This article is in response to Prof. Joseph Wright’s article “Commenting on Reducing Abortion in America“, published along with an open letter on the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good website as well as on Moral Accountability - Editor

By Michael J. New, University of Alabama

I want to thank Joseph Wright, Sister Dillon, and Jennifer Goff for their gracious responses to my article about Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good’s most recent abortion study. In particular, I also want to thank Joseph Wright for being willing to publicly admit that an error was made in his original research. Many researchers are not forthright about mistakes and Wright and his original co-author should be commended for their honesty.

Before, I respond to the specific details in Wright’s letter I want to make a general statement about the dialogue I have had with Wright and others at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. Fundamentally, CACG is asking their readers and supporters to take a leap of faith. Their findings about welfare spending in the 1990s are interesting and I would encourage the authors and other scholars of public policy to continue to pursue research about how various policy instruments can reduce the incidence of abortion.

That having been said, there exist some legitimate concerns about Wright’s methodology. Furthermore, the fact that his results are not consistent across time should at least raise some doubts about the reliability of his findings. More importantly, I have been unable to identify any peer reviewed research which supports the idea that more generous welfare benefits significantly reduce the incidence of abortion.

Conversely, there are numerous peer reviewed studies which indicate that parental involvement laws and public funding restrictions reduce abortion rates. Despite Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good’s rhetoric about “supporting public policies that promote a consistent ethic of life” they seem unwilling to acknowledge research indicating the effectiveness of these laws.

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is seeking to get more pro-life support for their Pregnant Women Support Act and their other initiatives. If they were more willing to publicly acknowledge the positive impact of pro-life legislation, the pro-life community might be more willing to work with them to promote this piece of legislation and support social policies which they feel will further reduce abortion rates.

Analyzing Welfare Spending

I want to begin by saying that regardless of Wright’s findings on the effects of welfare spending, I find Wright’s methodological approach to be problematic. The variable that Wright uses measures the amount of money that state governments spend on AFDC/TANF benefits. This variable fluctuates with the strength of the economy as welfare expenditures increase during recessions and fall during times of prosperity. If Wright was willing to include a variable which measured the amount of the monthly TANF/AFDC cash payment to a low income single mother, his argument would be more compelling.

Furthermore, the variable that Wright uses, coupled with his statistical model, might be producing spurious results. Wright makes use of a sophisticated statistical model that attempts to analyze both the long-term and the short-term effects of various factors on state abortion rates. However, most decisions about sexual activity and pregnancy resolution are based on short-term factors. If a state reduced its welfare benefits, the current level of low welfare benefits would do considerably more to affect influence choices about sexual activity and pregnancy resolution than the previous level of high welfare benefits. Overall, I fail to see how higher levels of welfare spending during the early 1990s led to abortion declines during the mid to late 1990s

That having been said, the data and methods that Wright does use produce results that are inconsistent across time. Increases in welfare spending appear to increase the incidence of abortion during the 1980s and reduce abortion rates during the 1990s. In his response, Wright argues that welfare reform in the 1990s might have affected the relationship between income assistance and abortion. This is because welfare reform allowed for greater variation in state welfare policies during the 1990s.

This is an interesting observation, but it is one that is not entirely persuasive. Historically, the level of AFDC and TANF benefits has always been set by the states and states have always had the option to be either generous or stingy with regard to their welfare spending. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA) which reformed welfare, gave states more latitude to restrict welfare benefits to recipients who were not complying with required work activities. Furthermore, PRWORA was passed in August of 1996 and most states did not implement welfare reform until 1997 or 1998. As such, Wright’s analysis contains relatively little data with which to analyze the interaction between welfare spending and welfare reform on state abortion rates.

Overall, Wright’s questionable methodology and inconsistent results should give pro-lifers serious pause before they enthusiastically embrace higher welfare benefits as a strategy to reduce abortion. Furthermore, there is little peer reviewed research which indicates that more generous welfare benefits have a significant impact. Studies by Ellwood and Bane (1985)[1] and Blank, George, and London (1996)[2] find that welfare benefits only have a marginal impact on abortion rates. However, as I will discuss later in the response, there exists plenty of evidence from studies in reputable peer reviewed journals that various types of pro-life laws reduce abortion rates.

