New Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Waiting Periods for Abortion

Abstract

Beyond a handful of studies examining early-adopting states in the early 1990s, little is known about the causal effects of mandatory waiting periods for abortion. In this study we evaluate the effects of a Tennessee law enacted in 2015 that requires women to make an additional trip to abortion providers for state-directed counseling at least 48 hours before they can obtain an abortion. Our difference-in-differences and synthetic-control estimates indicate that the introduction of the mandatory waiting period caused a 48-73 percent increase in the share of abortions obtained during the second trimester. Our analysis examining overall abortion rates is less conclusive but suggests a reduction caused by the waiting period. Putting these estimates into context, our back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that Tennessee's MWP increased the monetary costs of obtaining an abortion by as much as $929 for some women.

The Economic Consequences of Being Denied an Abortion

“…If being denied an abortion results in a woman delaying an abortion she later obtains, the cost of that abortion may be higher. In some cases, the cost differential between abortions obtained earlier versus later in the pregnancy can be substantial (Lindo and Pineda-Torres, 2019). 11 If the woman is not able to obtain an abortion, she faces additional medical costs associated with prenatal care, birth, and postpartum recovery, as well as potential lost wages for time missed from work.…”

COVID-19 Restrictions Reduced Abortion Clinic Visits, Even in Blue States

“…This is despite the obvious persistent growth of an embryo, eventually becoming a fetus that would have to be aborted through more invasive (and often banned) procedures These temporary restrictions exist in the context of other permanent restrictions, including imposing maximum gestational age and mandatory waiting periods, requiring multiple visits, mandating detailed building codes, and insisting on providers having admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. While these other restrictions have been studied previously in the health economic literature and beyond (e.g., Slusky and Lu 2016;Packham 2017;Slusky 2017;Lu and Slusky 2019;Fischer, Royer, and White 2018;Venator and Fletcher 2019;Lindo and Pineda-Torres 2019;Ladd 2020 Lindo, Myers, Schlosser, andCunningham 2020), to our knowledge no one has studied COVID-19 related abortion restrictions.…”

<p>Mandatory Waiting Periods Before Abortion and Sterilization: Theory and Practice</p>

“…42 Since the Akron case, US courts have determined that "health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden". 35,43 Fourteen US State abortion laws involve an extra trip to the facility 44,45 with associated travel and expense 46 in some jurisdictions, a remote consultation by telephone or some other communication medium suffices. Waiting periods generally sit alongside biased counseling laws which are ethically problematic according to every account of informed consent.…”

“…[60][61][62][63] An evaluation of the introduction of the Tennessee 48-hour waiting period in 2015 showed an increase of the proportion of second-trimester abortions in residents, from 6.6% before to 9.4% afterwards. 45 A majority of women in a study in Utah were certain of their decision to have an abortion when they presented for their abortion "information visit" and their certainty was resolute despite the information visit and a 72-hour waiting period. 64 The small minority whose certainty changed were conflicted before the beginning of the information visit.…”