Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Demography
Published in: Demography 1/2020

06-02-2020

The Impact of Parental Involvement Laws on the Abortion Rate of Minors

Authors: Theodore J. Joyce, Robert Kaestner, Jason Ward

Published in: Demography | Issue 1/2020

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In this article, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of the effect of parental involvement (PI) laws on the incidence of abortions to minors in the United States. We contribute to the extant literature in several ways. First, we explore differences in estimates of the effect of PI laws across time that may result from changes in contraception, the composition of pregnant minors, abortion access in nearby states, and differences in how these laws are enforced. We find that PI laws enacted before the mid-1990s are associated with a 15% to 20% reduction in abortions to minors, but PI laws enacted after this time are not associated with declines in abortions to minors. Second, we assess the role of out-of-state travel by minors and find that it is not a significant factor moderating the effect of PI laws. Third, we use a synthetic control approach to explore state-level heterogeneity in the effect of PI laws and find large differences in the effect of PI laws on abortions to minors by state that appear unrelated to the type of PI law or whether contiguous states have enacted PI laws. Finally, we show that estimates of the effect of PI laws using data from either the Centers for Disease Control or the Guttmacher Institute do not differ qualitatively once differences in the states and years available across these data are harmonized.
previous article Immigrant Fertility in Comparative Perspective: South Africa and the United States
next article The Marital Implications of Bereavement: Child Death and Intimate Partner Violence in West and Central Africa

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
The literature consists of state-specific studies (Cartoof and Klerman 1986; Colman et al. 2008; Ellertson 1997; Henshaw 1995; Joyce and Kaestner 1996, 2001; Joyce et al. 2006; MacAfee et al. 2015; Ralph et al. 2018; Ramesh et al. 2016; Rogers et al. 1991) and analyses using a broader set of states (Haas-Wilson 1996; Levine 2003; Myers and Ladd 2017; New 2011; Ohsfeldt and Gohmann 1994). After reviewing this literature, we conclude that results from these studies indicate that PI laws decreased abortions among minors and that an effect size of 15% is typical, although there is meaningful variation across studies.
 
2
Analysis of the U.S. Census (1990, 2000) and American Community Survey (five-year 2013) data reveals significant changes over time and across states in the characteristics of mothers/families with teenage children. For example, the share of mothers that are married was 78% in 1990 and 73% in 2013. The share of married mothers also differed across states by up to 12 percentage points. The share of mothers with a BA or higher was 14% in 1990 and 27% in 2013, and the share with BA degree or more differed by up to 11 percentage points across states. The average age of mothers increased over time and differed across states by one to two years.
 
3
Because the Cartoof and Klerman (1986) study is frequently cited as the seminal example of travel by minors, we detail our claim. The Massachusetts law went into effect May 1981. In 1980, 5,113 abortions to minors were performed in Massachusetts; 6.3% of all abortions in the state were to nonresidents, and 3% of Massachusetts residents obtained abortions in other states. If we assume that 6.3% of abortions to minors were also nonresidents and that 3% of resident minors went out of state in 1980, there were 4,935 abortions to resident minors in 1980. In 1982, there were 3,942 abortions to resident minors: 2,802 were performed in Massachusetts and 1,140 were performed in other states. Accordingly, abortions to resident minors fell by 20.1% from 1980 to 1982 (4,935 – 3,942) / 4,935).
 
4
MacAfee et al. (2015) and Ralph et al. (2018) showed that abortions fell more among out-of-state minors following PI laws in New Hampshire and Illinois than among resident minors of each state. However, their results pertain to one clinic, or a few clinics, in close proximity to states without a PI law. Ellertson’s (1997) simulation analysis is speculative and used data on travel four years after the implementation of the PI law. Henshaw (1995) argued that Mississippi’s PI law had no effect on the abortion rate of minors because most resident minors went out of state for an abortion. Henshaw’s estimates, however, are potentially confounded by Mississippi’s mandatory delay law enforced eight months prior to its PI law, which also induced many nonminors to leave the state for an abortion.
 
5
We use both data sets for two reasons. The GI data are available only every three to four years, and these gaps make the GI data unusable for our event study and synthetic control analyses. Second, GI data are considered a more accurate count of abortion, which is important because the decline in the abortion rate associated with PI laws sets the likely upper limit for effects of PI laws on birth rates.
 