Weighting the data

In my November dialogue with Professor Wright, which appeared in Public Discourse , we had a long discussion about the appropriateness of weighting the abortion data. Using unweighted data is a mistake because unweighted data distorts the analysis and makes it appear as if pro-life laws are less effective than they really are. Between 1992 and 1999 the overall national abortion rate declined by 16.7 percent (for the 46 states that reported data in both years). However, if one averages the abortion rates in each state in 1992 and 1999 (unweighted) the abortion decline comes out to 23 percent. This is because a number of low population states experienced large abortion declines during the 1990s.
The Catholics in Alliance study analyzes the effects of state level pro-life laws by comparing abortion rates in states that have adopted these laws to the overall national trend. Unweighted data exaggerates the national decline and makes these laws seem less effective than they really are. Now social scientists weigh data for a variety reasons. It is possible that weighing data may cause issues with heteroskedasticity. However, that seems like a far lesser problem than comparing abortion trends in states enacting pro-life laws to a distorted national trend.

Missing Data

Wright hints that I only analyze data which supports my hypothesis that pro-life laws lower abortion rates. However, I offer sound explanations for all the data which I exclude from my analysis.

-First there are plenty of good reasons to exclude data from Kansas. Kansas is a statistical outlier for a couple of reasons. First, for every year between 1990 and 1999, over 40 percent of the abortions in Kansas were performed on out of state residents. This is by far the highest percentage in the country. Second, between 1990 and 1999, the abortion rate in Kansas increased by 60 percent. This is also by far the highest percentage increase in the country. The state with the next highest increase saw their abortion rate go up by only 18 percent during that time period.

More importantly, Kansas Department of Health and Environment acknowledges that their early 1990s abortion increase may reflect “an increase in the number of abortion providers voluntarily reporting data.”[3]

-Second, I exclude data from states who only report abortion data from state hospitals. This data is potentially biased because a substantial number of abortions are performed in clinics. As such, in my analysis I exclude certain datapoints from Alabama, Iowa, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma. Abortion data obtained only from hospitals cannot be compared against abortion data provide by both hospitals and clinics.

-Third, I should also note that in both the previous study (and possibly the current study) Wright excludes data from Florida (1997-2000), Louisiana (1997-2000), West Virginia (1992-1993), Wisconsin (1992-1993, and Wyoming (1992-1993). This information about excluded data is not included in either the current or the previous version of the study and Wright has not offered an explanation as to why he chose to exclude these datapoints.

Parental Involvement Laws

In my long running dialogue with Professor Wright, he has never been willing to address my criticism of his analysis of pro-life parental involvement laws. In both the current and previous version of his study, he argues that parental involvement laws “have little systematic impact on the abortion rate.” However, since parental involvement laws only directly affect minors, analyzing their effects on the overall abortion rate is not a methodologically sound way to gauge their actual impact. Wright has never been willing to acknowledge this.

Informed Consent Laws

In his discussion of informed consent laws Wright seems to be moving the goalposts on me. In his original study and in page 6 of his current study he clearly states that “the difference between states that passed legislation that was implemented and states that passed legislation that was overturned should capture the causal impact of these laws.”

As such, the substantial differences in the effects of enacted and nullified informed consent laws provides some evidence of the effectiveness of these laws. Now, it is true that relatively few states nullified their informed consent laws during this time period. Also, Wright’s analysis indicates that the combined effect of laws that are both passed and enforced is marginal. However, given the criteria he sets forth at the beginning of the paper, his quick dismissal of these laws seems somewhat disingenuous.

Furthermore, the results of informed consent laws are sensitive to whether or not the data is weighted. I argue that analyses which use unweighted data (which Wright uses) exaggerate the national abortion decline and make informed consent laws seems less effective than they actually are. Weighted data allows abortion trends in states which enact informed consent laws to be compared against an accurate national baseline.

Other Research

Contrary to Wright’s statement, there actually is a substantial body of peer reviewed research which documents the effectiveness of pro-life laws. In particular, public funding restrictions reduce overall abortion rates and parental involvement laws reduce the incidence of abortion among minors.

