taking oral contraceptives versus abortion technology (the Pill must be taken prior to pregnancy, whereas abortion occurs after pregnancy); and (2) the inability to observe the mother’s exact birthday in the vital statistics data. Monthly policy variables are defined as whether a woman age a had access in month m − 6 (abortion) or in month m − 9 (the Pill). The specification also includes month fixed effects. Estimates obtained from monthly data are reported in column 6 (Table 3). The estimates for abortion access are slightly higher than those found in the baseline regression, which supports a measurement error explanation. The estimate for oral contraceptives is not statistically significant, which is a finding that I discuss in more detail later within this article. Columns 7 and 8 (Table 3) report results from unweighted regressions and regressions in which birthrate is measured in levels rather than in logs. From these three robustness checks, the finding that abortion access is associated with a decrease in birthrates is supported. However, these robustness checks reveal that the estimated relationship between access to the Pill and birthrates is more tenuous.
DISCUSSION
Using robust DoDoD methods, the results presented in this article offer evidence that birthrates fall with increases in minors’ access to abortion, and that this drop is larger for whites than nonwhites. Among whites, access to oral contraceptives is also negatively related to birthrates. These results indicate that granting minors access to these means of reproductive control has an impact on birthrates above and beyond any impact that changes in adult access laws have. The magnitude of the coefficient estimates is meaningful from a policy perspective. For example, they indicate that minors’ access to abortion leads to an additional 8%–15% drop in birthrates in addition to any changes resulting from legalized abortion.
The coefficient estimates for access to oral contraceptives are generally smaller in magnitude than those for abortion access. One reason that the estimated relationship between access to the Pill and birthrates is smaller in general is that oral contraceptive technology is inherently different from abortion technology. To avert a birth, abortion requires a one-time action, whereas taking the Pill requires continual action. In addition, the impact of access to oral contraceptives on birthrates may be muted by the Pill’s failure rate, which is different across age and race categories (Ranjit et al. 2001). Because of technological differences, gaining access to the Pill may produce a fuzzier break in the birthrate trend than gaining access to abortion. These two features of oral contraceptive technology may work together to attenuate any observed relationship between access to the Pill and birthrates.
CONCLUSION
This article contributes to the existing literature on the Pill and abortion by empirically analyzing the relative impact of access to each on birthrates of young women. U.S. state law changes during the late 1960s and 1970s, which altered the age at which a minor could legally gain access to abortion and/or to the Pill, are used to construct new policy variables that measure abortion and oral contraceptive access differently by single year of age. When performing policy analysis, ignoring other factors that may be correlated with the policy change (such as state-specific trends) could bias estimates. To mitigate this potential source of bias, unrestricted, state-year fixed effects are incorporated into the model. Overall, the results show that laws that increased minors’ access to abortion in the 1960s and 1970s had a larger impact on minors’ birthrates than laws that increased oral contraceptive access. The changes in minors’ abortion and oral contraceptive access brought about by the changes in state and national laws in the late 1960s and early 1970s altered the costs that young women faced when making fertility decisions. Taken together, results presented in this article indicate that abortion access has a slightly larger estimated impact on birthrates than oral contraceptive access; that the magnitude of these results are meaningful; and that the group most affected by these changes are unmarried women experiencing a first birth. Although historical, the results in this article can inform contemporary debate on minors’ access to reproductive control.
Acknowledgments
I owe thanks to the editors of Demography and two anonymous referees as well as Martha Bailey, Elizabeth Cascio, Hilary Hoynes, Lisa Jepsen, Douglas L. Miller, Marianne Page, and Ann Stevens for insightful feedback on earlier drafts of this article. I am also grateful for the helpful comments from participants of the 2005 Western Economic Association International Conference, UC–Davis Brown Bag Seminar, and Sacramento State Brown Bag Seminar. Any remaining errors are my own.
Footnotes
An existing body of literature develops the economic theory of fertility and provides more technical detail (see, e.g., Akerlof, Yellen, and Katz 1996; Ananat et al. 2006; Becker 1960, 1981; Becker and Lewis 1973; Heckman and Willis 1975; Kane and Staiger 1996; Levine 2004; Levine and Staiger 2002; and Willis 1999). When the cost of the Pill and of abortion change simultaneously, the predicted impact on the birthrate is theoretically ambiguous and depends on (a) the cost of abortion relative to the cost of giving birth; (b) the cost of the Pill relative to its expected decrease in the probability of pregnancy; (c) the distribution of these costs across the population.
Bailey (2006) and Goldin and Katz (2002) discussed the legal environment related to the Pill more extensively.
The age at which a minor could have obtained the Pill without parental involvement is, in some states, the same age at which a minor could obtain other less-effective forms of contraception without parental involvement. In this article, access to the Pill can be thought of as access to contraception. Therefore, the interpretation of any results in this article could be construed more broadly as access to contraception rather than simply the birth control pill.