6
We also use an alternative method of inference: randomization inference. Results (see Table A4, online appendix) from this alternative are very similar to those from the robust cluster method.
 
7
The estimates presented for the event study analyses include covariate-by-year interactions as in Eq. (3). Analogous estimates from the basic, two-way fixed-effect model (Eq. (2)) do not qualitatively differ from those shown in Fig. 1.
 
8
In analyses not reported, we replaced state-specific trends with “timing-group” trends as defined by Goodman-Bacon (2018). Results were similar, as expected, and shown to be analytically the case by Goodman-Bacon (2018).
 
9
We also used distance from the population centroid of the state with a PI law to the population centroid of the nearest non–PI state. Results, shown in Table A5 of the online appendix, did not differ meaningfully from those reported here.
 
10
If abortions are measured by state of occurrence, the relationship between the effect of a PI law and distance (all else equal) is ambiguous and depends on how distance affects baseline rates of abortion by state of occurrence.
 
11
Our classification follows Myers (2017) with a few exceptions. We assign Utah as having a PI law from 1974, whereas Myers used 2006. All previous analyses of PI laws have used 1974 (e.g., Levine 2003; Merz et al. 1996; the NARAL Foundation 2017). We treat Maryland as enforcing a PI law since 1992, whereas Myers did not. The ambiguity arises because in Maryland physicians do not have to notify a parent if they believe it is in the best interest of the minor. Following Myers (2017) does not affect our results meaningfully.
 
12
There may be a reporting issue in Mississippi because a provider who performed 60% to 70% of all abortions lost his medical license (Nossiter 1994). Some of the abortions the provider performed may not have been reported. The similar decline in abortions for teens aged 18–19 in Mississippi is consistent with this hypothesis.
 
13
We present estimates from unweighted regression models in Table A3 in the online appendix. With one exception, results are qualitatively similar. For Model D (distance), when log abortion rate is used, the pattern of estimates differs from that in Table 2 but still does not suggest an important effect of distance. The differences between weighted and unweighted estimates is consistent with the heterogeneous effects that we hypothesize.
 
14
We use two measures of abortion because previous studies have used both, and there is no theoretical justification for one or the other. The two measures assign different weights to similar changes in the dependent variable. Last, absolute changes in the abortion rate of minors matter because the decline in the abortion rate sets the likely upper limit for the possible increase in birth rates.
 
15
We also conduct the decomposition of the basic two-way fixed-effect estimate in Table 2 (e.g., log rates regressed on state and year fixed effects) suggested by Goodman-Bacon (2018). The results (Fig. A1, online appendix) are consistent with heterogeneous treatment effects, as we hypothesize and show evidence of shortly.
 