Parental Involvement Laws

Four studies using time series-cross sectional data find that parental involvement laws reduce in-state minor abortion rates anywhere from 13 percent to 19 percent (Haas-Wilson, 1993[4]; Ohsfeldt and Gohman, 1994[5]; Haas-Wilson, 1996[6]; New, 2007[7]). These declines are statistically significant. Furthermore, Four case studies that separately examine five different parental involvement laws indicate that each of these laws result in statistically significant reductions in in-state abortion rates. These include parental involvement laws that were passed in Massachusetts (Cartoof and Klerman, 1986)[8], Minnesota (Rogers, Boruch, Storms, and DeMoya, 1991)[9], Texas (Joyce, Kaestner, and Coleman, 2006)[10], South Carolina (Joyce and Kaestner, 1996)[11], Tennessee (Joyce and Kaestner, 1996)[12]. Now in some cases minors can circumvent these laws by seeking abortions in nearby states where the laws are more permissive. Comparing the magnitude of the in-state declines to the out-of-state increases can be methodologically difficult, especially since The Centers for Disease Control and typically releases abortion data by state of occurrence, not state of residence. However, some studies in peer reviewed journals have found reduction in the overall incidence of abortion (both in-state and out of state) after the passage of these laws. For instance:

-A 1986 Study in the American Journal of Public Health[13] analyzed the Massachusetts Parental Notice law, which took effect on April 23, 1981. In 1981 the number of Massachusetts minors obtaining abortions in other states increased by an average of 66 per month after the law was passed. However, the number of abortions performed on minors in Massachusetts fell by an average of 149 per month after the parental notice law took effect. As such, the in-state decline clearly exceeded the out-of-state increase. Furthermore, the article provides evidence that the minor birthrate in Massachusetts increased in 1982, possibly because of the parental notice law.

-A 1991 study in the American Journal of Public Health[14] found that the minor abortion rate in Minnesota fell by 28 percent after the enactment of a parental notice law in 1981. A 1987 study in the American Journal of Public Health[15] found little evidence that significant numbers of Minnesota minors were obtaining abortions in other states.

-A 2006 study which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine[16] analyzed the parental notice law that took effect in Texas in 2000. It found that:

• Abortion rates fell by 11 percent among 15 year olds.
• Abortion rates fell by 20 percent among 16 year olds.
• Abortion rates fell by 16 percent among 17 year olds.

Furthermore, a survey of public health departments in neighboring states found little evidence that Texas minors were circumventing the law by seeking abortions across state lines.

Public Funding Restrictions

Seven peer reviewed studies, each of which simultaneously analyzes abortion data from a range of state, find that Medicaid funding restrictions result in statistically significant declines in abortion rates for both minors and adults. (Hass-Wilson 1993[17], 1996[18]; Blank, George, and London 1996[19]; Ohsfeldt and Gohman 1994[20]; Matthews, Ribar, and Wilhelm 1997[21]; Medoff 2002;[22] New 2007[23]).

Some unique case studies also provide evidence that public funding restrictions reduce the abortion rates An article by Cook, Parnell, Moore, and Pagnini which appeared in the Journal of Health Economics in 1999[24] analyzed North Carolina’s unique provisions for publicly funding abortion. Instead of funding abortions through Medicaid, North Carolina reimbursed abortion providers through a state abortion fund, which at times ran out of money. Their results indicate that these funding shortfalls result in both statistically significant reductions abortion rates and statistically significant increases in birthrates among low income women in North Carolina.

Furthermore, Jones (2002)[25] finds that Medicaid recipients have a higher incidence of abortion in states where abortion is publicly funded by Medicaid. In states that provide Medicaid funding for abortions, women with Medicaid coverage had an abortion rate more than four times as high as women without such coverage (89 vs. 21 per 1,000). In contrast, in states that do not cover abortion services for women on Medicaid, the abortion rate among Medicaid recipients was only twice that of women without Medicaid coverage (35 vs. 16 per 1,000).

The Four Studies Wright Cites

The four studies that Professor Wright cites do little to undermine this substantial body of research which indicates that pro-life laws are effective. Medoff (2002)[26] and Blank (1996)[27] find evidence that public funding restrictions reduce the overall abortion rate. Furthermore, Haas-Wilson (1993)[28] finds robust evidence that both parental involvement laws and public funding restrictions reduce minor abortion rates.

Now it is true that Blank (1996)[29] and Haas-Wilson (1997)[30] find little evidence that parental involvement laws reduce the incidence of abortion. However, these studies (like Wright’s study) analyze the effect of parental involvement laws on the overall abortion rate, not the minor abortion rate. Since only about 25 percent of abortions are performed on minors, their results are unsurprising. Medoff (2002)[31] finds that the restrictiveness of state abortion laws has little effect on the incidence of abortion. However, Medoff only examines abortion data for one year, so he is unable to analyze how changes in abortion laws affect abortion rates. Additionally, the index he uses to measure the restrictiveness of state abortion laws contains a number of policies that are largely symbolic in nature.