Prior authors (e.g., Bitler and Zavodny 2002; Levine et al. 1999; Merz, Jackson, and Klerman 1995; U.S. DHEW 1974) discussed the timing of legalized abortion in detail. In this article, I assume the following timing: California in 1969; Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington in 1970; New Jersey and Vermont in 1972; and all other states in 1973.
Alternatives to the timing used in these definitions of the policy variables are discussed later in the article.
These standard errors are computed using the cluster command in Stata version 9.2.
Including state annual crime rate, unemployment rate, and state income per capita rather than state-year fixed effects yields results that are similar to those in the baseline specification.
The magnitude and significance of the Pill and abortion estimates do not change appreciably when they are estimated in separate regressions, rather than in the same regression.
I am grateful for an anonymous referee who suggested this approach.
REFERENCES
- Akerlof GA, Yellen JL, Katz ML. “An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States”. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1996;111:277–317. [Google Scholar]
- Alan Guttmacher Institute 1978“Family Planning, Contraception, Voluntary Sterilization, and Abortion: An Analysis of Laws and Policies in the United States, Each State and Jurisdiction (as of October 1, 1976 with 1978 addenda).”A report of the Office for Family Planning, Bureau of Community Health Services, Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
- Alan Guttmacher Institute The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy. 2003;6(1) [Google Scholar]
- Ananat EO, Gruber J, Levine PB. “Abortion Legalization and Life-Cycle Fertility”. Journal of Human Resources. 2007;42:375–97. [Google Scholar]
- Ananat EO, Gruber J, Levine PB, Staiger D. National Bureau of Economic Research; Cambridge, MA: 2006. “Abortion and Selection”. NBER Working Paper #12150. [Google Scholar]
- Ananat EO, Hungerman D. National Bureau of Economic Research; Cambridge, MA: 2007. “The Power of the Pill for the Next Generation”. NBER Working Paper #13402. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Angrist JD, Evans WN. “Schooling and Labor Market Consequences of the 1970 State Abortion Reforms”. Research in Labor Economics. 1999;18:75–113. [Google Scholar]
- Bailey MJ. “More Power to the Pill: The Impact of Contraceptive Freedom on Women’s Life Cycle Labor Supply”. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2006;121:289–320. [Google Scholar]
- Becker GS. “An Economic Analysis of Fertility.”. In: Coale AJ, editor. Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1960. pp. 209–40. [Google Scholar]
- Becker GS. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Becker GS, Lewis HG. “On the Interaction Between the Quantity and Quality of Children”. Journal of Political Economy. 1973;81(Suppl.):14–64. [Google Scholar]
- Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S. “How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?”. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2004;119:249–75. [Google Scholar]
- Bitler M, Zavodny M. “The Effect of Abortion Restrictions on the Timing of Abortions”. Journal of Health Economics. 2001;20:1011–32. doi: 10.1016/s0167-6296(01)00106-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bitler M, Zavodny M. “Did Abortion Legalization Reduce the Number of Unwanted Children? Evidence From Adoptions”. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2002;34(1):25–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Blank RM, George CC, London RA. “State Abortion Rates: The Impact of Policies, Providers, Politics, Demographics and Economic Environment”. Journal of Health Economics. 1996;15:513–53. doi: 10.1016/s0167-6296(96)00494-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cartoof VG, Klerman LV. “Parental Consent for Abortion: Impact of the Massachusetts Law”. American Journal of Public Health. 1986;76:397–400. doi: 10.2105/ajph.76.4.397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Charles KK, Stephens M., Jr “Abortion Legalization and Substance Use”. Journal of Law and Economics. 2006;49:481–505. [Google Scholar]
- Council of State Governments . Age of Majority. Lexington, KY: Iron Works Pike; 1972. [Google Scholar]
- Council of State Governments . Age of Majority (Updated) Lexington, KY: Iron Works Pike; 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Donohue JJ, III, Levitt SD. “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime”. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2001;116:379–420. [Google Scholar]
- Foote CL, Goetz CF. “Testing Economic Hypotheses With State-Level Data: A Comment on Donohue and Levitt (2001)”. 2005. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Working Paper #05-15.
