Quantifying the impact of targeted regulation of abortion provider laws on US abortion rates: a multi-state assessment



      In this paper, we estimate the average effect of two common TRAP (targeted regulation of abortion providers) laws on abortion rates using a novel longitudinal database of state-level policy shifts.

      Study design

      We merged several sources of policy, abortion, and sociodemographic data from 1991–2014. We used a difference-in-differences design to control for time-fixed state-level characteristics and common factors affecting abortion trends across all states, as well as measured time-varying state-level factors that may impact TRAP enforcement and abortion rates. We used generalized linear models with cluster-robust standard errors to obtain our estimates.


      Enforcement of ambulatory surgical center (ASC) laws reduced the abortion rate by 1.25 abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 (95% CI: −3.39, .89), and admitting privilege laws increased the abortion rate by .57 abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 (95% CI: −.68, 1.83), but neither effect was statistically distinguishable from zero. Our findings were robust to the inclusion of covariates and various sensitivity analyses.


      Our results suggest that ASC and admitting privilege laws did not, on average, lead to a meaningful change in abortion rates.


      US abortion rates are currently at record lows, but our findings suggest that TRAP laws are not a meaningful driver of this trend. However, this does not mean that these laws are without consequence in a particular state (or a given year). Researchers should assess the average long-run impact of TRAP laws on other outcomes in the future.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. Whole Woman's health v Hellerstedt. 2016: 579 US
        • Grossman D.
        • Baum S.
        • Fuentes L.
        • White K.
        • Hopkins K.
        • Stevenson A.
        • et al.
        Change in abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas.
        Contraception. 2014; 90: 496-501
        • Boonstra H.D.
        • Nash E.
        A surge of state abortion restrictions puts providers—and the women they serve—in the crosshairs.
        Guttmacher Policy Rev. 2014; 17: 1-7
        • Mallampati D.
        • Simon M.A.
        • Janiak E.
        Evolving state-based contraceptive and abortion policies.
        JAMA. 2017; 317: 2481-2482
        • Guttmacher Institute
        Last five years account for more than one-quarter of all abortion restrictions enacted since roe [internet].
        Guttmacher Institute, New York2016 (Available from:)
        • Joyce T.
        The supply-side economics of abortion.
        N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 1466-1469
        • Joyce T.
        • Tan R.
        • Zhang Y.
        Abortion before & after Roe.
        J Health Econ. 2013; 32: 804-815
        • Austin N.
        • Harper S.
        Assessing the impact of TRAP laws on abortion and women's health in the USA: a systematic review.
        BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2018; 44: 128-134
        • Colman S.
        • Joyce T.
        Regulating abortion: impact on patients and providers in Texas.
        J Policy Anal Manage. 2011; 30: 775-797
        • Henshaw S.K.
        • Joyce T.J.
        • Dennis A.
        • Finer L.B.
        • Blanchard K.
        Restrictions on Medicaid funding for abortions: A literature review.
        (Internet) Guttmacher Institute, New York2009 Jun
        • Joyce T.
        • Henshaw S.K.
        • Dennis A.
        • Finer L.B.
        • Blanchard K.
        The impact of state mandatory counseling and waiting period laws on abortion: A literature review.
        (Internet) Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY2009 Apr
        • Dennis A.
        • Henshaw S.K.
        • Joyce T.J.
        • Finer L.B.
        • Blanchard K.
        The impact of laws requiring parental involvement for abortion: A literature review.
        (Internet) Guttmacher Institute, New York2009 Mar
        • Austin N.
        • Harper S.
        Constructing a longitudinal database of targeted regulation of abortion providers laws.
        Health Serv Res. 2019; 00: 1-6
        • Medoff M.H.
        • Dennis C.
        TRAP abortion Laws and Partisan political party control of state government.
        Am J Econ Sociol. 2011; 70: 951-973
      2. National Abortion and Reproductive Action Rights League/NARAL. Who decides? A state-by-state review of abortion and reproductive rights. Washington, D.C.: [The NARAL Foundation; Various years].

        • Angrist J.D.
        • econometrics Pischke J.S. Mostly harmless
        An empiricist's companion.
        in: Princeton (NJ): Princeton University press. 2008
        • Ryan A.M.
        • Burgess J.F.
        • Dimick J.B.
        Why we should not be indifferent to specification choices for difference-in-differences.
        Health Serv Res. 2015; 50: 1211-1235
        • Cameron A.C.
        • Miller D.L.
        A practitioner's guide to cluster-robust inference.
        J Hum Resour. 2015; 50: 317-372
        • Yang Y.T.
        • Kozhimannil K.B.
        Whole Woman's health v. Hellerstedt and the current implications for abortion access.
        Birth. 2017; 44: 3-6
      3. Law Atlas [Internet]. TRAP Laws - Ambulatory Surgical Center Requirements. Philadelphia: Temple University; 2018. Available from:

        • Jones R.K.
        • Jerman J.
        Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2014.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2017; 49: 17-27
        • Jones B.S.
        • Daniel S.
        • Cloud L.K.
        State law approaches to facility regulation of abortion and other office interventions.
        Am J Public Health. 2018; 108: 486-492
        • Gerdts C.
        • Fuentes L.
        • Grossman D.
        • et al.
        Impact of clinic closures on women obtaining abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas.
        Am J Public Health. 2016; 106: 857-864