Interestingly, Hass Wilson’s study (1997) is really the only well done peer reviewed study which I have come across which that indicates that public funding provisions do not have a statistically significant effect on abortion rates. Her findings here are puzzling because they are in conflict with much of the research on this topic. However, in her study Haas-Wilson fails to hold constant state fertility rates and a number of economic and demographic variables. Her study also covers a period of time when relatively few states were changing their policies regarding Medicaid funding of abortion. Finally, her study only analyzes 11 years of data which is a shorter timeframe than some of the other studies. Still readers who take her results at face value have to contend with 9 other peer reviewed studies which indicate that Medicaid funding of abortion increases abortion rates.

Conclusion

A thorough reading of the academic literature finds relatively little evidence that welfare policy has an impact on the incidence of abortion. However, there are a number of studies in peer reviewed journals which analyze different datasets, and utilize different statistical methods, which conclude that pro-life laws, particularly public funding restrictions and parental involvement laws, have an impact.

In her letter, responding to my article Jennifer Goff says “the Alliance will continue to support research and public policies that promote a consistent ethic of life. I commend them for this.” However, CACG owes it to themselves and their supporters to be willing to more publicly acknowledge the positive impact of many pro-life laws.

Furthermore, if CACG is serious about supporting policies that will promote a culture of life, they should publicly oppose President Obama’s recent decision to revoke the Mexico City Policy. Because the Mexico City Policy has been revoked, non-governmental organizations receiving funds from the U.S. Government can now perform and promote abortions overseas. CACG has been silent about this.

More importantly, CACG should publicly come out in opposition to The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). A number of respected legal analysts have argued that FOCA would nullify a number of protective pro-life laws, including the parental involvement laws and informed consent laws which CACG says it supports. When campaigning for President, Barack Obama said that the first thing he would do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Furthermore, in the most recent election, supporters of legal abortion made significant gains in both houses of Congress.

Now, a range of ideologically diverse pro-life groups including Democrats for Life of America, Family Research Council, and the National Right to Life Committee have publicly come out in opposition to FOCA. However, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good has not publicly issued a statement opposing FOCA. Additionally, when I spoke to CACG President Alexia Kelley at their Captiol Hill Forum, following the March for Life, it did not appear that CACG had any plans to do so.

If Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is genuinely serious about promoting a culture of life, they should join the pro-life community in public opposition to FOCA. Furthermore, it is crucial that they be vigilant about opposing President Obama whenever he seeks to undermine laws and policies which uphold the sanctity of human life.

Michael J. New is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama and is a visiting fellow at the Witherspoon Institute.

---

[1] D. Elwood and M. Bane 1985.  “The Impact on AFDC on Family Structure and Living Arrangements.” Research in Labor Economics 7: 137-207.

[2] Blank, Rebecca, Christine George, and Rebecca London. 1996. “State Abortion Rates: The Impact of Policies Providers, Politics, Demographics, and Economic Environment.” Journal of Health Economics 15: 513-553.

[3]Kansas Department of Health and Environment “Abortions in Kansas, 2007.” http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/07itop1.pdf. (Page 7)

[4] Haas-Wilson, Deborah. 1993. “The Economic Impact of State Policy Restrictions on Abortion: Parental Consent and Notification Laws and Medicaid Funding Restrictions.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12: 498-511

[5] Ohsfeldt, Robert and Stephan Gohman. 1994.  “Do Parental Involvement Laws Reduce

Adolescent Abortion Rates?”  Contemporary Economic Policy 12: 65-76.

[6] Haas-Wilson, Deborah.  1996.  “The Impact of State Abortion Restrictions on Minors’ Demand for Abortions.” The Journal of Human Resources 31: 140-158;

[7] New, Michael.  2007.  “The Effect of Pro-Life Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion Among

Minors.”   Catholic Social Science Review 12: 185-215.

[8] Cartoof, Virginia and Lorraine Klerman. 1986. “Parental Consent for Abortion: Impact of the Massachusetts Law.” American Journal for Public Health 76: 397-400.

[9] Rogers, James, Robert Boruch, George Storms, and Dorothy DeMoya.  1991. “Impact of the

Minnesota Parental Notification Law on Abortion and Birth.” American Journal of Public

Health 81:294-298.

