The Politics of Fertility Control: Family Planning and Abortion Policies in the American States
Publication Year: 2001
In this groundbreaking work on American public policy and human fertility control, policies and practices of the 70s, 80s, and 90s are reviewed and analyzed in each of the fifty states. Arguing that morality politics have helped make fertility policies contentious and complex, McFarlane and Meier conclude that current policies are inadequate for addressing unintended pregnancy and even contribute to high abortion rates. The authors offer alternative public policy designed to be more effective in the future.
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: Fertility Control Policy: A Theoretical Approach
- Public Policy Classifications
- Morality Policy
- Heterogeneous Demand
- Public Expressions and Private Behavior
- Bureaucratic Implementation
- Fertility Control as Morality Policy
- Heterogeneous Preferences
- Framing Abortion and Family Planning
- Public Pronouncements and Private Behavior
- Public and Private Implementation
- Fertility Control and Policy Adoption
- The Likelihood of Policy Success
- Chapter 2: Contraception and Abortion: A Historical Overview
- Fertility Control in Ancient Times
- Ancient Egypt
- Ancient Hebrews
- Ancient Greece
- Ancient Rome
- Other Ancient Cultures
- Fertility Control in the Middle Ages
- Fertility Control in Modern Times
- Contraception in Early Modern Europe
- Contraception in Nineteenth-Century America
- Contraception in Twentieth-Century America
- Abortion in Nineteenth-Century America
- Abortion in Twentieth-Century America
- Chapter 3: Family Planning Policies: An Intergovernmental Labyrinth
- Chronology of Federal Family Planning Policies
- The 1960s
- The 1970s
- The 1980s
- The 1990s
- The Mazmanian and Sabatier Model: Assessing Family Planning Policy
- Measuring the Statutory Coherence of Family Planning Statutes
- Composite Scores
- Chapter 4: Abortion Policy
- Supreme Court Decisions Since Roe V. Wade
- Recent Federal Developments in Abortion Policy
- The Executive Branch
- The Legislative Branch
- Likely Effectiveness of Federal Abortion Policy
- Precise and Clearly Ranked Legal Objectives
- Validity of Causal Theory
- Adequate Funding
- Hierarchical Integration
- Decision Rules of Implementing Agencies
- Officials' Commitment to Statutory Objectives
- Formal Access by Outsiders
- Chapter 5: State Fertility Control Policies
- Family Planning
- Use of Different Funding Sources
- Implementing Organizations
- Range of Clinical Services
- Education and Counseling
- Parental Involvement
- Medicaid Managed Care
- Parental Involvement
- Waiting Periods
- Other Restrictions
- Explaining the Variation in State Policies
- Previous Research
- General Hypotheses
- Dependent Variables
- Independent Variables
- Chapter 6: The Outputs of Fertility Control Policies
- Available Data
- Family Planning Data
- Abortion Data
- Statutory Coherence
- Family Planning
- Determinants of State Policy Outputs
- Family Planning Expenditures
- Publicly Funded Abortions
- Abortion Policy Restrictions
- Dependent Variable: State Abortion Rates
- A Model of Abortion Determinants
- What the States Did
- The Impact of These Laws
- Parental Involvement
- Chapter 7: The Impact of Fertility Control Policies
- Previous Studies of the Effects of Fertility Control Policies
- Family Planning
- Fertility Control Funding and Public Health Impacts
- Dependent Variables
- Independent Variables
- Impacts from Different Family Planning Policies
- Mazmanian and Sabatier's Policy Implementation Model
- Gramlich's Typology of Intergovernmental Grants
- Dependent Variables
- Independent Variables
- Chapter 8: Conclusion
- Policy Implementation Over Time
- Undermining Policy Implementation
- Policy Cycles and Scenarios
- Gradual Erosion or Rejuvenation?
- Policy Recommendations
- Don't Count on Abstinence
- Promote Contraception
- Be Realistic About Abortion
- Symbolic Politics: Is There a Way Out?
Seven Bridges Press, LLC
135 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010-7101
Copyright © 2001 by Chatham House Publishers of Seven Bridges Press, LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Publisher: Ted Bolen
Managing Editor: Katharine Miller
Production Services: Sarah Evans
Cover Design: Stefan Killen Design
Cover Art: PhotoDisc, Inc.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
McFarlane, Deborah R., 1951-
The politics of fertility control : family planning and abortion policies in the American states / Deborah R. McFarlane and Kenneth J. Meier.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Birth control—Government policy—United States. 2. Abortion—Government policy—United States. I. Meier, Kenneth J., 1950- II. Title.
HQ766.5.U5 M436 2000
Manufactured in the United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
[Page v]To Catherine Azalea Arthur Bastian (1902–1994) for sharing her truth[Page vi]
Figures and Tables[Page xi]
- Figure 1.1 The Reproductive Process 5
- Figure 1.2 Demand Curve for Fertility Control 6
- Figure 1.3 Demand Curve for Sex 7
- Figure 1.4 Demand Curve for Contraception 7
- Figure 1.5 Demand Curve for Abortion 8
- Figure 3.1 Mazmanian and Sabatier's Conceptual Framework of the Policy Implementation Process 56
- Table 1.1 Frames for Fertility Control Policies 10
- Table 1.2 Gormley's Typology of Issue Politics 16
- Table 3.1 Federal and State Expenditures for Family Planning 40
- Table 3.2 Title X Authorizations and Appropriations for Family Planning 43
- Table 3.3 Statutes Authorizing Federal Funding for Family Planning 48
- Table 3.4 Statutory Coherence Scores for Titles V, X, XIX, and XX 61
- Table 4.1 Supreme Court Decisions on Abortion since Roe v. Wade 63
- Table 4.2 Changes in Federal Abortion Policies, 1992–96 76
- Table 4.3 Statutory Coherence Scores for Federal Abortion Policy 77
- Table 5.1 Number of States Using Specific Sources of Federal Funding 81
- Table 5.2 State Organization of Title X Grantees, 1981 and 1996 83
- Table 5.3 State Discretion by Source of Federal Family Planning Funds 84
- Table 5.4 States Funding Abortions for Medicaid Recipients in Most Circumstances 90
- Table 5.5 States Requiring and Enforcing Parental Involvement in Minors’ Abortions 91
- Table 5.6 Mandatory Waiting Periods for Abortion 92
- Table 5.7 State Abortion Policies 94
- Table 5.8 Determinants of States’ Use of Multiple Sources of Public Family Planning Funds 102 [Page xii]
- Table 5.9 Determinants of State Abortion Funding Policy 103
- Table 5.10 Determinants of Parental Involvement Policies 103
- Table 5.11 Determinants of Enforced Parental Involvement Policies 104
- Table 6.1 Number of Patients Served by Publicly Subsidized Family Planning 107
- Table 6.2 Public Expenditures for Family Planning Services 108
- Table 6.3 Public Expenditures for Family Planning Services, Adjusted for Inflation 109
- Table 6.4 1994 State Family Planning Expenditures per Woman at Risk and per Capita 110
- Table 6.5 Number of Reported Abortions, Abortion Rate, and Abortion Ratio 113
- Table 6.6 Coefficients of Variation for State Family Planning Expenditures per Woman at Risk 115
- Table 6.7 Correlation Coefficients for State Family Planning Expenditures, 1990 and 1994 116
- Table 6.8 Hypothesized Relationship between Independent Variables and State Family Planning Expenditures 117
- Table 6.9 Determinants of 1994 Family Planning Expenditures from State Appropriations 118
- Table 6.10 Determinants of Funded Abortion Rate 119
- Table 6.11 Determinants of Funded Abortion Ratio 120
- Table 6.12 Determinants of Abortion, 1982–92 124
- Table 7.1 Effects of Funding Policies and Control Variables on Abortion Rates and Maternal and Child Health: Pooled Estimates, 1982–88 136
- Table 7.2 National Totals for Abortion Funding, 1982–88: Impact on Number of Abortions and Birth Status 138
- Table 7.3 National Totals of Benefits from Family Planning Funding, 1982–88 139
- Table 7.4 Intergovernmental Grant Mechanisms 141
- Table 7.5 Statutes Authorizing Federal Funding for Family Planning: Grant Characteristics, Administrative Mechanisms, and Grant Type 142
- Table 7.6 Descriptive Statistics for All Variables 144
- Table 7.7 Impact of Family Planning Expenditures and Control Variables on Birth Rate, Abortion Rate, and Infant Mortality 147
- Table 8.1 Statutory Variables for Effective Policy Implementation and Signs and Examples of Undermining a Policy 155
IN HANDING DOWN its Webster v. Reproductive Health Services decision in 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court not only permitted the states far more discretion in abortion policy; it also revealed itself as very much divided on the abortion issue. This case brought renewed interest to the study of abortion politics, and the ensuing scholarship has increased our understanding of abortion policy, federalism, and state politics. Both the field of public health and the discipline of political science have benefited from this work, and we are happy to be counted among the many contributors.
This book reflects our view that larger questions loom behind abortion politics. First of all, we consider nearly all induced abortions as sequelae to unwanted pregnancy, most of which can be avoided with effective contraception. Second, we contend that abortion politics are part of a larger political struggle about values, which we have termed morality politics.
Our focus here is on fertility control policies and politics, namely, those concerned with family planning and abortion. We also consider abstinence policies. We believe that to a large extent, the same political winds affect each. Our methods are both descriptive and analytic. We describe the disparate evolution of national policies toward contraception and abortion. We also describe how fertility control policies developed in the states and how they have been implemented. In analyzing these policies, we use models of policymaking, intergovernmental transfers, and policy implementation and, in so doing, demonstrate how these models can inform our understanding of fertility control policies. We also show how this substantive area can contribute to our understanding of American public policy.