16
For Minnesota, only four years of pre-period data were available.
 
Literature
Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105, 493–505.CrossRef
Altindag, O., & Joyce, T. (2017). Judicial bypass for minors seeking abortions in Arkansas versus other states. American Journal of Public Health, 107, 1266–1271.CrossRef
Cartoof, V. G., & Klerman, L. V. (1986). Parental consent for abortion: Impact of the Massachusetts law. American Journal of Public Health, 76, 397–400.CrossRef
Colman, S., & Joyce, T. (2011). Regulating abortion: Impact on patients and providers in Texas. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 775–797.CrossRef
Colman, S., Joyce, T., & Kaestner, R. (2008). Misclassification bias and the estimated effect of parental involvement laws on adolescents’ reproductive outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 1881–1885.CrossRef
Ellertson, C. (1997). Mandatory parental involvement in minors’ abortions: Effects of the laws in Minnesota, Missouri, and Indiana. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1367–1374.CrossRef
Fischer, S., Royer, H., & White, C. (2018). The impacts of reduced access to abortion and family planning services on abortion, births and contraceptive purchases. Journal of Public Economics, 167, 43–68.CrossRef
Goodman-Bacon, A. (2018). Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing (NBER Working Paper No. 25018). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Haas-Wilson, D. (1996). The impact of state abortion restrictions on minors’ demand for abortions. Journal of Human Resources, 31, 140–158.CrossRef
Henshaw, S. K. (1995). The impact of requirements for parental consent on minors’ abortions in Mississippi. Family Planning Perspectives, 27, 120–122.CrossRef
Joyce, T., Henshaw, S. K., & Skatrud, J. D. (1997). The impact of Mississippi’s mandatory delay law on abortions and births. JAMA, 278, 653–658.CrossRef
Joyce, T., & Kaestner, R. (1996). State reproductive policies and adolescent pregnancy resolution: The case of parental involvement laws. Journal of Health Economics, 15, 579–607.CrossRef
Joyce, T., & Kaestner, R. (2000). The impact of Mississippi’s mandatory delay law on the timing of abortion. Family Planning Perspectives, 32, 4–13.CrossRef
Joyce, T., & Kaestner, R. (2001). The impact of mandatory waiting periods and parental consent laws on the timing of abortion and state of occurrence among adolescents in Mississippi and South Carolina. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 263–282.CrossRef
Joyce, T., Kaestner, R., & Colman, S. (2006). Changes in abortions and births and the Texas parental notification law. New England Journal of Medicine, 354, 1031–1038.CrossRef
Kane, J. B., Morgan, S. P., Harris, K. M., & Guilkey, D. K. (2013). The educational consequences of teen childbearing. Demography, 50, 2129–2150.CrossRef
Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. (1996). Teen motherhood and abortion access. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 467–506.CrossRef
Kavanaugh, M. L., & Jerman, J. (2018). Contraceptive method use in the United States: Trends and characteristics between 2008, 2012 and 2014. Contraception, 97, 14–21.CrossRef
Levine, P. B. (2003). Parental involvement laws and fertility behavior. Journal of Health Economics, 22, 861–878.CrossRef
Lindo, J. M., Myers, C., Schlosser, A., & Cunningham, S. (2018). How far is too far? New evidence on abortion clinic closures, access, and abortions (NBER Working Paper No. 23366). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3386/​w23366
MacAfee, L., Castle, J., & Theiler, R. N. (2015). Association between the New Hampshire parental notification law and minors undergoing abortions in northern New England. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 125, 170–174.CrossRef
Myers, C. K. (2017). The power of abortion policy: Reexamining the effects of young women’s access to reproductive control. Journal of Political Economy, 125, 2178–2224.CrossRef
Myers, C. K., & Ladd, D. (2017). Did parental involvement laws grow teeth? The effects of state restrictions on minors’ access to abortion (IZA Discussion Paper No. 10952). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor. Retrieved from https://​papers.​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​3029823
New, M. J. (2011). Analyzing the effect of anti-abortion U.S. state legislation in the post-Casey era. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 11, 28–47.CrossRef
Ohsfeldt, R. L., & Gohmann, S. F. (1994). Do parental involvement laws reduce adolescent abortion rates? Contemporary Economic Policy, 12(2), 65–76.CrossRef
Ralph, L. J., King, E., Belusa, E., Foster, D. G., Brindis, C. D., & Biggs, M. A. (2018). The impact of a parental notification requirement on Illinois minors’ access to and decision-making around abortion. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62, 281–287.CrossRef
Ramesh, S., Zimmerman, L., & Patel, A. (2016). Impact of parental notification on Illinois minors seeking abortion. Journal of Adolescent Health, 58, 290–294.CrossRef
Rogers, J. L., Boruch, R. F., Stoms, G. B., & DeMoya, D. (1991). Impact of the Minnesota parental notification law on abortion and birth. American Journal of Public Health, 81, 294–298.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Impact of Parental Involvement Laws on the Abortion Rate of Minors
Authors
Theodore J. Joyce
Robert Kaestner
Jason Ward
Publication date
06-02-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Demography / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 0070-3370
Electronic ISSN: 1533-7790
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-019-00853-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Demography 1/2020 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Worth the Weight? Recent Trends in Obstetric Practices, Gestational Age, and Birth Weight in the United States

OriginalPaper

Parents’ Marital Quality and Children’s Transition to Adulthood

OriginalPaper

The Marital Implications of Bereavement: Child Death and Intimate Partner Violence in West and Central Africa

OriginalPaper

Two Decades of Same-Sex Marriage in Sweden: A Demographic Account of Developments in Marriage, Childbearing, and Divorce

OriginalPaper

Crime and Inequality in Academic Achievement Across School Districts in the United States

OriginalPaper

Population Pyramids Yield Accurate Estimates of Total Fertility Rates