从罗伊到多布斯:美国各州堕胎法规的 50 年因果。

IF 21.4 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Annual Review of Public Health Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071823-122011
Caitlin Myers
{"title":"从罗伊到多布斯:美国各州堕胎法规的 50 年因果。","authors":"Caitlin Myers","doi":"10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071823-122011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The <i>Roe</i> era was hardly a monolith. For more than 50 years-beginning with abortion reforms in the 1960s and continuing through the <i>Dobbs</i> decision in 2022-state regulations of abortion were neither uniform nor consistent. States reformed and repealed abortion bans leading up to the <i>Roe</i> decision in 1973. Following <i>Roe</i>, they enacted both demand-side regulations of people seeking abortions and supply-side regulations of people providing abortions. The resulting laboratory of state policies affords natural experiments that have yielded evidence on the effects of abortion regulations on demographic, health, economic, and other social outcomes. I present a brief history of state policy variation from 1967 through 2016 and review the empirical scholarship studying its effects. This literature demonstrates that the liberalization of abortion access in the 1960s and 1970s allowed women greater control over their fertility, resulting in increased educational attainment and earnings. Subsequent state restrictions in the 1980s through 2010s had the opposite effect, particularly when they increased the financial and logistical costs of obtaining an abortion. I conclude with a discussion of implications for the post-<i>Dobbs</i> era, considering to what extent evidence from the past foretells the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":50752,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Public Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":21.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From <i>Roe</i> to <i>Dobbs</i>: 50 Years of Cause and Effect of US State Abortion Regulations.\",\"authors\":\"Caitlin Myers\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071823-122011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The <i>Roe</i> era was hardly a monolith. For more than 50 years-beginning with abortion reforms in the 1960s and continuing through the <i>Dobbs</i> decision in 2022-state regulations of abortion were neither uniform nor consistent. States reformed and repealed abortion bans leading up to the <i>Roe</i> decision in 1973. Following <i>Roe</i>, they enacted both demand-side regulations of people seeking abortions and supply-side regulations of people providing abortions. The resulting laboratory of state policies affords natural experiments that have yielded evidence on the effects of abortion regulations on demographic, health, economic, and other social outcomes. I present a brief history of state policy variation from 1967 through 2016 and review the empirical scholarship studying its effects. This literature demonstrates that the liberalization of abortion access in the 1960s and 1970s allowed women greater control over their fertility, resulting in increased educational attainment and earnings. Subsequent state restrictions in the 1980s through 2010s had the opposite effect, particularly when they increased the financial and logistical costs of obtaining an abortion. I conclude with a discussion of implications for the post-<i>Dobbs</i> era, considering to what extent evidence from the past foretells the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50752,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual Review of Public Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":21.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual Review of Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071823-122011\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071823-122011","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

罗伊时代并非一成不变。从 20 世纪 60 年代的堕胎改革开始,一直到 2022 年的多布斯裁决,50 多年来,各州对堕胎的规定既不统一也不一致。在 1973 年罗伊案判决之前,各州改革并废除了堕胎禁令。在罗伊案之后,各州同时颁布了针对寻求堕胎者的需求方法规和针对提供堕胎者的供应方法规。由此产生的州政策实验室提供了自然实验,为堕胎法规对人口、健康、经济和其他社会结果的影响提供了证据。我简要介绍了从 1967 年到 2016 年各州政策变化的历史,并回顾了研究其影响的实证学术研究。这些文献表明,20 世纪 60 年代和 70 年代的堕胎自由化使妇女能够更好地控制生育,从而提高了受教育程度和收入。随后在 20 世纪 80 年代至 2010 年代,各州的限制措施产生了相反的效果,尤其是当它们增加了堕胎的经济和后勤成本时。最后,我将讨论后多布斯时代的影响,考虑过去的证据在多大程度上预示着未来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
From Roe to Dobbs: 50 Years of Cause and Effect of US State Abortion Regulations.

The Roe era was hardly a monolith. For more than 50 years-beginning with abortion reforms in the 1960s and continuing through the Dobbs decision in 2022-state regulations of abortion were neither uniform nor consistent. States reformed and repealed abortion bans leading up to the Roe decision in 1973. Following Roe, they enacted both demand-side regulations of people seeking abortions and supply-side regulations of people providing abortions. The resulting laboratory of state policies affords natural experiments that have yielded evidence on the effects of abortion regulations on demographic, health, economic, and other social outcomes. I present a brief history of state policy variation from 1967 through 2016 and review the empirical scholarship studying its effects. This literature demonstrates that the liberalization of abortion access in the 1960s and 1970s allowed women greater control over their fertility, resulting in increased educational attainment and earnings. Subsequent state restrictions in the 1980s through 2010s had the opposite effect, particularly when they increased the financial and logistical costs of obtaining an abortion. I conclude with a discussion of implications for the post-Dobbs era, considering to what extent evidence from the past foretells the future.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annual Review of Public Health
Annual Review of Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
26.60
自引率
1.40%
发文量
36
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Annual Review of Public Health has been a trusted publication in the field since its inception in 1980. It provides comprehensive coverage of important advancements in various areas of public health, such as epidemiology, biostatistics, environmental health, occupational health, social environment and behavior, health services, as well as public health practice and policy. In an effort to make the valuable research and information more accessible, the current volume has undergone a transformation. Previously, access to the articles was restricted, but now they are available to everyone through the Annual Reviews' Subscribe to Open program. This open access approach ensures that the knowledge and insights shared in these articles can reach a wider audience. Additionally, all the published articles are licensed under a CC BY license, allowing users to freely use, distribute, and build upon the content, while giving appropriate credit to the original authors.
期刊最新文献
From Roe to Dobbs: 50 Years of Cause and Effect of US State Abortion Regulations. Integrating Social Needs into Health Care: An Implementation Science Perspective. Saving the Health Care Safety Net: Progress and Opportunities. Violence Against Women as a Global Public Health Issue Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention at the Workplace.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1