Chapter 1 introduces the concept of fertility control and presents the overall theoretical framework for the study. Fertility control is viewed as part of a set of policies generally called morality policies. We argue that this concept is important because it determines how issues are framed and how policies are developed.
The contentiousness of late twentieth-century American fertility control politics has led many observers to conclude that this is a unique period in history.
[Page xiv]In fact, nearly all human societies have practiced both contraception and abortion. At intermittent times throughout the ages, there have been organized attempts to restrict fertility control. Chapter 2 highlights the universality of fertility control and describes various historical efforts to curtail birth control and abortion. Although this chapter offers thumbnail sketches of other societies, the emphasis is on Western history, particularly the American experience.
Chapter 3 describes how family planning policies have evolved since the mid-1960s. From that time to the present, federal family planning policy has been multistatutory and has employed several grant types. After describing policy developments up to the present, we use criteria from the well-known Mazmanian and Sabatier model of policy implementation to rate the likely effectiveness of each federal statute that addresses family planning.
Chapter 4 reviews the history of federal abortion policy since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. To a large extent, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined the parameters of abortion policy, and the Court's changing composition has made abortion a particularly volatile policy area. The Mazmanian and Sabatier model is versatile enough to accommodate different types of policies, including those created by judicial decisions, and in this chapter, we use it to rate the likely effectiveness of federal abortion policy over time.
Both chapters 3 and 4 show that over the past two decades, much of the responsibility for implementing fertility control policies has devolved to the states. In turn, the states have chosen different ways to implement these policies. Chapter 5 documents this variation and attempts to explain the reasons for state policy variation.
Given the variation in state fertility control policies, it is not surprising that there are vast differences in the levels of services that the states provide. Within the limits of existing data, chapter 6 examines the immediate effects of fertility control policies in the fifty states. These policy outputs include patients served and money spent.
Chapter 7 considers the long-term effects of fertility control policies. Here, we analyze the health and fertility impacts of fertility control policies. We also assess whether statutory structure, or grant type, affects policy effectiveness. In this chapter, we employ not only the Mazmanian and Sabatier model, but also the Gramlich typology of intergovernmental grant mechanisms from public finance economics. While this typology predicts the magnitude of policy effects, it is applicable only to fiscal transfers. In the case of fertility control, the Gramlich typology is thus useful for analyzing family planning policy but not abortion policy.
Chapter 8 concludes the book with a discussion of the implications of our findings for both family planning and abortion. We note how public policies toward family planning and abortion have been rendered less effective over time and how fertility control policies could be designed to be more effective.
[Page xv]The publication of this book marks the tenth year of a collaboration between a political scientist and a public health researcher. During the course of that collaboration, we have learned a great deal and recognized that we have a great deal in common. Each of us recognizes that politics create policies and influence their implementation. Each of us is committed to improving health outcomes. We agree that family planning and abortion comprise an inextricable policy area.
By testing theoretical constructs as well as making policy recommendations, we hope that this book offers something of value to both scholars and practitioners. We certainly are indebted to individuals in both categories. Daniel Mazmanian and Paul Sabatier have contributed a rich framework with a clear hypothesis. Judith Blake, Kingsley Davis, William Gormley, Edward Gramlich, and others have provided valuable conceptual tools for model building. Patrick J. Sheeran, director of the Office of Adolescent Pregnancy, has been an invaluable source of information and insight. Both he and Deborah Oakley of the University of Michigan read the entire manuscript and provided excellent suggestions. Rachel Gold at the Alan Guttmacher Institute answered questions tirelessly and with good humor, as well as giving us many leads. Very early in the project, Barry Nestor, formerly of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, provided data and patient explanations. Gloria Roberts, librarian at the Katharine Dexter McCormick Library of Planned Parenthood of America, generously located historical materials. Joy Dryfoos, Vivian Lee, Jack C. Smith, and the late Paul Smith each provided explanations, offered encouragement, and furnished documents for this endeavor. We also acknowledge the silent contributions of the family planning providers who have shared their expertise; their desire to remain anonymous speaks volumes about morality politics.
We would also like to thank Alesha Doan, Donald P. Haider-Markel, Rebecca Leggitt, and Anthony Stanislawski for research assistance. Deborah McFarlane would like to acknowledge the University of New Mexico for the 1996–97 sabbatical leave provided for this project.
We thank Robert Gormley, our publisher, for his confidence in and support of this book and Katharine Miller for keeping our work on track. We are especially indebted to Sarah Evans, our copyeditor. Her diligence and dedication contributed greatly to the quality of this book. Any remaining errors are, of course, solely our responsibility.
A project of this length takes time and attention away from our families. We wish to thank Juan Javier Carrizales and Diane Jones Meier and to acknowledge their patience, support, and intellectual contributions.[Page xvi]
Notes[Page 167]Chapter 1 Fertility Control Policy: A Theoretical Approach
1. The figure is 21.5 for whites only.
2. Whether these individuals will also avoid sex is a separate question.
3. We do not consider totalitarian policies of coercion in relation to abortion or family planning. Legge's (1985) study of Romania suggests that the demand for fertility control is so strong that such policies will have major second-order health consequences.
4. This position is held by 88.9 percent of men and 93.5 percent of women.
5. For abortion, payment may well involve transportation costs because the number of abortion providers is decreasing; in many geographic areas, abortion is not available even to those who can pay the cost of the procedure.
6. Fourteen states currently fund abortions for low-income women.
7. Obviously, contraceptive technology and abortion involve some highly technical issues, but these are not the issues that drive the policy adoption process. For the most part, fertility control issues have been framed to focus on results rather than on the technical issues.
8. Emergency contraception refers to postcoital contraception that can be used within seventy-two hours of unprotected sexual intercourse to avert an unintended pregnancy. Emergency contraceptives are not abortifacients; they do not terminate a pregnancy, which is medically defined as the implantation of a fertilized egg (Grimes 1997). Rather, they prevent implantation from occurring. Emergency contraceptives available in the United States are emergency contraceptive pills, minipills, and the copper-T intrauterine device (IUD) (Trussell et al. 1997; Hatcher et al. 1998). Mifepristone, when taken by itself, is an effective abortifacient 65 to 80 percent of the time. When combined with a prostaglandin, such as misoprostol (which has been approved in the United States as an ulcer medication), mifepristone produces a nonsurgical, or “medical,” abortion in approximately 95 percent of women when used up to forty-nine days after the last menstrual period (Population Council 1999).
9. Clearly, the Title X program would be better served by looking at the prevalence of unplanned pregnancy within a given population and measuring the impact of a grantee's services. Grantees report that this type of outcome measurement would be particularly important in negotiations with managed care organizations when demonstrating the “value” of their covering contraceptive services.Chapter 2 Contraception and Abortion: A Historical Overview
1. Crocodile dung has no spermicidal properties. The later substitution of elephant dung, which is more acidic, would have improved contraceptive effectiveness (Himes 1970, 62).
2. “Rue is a traditional abortifacient among the Hispanic people in New Mexico and has been used as a tea for abortion purposes throughout Latin America” (Riddle, Estes, and Russell 1994, 32).
3. Albert believed that if a woman would spit thrice in the mouth of a frog or eat bees, she would not become pregnant.
4. Europe's population shrank from 80 million to 60 million between 1320 and 1400; between 1350 and 1450, the English population decreased by 60 percent (Heinsohn and Steiger 1982, 197).
[Page 168]5. The reason for using this population is simply that vital statistics for this group are far more accurate than for women of color or immigrant women (Brodie 1994).
6. Increasing birth intervals among married couples in certain communities suggest the use of this practice (Brodie 1994).
7. Coitus reservatus is coitus without ejaculation (Himes 1979, 127).
8. The “social purity” movement included dozens of organizations of men and women interested in promoting temperance and Sunday closing laws, controlling prostitution, ending white slave traffic, and suppressing obscenity (Brodie 1994, 261–62).
9. These states were Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wyoming.
10. These states were Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming.
11. These states were Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, and Oklahoma.
12. This growth in female participation in the labor force continued a trend from the nineteenth century. Between 1870 and 1900, the number of women working outside the home increased from 1.8 million to 5.3 million (Dienes 1972, 76). Between 1910 and 1920, the proportion of women in nonmanual jobs increased from 17 to 30 percent, “and work outside the home became socially acceptable” (Reed 1978, 59).
13. In 1939, the American Birth Control League and the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau merged to form the Birth Control Federation of America. In 1942, the Birth Control Federation was renamed Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
14. One Package did not completely end Comstockery. In 1940, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors upheld a state law that made the use of contraceptives illegal and denied any exception for physicians (Planned Parenthood 1992).
15. Not very many states took advantage of the opportunity afforded them in 1942; by 1958, only seven states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia) were using maternal and child health monies to provide birth control services and then only in token fashion (Jaffe 1967, 146).
16. In 1985, the risk of death was 0.4 per 100,000 legal abortions compared with 6.6 per 100,000 births (Gold 1990, 28).Chapter 3 Family Planning Policies: An Intergovernmental Labyrinth
1. By 1973, four states (Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington) had already guaranteed a woman the right to choose for herself whether to terminate her pregnancy (Tribe 1992, 49–50).
