Printer Friendly

Economic realities of obtaining an abortion.

Abortion is a relatively inexpensive procedure when it is performed early in pregnancy in a specialized clinic on an outpatient basis, as most procedures are. For poor and low-income women, however, the cost of an abortion can be prohibitive, especially for those who live in nonmetropolitan areas and rural states, where there are few abortion facilities and those that are accessible charge higher-than-average fees.

The Cost of an Abortion

In 1993, the average charge for a first-trimester nonhospital abortion was $296 (93)--an increase of about $50 since 1989 (Table 1). (94)

* The charge varied widely by state, however; fees were highest in Alaska and Hawaii, which would be expected because of the generally high cost of living in those states. Yet, in five other states, the average charge was above $350.

* Abortions were least expensive in the District of Columbia, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Louisiana and Oregon, where the average charge was less than $250. (95)

Abortions after the first trimester are substantially more expensive. (96)

* At 16 weeks of gestation, the average 1993 charge for an outpatient nonhospital abortion jumped to $593-double the average fee for a first-trimester procedure.

* At 20 weeks, the charge more than tripled, to $1,013.

Charges for abortions performed in hospitals are much higher than those for clinic procedures, even when done early in pregnancy on an outpatient basis. (97)

* At 10 weeks' gestation, for example, an outpatient hospital abortion averaged more than $1,700 in 1989.

* At 16 weeks, an abortion cost between $1,500 and $2,250, depending on the procedure used.

Other Expenses

Many women, particularly those living in nonmetropolitan areas, must travel a substantial distance to obtain an abortion, because of the shortage of providers. (98)

* Ninety-four percent of nonmetropolitan counties had no abortion provider in 1992; 85% of nonmetropolitan women lived in un-served counties.

* A third of metropolitan areas either had no provider or no provider serving more than 50 abortion patients each year.

* In 1992,16% of women who obtained nonhospital abortions (two-thirds of all abortions are performed in specialized abortion clinics (99)) traveled 50-100 miles; 8% traveled more than 100 miles. (100)

* Some women must even go to another state, because there are so few providers in their state; North Dakota and South Dakota, for example, each has only one provider, and 16 other states have providers in fewer than 10% of their counties. (101)

Obviously, long-distance travel adds to the overall cost of an abortion. It not only entails transportation expenses; it may also force women to pay child-care expenses and may even require overnight accommodations.

Almost certainly, it is more difficult for lower income women to make travel arrangements, and it is unquestionably more difficult for them to pay for these additional expenses associated with obtaining an abortion. Yet poor and low-income women are more likely to have to assume these costs. Because they disproportionately live in nonmetropolitan areas, they are more likely to be affected by the recent decline in providers, which has occurred almost exclusively in nonmetropolitan areas and almost entirely among hospitals. (102) which are used more heavily for outpatient health care by poor and low-income women than by higher income women. In addition, arranging and paying for an abortion maybe more difficult for lower income women who live in states that impose waiting periods or parental consent or notification requirements, because these conditions may involve extra trips to the abortion provider or to a court in the case of teenagers who want to use a judicial bypass to avoid involving their parents. (1 03)

Poor and low-income women are particularly hard hit by the even more limited availability of providers who will perform abortions beyond 12 weeks of pregnancy, because such women are more likely than higher income women to need a second-trimester abortion-in part as a result of the difficulties they face in raising the money to pay for the procedure. Fewer than half of all providers will perform abortions at 13 weeks, and less than a quarter will do them at 19 weeks. (104)

Meager Incomes

Families on welfare live on extremely meager incomes. In Mississippi, for example, an AFDC recipient with two children receives $120 a month, or $1,440 a year; in Alabama, she gets $164 a month, or $1,968 a year (Table 1). (105) A recipient's AFDC benefit constitutes most of her family's available income, since federal law prohibits AFDC recipients from having more than a minimum amount of additional resources. (106)

While Mississippi and Alabama pay the lowest benefits, nationwide, the maximum monthly AFDC payment for a single-parent family of three averages only $396 (107)--just $100 more than the average cost of a first-trimester nonhospital abortion.

