Undue Burden Beyond Texas: An Analysis of Abortion Clinic Closures, Births, and Abortions in Wisconsin

Abstract

In this paper, we estimate the impacts of abortion clinic closures on access to clinics in terms of distance and congestion, abortion rates, and birth rates. Between 2010 and 2017, Wisconsin passed three laws regulating abortion providers and two of five abortion clinics closed in Wisconsin, increasing the distance to the nearest clinic to 55 miles on average and to over 100 miles in the most affected counties. We use a difference‐in‐differences design to estimate the effect of changes in travel distance on births and abortions, using within‐county variation across time in distance to identify the effect. We find that a 100‐mile increase in distance to the nearest clinic is associated with 30.7 percent fewer abortions and 3.2 percent more births. We see no significant effect of increased congestion at remaining clinics on abortion rates. Interacting the legislative changes with distance, we find that the effects of distance on abortion are approximately 1.33 time stronger in the presence of laws requiring multiple physician visits to obtain an abortion. Our results suggest that even small numbers of clinic closures can result in significant restrictions to abortion access of similar magnitude to those seen in Texas where a greater number of clinics ceased operations.

The Missing Baby Bust: The Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic for Contraceptive Use, Pregnancy, and Childbirth among Low-Income Women

“…Finally, and especially relevant for this study, Lu and Slusky (2019) show that closures of women's health centers in Texas increased birthrates by 1.2 percent. Similarly, Venator and Fletcher (2021) find that clinic closures in Wisconsin reduced the number of abortions by 30.7 percent and increased births by 3.2 percent.…”

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.…”

The Missing Baby Bust: The Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic for Contraceptive Use, Pregnancy, and Childbirth Among Low-Income Women

“…Finally, and especially relevant for this study, Lu and Slusky ( 2019 ) show that closures of women’s health centers in Texas increased birthrates by 1.2 percent. Similarly, Venator and Fletcher ( 2021 ) find that clinic closures in Wisconsin reduced the number of abortions by 30.7 percent and increased births by 3.2 percent.…”