2. These services include child care, foster care, family planning, employment, and health (AGI 1974, 31).
3. The AFDC welfare program was replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in the mid-1990s.
4. Child Health Act of 1968 (PL 248).
5. DHEW was changed to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in 1977.
6. The gag rule was a duly promulgated regulation; that is, it went through the entire federal rule-making process. Technically, then, this regulation had to be repealed and replaced through the legally established process of “notice and comment” (AGI 1993f; Kerwin 1999). To date, the process has not been completed. This neglect of the rule-making process by the Clinton administration worries family planning advocates because another president could easily reinstate the gag rule.
[Page 169]7. The health care industry receives payments from Medicaid, so it would not be supportive of converting this entitlement program into a block grant. Moreover, unlike welfare, Medicaid functions as a middle-class subsidy in the financing of nursing home care. The cost of nursing home care is exorbitant and is for the most part not covered by Medicare, but it is covered under state Medicaid programs. However, Medicaid eligibility depends on spending down one's savings. Increasingly, the middle class has viewed Medicaid as an entitlement, a way to protect life savings. “Thus families transfer funds from the elderly person to the other members of the family so that the elderly person can become eligible for Medicaid,” which saves the family from having to pay for their relative's long-term care (Patel and Rushefsky 1995, 98; Anton 1997, 707). Support for Medicaid from health care providers and many middle-class persons, along with public opinion that is generally more supportive of health subsidies than of welfare (Schlesinger and Lee 1993), may explain why AFDC was blocked while the larger Medicaid program was not.Chapter 4 Abortion Policy
1. The Hyde amendment was passed in 1977, but it was enjoined and not enforced until after the Supreme Court's ruling in Harris v. McRae in 1980.
2. When it issued this requirement in February 1995, ACGME specifically exempted residents who had moral or religious objections to abortion (AGI 1995g).Chapter 5 State Fertility Control Policies
1. Categorically needy individuals are those who would have qualified for welfare cash assistance under AFDC even though it has been replaced by TANF. Medically needy recipients are those who meet the nonfinancial standards for Medicaid eligibility but whose income or resources are in excess of AFDC cutoffs (Andrews and Orloff 1995; U.S. DHHS 1996a).
2. Except for a handful of training grants, including grants for nurse practitioners.
3. In 1991, the Medicaid program was administered by the welfare department in thirty-one states, by the health department in six states, by a combined health and welfare department in seven states, and by a specialized agency in six states.
4. DHHS Region I (Boston) administers funds for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Region II (New York City) administers funds for New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Region III (Philadelphia) administers funds for Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Region IV (Arlanta) administers funds for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and South Carolina. Region V (Chicago) administers funds for Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Region VI (Dallas) administers funds for Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Region VII (Kansas City) administers funds for Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska. Region VIII (Denver) administers funds for Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Region IX (San Francisco) administers funds for Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the Pacific Basin. Region X (Seattle) administers funds for Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
5. In 1999, the federal poverty levels were $8, 240 for a nonfarm family of one person; $11, 060 for a nonfarm family of two persons; $13, 880 for a nonfarm family of three persons; $16, 700 for a nonfarm family of four persons; $19, 520 for a nonfarm family of five persons; $22, 340 for a nonfarm family of six persons; $25, 160 for a nonfarm family of seven persons; $27, 980 for a for a nonfarm family of eight persons; and $2, 820 for each additional family member.
[Page 170]6. A capitated system is a payment system in which providers receive a given allocation per person; if the provider can deliver services at lower costs, the difference can be kept as profit.
7. Title X grantees are required to provide client education; counseling, including both contraceptive method and special needs; history, physical assessment, and laboratory testing; fertility regulation; infertility services; pregnancy diagnosis and counseling; adolescent services; treatment and referral for sexually transmitted diseases; and identification of estrogen-exposed offspring. Title X guidelines recommend, but do not require, that grantees provide gonorrhea screening, treatment of minor gynecologic problems, genetic screening and referral, and health promotion and disease prevention. The guidelines also suggest that Title X projects offer some reproduction-related health services—prenatal care, postpartum care, and special gynecologic procedures (e.g., colposcopy and biopsy)—if appropriately skilled personnel and equipment are available (U.S. DHHS 1981, 9–15).
8. The procedures used by HMOs to send statements to heads of households may reveal that a family planning service was provided to a minor (Gold and Richards 1996, 26).
9. These states are Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
10. These states are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.
11. The states that enforce parental consent or notification laws are Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. States that have parental involvement laws on the books but do not enforce them are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Tennessee.
12. These states include Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
13. These states are Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.
14. Title X was then and remains the most evenly distributed funding (McFarlane 1989; McFarlane and Meier 1993b).
15. This has been the case since 1981, when Arizona became the fiftieth state to develop its own Medicaid program, which is known as ACCESS.
16. Some states include rape or incest as reasons for Medicaid funding of abortions, but so few abortions are performed for these reasons that this restriction can be viewed as identical to the mother's life-endangerment restriction. A more elaborate classification of funding policy can be found in Weiner and Bernhardt 1990.
17. Abortion policy data for 1990 are from Gold and Daley 1991; 1987 data are from Gold and Guardado 1988, 231; 1985 data are from Gold and Macias 1986.
18. Data on church membership are from Quinn et al. 1980. The following churches were identified as Protestant fundamentalist: Church of God, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Church of Christ, Church of the Nazarene, Mennonites, Conservative Baptist Association, Missouri Synod Lutherans, Pentecostal Free Will Baptists, Pentecostal Holiness, the Salvation Army, Seventh Day Adventists, Southern Baptists, and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans.
19. Data on partisanship are from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1990 and earlier editions.
[Page 171]20. All data are from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1980.
21. In 1996, North Carolina ceased funding abortions.Chapter 6 The Outputs of Fertility Control Policies
1. An exception to this observation is a 1991 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that collected patient data solely from Title X clinics. This study, of course, missed publicly subsidized patients who were served in non-Title X settings (Smith, Franchino, and Henneberry 1995). For completeness, we also recognize that the Association for State and Territorial Health Officers (ASTHO) collect patient statistics for persons receiving family planning services provided by state and local health agencies only. These data are not complete or comparable. An example of the incomplete nature of these figures is that in 1983, only forty states provided data (California, the state with the largest population, was not among them), and in 1984, only thirty-three states did (California and Texas, another of the most populous states, were among the missing ones).
2. The term women in need was used from the late 1960s until 1981, when it was changed to women at risk. Notwithstanding the change in terms, only slight modifications over time have been made to the methodology for estimating target populations for publicly subsidized family planning services (Dryfoos 1973, 1975; AGI 1981b; AGI 1988d, vii-xi).
3. Vital statistics bureaus of state health departments report births and deaths to the National Center for Health Statistics, which is not part of CDC.
4. The coefficient of variation is the standard variation divided by the population mean (Ott 1977). This statistic is required because each of the four statutes has a different annual appropriation.
5. In this case, the incrementalism was examined over a two-year period because state family planning expenditures were not available for 1993.
6. Funded abortion data for 1990 are from Gold and Daley 1991; for 1987, they are from Gold and Guardado 1988, 231; and for 1985, they are from Gold and Macias 1986. We calculated the number of women aged fifteen to forty-four by taking the number of women reported in the 1980 Census of Population, aging these population figures to get the appropriate year (1985, 1987, 1990), and further adjusting them to account for migration to the state. The data on live births are from U.S. National Center for Health Statistics 1982–88.
7. The rate and ratio measures all had standard deviations twice the size of their respective means. All measures had a large positive skew. To avoid problems with states that funded no abortions, we added a constant of 1 to each rate and ratio before making the log transformation.
8. Wetstein (1995) employs a similar logic in his ARIMA model of national abortion rates, in which he controls for past abortion rates by differencing the dependent variable.
9. The rate of abortions funded in this data set is correlated with public policy in regard to funding at .85. We used the funded rate rather than announced policy because the former captures the nuances of policy, such as the limited amount of funds allocated in states like North Carolina.
10. Abortion funding rates and abortion providers may not be exogenous; that is, the abortion restrictions also might affect these variables directly or indirectly. To determine whether the inclusion of these variables in the model influenced our results, we replicated Table 6.12 but omitted abortion funding and abortion providers. The results were identical to those presented here.
[Page 172]11. The decreases found by other researchers in single-state studies may well be balanced out by increases in other age groups. The number of abortions performed on minors is a relatively small proportion of the total.Chapter 7 The Impact of Fertility Control Policies
1. During the period of study (1982–88), the Hyde amendment prohibited the use of federal Medicaid funds “unless the life of the pregnant woman is at stake” (AGI 1993q).
2. AGI data on funded abortions and family planning are available for 1982, 1984, 1985 (Gold and Macias 1986), and 1987 (Gold and Guardado 1988).
3. Data are from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, various years. For the Hispanic population, individual years had to be extrapolated from the 1980 and 1990 census data.
4. Data are from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, various years.
5. Homoscedasticity is “the assumption in linear regression that the size of the errors is not affected by the size of the independent variables” (Meier and Brudney 1997, 45).
6. As expected, the dummy variables improved the fit of the regression line and reduced the autocorrelation. Their inclusion had little impact on the substantive interpretation of either family planning or abortion funding. The apparent impact was to reduce the size of these coefficients; the result was a conservative estimate of impact compared with the ordinary least squares estimates. For low birth weights, we included specific time-point dummies for 1987 and 1988 to correct for time-dependence problems.
7. This finding contradicts Currie, Nixon, and Cole (1993), who found no impact on birth weight. Their model used individual-level data and estimated models using least squares dummy variables. Our inclusion of regional and year dummy variables might have eliminated the impact of state laws, since states that fund abortions do cluster in some regions. We also used a more precise measure of abortion funding.
8. The ecological analysis presented here cannot rule out the possibility that other factors caused these changes, but any such changes would have to be collinear with either funded abortions or family planning expenditures.
