Past research has shown that elected officials are generally responsive to the public's attitudes on policy, particularly in domains such as morality policy. But will this responsiveness survive an externally imposed, non-incremental policy “shock”? The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade represents such a shock regarding abortion policy. We examine the responsiveness of state lawmakers to mass abortion attitudes in the post-Roe period through a longitudinal analysis of state abortion policies. We find that the connection between mass abortion attitudes and abortion policies has grown stronger over time, and that mass preferences have become the primary determinant of such policies. Mass abortion attitudes are now a stronger predictor of abortion policies than elite abortion attitudes, and certain elite abortion attitudes that once moderated the link between mass abortion attitudes and policy no longer do so. These findings suggest that lawmakers will attempt to respond to public preferences about contentious morality policies despite the imposition of an external policy constraint.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsGreg D.1997. “Abortion: Evidence of Issue Evolution.” American Journal of Political Science41: 718–37.
BarnelloMichelle A.1999. “Gender and Roll Call Voting in the New York State Assembly.” Women and Politics20: 77–94.
4.
BerkmanMichael B.O'ConnorRobert E.. 1993. Do Women Legislators Matter?: Female Legislators and State Abortion Policy. In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. GogginMalcolm L.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
5.
BradleyMartin B.GreenNorman M.Jr.JonesDale E.LynnMacMcNeilLou. 1992. Churches and Church Membership in the United States 1990: An Enumeration by Region, State, and County Based on Data Reported for 133 Church Groupings. Atlanta, GA: Glenmary Research Center.
6.
BrattonKathleen A.HaynieKerry L.. 1999. “Agenda Setting and Legislative Success in State Legislatures: The Effects of Gender and Race.” Journal of Politics61: 658–79.
7.
BushDiane. 1983. “Fertility-Related State Laws Enacted in 1982.” Family Planning Perspectives15: 111–6.
CohenJeffrey E.BarrilleauxCharles. 1993. Public Opinion, Interest Groups, and Public Policy Making: Abortion Policy in the American States. In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. GogginMalcolm L.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
10.
EriksonRobert S.WrightGerald C.McIverJohn P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
FabrizioPaul J.2001. Evolving into Morality Politics: U.S. Catholics Bishops' Statements on U.S. Politics from 1792 to the Present. In The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, ed. MooneyChristopher Z.. New York, NY: Chatham House Publishers.
12.
GogginMalcolm L.WlezienChristopher. 1993. Abortion Opinion and Policy in the American States. In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. GogginMalcolm L.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
13.
Halva-NeubauerGlen A.1993. “The States After Roe: No 'Paper Tigers.' “ In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. GogginMalcolm L.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
14.
HansenSusan B.1993. Differences in Public Polices Toward Abortion: Electoral and Policy Context. In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. GogginMalcolm L.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
15.
JaccardJamesTurrisiRobert. 2003. Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression, 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
16.
JelenTed G.WilcoxClyde. 2003. “Causes and Consequences of Public Attitudes Toward Abortion: A Review and Research Agenda.” Political Research Quarterly56: 489–500.
17.
JonesDale E.DotySherriGrammichCliffordHorschJames E.HousealRichardLynnMacMarcumJohn P.SanchagrinKenneth M.TaylorRichard H.. 2002. Religious Congregations and Membership in the United States 2000. Nashville, TN: Glenmary Research Center.
18.
KingGary. 1989. Unifying Political Methodology: The Likelihood Theory of Statistical Inference. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
LowiTheodore J.1998. Foreword: New Dimensions in Policy and Politics. InMoral Controversies in American Politics: Cases in Social Regulatory Policy, eds. TatalovichRaymondDaynesByron W.. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
20.
MeierKenneth J.2001. Drugs, Sex, and Rock and Roll: A Theory of Morality Politics. In The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, ed. MooneyChristopher Z.. New York, NY: Chatham House Publishers.
21.
MeierKenneth J.McFarlaneDeborah R.. 1993. Abortion Politics and Abortion Funding Policy. In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. GogginMalcolm L.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
22.
MooneyChristopher Z.2001. The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy. In The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, ed. MooneyChristopher Z.. New York, NY: Chatham House Publishers.
23.
MooneyChristopher Z.LeeMei-Hsien. 1995. “Legislating Morality in the American States: The Case of Pre-Roe Abortion Regulation Reform.” American Journal of Political Science39: 599–627.
24.
MooneyChristopher Z.LeeMei-Hsien2000. “The Influence of Values on Consensus and Contentious Morality Policy: U.S. Death Penalty Reform, 1956-82.” The Journal of Politics62: 223–39.
25.
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.1993. A State-by-State Review of Abortion Rights. Washington, DC: The NARAL Foundation.
26.
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League2003. A State-by-State Review of Abortion and Reproductive Rights. Washington, DC: The NARAL Foundation.
27.
NorranderBarbara. 2001. “Measuring State Public Opinion with the Senate National Election Study.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly1: 111–25.
28.
NorranderBarbaraWilcoxClyde. 2001. Public Opinion and Policymaking in the States: The Case of Post-Roe Abortion Policy. In The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, ed. MooneyChristopher Z.. New York, NY: Chatham House Publishers.
29.
NorranderBarbaraWilcoxClyde. 2006. State Residency, State Laws, and Public Opinion. In Public Opinion in State Politics, ed. CohenJeffrey E.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
30.
O'ConnorRobert E.BerkmanMichael B.. 1995. “Religious Determinants of State Abortion Policy.” Social Science Quarterly76: 447–59.
31.
QuinnBernardAndersonHermanBradleyMartinGoettingPaulShriverPeggy. 1982. Churches and Church Membership in the United States 1980: An Enumeration by Region, State, and County Based on Data Reported by 111 Religious Bodies. Atlanta, GA: Glenmary Research Center.
32.
SaletanWilliam. 2003. Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
33.
StricklandRuth AnnLynn WhickerMarcia. 1992. “Political and Socio-Economic Indicators of State Restrictiveness Toward Abortion.” Policy Studies Journal20: 598–617.
34.
TatalovichRaymondDaynesByron W.. 1998. Social Regulations and Moral Conduct. In Moral Controversies in American Politics: Cases in Social Regulatory Policy, eds. TatalovichRaymondDaynesByron W.. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
35.
WetsteinMatthew E.1996. Abortion Rates in the United States: The Influence of Opinion and Policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
36.
WetsteinMatthew E.AlbrittonRobert B.. 1995. “Effects of Public Opinion on Abortion Policies and Use in the American States.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism25: 91–105.
37.
WlezienChristopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science39: 981–1000.
38.
WlezienChristopher. 2004. “Patterns of Representation: Dynamics of Public Preferences and Policy.” The Journal of Politics66: 1–24.