* In 13 states (only two of which pay for abortions for women on Medicaid), an abortion costs as much as or more than the entire monthly AFDC benefit for a family of three.

* An abortion costs more than 50% of the monthly AFDC benefit for a three-person family in all but four states (which pay for abortions under Medicaid).

Many poor families must spend virtually their entire monthly benefit on housing:

* In 1993, the federal government estimated that the fair market rents-the amount it costs to rent privately owned housing that is "decent, safe and sanitary"-were above $600 per month for a two-bedroom apartment in at least some metropolitan areas of 23 states and the District of Columbia, and between $500-$600 in cities in 12 other states. (108)

* Almost two-thirds of AFDC recipients in 1992 rented private housing, Only 23% lived in public housing or received some type of subsidy to help them pay their rent; even then, they had to pay a portion of their income in rent. (109)

In addition to cash assistance, most AFDC recipients receive food stamps; (110) nationally, in 1994, the allotment for a one-parent family of three averaged $273 a month. Yet, in 19 states and the District of Columbia, the combined AFDC and food stamps benefits were below the states' official standard of need-the amount the state determines a family needs to maintain a minimum level of subsistence based on the cost of housing, food and other essentials and on family size. (111)

Furthermore, some states have conducted in-depth analyses of AFDC families' needs and have concluded that they need substantially more than the state's official standard of need. In New Jersey, for example, the standard of need in 1994 was $985 a month for a family of three. (112) However, based on a report by a special committee appointed by the commissioner of the Department of Human Services to assess the needs of welfare recipients, a family of three actually needed $1,337 a month, or $16,044 a year, in 1994 to "maintain a healthy and decent life." (113) In reality, such a family received only $700 a month, or $8,400 annually, in AFDC and food stamp benefits (114)-50% below the committee's recommended benefit level. (See page 44 for a profile of one state's welfare needs and benefits.)

In short, the costs of obtaining an abortion, combined with their very low income, make it impossible for many poor women to afford an abortion on their own.

(93.) AGI, 1994g.

This was the average charge for an outpatient non-hospital abortion performed at 10 weeks' gestation.

(94.) Henshaw, 1991, p.249.

(95.) AGI, 1994g.

(96.) AGI, 1994g.

(97.) Henshaw, 1991, p.249.

(98.) Henshaw and Van Vort, 1994, pp. 103.

(99.) Henshaw, 1991, p. 246.

(100.) AGI, 1994g.

(101.) Henshaw and Van Vort, 1994, p. 105.

(102.) Henshaw and Van Vort, 1994, pp. 103--106.

(103.) Althaus and Henshaw, 1994; Donovan, 1992.

(104.) AGI, 1994g.

(105.) U.S. House of Representatives, 1994, Table 10-11, pp. 366--367.

(106.) U.S. House of Representatives, 1994, Table 10--31, p.411.

In 1992, only 21% of all AFDC recipients had any non-AFDC income.

(107.) U.S. House of Representatives, 1994, Table 10--11, pp. 366-367.

(108.) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1993, p. 51415-51469.

(109.) U.S. House of Representatives, 1994, Table 10--31, p.409.

Four percent of recipients owned their own homes; about 2% lived rent-free; about 7% lived in group quarters; and fewer than 1% were homeless.

(110.) U.S. House of Representatives, 1994, Table 10--31, p.409.

Eighty-seven percent of AFDC families received food stamps in 1992.

(111.) U.S. House of Representatives, 1994, Table 10--11, pp. 366-367.

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming had combined benefits that were below their respective standards of need.

(112.) U.S. House of Representatives, 1994, Table 10--11, p.366.

(113.) Standard of Need Advisory Committee, 1990. Estimates for 1990 were adjusted for inflation to January 1994 by AGI using the Consumer Price Indexes for food, shelter, apparel and upkeep, transportation, electricity, utilities, and all commodities.

