Political ideology and abortion policy in American states

Abortion

It is not unreasonable to expect that states with a high proportion of democrats will also have a reasonably higher number of abortions performed than those states with a high proportion of republican or conservative voters. The liberal democratic vote has always been supportive of women's right to choose for their selves how to best manage their body and their lives in a way consistent with planned-parenthood choices. Just as most conservative voters favor limiting a woman's ability to have access to abortion services; although they do not advocate complete prohibition to that service.

This essay is a brief study of the two philosophies on abortion, and the women in the communities that it affects. Who are the women receiving abortions today, and what kind of support systems they have in their lives, are important factors in understanding the abortion issues. Who are the politicians playing to with their liberal and conservative views on abortion?

Literature Review

There is a vast amount of research on the subject of abortion, but those works that reflect qualitative and quantitative studies, and prove useful to the politicians as well as the public for purposes of understanding the public perspective on abortion, are not as numerous as those that support the liberal or the conservative point-of-view. That is the political perspective, or what politicians understand their constituents want to know and read on the subject of abortion. There are, however, several works that present the overall public position on the subject of abortion.

One of the works that provides insight into the public position on abortion is a 1999 journal article by Barbara Norrander and Clyde Wilcox, Public Opinion and Policy Making in the States: The Case of Post Roe Abortion Policy. For purposes of this essay, this journal article will serve to inform the essay as to the nature of public opinion as it is today.

Another journal article by Kevin R. Den Dulk and J. Mitchell Pickerill (2003), "Bridging the Lawmaking Process: Organized Interests, Court-Congress Interaction, and Church-State Relations," bridges the discussion in this paper as to how the courts and lawmakers are affected by public opinion. It will serve to demonstrate the weight of public opinion in making abortion laws.

Gendered Justice," a journal article by Fred O. Smith (2005) will provide the regression data on ages and gender with respect to attitudes about abortion. This article is important to the discussion, because it will show which segment, if any, is impacting lawmakers and courts in their decisions on abortion. Smith found that attitudes towards abortion were consistent with attitudes towards homosexuality, and that the regression data was supportive of both attitudes. Smith's table is used even though it includes sexuality data, because it breaks the data down in a way that is party related, and, therefore, significant to this essay.

Abortion

Smith's study shows that based on specific court cases shows that highly educated women judges share the same ideas on abortion as the public majority (2087). Smith's study shows that women judges, like male judges, tend to be consistent on issues of abortion, and that both groups are influenced by public opinion. We see, then, that there is a strong public opinion correlation, and we can turn to Barbara Norrander and Clyde Wilcox study that helps to put into perspective the public opinon.

Norrander and Wilcox concluded that a "plurality" of Americans favor abortion by individual case elements (707). In other words, if there were a case of medical complication that would result in the death of the mother, the general public might be divided along the lines of the abortion debate in ways that they are not divided on the general topic of abortion. When the element of health risk to the mother exists, it could results in the data to change from those results reported generally.

Their study also provided data to support that the individual state's position on abortion was consistent with that of their constituents, and that the hypothesis put forth for this essay is accurate (See Norrander and Wilcox regression table below). Dulk and Pickerill support this conclusion, saying:

This brings us to our final observation. Organized groups act as an informational bridge between the courts and Congress, but their influence can be overstated. To suggest that U.S. lawmaking is an inter-institutional process is to acknowledge its multidimensional nature, with many different political actors engaged at multiple access points. While groups might provide information to members of Congress, those members must be responsive in light of a host of other factors: the "electoral connection," the desire to make good public policy, party leadership, and pressure from other constituencies. (54) The courts also look to other sources of information and influence, including the ideologies and strategic expectations of judges themselves. (55) Yet by providing an informational bridge between institutions, groups play an integral role in this broader process (419)."

Because the laws enforced and upheld by the courts are consistent with those enacted by lawmakers, who in turn are acting on behalf of their constituents, the data provided here and the conclusions are not completely unexpected. The continuing debate over Roe v Wade, the original law governing women's access to abortion, has been met with an "end run" of sorts. In other words, what is known as the "moral majority" is finding ways through the court to circumvent the full force of the law in favor of more restrictive abortion laws state by state.

