OBJECTIVES. This study examines whether state family planning expenditures and abortion funding for Medicaid-eligible women might reduce the number of low-birthweight babies, babies with late or no prenatal care, and premature births, as well as the rates of infant and neonatal mortality. METHODS. Using a pooled time-series analysis from 1982 to 1988 with the 50 states as units of analysis, this study assessed the impact of family planning expenditures and abortion funding on several public health outcomes while controlling for other important variables and statistical problems inherent in pooled time-series studies. RESULTS. States that funded abortions had a significantly higher rate of abortions and significantly lower rates of teen pregnancy, low-birthweight babies, premature births, and births with late or no prenatal care. States that had higher expenditures for family planning had significantly fewer abortions, low-birthweight babies, births with late or no prenatal care, infant deaths, and neonatal deaths. CONCLUSIONS. Funding abortions for Medicaid-eligible women and increasing the level of expenditures for family planning are associated with major differences in infant and maternal health in the United States.

This research examines 23 different laws passed by state governments in an effort to restrict the number of abortions. It assesses both laws passed and laws actually enforced after the Supreme Court permitted states to restrict access to abortion in 1989. None of the policy actions by state governments has had a significant impact on the incidence of abortion from 1982 to 1992. Abortion rates continue to reflect past abortion rates, the number of abortion providers, whether the state funds abortions for Medicaid-eligible women, urbanism, and racial composition of the population. Recent restrictive policies have not affected these trends.

No abstract

No abstract

Policy theory suggests that coherent statutes – those with precise, clear goals, supported by an adequate causal theory, with clear administrative responsibilities, clear implementation rules, and assigned to committed agencies – are more likely to have their intended impact. Using the Mazmanian and Sabatier policy implementation framework, this article examines U.S. family planning policies with a pooled time series analysis from 1982 to 1988. Of the four family planning statutes, only Title X, the categorical grant program, meets the criteria of a coherent statute. The data analysis reveals that a dollar spent through Title X has a much greater impact on birth rates, abortion rates, late prenatal care, and infant and neonatal mortality than does a dollar spent through other programs. The results are strong evidence in support of designing policies with coherent statutes.