[10] Joyce, Theodore, Robert Kaestner, and Silvie Coleman.  2006.  “Changes in Abortions and    Births and the Texas Parental Involvement Law.” The New England Journal of Medicine 354: 1031-1038.

[11] Joyce Theodore and Robert Kaestner. 1996. “State Reproductive Policies and Adolescent    Pregnancy Resolution: The Case of Parental Involvement Laws.” Journal of Health Economics

15: 579-607.

[12] Joyce Theodore and Robert Kaestner. 1996. “State Reproductive Policies and Adolescent    Pregnancy Resolution: The Case of Parental Involvement Laws.” Journal of Health Economics

15: 579-607.

[13] Cartoof, Virginia and Lorraine Klerman. 1986. “Parental Consent for Abortion: Impact of the Massachusetts Law.” American Journal for Public Health 76: 397-400.

[14] Rogers, James, Robert Boruch, George Storms, and Dorothy DeMoya.  1991. “Impact of the  Minnesota Parental Notification Law on Abortion and Birth.” American Journal of Public Health 81:294-298.

[15] Blum, Robert, Michael Resnick, and Trisha Stark.  1987. “The Impact of a Parental Notification Law on Adolescent Abortion Decision Making.” American Journal of Public Health 77: 619-620.

[16] Joyce, Theodore, Robert Kaestner, and Silvie Coleman.  2006.  “Changes in Abortions and    Births and the Texas Parental Involvement Law.” The New England Journal of Medicine 354: 1031-1038.

[17] Haas-Wilson, Deborah. 1993. “The Economic Impact of State Policy Restrictions on Abortion: Parental Consent and Notification Laws and Medicaid Funding Restrictions.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12: 498-511

[18] Haas-Wilson, Deborah.  1996.  “The Impact of State Abortion Restrictions on Minors’ Demand for Abortions.” The Journal of Human Resources 31: 140-158;

[19] Blank, Rebecca, Christine George, and Rebecca London. 1996. “State Abortion Rates: The Impact of Policies Providers, Politics, Demographics, and Economic Environment.” Journal of Health Economics 15: 513-553.

[20] Ohsfeldt, Robert and Stephan Gohman. 1994.  “Do Parental Involvement Laws Reduce

Adolescent Abortion Rates?”  Contemporary Economic Policy 12: 65-76.

[21] Matthews, Stephen, David Ribar and Mark Wilhelm. 1997.  “The Effect of Economic Conditions and Access to Reproductive Health Services On State Abortion Rates and Birthrates” Family Planning Perspectives 29: 52-60.

[22] Medoff, Marshall.  2002. “The Determinants and Impact of State Abortion Restrictions.”

American Journal of Economics and Sociology 61: 481-493.

[23] New, Michael.  2007.  “The Effect of Pro-Life Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion Among

Minors.”   Catholic Social Science Review 12: 185-215.

[24] Cook, Phillip J., Alan Parnell, Michael Moore, and Deanna Pagnini. 1999.  “The Effects of Short Term Variation in Abortion Funding on Pregnancy Outcomes,” Journal Of Health Economics, 18(2): 241-257

[25] Rachel Jones et al., “Patterns in the Socioeconomic Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortions in 2000-2001,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 34 (2002), 226-235 at 231.

[26] Medoff, Marshall.  2002. “The Determinants and Impact of State Abortion Restrictions.”

American Journal of Economics and Sociology 61: 481-493.

[27] Blank, Rebecca, Christine George, and Rebecca London. 1996. “State Abortion Rates: The Impact of Policies Providers, Politics, Demographics, and Economic Environment.” Journal of Health Economics 15: 513-553.

[28] Haas-Wilson, Deborah. 1993. “The Economic Impact of State Policy Restrictions on Abortion: Parental Consent and Notification Laws and Medicaid Funding Restrictions.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12: 498-511

[29] Blank, Rebecca, Christine George, and Rebecca London. 1996. “State Abortion Rates: The Impact of Policies Providers, Politics, Demographics, and Economic Environment.” Journal of Health Economics 15: 513-553.

[30] Haas Wilson, Deborah. 1997. “Women’s Reproductive Choices: The Impact of Medicaid Funding Restrictions.” Family Planning Perspectives 29(5) 228-233.

[31] Medoff, Marshall.  2002. “The Determinants and Impact of State Abortion Restrictions.”

American Journal of Economics and Sociology 61: 481-493.