While Lowi (1964) claims that policies can be classified as one of three types, distributive, redistributive, or regulatory, his work has been criticized as incomplete. Policies are frequently multidimensional, and his categories are neither comprehensive nor mutually exclusive. A fourth policy type, morality policy, has now been well-established as distinct from the other three types (e.g., Meier 1994; Mooney 2001). Evidence suggests that some policies can be framed as multidimensional policy types. Abortion funding is one such policy issue that has aspects of both morality policy and redistributive policy in its politics. In this study, we develop models of government abortion funding based on abortion as a morality and a redistributive policy. We estimate these models using weighted least squares to explain the voting outcomes of county-level votes in six state referenda elections for government funding of abortions. Then, we test a combined model and find clear evidence that the combined model, and variables from both perspectives, provide a stronger case than a single policy typology model alone. A practical implication is that policy advocates may purposely emphasize different values and results of the policies. Thus, testing policy theories may need to include more complex views of policies based on policy types. policy typologies have provided an important analytical framework in the study of public policy, using the assumption that every policy type has its own political dynamics. Typologies help classify policies and identify associated political dynamics. Lowi (1964) was the first author to hypothesize that the type of policy would shape the type of politics surrounding the issue. His work laid out distributive, redistributive, and regulatory policy as the primary policy types. Lowi's typology has been widely used in the study of public policy, but it has also been criticized because of its limited empirical applicability and difficulties in valid and reliable classifications (Greenberg,