(114.) U.S. House of Representatives, 1994, Table 10-11, p.366.

References

Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Abortions and the Poor: Private Morality, Public Responsibility, New York, 1979.

-----, "Title X Family Planning Clinic Network," unpublished memorandum, New York, Sept. 16, 1992.

-----, "Even as Politics Improve, Challenges Facing Family Planning Providers Mount," Washington Memo, Jan. 12,1993, pp. 3-4.

-----, tabulations of data from the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth, 1994a.

-----, tabulations of data from the 1987 AGI Survey of Reasons Women Have Abortions, 1994b.

-----, unpublished findings from focus groups conducted with poor women in Atlanta and Philadelphia, Apr.20 and May 12, 1994c.

-----, tabulations of data from the March 1992 Current Population Survey, 1994d.

-----, tabulations of data from the 1987 AGI Abortion Patient Survey, 1994e.

-----, tabulations of data from the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey, 1994f.

-----, tabulations of data from the 1993 AGI Abortion Provider Survey, 1994g.

-----, data from a special tabulation of the 1990 U.S. Census, 1994h.

-----, Sex and America's Teenagers, New York, 1994i.

Althaus, F.A., and S.K. Henshaw, "The Effect of Mandatory Delay Laws on Abortion Patients and Providers," Family Planning Perspectives, 26:228-231,233,1994.

American Political Network, Inc., "New Mexico: Dept. 'Greatly' Expands State Abortion Funding," The Abortion Report, Nov.29, 1994.

Bachrach, CA., K.S. Stolley and K.A. London, "Relinquishment of Premarital Births: Evidence from National Survey Data," Family Planning Perspectives, 24:2732,1992.

Bane, M.J., and D.T. Ellwood, Welfare Realities: From Rhetoric to Reform, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1994.

Bennett, W.J., and P. Wehner, "End Welfare for Single Women Having Children," USA Today, Feb. 1,1994.

Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, "Federal Court Blocks Pennsylvania Medicaid Restrictions," Reproductive Freedom News, Sept.23, 1994.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC), "Effects of Restricting Federal Funds for Abortion--Texas," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 29:253255, 1980.

Chapin, J., American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, personal communication to J.D. Forrest, June 23, 1993.

CHOICE, "An Unacceptable Burden: The Effects of Pennsylvania's Restrictions on Medical Assistance-Funded Abortions," Philadelphia, Sept. 10, 1993.

C.K v. Shalala, "Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction," Docket No. 935354 (NHP), Civil Action, (D.N.J., Apr.26, 1994).

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, "The New Republican Mandate," Nov. 28-29,1994.

Congressional Quarterly, "House GOP Offers Descriptions of Bills to Enact 'Contract'," Nov. 19, 1994, pp. 3366-3379.

Crepps, J., Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, "Status of Funding for Abortion for Pregnant Women Eligible for Medicaid through Expanded Eligibility," memorandum to P. Donovan, Nov. 7, 1994.

Daley, D., and R.B. Gold, "Public Funding for Contraceptive, Sterilization and Abortion Services, Fiscal Year 1992," Family Planning Perspectives, 25:244-251,1993.

Donovan, P., "The People Vote on Abortion Funding: Colorado and Washington," Family Planning Perspectives, 17:155-159, 1985.

-----, "Family Planning Clinics: Facing Higher Costs and Sicker Ptients, "Family Planning Perspectives, 23:198-203, 1991.

-----, Our Daughters' Decisions: The Conflict in State Law on Abortion and Other Issues, AGI, New York, 1992.

-----, "The Restoration of Abortion Services at Cook County Hospital," Family Planning Perspectives, 25:227-231, 1993.

Forrest, J.D., "Timing of Reproductive Life Stages," Obstetrics and Gynecology, 82:105-111, 1993.

-----, "Epidemiology of Unintended Pregnancy and Contraceptive Use," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 170:1485-1489, 1994.