- Goldin C, Katz LF. “The Power of the Pill: Oral Contraceptives and Women’s Career and Marriage Decisions”. Journal of Political Economy. 2002;110:730–70. [Google Scholar]
- Greenberger MD, Connor K. “Parental Notice and Consent for Abortion: Out of Step With Family Law Principles and Policies”. Family Planning Perspectives. 1991;23:31–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gruber J. “The Incidence of Mandated Maternity Benefits”. American Economic Review. 1994;84:622–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gruber J, Levine PB, Staiger D. “Abortion Legalization and Child Living Circumstances: Who is the Marginal Child?”. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1999;114:263–92. [Google Scholar]
- Hass-Wilson D. “The Impact of State Abortion Restrictions on Minors’ Demand for Abortions”. Journal of Human Resources. 1996;31:140–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Heckman JJ, Willis RJ. “Estimation of a Stochastic Dynamic Model of Reproduction: An Econometric Approach.”. In: Terleckyj N, editor. Household Production and Consumption 1975. New York: Columbia University Press; 1975. pp. 99–138. [Google Scholar]
- Henshaw SK, Kost K. “Parental Involvement in Minors’ Abortion Decisions.”. Family Planning Perspectives. 1992;24:196–207. 213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Joyce T. “Did Legalized Abortion Lower Crime?”. Journal of Human Resources. 2004;39(1):1–28. [Google Scholar]
- Joyce T, Kaestner R. “State Reproductive Policies and Adolescent Pregnancy Resolution: The Case of Parental Involvement Laws”. Journal of Health Economics. 1996;15:579–607. doi: 10.1016/s0167-6296(96)00496-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Joyce T, Kaestner R, Colman S. “Changes in Abortions and Births and the Texas Parental Notification Law”. New England Journal of Medicine. 2006;354:1031–38. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa054047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kane TJ, Staiger D. “Teen Motherhood and Abortion Access”. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1996;111:467–506. [Google Scholar]
- Levine PB. “Parental Involvement Laws and Fertility Behavior”. Journal of Health Economics. 2003;22(5):861–78. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(03)00063-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Levine PB. Sex and Consequences: Abortion, Public Policy, and the Economics of Fertility. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Levine PB, Staiger D. NBER Working Paper #8813. National Bureau of Economic Research; Cambridge, MA: 2002. “Abortion as Insurance”. [Google Scholar]
- Levine PB, Staiger D, Kane TJ, Zimmerman DJ. “Roe v. Wade and American Fertility”. American Journal of Public Health. 1999;89:199–203. doi: 10.2105/ajph.89.2.199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lott JR, Whitley J. “Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-Wedlock Births”. Economic Inquiry. 2007;45:304–24. [Google Scholar]
- Merz JF, Jackson CA, Klerman JA. “A Review of Abortion Policy: Legality, Medicaid Funding, and Parental Involvement, 1967–1994”. Women’s Rights Law Reporter. 1995;17(1):1–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meyer BD. “Natural and Quasi-Experiments in Economics”. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics. 1995;13:151–61. [Google Scholar]
- Pantano J. California Center for Population Research, University of California; Los Angeles: 2007. “Unwanted Fertility, Contraceptive Technology and Crime: Exploiting a Natural Experiment in Access to The Pill”. CCPR Working Paper #028-07. [Google Scholar]
- Paul EW, Pilpel HF. “Teenagers Pregnancy: The Law in 1979”. Family Planning Perspectives. 1979;11:297–302. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Paul EW, Pilpel HF, Wechsler NF. “Pregnancy, Teenagers and the Law, 1974”. Family Planning Perspectives. 1974;6:142–47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Paul EW, Pilpel HF, Wechsler NF. “Pregnancy, Teenagers and the Law, 1976”. Family Planning Perspectives. 1976;8:16–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pilpel HF, Wechsler NF. “Birth Control, Teenagers and the Law”. Family Planning Perspectives. 1969;1:29–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pilpel HF, Wechsler NF. “Birth Control, Teenagers and the Law: A New Look, 1971”. Family Planning Perspectives. 1971;3:337–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ranjit N, Bankole A, Darroch JE, Singh S. “Contraceptive Failure in the First Two Years of Use: Differences Across Socioeconomic Subgroups”. Family Planning Perspectives. 2001;33:19–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Reddy DM, Fleming R, Swain C. “Effect of Mandatory Parental Notification on Adolescent Girls’ Use of Sexual Health Care Services”. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;288:710–14. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.6.710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rogers JL, Boruch RF, Stoms GB, DeMoya D. “Impact of the Minnesota Parental Notification Law on Abortion and Birth”. American Journal of Public Health. 1991;81:294–98. doi: 10.2105/ajph.81.3.294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sen B. “State Abortion Restrictions and Child Fatal-Injury: An Exploratory Study”. Southern Economic Journal. 2007;73:553–74. [Google Scholar]
- Sklar J, Berkov B. “Abortion, Illegitimacy, and the American Birth Rate”. Science. 1974;185:909–15. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4155.909. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Department of Census Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population of States 1970 to 1980. Available online at http://www.censu1980/e7080sta.txt.
- U.S. Department of Census 1970–1979 Population Estimates by Age, Sex, and Race, PE-19. Available online at http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/pre-1980/PE-19.csv.
- U.S. Department of Health and Economic Welfare (DHEW) Center for Family Planning Program Development (Planned Parenthood-World Population) 1974. Family Planning, Contraception, and Voluntary Sterilization: An Analysis of Laws and Policies in the United States, Each State and Jurisdiction (as of September 1971). ” U.S. DHEW Publication No. 74-16001, Rockville, MD.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), National Center for Health Statistics Natality Detail File, 1968–1979 [United States] [Computer file]. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics [producer], 1969–1980. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2002–2003.
- Willis RJ. “A Theory of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing”. Journal of Political Economy. 1999;107(6, part 2):S33–S64. [Google Scholar]
- Zavodny M. “Fertility and Parental Consent for Minors to Receive Contraceptives”. American Journal of Public Health. 2004;94:1347–51. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.8.1347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]