9. Teen mothers, especially low-income ones, are less likely than older mothers to receive adequate prenatal care (Singh, Torres, and Forrest 1985). The Institute of Medicine (1995) has noted that “maternal age is an especially important risk factor. … Girls under 15 are a particularly high risk group. Except for the very youngest women, however, being a teenager probably does not have an independent impact on the risk of having a baby with a low birth weight. Most of the increased risk probably comes from other factors associated with teenage pregnancy such as low socioeconomic status, poor nutrition, and late or no receipt of prenatal care.”
10. Metropolitan areas that provided fewer than fifty abortions per year were counted as not having an abortion provider (Henshaw 1998).
11. We use the total birth rate rather than birth rates by age groups as our dependent variable. Meier and McFarlane (1994) found that family planning expenditures do not affect teen birth rates. If family planning funding affects birth rates in any age group, however, it should also show up in the birth rate for all age groups.
12. The Forrest analysis did not include miscarriages because “the number of pregnancies ending in miscarriage is not well established and because there is no information on the distribution by intention status” (Institute of Medicine 1995, 25). The proportion attributed to each outcome changes, of course, when the incidence of miscarriage is estimated. About 12 percent of pregnancies will end in miscarriage (Gold 1990, 11).
[Page 173]13. Data on total state births are from U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, various years. Population data are from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, annual updates. Except for 1983, 1986, 1989, and 1990, all abortion data are from AGI (Henshaw and Van Vort, 1988, 1990, 1994). To provide estimates for other years, we used an interpolation procedure similar to that of Meier and McFarlane 1994; these estimated data can be obtained from the authors.
14. All data on infant mortality are from U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, various years. Additional measures were considered. However, data that measure known risk factors for infant mortality, such as late prenatal care and low birth weight (Institute of Medicine 1985, 1988), were not available for the last three years of the study because of the lag time in the publication of national vital statistics. Similarly, state-level data measuring neonatal mortality, a major component of infant mortality, were not available. These factors are all related to infant mortality, so infant mortality is probably the best overall indicator of child health.
15. Title X data were available for every year (Bickers and Stein 1994). Other family planning data are from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. For specific citations of individual years, see note to Table 6.2 (p. 108). We interpolated data for the missing years by averaging data from the year before and the year after.
16. Data are from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, various years. For the Hispanic population, individual years had to be interpolated from the 1980 and 1990 census data.
17. Data are from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, various years.
18. We ran the Hausman specification test to compare the fixed effects models with random effects models. In each case, the insignificant result suggests that the fixed effects model is the appropriate one. The dummy variables, as expected, have a substantial impact on the fit of the regression line and reduce the degree of autocorrelation. Their inclusion does not have much impact on the coefficients that indicate the impact of family planning. If anything, the introduction of state effects appears to reduce the size of the family planning coefficients; the result is a conservative estimate of the impact compared with the ordinary least squares estimates.
19. Because Medicaid is an insurance program, its impact in a state will depend on the cost and quality of care delivered by the amalgamation of Medicaid providers.
20. In fact, Title X has forbidden the use of its funds for abortion since 1970, when it was first enacted. During the 1980s, the national office of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) became a vocal advocate of freedom of choice in the abortion debate. Because of this and because many PPFA affiliates were Title X grantees, the anti-abottion movement tried to link Title X and all Planned Parenthood activities to abortion (McKeegan 1992).Chapter 8 Conclusion
1. Indeed, the most encouraging results for abstinence are coming from programs with “more complex messages stressing both abstinence and contraceptive use once sexual activity has begun” (Institute of Medicine 1995, 265).
2. See chapter 1, note 8 (p. 167), for a description of these methods.
3. Other than the condom, vasectomy, and abstinence, current contraceptive methods are women-centered.
4. Although we have demonstrated that family planning funding produces maternal and child health benefits and others have documented savings in terms of welfare expenditures, [Page 174]this research has not been exhaustive in analyzing the benefits of family planning funded by Title X and other programs. While we expect that family planning programs contribute to child welfare, educational attainment, and economic stability, we do not wish to imply that family planning eliminates poverty. That poverty leads to teenage childbearing has been convincingly argued by other researchers (Luker 1996).
Bibliography[Page 175]1997. Fertility, Family Planning and Women's Health: New Data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital and Health Statistics, series 23, no. 19. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics., , , , and .1997. “Abortion: Evidence of Issue Evolution.”American Journal of Political Science41 (July): 718–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111673Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). 1995. Characteristics of Federal Grant-in-Aid Programs to State and Local Governments: Grants Funded FY 1995. Washington, D.C.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1973. “One Year Extension of Family Planning Project Grants (Title X) and Other Health Programs Signed by President.”Washington Memo, 20 June, 1.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1974. Family Planning, Contraception, Voluntary Sterilization, and Abortion: An Analysis of Laws and Policies in the United States, Each State and Jurisdiction (as of September, 1971). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, publication no. (HSA)74-16001.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1975a. “Ads for Legal Abortions Upheld by Supreme Court.”Family Planning and Population Reporter4, no. 4: 75.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1975b. “Antiabortion Policy Found Invalid, Supreme Court Lets Contrary Ruling Stand.”Family Planning and Population Reporter4, no. 6: 107.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1976a. “Family Planning Made Universal Service.”Washington Memo, 16 September, 3–4.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1976b. “Supreme Court Says Spouse, Parent Can't Block Abortion.”Family Planning and Population Reporter5, no. 4: 1–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1977. “States Can Deny Medicaid Benefits, Hospital Services for Elective Abortions.”Family Planning and Population Reporter6, no. 4: 41, 45.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 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). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, publication no. (HSA)79-5623.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1979a. Data and Analysis for 1978 Revision of DHEW Revision of Five Year Plan for Family Planning Services. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1979b. “Relationship between Organized Family Planning Program Budget and Patients Served.”Fact sheet.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1979c. “States Spend More on Family Planning in 1977 than FY 1976, Rise Due to Title XX.”Family Planning and Population Reporter9, no. 2: 17.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1979d. “Supreme Court Gives Judges Say in Abortion for Minors.”Washington Memo, 6 July, 1.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1980a. “Family Planning Funds Administered by the States Increased 20 Percent in FY 1978.”Family Planning and Population Reporter9, no. 2: 26.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1980b. “1979 Review/1980 Outlook, Part II.”Washington Memo, 25 January, 2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1980c. “Supreme Court Upholds Hyde Amendment.”Washington Memo, 4 July, 1.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1981a. Data and Analysis for 1979 Revision of DHHS Five-Year Plan for Family Planning Services. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1981b. Data and Analysis for 1980 Revision of DHHS Five-Year Plan for Family Planning Services. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.[Page 176]Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1981c. “Family Planning Services Spent by State Health Welfare Agencies Increased 15% in FY 79.”Family Planning and Population Reporter10, no. 2: 30–31.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1981d. “States Spent 74.7 Million for ‘Family Planning’ Services under Medicaid Program in FY 79.”Family Planning and Population Reporter10, no. 2: 34.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1981e. “Supreme Court Rules on Minors' Cases.”Washington Memo, 27 March, 2–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1981f. “Title X Emerges ‘Unblocked.’”Washington Memo, 31 July, 1–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1981g. “Title X Victory Analyzed.”Washington Memo, 14 August, 1–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1983a. Current Functioning and Future Priorities in Family Planning Services Delivery. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute, 26, table 3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1983b. “Supreme Court Decisions on Abortion.”Washington Memo, 22 June, 3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1983c. “Supreme Court Reaffirms Right to Abottion, Strikes Down Local Restrictions.”Washington Memo, 22 June, 1–4.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1984. Organized Family Planning Services in the United States, 1981-1983. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute, 52-53, table 9.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1986. “Supreme Court Reaffirms Abortion Right, Strikes ‘Baby Doe’ Rule.”Washington Memo, 16 June, 1–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1987. “Administration Proposed to Ban Any Abortion Information in Family Planning Clinics.”Washington Memo, 9 September, 1–2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1988a. “Abortion Funding Expansions Are Subject of Debate as House Passes Spending Bills.”Washington Memo, 21 June, 1–2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1988b. “Fetal Research at Issue Again in NIH Renewal Debate.”Washington Memo, 12 April, 3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1988c. “NIH Panel Recommends Lifting Fetal Tissue Research Ban: Decision in Sullivan's Hands.”Washington Memo, 15 May, 4.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1988d. Women at Risk: The Need for Family Planning Services, State and County Estimates, 1987. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1990. “Further Restrictions on Minors' Right to Abortion Allowed by Supteme Court.”Washington Memo, 5 July, 1–2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1991a. “Abortion Issue Tests States, Congress, as High Court Continues to Back Away.”Washington Memo, 18 January, 1–2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1991b. “Title X Program Faces Major Upheaval, as High Court Okays Ban on Abortion Speech.”Washington Memo, 29 May, 1–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1992a. “Bare Court Majority Reaffirms Roe, but Standard for Reviewing State Laws Is Relaxed.”Washington Memo, 2 July, 1–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1992b. “Clinton and Appeals Court Signal Death Knell for Title X Gag Rule.”Washington Memo, 12 November, 1–2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1992c. “FOCA, Funding on Center Stage to New Dynamic in Abortion Politics.”Washington Memo, 2 July, 3–4.