-----, and S. Singh, "Public Sector Savings Resulting from Expenditures for Contraceptive Services," Family Planning Perspectives, 22:6-15, 1990.

Forste, R., L. Tedrow and K. Tanfer, "Sterilization Among Currently Married Men in the United States, 1991," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Miami, May 5-7, 1994.

Frost, J.J., "The Availability and Accessibility of the Contraceptive Implant from Family Planning Agencies in the United States, 1991-1992," Family Planning Perspectives, 26:4-10, 1994.

Gold, R.B., "After the Hyde Amendment: Public Funding for Abortion in FY 1978," Family Planning Perspectives, 12:131-134,1980.

-----, AGI, unpublished memorandum to J. Rosoff, Mar. 7, 1994.

Hadley, K., Minnesota Housing Finance, personal communication to P. Donovan, June 30,1994.

Harlap, S., K. Kost and J.D. Forrest, Preventing Pregnancy, Protecting Health, AGI, New York, 1991.

Harris, L., "A Survey of Public Attitudes Toward Planned Parenthood and the Supreme Court Decision in Rust v. Sullivan," Louis Harris and Associates, June 1991, Study 912043.

Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297(1980).

Henshaw, S.K., "The Accessibility of Abortion Services in the United States," Family Planning Perspectives, 23:246-252,263,1991.

-----, "Abortion Trends in 1987 and 1988: Age and Race," Family Planning Perspectives, 24:85-86, 96,1992.

-----, and J. Silverman, "The Characteristics and Prior Contraceptive Use of U.S. Abortion Patients," Family Planning Perspectives, 20:158-168,1988.

-----, and A. Torres, "Family Planning Agencies: Services, Policies and Funding," Family Planning Perspectives, 26:52-59,82, 1994.

-----, and J. Van Vort, "Abortion Services in the United States, 1991 and 1992," Family Planning Perspectives, 26:100-106, 112, 1994.

-----, and L.S. Wallisch, "The Medicaid Cutoff and Abortion Services for the Poor," Family Planning Perspectives, 16:170-180,1984.

Jones, E.F., et al., "Unintended Pregnancy, Contraceptive Practice and Family Planning Services in Developed Countries," Family Planning Perspectives, 20:53-67,1988.

-----, and J.D. Forrest, "Contraceptive Failure Rates Based on the 1988 NSFG," Family Planning Perspectives, 24:12-19, 1992.

Kolbert, K., Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, personal communication to P. Donovan, July 20, 1994.

Kost, K.L. and J.D. Forrest, "Intention Status of U.S. Births in 1988: Differences by Mothers' Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics," forthcoming, Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1995.

Maherv. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977).

Minnesota Department of Human Services, "A Market Basket Evaluation of the AFDC Standard of Need: A Report to the 1991 Legislature," St. Paul, Dec. 15,1990.

Moore, K.A., "Facts At a Glance," Child Trends, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1993.

Mosher, W.D., "Contraceptive Practice in the United States, 1982-1988," Family Planning Perspectives, 22:198-205,1990.

Murray, C., "The Coming White Underclass," Wall Street Journal, Oct. 29,1993.

National Governors' Association, "State Coverage of Pregnant Women and Children--July 1994," MCH Update, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1994.

National Network of Abortion Funds, "Summary of Fund Profiles," Hadley, Mass., May 7, 1994.

New York Times, "The Harm in Family Welfare Caps," June 9, 1994.

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1987.

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1989.

Richard Day Research, Inc., "The Chicago Metro Survey: Attitudes Toward Abortion and Family Issues," Sept. 22-Oct. 2,1994.

Silverman, J., A. Torres and J.D. Forrest, "Barriers to Contraceptive Services," Family Planning Perspectives, 19:94-102,1987.

Standard of Need Advisory Committee, "Report to the Commissioner of Human Services," N.J., Oct. 1990.

Tietze, C., and S.K. Henshaw, Induced Abortion. A World Review, 1986, AGI, New York, 1986.