State-Level Public Opinion on Abortion [a]

States All Cases Government Funding Parental Consent

[b]

KY

MS

WV

AR

ND

LA

TN

KS

UT

MO

WI

AL

WY

PA

SC

GA

SD

NC

NE

TX

OH

MI

IA

MN

FL

VA

NM

IL

MD

MT

HI

DE

MA

RI

ME

CT

AK

41.8-32.4-23.6 108-184

WA

42.2-41.1-25.8 93-154

NV

42.6-32.2-12.9 115-169

OR

43.2-27.9-30.5 111-183

NY

43.7-38.1-23.5 97-142

CA

43.9-34.1-14.9 134-180

CO

44.9-28.7-23.5 136-196

NJ

45.6-33.1-22.5 118-160

NH

47.3-34.4-23.3 120-169

VT

47.4-34.0-26.0 97-152

AZ

47.8-31.5-15.4 104-161

14.5-12.2-8.0 82-142

47.8-41.1-30.5 150-208

Mean

32.1-25.0 183 116-176

Standard

Deviation

Notes: (a.)Percentage of respondents favoring abortions in all cases, strongly favoring government funding of abortions for the poor, and strongly opposing consent requirements for minors seeking abortions, 1988 to 1992.

A b.)Range of numbers of respondents per state. The government funding and parental consent questions were asked only in 1990 and 1992.

Source: Miller, Kinder, Rosenstone, & the National Election Studies (1993).

State Policies on Abortion

Regulation of abortion for minors

Total Enforced

Written consent of parent(s) states 1 state

Written consent or judicial bypass

12 states 9 states

Parental notification states 3 states

Parental notification or bypass states 4 states

Counseling of minor states 0 states

No law

14 states

Government funding of abortions

Only to save woman's life

30 states

For some other exceptions states

For most abortions

12 states

Spousal notification or consent

Spousal consent states

Spousal notification states

No law

40 states

Required waiting periods and counseilng

Waiting periods of 24-48 hours

11 states

Counseling

14 states

No law

25 states

Ban on most or all postviabliity abortions

Bans

35 states

No law

15 states

Current or future bans on abortion

Current (unconstitutional) bans states

Law promising bans when legal states

Law promising fullest regulation states

No law

39 states

Pro-Choice legislation banning clinic harassment or promising to keep abortions legal

Pro-Choice legislation states

No law

43 states

Source: National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (1992).

Competing Models Explaining Liberal

State Policies on Abortion (n = 50)

Composite Abortion

No Parental Consent Law

Policy Index

General

Interest

Full

Opinion

Group

Full

General

Opinion

Specific

Opinion

1.40)

Interest

Group

26)

Catholic

03)

Dem.

Legis.

02)

Dem.

Governor

08)

Women

Legis.

04)

Liberal

State

80 [a]

Policies

42)

Conserv.

Public

1.73)

[R.sup.2]

Adjusted

R.sup.2]

Government Funding of Abortions

Specific

General

Interest

Specific

Opinion

Group

Full

Opinion

General

Opinion

Specific

Opinion

Interest

Group

Catholic

Dem.

Legis.

Dem.

Governor

Women

Legis.

Liberal

State

60 [a]

Policies

Conserv.

Public

R.sup.2]

18 [a]

Adjusted

R.sup.2]

11 [a]

General

Interest

Opinion

Group

General

76 [a]

Opinion

Specific

Opinion

Interest

Group

Catholic

Dem.

Legis.

Dem.

Governor

Women

Legis.

Liberal

State

Policies

Conserv.

Public

R.sup.2]

Adjusted

R.sup.2]

Notes: Entries are unstandardized regression coefficients from ordinary least squares regression (standard errors are in parentheses).

A significant at.01; significant at.05;

a.)=significant at.10

For general abortion opinion high = conservative; for parental consent opinion high = liberal; for abortion funding opinion high = conservative.

Norrander and Wilcox, 707).