This paper uses econometric multiple regression techniques in order to analyze the socioeconomic factors affecting the demand for abortion for the year 1985. A cross-section of the 50 states and Washington D.C. is examined and a household choice theoretical framework is utilized. The results suggest that average price of abortion, disposable personal per capita income, percentage of single women, whether abortions are state funded, unemployment rate, divorce rate, and if the state is located in the far West, are statistically significant factors in the determination of the demand for abortion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abortion Services in the United States, Each State & Metropolitan Area, 1984–1985. ed. HenshawS. and Van VortJ.New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1988.
2.
BeckerGary S.“The Demand for Children.”A Treatise on the Family. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1981. 93–112.
3.
City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 US 416 (1983).
4.
CoelenStephen P. and RobertJ. McIntyre. “An Econometric Model of Pronatalist and Abortion Policies.”Journal of Political Economy. December 1978. vol. 86. no. 6. 1077–1101.
5.
DeyakTimothy A. and Kerry SmithV.“The Economic Value of Statute Reform: The Case of Liberalized Abortion.”Journal of Political Economy. 1976. vol. 84. no. 1. 83–99.
6.
The Gallup Poll Public Opinion 1983. Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc., 1984. 142.
7.
GrimesDavid A.“Second-Trimester Abortions in the United States.”Family Planning Perspectives. November/December 1984. vol. 16. no. 6. 260–5.
8.
“Half of all U.S. Women with Newborns are in the Labor Force.” Family Planning Perspectives. January/February 1989. vol. 21. no. 1. 37–8.
9.
HamermeshDaniel S. and NealM. Soss. “An Economic Theory of Suicide.”Journal of Political Economy. January/February 1974. vol. 82. 83–98.
10.
HeatwoleCharles A.“The Bible Belt: A Problem in Regional Definition.”Journal of Geography. February 1978. vol. 77. 50–5.
11.
HenshawStanley. “Characteristics of U.S. Women Having Abortions, 1982–1983.”Family Planning Perspectives. January/February 1987. vol. 19. no. 1. 5–9.
12.
HenshawStanley and SilvermanJane. “The Characteristics and Prior Contraceptive Use of U.S. Abortion Patients.”Family Planning Perspectives. July/August 1988. vol. 20. no. 4. 158–68.
13.
LeggeJerome S.Abortion Policy—An Evaluation of the Consequences for Maternal and Infant Health. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985.
14.
MedoffMarshall H.“Constituencies, Ideology, and the Demand for Abortion Legislation.”Public Choice. 1989. vol. 60. 185–91.
15.
MedoffMarshall H.“An Economic Analysis of the Demand for Abortions.”Economic Inquiry. April 1988. vol. 26. 353–9.
16.
MichaelRobert T.“Education and the Derived Demand for Children.”Journal of Political Economy. March/April 1973. vol. 81. S128–64.
17.
NicholsonWalter. Microeconomic Theory, third ed.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1985. 185–7.
18.
Powell-GrinerEva and TrentKatherine. “Sociodemographic Determinants of Abortion in the United States.”Demography. November 1987. vol. 24. no. 4. 553–61.
19.
Public Law 95–205 (1977) In United States Statutes At Large. 95th Congress, 1st Session, 1977. vol. 91, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.
20.
QuinnB.AndersonH.Churches and Church Membership in the United States 1980. Georgia: Glenmary Research Center, 1982.
21.
RodmanHymanSarvisBetty and BonarJoy Walker. The Abortion Question. New York: Columbia University Press, 1987.
22.
Roe v. Wade. 410 US 113 (1973).
23.
RubinEva. Abortion, Politics, and the Courts Roe v. Wade and Its Aftermath. Contributions in American Studies, no. 57. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1982.
24.
SalholzEloiseMcDanielAnn“The Battle Over Abortion.”Newsweek. May 1, 1989. 28–32.
25.
SollomTerry and DonovanPatricia. “State Laws and the Provision of Family Planning and Abortion Services in 1985.”Family Planning Perspectives. November/December 1985. vol. 17. no. 6.
26.
SommersPaul M. and LauraS. Thomas. “Restricting Federal Funds for Abortion: Another Look.”Social Science Quarterly. June 1983. vol. 64. no. 2. 340–6.
27.
TrusselJamesMenkenJane“The Impact of Restricting Medicaid Financing for Abortion.”Family Planning Perspectives. May/June 1980. vol. 12. no. 3. 120–130.
28.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.County and City Data Book 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988.
29.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Times to 1970. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.
30.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.State Reports, Detailed Characteristics: 1980. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983.
31.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
