Abstract
Objectives
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.
Results
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.
Conclusion
Our results suggest that ASC and admitting privilege laws did not, on average, lead
to a meaningful change in abortion rates.
Implications
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.
Keywords
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 accessOne-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:
Subscribe to ContraceptionAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Whole Woman's health v Hellerstedt. 2016: 579 US
- Change in abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas.Contraception. 2014; 90: 496-501
- A surge of state abortion restrictions puts providers—and the women they serve—in the crosshairs.Guttmacher Policy Rev. 2014; 17: 1-7
- Evolving state-based contraceptive and abortion policies.JAMA. 2017; 317: 2481-2482
- Last five years account for more than one-quarter of all abortion restrictions enacted since roe [internet].Guttmacher Institute, New York2016 (Available from:)
- The supply-side economics of abortion.N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 1466-1469
- Abortion before & after Roe.J Health Econ. 2013; 32: 804-815
- 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
- Regulating abortion: impact on patients and providers in Texas.J Policy Anal Manage. 2011; 30: 775-797
- Restrictions on Medicaid funding for abortions: A literature review.(Internet) Guttmacher Institute, New York2009 Jun
- The impact of state mandatory counseling and waiting period laws on abortion: A literature review.(Internet) Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY2009 Apr
- The impact of laws requiring parental involvement for abortion: A literature review.(Internet) Guttmacher Institute, New York2009 Mar
- Constructing a longitudinal database of targeted regulation of abortion providers laws.Health Serv Res. 2019; 00: 1-6https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13185
- TRAP abortion Laws and Partisan political party control of state government.Am J Econ Sociol. 2011; 70: 951-973
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].
- An empiricist's companion.in: Princeton (NJ): Princeton University press. 2008
- Why we should not be indifferent to specification choices for difference-in-differences.Health Serv Res. 2015; 50: 1211-1235
- A practitioner's guide to cluster-robust inference.J Hum Resour. 2015; 50: 317-372
- Whole Woman's health v. Hellerstedt and the current implications for abortion access.Birth. 2017; 44: 3-6
Law Atlas [Internet]. TRAP Laws - Ambulatory Surgical Center Requirements. Philadelphia: Temple University; 2018. Available from: http://lawatlas.org/datasetx/trap-laws-ambulatory-surgical-center-requirements
- Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2014.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2017; 49: 17-27
- State law approaches to facility regulation of abortion and other office interventions.Am J Public Health. 2018; 108: 486-492
- 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
Article info
Publication history
Published online: June 13, 2019
Accepted:
June 4,
2019
Received in revised form:
May 31,
2019
Received:
February 10,
2019
Footnotes
☆Competing interests: None declared.
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