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1992d. “From beyond the World of Washington.”Washington Memo, 12 November, 4.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993a. “Abortion-Related Actions Expected Soon from President Clinton.”Washington Memo, 12 January, 3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993b. “Actions following Bray Decision.”Washington Memo, 9 February, 1–2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993c. “AID to Restore Support to Population Groups Shunned under Reagan and Bush.”Washington Memo, 24 August, 3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993d. “The Clinton Health Care Reform Plan Is Formally Transmitted to Congress.”Washington Memo, 9 November, 2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993e. “Clinton Repeals Antiabortion Policies as Activists Map Out New Strategies.”Washington Memo, 9 February, 1.[Page 177]Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993f. “FOCA, Funding on Center Stage to Test New Dynamic in Abortion Politics.”Washington Memo, 12 January, 1–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993g. “From beyond the World of Washington.”Washington Memo, 25 February, 3–4.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993h. “Gag Rule Formally Suspended as Title X Renewal Advances.”Washington Memo, 9 February, 2–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993i. “Hill Attention on FOCA, FACE Increases following Murder of Florida Physician.”Washington Memo, 25 March, 1–2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993j. “House Vote on Hyde Changes Dynamic of Congressional Abortion Debate.”Washington Memo, 27 July, 1.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993k. “HHS Bill, with Hyde Language, Gets Final Approval from Congress.”Washington Memo, 25 October, 3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993l. “In the Next Issue.”Washington Memo, 19 January, 4.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993m. “Newsbriefs.”Washington Memo, 25 March, 4.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993n. “Reform Debate Has Major Implications for Reproductive Health Care.”Washington Memo, 19 January, 1–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993o. “RU 486: ‘It Should Be Available.’”Washington Memo, 5 May, 3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993p. “Senate Confirms Elders by Wide Margin.”Washington Memo, 20 September, 3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1993q. “Senate, 59-40, Defeats Move to Strike Limits on Medicaid Abortion Coverage.”Washington Memo, 5 October, 1–2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1994a. “Clinton Bans NIH Research on Human Embryos Created for That Purpose.”Washington Memo, 9 December, 5.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1994b. “A Compromise Is Floated over Abortion in Health Care Reform.”Washington Memo, 31 August, 2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1994c. “Newsbriefs.”Washington Memo, 29 April, 4.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1994d. “The 104th Congress—It's a Whole New World.”Washington Memo, 9 December, 1.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1994e. “Paving Way for FDA Review, Roussel Divests Itself of U.S. Patent Rights to RU 486.”Washington Memo, 23 May, 2–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1994f. “President to Sign FACE Bill Aimed at Deterring Abortion Violence.”Washington Memo, 23 May, 1–2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1994g. “Some States Resisting Implementation of Federal Abortion Funding Policy.”Washington Memo, 2 February, 2–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1994h. “Supreme Court Allows Judges to Create ‘Buffer Zones’ at Clinics.”Washington Memo, 7 July, 3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1994i. “Supreme Court Unanimously Okays Use of RICO to Combat Anti-Abortion Violence.”Washington Memo, 2 February, 1.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1995a. “Action Pending in Senate to Criminalize Method of Late-Term Abortion.”Washington Memo, 21 November, 2–4.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1995b. “Attack on Reproductive Rights Begins with a Flurry of House Antiabortion Votes.”Washington Memo, 5 July, 1–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1995c. “Attacks on Reproductive Rights Takes Place in the House.”Washington Memo, 30 May, 1–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1995d. “Challenge to FACE Rebuked.”Washington Memo, 5 July, 6.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1995e. “Congress Outlaws Abortion Procedure Despite Vow to Veto; Override Seen Unlikely.”Washington Memo, 21 December, 1–2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1995f. “House Hews to Antiabortion Agenda; Medicaid Funds for Abortion Are Narrowed.”Washington Memo, 29 August, 3–5.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1995g. “Newsbriefs.”Washington Memo, 6 March, 5.[Page 178]Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1995h. “Newsbriefs.”Washington Memo, 5 July, 6.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1996a. “Clinton's Missive on D & X Ban.”Washington Memo, 18 March, 4.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1996b. “Clinton to Sign Welfare Reform Bill That Targets Teens, Out-of Wedlock Births.”Washington Memo, 7 August, 2–3.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1996c. “Fate of Population Aid Funding, Abortion Riders at Stake as FY 1996 Endgame Nears.”Washington Memo, 18 March, 1–2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1996d. “Late-Term Abortion Issue Hangs over New Congress; AMA Rejects D & X Ban.”Washington Memo, 20 December, 1–2.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1997a. Contraceptive Needs and Services, 1995. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). 1997b. “High Court Okays Fixed Buffer Zone.”Washington Memo, 12 March, 4.1994. “The Effects of Mandatory Delay Laws on Abortion Patients and Providers.”Family Planning Perspectives26: 228–31, 233. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135944, and .1997. Public Policymaking.3d ed.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.1987. “The Impact of Family Planning Program Activity upon Fertility.”Family Planning Perspectives19: 152–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135160, and .1995. State Medicaid Coverage of Family Planning Services. Prepared by National Governors' Association under contract (no. 500-92-0045) with Health Care Financing Administration (December)., and .1989. “The Supreme Court, Privacy, and Abortion.”New England Journal of Medicine321: 1200–1203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM1989102632117201997. “New Federalism and Intergovernmental Fiscal Relationships: The Implications for Health Policy.”Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law22: 691–720.1977. The Implementation Game: What Happens after a Bill Becomes a Law. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.1970. “Birth Control in Popular Twentieth Century Periodicals.”Family Coordinator19, no. 2: 159–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/5824471992. “Court Sets Aside U.S. Restriction on Abortion Counseling at Clinics.”New York Times, 4 November, p. A1.1996. Accounting for Taste. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.1988. “Reagan and the Bureaucracy: The Bequest, the Promise, and the Legacy.” In The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance, edited by C. O.Jones. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House., and .1993. “Do Women Legislators Matter? Female Legislators and State Abortion Policy.” Chap. 15 in Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, edited by M. L.Goggin. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage., and .1978. “The Study of Macro- and Micro-Implementation.”Public Policy26: 157–84.1990. “Parties in State Politics.” Chap. 3 in Politics in the American States, edited by V.Gray, H.Jacobs, and K.Vines., , , and .5th ed. Boston: Little, Brown.1994. Codebook: U.S. Domestic Assistance Programs Database. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Inter-University Center for Political and Social Research., and .1994. “State Abortion Rates: The Impact of Policies, Providers, Politics, Demographics and Economic Environment.” Northwestern University, Department of Economics. Mimeographed., , and .1970. Family Planning Improvement through Evaluation: A Manual of Basic Principles. Family Planning Research and Evaluation, no. 1. University of Chicago, Community and Family Study Center.[Page 179]1997. “Separating Fact from Fiction.” Ms., May/June, 54–63.1981. “Block Grants and the Resurgence of Federalism.”Public Health Reports96: 495–97., Jr.1994. Contraception and Abortion in Nineteenth Century America. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.1927. Anthony Comstock: Roundsman of the Lord. New York: Literacy Guild of America., and .Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.1995. “Summary and Analysis.”United States Law Week64, no. 2: 1005.1995. “Maryland: A Law Codifying Roe v. Wade.” Chap. 3 in Abortion Politics in the American States, edited by M. C.Segers and T. A.Byrnes. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.1986. “Parental Consent for Abortion: Impact of the Massachusetts Law.”American Journal of Public Health76: 397–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.76.4.397, and .1997. “Annotation: Emergency Contraception—Parsimony and Prevention in the Medicine Cabinet.”American Journal of Public Health87: 909–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.909, Jr., and .1995. Contract with the American Family. Chesapeake, Va.: Christian Coalition..1993. “Public Opinion, Interest Groups, and Public Policy Making: Abortion Policy in the American States.” Chap. 12 in Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, edited by M. L.Goggin. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage., and .1988. “State Policy Responses to the AIDS Epidemic.”Publius18, no. 3: 113–30., and .Congressional Quarterly. 1993a. “Abortion Clinic Blockaders Targeted in New Bill.”Congressional Quarterly, 6 February, 271.Congressional Quarterly. 1993b. “Ruling Favors Blockaders.”Congressional Quarterly, 16 January, 130.Congressional Quarterly. 1995. “Members Pushing to Retain Welfare System Control.”Congressional Quarterly, 28 January, 280–83.1985. “Determinants of Neonatal Mortality Rates in the U.S.”Journal of Health Economics4: 213–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-6296%2885%2990030-X, and .1966. “Introduction.”American Journal of Public Health56: 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.56.1.2, Jr.1993. Abortion and American Politics., and .Rev. ed.Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House.1993. “Restrictions of Medicaid Funding of Abortion.” Working paper 4432, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass., , and .1976. “Family Planning Program Effects on the Fertility of Low-Income Women.”Family Planning Perspectives8: 100–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2133631, and .1993. “Public Funding for Contraceptive, Sterilization, and Abortion Services, Fiscal Year 1992.”Family Planning Perspectives23: 244–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136140, and .1956. “Social Structure and Fertility: An Analytic Framework.”Economic Development and Cultural Change4: 211–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/449714, and .1972. Law, Politics, and Birth Control. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.1973. “Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter.”Family Planning and Population Reporter2, no. 3: 58–59.1990. “Funding Restrictions on Fetal Research: The Implications for Science and Health.”Family Planning Perspectives22: 224–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21354971992. Our Daughters' Decisions. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute, 7–22.1995. The Politics of Blame: Family Planning Abortion, and the Poor. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.[Page 180]1998. “Falling Teen Pregnancy, Birthrates: What's behind the Declines?”Guttmacher Report on Public Policy1, no. 5: 6–9.1977. “Financial Resources for Organized Medical Family Planning Services in the United States: An Historical Overview.” Working paper, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York. Mimeographed.1990. Abortion Decisions of the Supreme Court, 1973 through 1989: A Comprehensive Review with Historical Commentary. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland.1973. “A Formula for the 1970s: Estimating the Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services in the United States.”Family Planning Perspectives5: 145–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21338121975. Women Who Need and Receive Family Planning Services: Estimates at Mid-Decade.”Family Planning Perspectives7: 172–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21338961976. “The United States National Family Planning Program.”Studies in Family Planning7: 80–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/19650391980. “The National Reporting System for Family Planning Services—a New Look.”Family Planning Perspectives12: 193–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21347841989. “What President Bush Can Do about Family Planning.”American Journal of Public Health79: 689–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.79.6.6891978. “The Hundred Million Dollar Misunderstanding.”Family Planning Perspectives10: 144–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2134300, and .1980. “Organization of Title X Grantees.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Detroit, October., and .1968. “Family Planning Activities of Official Welfare Agencies, United States, 1966.”American Journal of Public Health58: 700–712. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.58.4.700, , Jr., , , and .Family Planning Perspectives. 1991. “Fetal Tissue Panel Organized.”Family Planning Perspectives23: 4.Federal Register. 1993. “Family Planning Services.”Federal Register58, no. 218: 60130.1963. Contraception through the Ages. London: Peter Owen., and .1972. “How States Are Using Title IV-A to Finance Family Planning Services.”Family Planning Perspectives4: 31–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2133694, and .1994. “Epidemiology of Unintended Pregnancy and Contraceptive Use.”American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology170: 1485–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378%2894%2905008-81996. “Impact of Publicly Funded Contraceptive Services on Unintended Pregnancies and Implications for Medicaid Expenditures.”Family Planning Perspectives28: 188–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135837, and .1990a. “The Impact of Public-Sector Expenditures for Contraceptive Services in California.”Family Planning Perspectives22: 161–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135607, and .1990b. “Public Sector Savings Resulting from Expenditures for Contraceptive Services.”Family Planning Perspectives22: 6–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135432, and .1995. “States Guard Their Borders as Medicaid Talks Begin.”Congressional Quarterly, 10 June, 1637–42.1989. “Republican Schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and Abortion.”American Political Science Review83: 751–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962059, and .1996. “Family Planning Clinic Services in the United States, 1994.”Family Planning Perspectives28: 92–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21362201997. “The Provision of Public-Sector Services by Family Planning Agencies in 1995.”Family Planning Perspectives29: 6–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2953347, and .1968. Power and Discontent. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press.1991. “Does the Welfare State Increase Divorce Rates in the American States?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Tampa, Fla., November., , and . [Page 181]1997. “Emergency Postcoital Contraception.”New England Journal of Medicine337: 1058–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM1997100933715071993. “Understanding the New Politics of Abortion.”American Politics Quarterly21: 7–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X93021001021993. “Abortion Opinion and Policy in the United States.” Chap. 11 inUnderstanding the New Politics of Abortion, edited by M. L.Goggin. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage., and .1990. “Predicting State Abortion Legislation from U.S. Senate Votes.”Policy Studies Review9: 749–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1990.tb01076.x, and .1993. “Effects of Price and Availability on Abortion Demand.”Contemporary Policy Issues11: 42–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1993.tb00400.x, and .1990. Abortion and Women's Health: A Turning Point for America?New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.1998. “The Need for and Cost of Mandating Private Insurance Coverage of Contraception.”Guttmacher Report on Public Policy1, no. 3: 5–7.1991. “Public Funding of Contraceptive, Sterilization, and Abortion Services, Fiscal Year 1990.”Family Planning Perspectives23: 201–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135754, and .1988. “Public Funding of Contraceptive, Sterilization, and Abortion Services, 1987.”Family Planning Perspectives20: 228–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135625, and .1989. “Fetal Research under Fire: The Influence of Abortion Politics.”Family Planning Perspectives21: 6–11, 38. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135412, and .1986. “Public Funding of Contraceptive, Sterilization, and Abortion Services, 1985.”Family Planning Perspectives18: 259–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2134949, and .1985. “Public Funding of Contraceptive, Sterilization, and Abortion Services, 1983.”Family Planning Perspectives17: 25–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135220, and .1996. Improving the Fit: Reproductive Health Services in Managed Care Settings. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute., and .1998. “Managed Care and Unintended Pregnancy.”Women's Health Issues8: 134–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1049-3867%2898%2900003-6, and .1999. “Insurance for Viagra Spurs Coverage for Birth Control.”New York Times, 30 June, pp. A1, A15.1991. “Patterns of Contraceptive Use in the United States: Importance of Religious Factors.”Studies in Family Planning22: 102–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1966780, and .1997. “Managed Care and Unintended Pregnancy: Testing the Limits of Prevention.”Insights 3 (July): 1–8.1986. “Regulatory Issues in a Federal System.”Polity18: 595–620. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/32348841998. Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars. New York: Simon and Schuster.1977. “Intergovernmental Grants: A Review of the Empirical Literature.” Chap. 12 in The Political Economy of Fiscal Federalism, edited by W. E.Oates. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.1993. Econometric Analysis. New York: Macmillan.1989. “Supreme Court, 5-4, Narrowing Roe v. Wade, Upholds Sharp State Limits on Abortions.”New York Times, 4 July, p. A11.1992. “High Court, 5-4, Affirms Right to Abortion but Allows Most of Pennsylvania's Limits.”New York Times, 30 June, pp. A1, A7, A8.1997. “Emergency Contraception—Expanding Opportunities for Primary Prevention.”New England Journal of Medicine337: 1078–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM1997100933715101981. “Variations in Infant Mortality Rates among Counties of the U.S.: The Roles of Public Policies and Programs.”Demography18: 695–713. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2060956, and . [Page 182]1963. Symbolic Crusade. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.1997. “Women's Reproductive Choices: The Impact of Medicaid Funding Restrictions.”Family Planning Perspectives29: 228–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/29534001993. The Fifties. New York: Villard Books.1990. “Abortion Policy in the Post-Webster Age.”Publius20, no. 3: 27–44.1993. “The States after Roe: No Paper Tigers.” Chap. 10 in Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, edited by M. L.Goggin. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.1995. “Washington: Abortion Policymaking through Initiative.” Chap. 8 in Abortion Politics in the American States, edited by M. C.Segers and T. A.Byrnes. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.1980. “State Implementation of Supreme Court Decisions: Abortion Rates since Roe v. Wade.”Journal of Politics42: 372–95.1993. “Differences in Public Policies toward Abortion: Electoral and Policy Context.” Chap. 13 in Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, edited by M. L.Goggin. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.1969. “Family Planning and Public Policy: Who Is Misleading Whom?”Science165 (25 July): 367–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.165.3891.367, , and .F.Stewart, F.Guest, and . 1998. Contraceptive Technology., ,17th rev. ed. New York: Ardent Media.1982. “The Elimination of Medieval Birth Control and the Witch Trials of Modern Times.”International Journal of Women's Studies5: 193–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395%2882%2990027-9, and .1985. Public Policy and Federalism. New York: St. Martin's Press.1991. “The Accessibility of Abortion Services in the United States.”Family Planning Perspectives23: 247.1992. “Abortion Trends in 1987 and 1988: Age and Race.”Family Planning Perspectives23: 85–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21354701995. “Factors Hindering Access to Abortion Services.”Family Planning Perspectives27: 54–59, 87. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21359051998. “Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States, 1995-1996.”Family Planning Perspectives30: 263–70, 287. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/29915011993. Women at Risk of Unintended Pregnancy, 1990 Estimates. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute., and .L. M.Koonin, and . 1991. “Characteristics of U.S. Women Having Abortions, 1987.”Family Planning Perspectives23: 75–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135453,1988. “The Characteristics and Prior Contraceptive Use of U.S. Abortion Patients.”Family Planning Perspectives20: 158–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135791, and .1988. Abortion Services in the United States, Each State and Metropolitan Area, 1984-1985. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute., and .1990. “Abortion Services in the United States, 1987-88.”Family Planning Perspectives22: 102–8, 142. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135639, and .1994. “Abortion Services in the United States, 1991 and 1992.”Family Planning Perspectives26: 100–106, 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136033, and .1984. “The Medicaid Cutoff and Abortion Services for the Poor.”Family Planning Perspectives16: 170–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2134898, and .1994. “Life on the Front Lines.”Women's Health Issues4: 48–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1049-3867%2805%2980109-41970. Medical History of Contraception. 1936. Reprint, New York: Schoken Books.1985. “Small Scale Policy.”American Journal of Political Science29: 308–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111169, and . [Page 183]1984. “Economics and Presidential Elections: The View from the States.” Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa.1987. “Measuring State Political Ideology.”American Politics Quarterly15: 399–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004478087015003006, and .1986. Analysis of Panel Data. New York: Cambridge University Press.1991. “External Limits and Internal Determinants of State Public Policy.”Western Political Quarterly44: 277–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448779, and .Institute of Medicine. Committee to Study Outreach for Prenatal Care. 1988. Prenatal Care: Reaching Mothers, Reaching Infants. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Institute of Medicine. Committee to Study Outreach for Prenatal Care. Committee to Study the Prevention of Low Birthweight. 1985. Preventing Low Birthweight. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Institute of Medicine. Committee to Study Outreach for Prenatal Care. Committee on Unintended Pregnancy. 1995. The Best Intentions: Unintended Pregnancy and the Well-Being of Children and Families. