The Consequences of Abortion and Contraception Policies on Young Women's Reproductive Choices, Schooling and Labor Supply

Abstract

In this paper, I evaluate the effects of regulations that limit the availability of abortion services, as well as the impact of policies that subsidize contraception, on abortion and contraceptive choices of young women and on their life-cycle fertility, schooling and labor supply. I specify and structurally estimate a dynamic life-cycle model of abortion, contraceptive use, schooling and labor supply decisions using data from the NLSY97 combined with aggregate abortion provider data from the Guttmacher Institute. Variation across time and space in state-specific regulations and in the availability of abortion providers at the county level provides a valuable source of identification for the model parameters. My estimation approach allows for underreporting of abortions by NLSY respondents. Policy simulations show that restrictions on abortions increase contraceptive use, which moderates the effect of abortion restrictions on birth rates. Eliminating access to abortion services has significant effects on women's schooling and lifetime earnings. The average effect of restricting access to abortion on lifetime welfare is small, but there is substantial heterogeneity in welfare losses across women. As an alternative to abortion restrictions, I find that providing free contraception would increase contraceptive use and decrease abortion rates substantially. University of PennsylvaniaAbstract In this paper, I evaluate the effects of regulations that limit the availability of abortion services, as well as the impact of policies that subsidize contraception, on abortion and contraceptive choices of young women and on their life-cycle fertility, schooling and labor supply. I specify and structurally estimate a dynamic life-cycle model of abortion, contraceptive use, schooling and labor supply decisions using data from the NLSY97 combined with aggregate abortion provider data from the Guttmacher Institute.Variation across time and space in state-specific regulations and in the availability of abortion providers at the county level provides a valuable source of identification for the model parameters. My estimation approach allows for underreporting of abortions by NLSY respondents. Policy simulations show that restrictions on abortions increase contraceptive use, which moderates the effect of abortion restrictions on birth rates. Eliminating access to abortion services has significant effects on women's schooling and lifetime earnings. The average effect of restricting access to abortion on lifetime welfare is small, but there is substantial heterogeneity in welfare losses across women. As an alternative to abortion restrictions, I find that providing free contraception would increase contraceptive use and decrease abortion rates substantially.

Assessing the impact of TRAP laws on abortion and women’s health in the USA: a systematic review

“…Studies at the national level assessed a comparatively wider range of regulations: one19 used data from NARAL (a reproductive rights advocacy group) to group state-level TRAP laws into two categories (licensing fees, plant/personnel laws), and another20 used the same source but grouped TRAP laws according to a six-category classification scheme. The remaining study21 assessed the impact of supply-side regulations indirectly by simulating the effect of TRAP-driven provider closures on the national scale.…”

“…Three of the five articles that assessed abortion outcomes reported an inverse association between certain TRAP laws and abortion rates, with exposure linked to a decrease in abortion 5 18 21. Depending on the analysis, the magnitude of this effect ranged from a 6.8% decline in the abortion rate among women aged 18–30 years,21 to a 13% decline in the abortion rate among all women of childbearing age (15–44 years),5 to a 72% decrease in the abortion rate among women presenting at or after 16 weeks’ gestation 18. In contrast, one study in this subgroup found no effect of TRAP laws on abortion demand,19 and one reported a potential increase in abortions following TRAP legislation 20.…”

Mandatory waiting periods and biased abortion counseling in Central and Eastern Europe

“…For example, women from rural areas could need to travel long distances to reach providers, women with low incomes could lack access to necessary transportation and financial resources, and single parents or caregivers could struggle to find time for repeated visits to facilities because of family obligations and lack of alternative caregivers. Meanwhile, for women or adolescents at risk of domestic violence, the necessity of multiple visits to health facilities could create safety concerns …”

“…Meanwhile, for women or adolescents at risk of domestic violence, the necessity of multiple visits to health facilities could create safety concerns. 27,28 Impositions of mandatory waiting periods also undermine women's agency and ability to make autonomous decisions about their bodies and their lives. These impositions imply that without the required "reflection period," women would make rash decisions or would not properly consider the impact of their decisions.…”

Family planning in a life‐cycle model with income risk

“…Imperfect contraceptive control in dynamic models of life cycle fertility behavior goes back to at least Heckman and Willis (1976). Since then, a growing number of papers have estimated dynamic economic models including imperfect contraceptive control in relation to contraceptive choices (Carro & Mira, 2006), female labor supply (Adda, Dustmann, & Stevens, 2017; Amador, 2017; Hotz & Miller, 1988; Sheran, 2007), habit persistence in teen sex and the effectiveness of contraceptive policies (Arcidiacono, Khwaja, & Ouyang, 2012) and the fertility risk and abortion use over the life cycle (Choi, 2017).…”