The Impacts of Reduced Access to Abortion and Family Planning Services: Evidence from Texas

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. Together this legislation creates cross-county variation in access to abortion and family planning services, which we leverage to understand the impact of family planning and abortion clinic access on abortions, births, and contraceptive purchases. In-state abortions fell 20% and births rose 3% in counties that no longer had an abortion provider within 50 miles. Births increased 1% and contraceptive purchases rose 8% in counties without a publicly-funded family planning clinic within 25 miles. Terms of use: Documents in JEL Classification:J13, I18, J08, J18, I38

How Far Is Too Far? New Evidence on Abortion Clinic Closures, Access, and Abortions

“…Because their study uses data from an earlier time in Texas when family planning clinics-and not abortion clinics-closed en masse, their estimates likely reflect the effects of family planning clinic closures. 5 Since we initially released our study, Fischer et al (2017) have released an analysis that also leverages variation induced by Texas HB2. Specifically, they estimate the effects of distance using a similar research design and similarly controling for access to family planning clinics.…”

Distance to an Abortion Provider and Its Association with the Abortion Rate: A Multistate Longitudinal Analysis

“…For example, Gerdts and colleagues found that in the wake of HB2, travel distances increased substantially, as did out‐of‐pocket costs for abortion 7 . Meanwhile, Fischer and colleagues found that after passage of the same law, abortions went down by 20% and births increased by 3% in counties that had a distance of 50 or more miles to a provider 17 . Similarly, Lindo et al found that following clinic closures in Texas, an increase of 25 miles in distance to a provider was associated with a 10% drop in the abortion rate 18 .…”

“…As a result, there is a need for more information regarding changes in the abortion rate associated with changes in abortion supply. In addition, the prior studies that use approaches that plausibly isolate the association between a change in supply and a change in the abortion rate—such as those cited here—are mostly single‐state studies, limiting the generalizability and broader implications of their findings 7–9,17–19 …”

Reproductive Health Care in Catholic-Owned Hospitals

“…The lay press, medical and legal journals have featured discussions about the impact of these ownership changes on patient care, particularly with regard to reproductive health, such as abortions and sterilizations, and have drawn attention to the $45 billion in federal funding these hospital systems receive each year (Catholics for Choice 2005, National Women's Law Center 2011, Abelson 2012, Mencimer 2013, Martin 2013, Lee and Propublica 2016. This is in addition to other new restrictions on reproductive health care services that proliferated over the past decade (Packham 2017, Quast et al 2017, Fischer, Royer, and White 2017, Cunningham et al 2017, Bailey and Lindo 2018, Lu and Slusky 2016. Existing research on the potential effect of Catholic ownership on patient care has relied on qualitative interviews of patients and doctors (Rubin et al 2006, Stulberg et al 2014.…”