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.1998. “Abortion and Partisanship in the 104th U.S. Congress.”Politics18: 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.000541967. “Family Planning, Public Policy, and Intervention Strategy.”Journal of Social Issues23, no. 4: 145–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00989.x1973. “Public Policy on Fertility Control.”Scientific American229, no. 1: 17–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0773-171974. “Fertility Control Policy, Social Policy and Population Policy in an Industrialized Country.”Family Planning Perspectives6: 164–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21341291967. “Jewish Views on Abortion.” In Abortion and the Law, edited by D. T.Smith. Cleveland, Ohio: Case Western Reserve University Press.1986. Teenage Fertility in Industrialized Countries. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press., , , , , , , and .1989. Pregnancy, Contraception, and Family Planning Services in Industrialized Countries. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press., , , , and .1992. “Underreporting of Abortion in Surveys of American Women: 1976 to 1988.”Demography29: 113–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061366, and .1987. “The Impact of Induced Abortion on Black and White Birth Outcomes in the United States.”Demography24: 229–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20616311990. “Pregnancy Wantedness and the Early Initiation of Prenatal Care.”Demography27: 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061549, and .1985. The Theory and Practice of Econometrics. New York: Wiley., , , , and .Kaiser Family Foundation. 1998. The Medicaid Program at a Glance. Menlo Park, Calif: Kaiser Family Foundation. http://kff.org/archive/health_policy/kcfm/glance/glance.html (October).1995. “Key Members Seek to Expand State Role in Welfare Plan.”Congressional Quarterly, 14 January, 159–62.1996. “After 60 Years, Most Control Is Passing to States.”Congressional Quarterly, 3 August, 2190–96.1935. “History of the Development of Contraceptive Materials in the United States. American Medicine30, no. 2: 159–61.1999. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy.2d ed.Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.1997. No Easy Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy (Summary). Washington, D.C.: National Campaign to Reduce Teen Pregnancy.[Page 184]1999. Losing Health Insurance: The Unintended Consequences of Welfare Reform. Washington, D.C.: Families USA.1970. “The Roles of Government Agencies.” In Manual of Family Planning and Contraceptive Practice, edited by M. S.Calderone. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 76–77.1985. Abortion Policy: An Evaluation of the Consequences for Maternal and Infant Health. Albany: State University of New York Press., Jr.1997. “Age Differences between Minors Who Give Birth and Their Adult Partners.”Family Planning Perspectives29: 61–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2953363, , , and .1977. The Politics of Population Control. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.1964. “American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory.”World Politics16: 677–715. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20094521984. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press.1996. Dubious Conceptions: The Politics of Teenage Pregnancy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.1995. “Medicare, Medicaid on Table for Possible Cuts.”Congressional Quarterly, 11 February, 458.1992. Introduction to Econometrics. New York: Macmillan.Manhattan Institute. 1985. “Losing Ground: Why the War on Poverty Failed.”Manhattan Report5: 1.1988. “Does Wanting to Become Pregnant with a First Child Affect Subsequent Maternal Behaviors and Infant Birth Weight?”Journal of Marriage and the Family50: 1023–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352112, and .1995. The Dilemma of the Fetus. New York: St. Martin's Press.1981. Effective Policy Implementation. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath., and .1983. Implementation and Public Policy. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman., and .1989. Implementation and Public Policy: With a New Postscript. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America., and .1989. “Testing the Statutory Coherence Hypothesis.”Administration and Society20: 395–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0095399789020004011992. “Restructuring Federalism: The Effects of Decentralized Federal Policy on States' Responsiveness to Family Planning Needs.”Women and Health19: 43–63.1993. “U.S. Abortion Policy since Roe v. Wade.”American Journal of Gynecologic Health7: 17–25.1992. “Determinants of Abortion Levels in the American States, 1982-1988. “Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C., November., and .1993a. “The Clinton Administration and the DHHS Office of Population Affairs: The October 1993 Report Card.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, San Francisco, October., and .1993b. “Restructuring Federalism: The Impact of Reagan Policies on the Family Planning Program.”Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law18: 821–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/03616878-18-4-821, and .1998. “Do Different Funding Mechanisms Produce Different Results? The Implications of Family Planning for Fiscal Federalism,”Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law23: 423–54., and . [Page 185]1992. Abortion Politics: Mutiny in the Ranks of the Right. New York: Free Press.1988. “An Economic Analysis of the Demand for Abortions.”Economic Inquiry26: 353–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1988.tb01499.x1989. “Constituencies, Ideology, and the Demand for Abortion Legislation.”Public Choice60: 185–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF001492451987. Politics and the Bureaucracy. Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government.2d ed.Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.1988. The Political Economy of Regulation: The Case of Insurance. Albany: State University of New York Press.2000. “Drugs, Sex, Rock and Roll: A Theory of Morality Politics.” In The Public Clash of Private Values, edited by C. Z.Mooney. New York: Chatham House.1997. Applied Statistics for Public Administration., and .4th ed.Fort Worth, Tex.: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.1996. “The Impact of State-Level Restrictions on Abortion.”Demography33: 307–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061763, , , and .1990. “The Politics of Demon Rum.”American Politics Quarterly18: 404–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X9001800402, and .1997. “Public Policy Design: Combining Policy Instruments.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., September., and .1993a. “Abortion Politics and Abortion Funding Policy.” Chap. 14 in Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, edited by M. L.Goggin. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage., and .1993b. “The Politics of Funding Abortion.”American Politics Quarterlyl. 21: 81–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X9302100106, and .1994. “State Family Planning and Abortion Expenditures: Their Effect on Health.”American Journal of Public Health84: 1468–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.84.9.1468, and .1996. “Statutory Coherence and Policy Implementation: The Case of Family Planning.”Journal of Public Policy15: 281–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00010059, and .1995. A Review of Abortion Policy: Legality, Medicaid Funding and Parental Involvement, 1967-1994. Santa Monica, Calif: Rand (DRU-1096-NICHD)., , and .1998. “Private Sexual Behavior, Public Opinion, and Public Health Policy Related to Sexually Transmitted Diseases: A U.S.-British Comparison.”American Journal of Public Health88: 749–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.88.5.749, , , , , and .1975. “Assessing the Intrauterine Device.”Family Planning Perspectives7: 103–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21337201978. The Origins of and Evolution of National Policy, 1800-1900. New York: Oxford University Press, vii.1980. “Politics and Morality: The Effect of Religion on Referenda Voting.”Social Science Quarterly61: 144–48., and .National Abortion Federation. 1993. Incidents of Violence & Disruption against Abortion Providers, 1993. Washington, D.C.National Abortion Rights Action League Foundation (NARAL). 1991-93, 1995-99. Who Decides? A State-by-State Review of Abortion Rights in America. Washington, D.C.1982. “Public Funding of Contraceptive Services 1980-1982.”Family Planning Perspectives14: 198–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21346381986. Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.[Page 186]1996. No Neutral Ground: Abortion Politics in an Age of Absolutes. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.1994. “Do Parental Involvement Laws Reduce Adolescent Abortion Rates?”Contemporary Policy Issues12: 65–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1994.tb00424.x, and .1983. “The Family Planning Program and Cuts in Federal Spending: Impacts on State Management of Family Planning Funds.”Family Planning Perspectives15: 176–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21351411977. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press.1996. “What Welfare Research?”New York Times, 15 September, p. E4.1984. “Federalism and the States: An Experiment in Decentralization.” In The Reagan Record: An Assessment of Americas Changing Domestic Priorities, edited by J. L.Palmet and I. V.Sawhill. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.R. R.Bovbjerg, B. A.Davis, W. G.Davis, E. C.Durman, and . 1986. The Reagan Block Grants: What Have We Learned?Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.,1991. Econometric Models and Econometric Forecasts. New York: McGraw-Hill., and .Planned Parenthood Federation of America. 1992. “Family Planning in America: Chronology of Major Events.”New York: Planned Parenthood of America. Fact sheet.Population Council. 1996. “FDA Issues Approvable Letter for Mifepristone Medical Abortion.”New York: Population Council. Press release, 18 September.Population Council. 1999. “Medical Abortion with Mifepristone and Misoprostol: Frequently Asked Questions.”New York: Population Council. http://www.popcouncil.org/faqs/emergencycontraception.html.1992. Sex and Reason. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.1987. “Sociodemographic Determinants of Abortion in the United States.”Demography24: 553–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061391, and .Public Law (PL) 248. 90th Cong., 1st sess., 2 January 1968. Social Security Amendments of 1967.Public Law 572. 91st Cong., 2d sess., 24 December 1970. Family Planning Services and Population Research of 1970.Public Law 45. 93d Cong., 1st sess., 18 June 1973. Health Programs Extension Act of 1973.Public Law 626. 95th Cong., 2d sess., 10 November 1978. Health Services and Centers Amendments of 1978, Title VI, Grant Program. Public Law 35. 97th Cong., 1st sess., 13 August 1981. Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1981, Title IX, Subtitle D, Family Planning, and Subtitle G, Adolescent Family Life Act.Public Law 193. 104th Cong., 2d sess., 22 August 1996. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.Public Law 78. 105th Cong., 1st sess., 13 November 1997. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998.1996. “President Vetoes Measure Banning Type of Abortion.”New York Times, 11 April, pp. A1, B10.1982. Churches and Church Membership 1980. Atlanta: Glenmary Research Center., , , , and .1989. “Use of Clinic versus Private Family Planning Care by Low-Income Women: Access, Cost, and Patient Satisfaction.”American Journal of Public Health79: 692. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.79.6.692, and .1997. When Abortion Was a Crime. Berkeley: University of California Press.1978. From Public Vice to Private Virtue. New York: Basic Books.1989. “Alternative Abortion Polices: What Are the Health Consequences?”Social Science Quarterly70: 941–51.[Page 187]1994. “Ever Since Eve … Birth Control in the Ancient World.”Archaeology47: 29–35., , and .1973. Communication Strategies for Family Planning. New York: Free Press.1991. “Impact of the Minnesota Parental Notification Law on Abortion and Births.”American Journal of Public Health81: 294–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.81.3.294, , , and .1994. Beyond the Freedom to Choose: Medicaid Managed Care and Family Planning. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University, Center for Health Policy Research., , , , , and .1997. “Medicaid Managed Care and the Family Planning Free-Choice Exemption: Beyond the Freedom to Choose.”Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law22: 1191–1214., , , , , and .1992. Life Itself Abortion in the American Mind. New York: Random House.1994. “The Difficult Issue of Second-Trimester Abortion.”New England Journal of Medicine331: 324–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM1994080433105111983. Forecasting Presidential Elections. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.1972. “Medicaid, Past and Future.”Family Planning Perspectives4: 26–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21339351981. “Blocking Family Planning.”Family Planning Perspectives13: 125–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21348361990. Afterword to Abortion and Women's Health: A Turning Point? by R. B.Gold. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.1993a. “Freedom of Choice Bill Returns; Too Early to Predict Outcome.”Congressional Quarterly, 20 March, 675.1993b. “High Hopes Turn to Uncertainty for FOCA.”Congressional Quarterly, 8 May, 1154–55.1993c. “Reno Supports Protection for Women and Doctors.”Congressional Quarterly, 15 May, 1235.1971. Reproduction in the United States, 1965. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press., and .1988. “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein.”Policy Sciences21: 129–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF001364061993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press., and .1981. “The Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework of Analysis.” In Effective Policy Implementation, edited by D. A.Mazmanian and P. A.Sabatier. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 10–15., and .1990. “Differentiating the Barriers to Adequate Prenatal Care in Missouri, 1987-88.”Public Health Reports105: 549–54., , , and .1998. “Medicaid and Managed Care: Meeting the Reproductive Health Needs of Low Income Women.”Journal of Health Management and Practice4, no. 6: 13–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00124784-199811000-00004, and .1999. “Teen Pregnancy: Progress Meets Politics.”Guttmacher Report on Public Policy2, no. 3: 6–9.1993. “Is Health Care Different? Popular Support of Federal Health and Social Policies.”Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law18: 551–628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/03616878-18-3-551, and .1993. “Social Construction and Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy.”American Political Science Review87: 334–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2939044, and .1975. “Elizabethan Birth Control and Puritan Attitudes.”Journal of Interdisciplinary History4: 655–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/202863[Page 188]Segers, M. C., and T. A.Byrnes, eds. 1995. Abortion Politics in the American States. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.1987. Women, Society, the State, and Abortion: A Structuralist Analysis. New York: Praeger.1993. Ethics in Public Administration: A Philosophical Approach. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.1976. “Abortion Utilization: Does Travel Distance Matter?”Family Planning Perspectives8: 260–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2134397, , and .1995. “Low Birthweight: Analysis and Recommendations.”Future of Children5, no. 1: 4–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1602504, and .1986. Understanding Regression Analysis: An Introductory Guide. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage., , and .1995. “Infant Mortality in the United States: Trends, Differentials, and Projections.”American Journal of Public Health85: 957–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.85.7.957, and .1985. “The Need for Prenatal Care in the United States: Evidence from the 1980 National Natality Study.”Family Planning Perspectives17: 118–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135017, , and .1995. “Surveillance of Family Planning Services at Title X Clinics and Characteristics of Women Receiving These Services, 1991.”Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (5 May): 1–21., , and .1994. “Abortion Attitudes and Vote Choice in the 1984 and 1988 Presidential Elections.”American Politics Quarterly22: 354–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X94022003051991. Letter to D.R. McFarlane, 2 October.1993. “New, Improved, and Ready for Battle.”Time, 14 June, 48–51.1996. “Public Funding for Contraceptive, Sterilization, and Abortion Services, 1994.”Family Planning Perspectives28: 167–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136193, , and .1984. “Policy Implementation in a Federal System.” In Policy Formulation and Implementation, edited by R.Eyestone and G.Edwards III. New York: J.A.I. Press.1985. “Regression in Space and Time.”American Journal of Political Science29: 914–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21111871968. “Contraception in Ancient and Modern Society.”Royal Society of Health Journal88, no. 1: 9–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1466424068088001051988. Social Regulatory Policy: Moral Controversies in American Politics. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press., and .1965. Population Dynamics: Causes and Consequences of World Demographic Change. New York: Random House.1965. “History of Contraceptive Methods.”Journal of Sex Research1, no. 2: 69–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002244965095504731983. “The Family Planning Program and Cuts in Federal Spending: Initial Effects on the Provision of Services.”Family Planning Perspectives15: 184–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21351421986. “Public Benefits and Costs of Government Funding for Abortion.”Family Planning Perspectives18: 111–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135343, , , and .1988. “Why Do Women Have Abortions?”Family Planning Perspectives20: 169. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135792, and .1981. “Family Planning Services in the United States, 1978-1979.”Family Planning Perspectives13, 132–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2134837, , and .1992. Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes. New York: Norton.1997. “Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: The Cost-Effectiveness of Three Methods of Emergency Contraception.”American Journal of Public Health87: 932–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.932, , , and . [Page 189]1992. “Emergency Contraceptive Pills: A Simple Proposal to Reduce Unintended Pregnancies.”Family Planning Perspectives24: 269–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135857, , , and .1998. “Gender and Ethnic Differences in the Timing of First Sexual Intercourse.”Family Planning Perspectives30: 121–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2991625, , , and .U.S. Bureau of the Census. Annual updates. Census of Population. Washington, D.C.U.S. Bureau of the Census. Annual updates. Various years. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, D.C.U.S. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. 1972. Population and the American Future: The Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. Washington, D.C.: GPO.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1978. “Briefing Manual for Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs.”Washington, D.C.: Office of Population Affairs. Mimeographed.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1980. Five Year Plan for Family Planning Services and Population Research. Washington, D.C.: Office of Population Affairs.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1981. Program Guidelines for Project Grants for Family Planning Services. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Public Health Service, Health Services Administration, Bureau of Community Health Services.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1988. State Medicaid Manual, Part 4—Services. Washington, D.C.: Health Care Financing Administration, transmittal no. 36 (September).U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1991. Office of Population Affairs. Family Planning Grantees, Delegates, and Clinics: 1991/1992 Directory. Washington, D.C.: Family Life Exchange.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1992. Medicaid: spDATA System: Characteristics of State Medicaid Programs. Vol. 11, State by State Profiles. Washington, D.C.: Health Care Financing Administration, publications no. 10959 (December).U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1994. “Family Planning History Table.”Washington, D.C.: Office of Population Affairs. Mimeographed.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1995. Review Guide for Section 1115 Research and Demonstration Proposals for State Health Care Reform. Washington, D.C.: Health Care Financing Administration. Draft (30 January).U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1996a. “Link between Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).”Washington, D.C.: Health Care Financing Administration. Fact sheet no. 1. http://www.hcfa.gov/MEDICAID/wrfs1.htm.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1996b. State Health Care Reform Demonstrations Fact Sheet. Baltimore: Health Care Financing Administration, Office of State Health Care Reform Demonstrations.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1984. Maternal and Child Health Block Grant: Program Changes Emerging under State Administration. Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. Washington, D.C.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1998. Medicaid: Early Implications of Welfare Reform for Beneficiaries and States. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents.U.S. National Center for Health Statistics. 1982-88. Vital Statistics of the United States. Washington, D.C.U.S. National Center for Health Statistics. 1993. “Advance Report of Final Natality Statistics, 1991.”Monthly Vital Statistics Report42, no. 3, supplement (9 September), tables 30 and 31.1975. “The Policy Implementation Process: A Conceptual Framework.”Administration and Society6: 445–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009539977500600404, and .1974. “Family Planning in the American States.” In Population Policymaking in the American States, edited by E.Bergman, D. N.Carter, R. J.Cook, R. D.Tabors, D. R.Weir, and M. E.Urann. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 75–99.[Page 190]1990. “A Survey of State Medicaid Policies for Coverage of Abortion and Prenatal Diagnostic Procedures.”American Journal of Public Health80: 717–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.80.6.717, and .I. W.Eberstein, and . 1987. “Pregnancy Wantedness and Maternal Behavior during Pregnancy.”Demography24: 407–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061306,1995. “The Abortion Paradox: The Impact of National Policy Change on Abortion Rates.”Social Science Quarterly76: 607–18.1996. Abortion Rates in the United States: The Influence of Opinion and Policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.1990. Reagan's Federalism: His Efforts to Decentralize Government. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
About the Authors[Page 199]
DEBORAH R. MCFARLANE is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of New Mexico. She holds master's degrees in Public Health/Population Planning (University of Michigan) and in Public Administration (Harvard University) and a doctorate in Public Health from the University of Texas. She has published many articles in the fields of public health, reproductive health, and public policy; worked as a family planning program administrator; and consulted for numerous organizations involved in reproductive health. In 1998–99, she was chair of the Population, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health Section of the American Public Health Association in Washington, D.C.
KENNETH J. MEIER is the Charles Puryear Professor of Liberal Arts, Professor of Political Science, and coordinator of the Program in American Politics at Texas A&M University. He earned his M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. He is the author of Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government and The Politics of Sin: Drugs, Alcohol, and Public Policy. He has published numerous articles on a variety of subjects in American politics and public policy, and he serves on the editorial boards of several scholarly journals.