Torres, A., and J.D. Forrest, "Why Do Women Have Abortions?" Family Planning Perspectives, 20:169-176, 1988.

-----, et al., "Public Benefits and Costs of Government Funding for Abortion," Family Planning Perspectives, 18:111-118,1986.

Trussell, J., etal., "The Impact of Restricting Medicaid Financing for Abortion," Family Planning Perspectives, 12:120-130,1980.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Characteristics of the Low-Income Population, 1970," Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 81, 1971.

-----,"Poverty in the United States: 1992," Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 185,1993.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Federal Percentages and Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, Effective October 1, 1994 September 30,1995 (Fiscal Year 1995)," Federal Register, 58:66363, 1993.

-----,"Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guide-lines," Federal Register, 59:6277-6278, 1994.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Schedule B-Fair Market Rents for Existing Housing," Federal Register, 58:51415-51469,1993.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Families on Welfare: Sharp Rise in Never-Married Women Reflects Societal Trend, GAO/HEHS-94-92, Washington, D.C., May 31,1994.

U.S. House of Representatives, Overview of Entitlement Programs: 1994 Green Book, Washington, D.C., July 15,1994.
TABLE 1

Charges and Potential Savings

The proportion of women who are poor or low-income varies considerably
among the states, as do income eligibility ceilings for Medicaid and
monthly AFDC benefits. An abortion costs at least 50% of the monthly
AFDC benefit in all but four states, and in some states, it costs more
than the entire payment. If state and federal Medicaid coverage for
abortion were restored nationwide, the states and the federal government
together would spend $137 million on abortions annually ($64 million,
state; $73 million, federal) and, as a result, save $612 million in
public medical and welfare expenditures over the following two years
($251 million, state; $361 million, federal).

 WOMEN AGED 15-44, 1990



 Proportion under
 Total number 100% of poverty
 (1) (2)

U.S. Total/National Average 58,583,247 15
ALABAMA 943,515 19
ALASKA (*) 137,688 10
ARIZONA 838,097 18
ARKANSAS 519,796 20
CALIFORNIA (*) 7,174,250 15
COLORADO 811,951 14
CONNECTICUT (*) 779,598 8
DELAWARE 161,094 10
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 165,107 18
FLORIDA 2,786,972 15
GEORGIA 1,616,465 15
HAWAII (*) 258,284 10
IDAHO 221,339 17
ILLINOIS 2,680,949 14
INDIANA 1,297,016 13
IOWA 608,366 15
KANSAS 554,470 14
KENTUCKY 866,221 20
LOUISIANA 1,001,276 26
MAINE 286,468 12
MARYLAND (*) 1,193,787 9
MASSACHUSETTS (*) 1,484,393 10
MICHIGAN 2,214,462 16
MINNESOTA 1,025,863 12
MISSISSIPPI 597,806 26
MISSOURI 1,165,751 15
MONTANA 175,928 19
NEBRASKA 352,518 13
NEVADA 277,887 12
NEW HAMPSHIRE 273,774 8
NEW JERSEY (*) 1,822,322 9
NEW MEXICO 352,279 23
NEW YORK (*) 4,295,196 15
NORTH CAROLINA (*) 1,595,178 14
NORTH DAKOTA 139,862 17
OHIO 2,531,129 15
OKLAHOMA 706,156 19
OREGON (*) 648,971 15
PENNSYLVANIA 2,687,874 13
RHODE ISLAND 238,884 11
SOUTH CAROLINA 840,617 16
SOUTH DAKOTA 149,031 18
TENNESSEE 1,156,905 16
TEXAS 4,098,999 19
UTAH 394,316 15
VERMONT (*) 136,779 12
VIRGINIA 1,534,102 12
WASHINGTON (*) 1,151,797 13
WEST VIRGINIA (*) 402,421 22
WISCONSIN 1,125,722 13
WYOMING 103,616 15

 WOMEN AGED ANUAL MEDICAID
 15-44, 1990
 INCOME ELIGIBILITY
 CEILING, 1994

 Proportion at
 100-199% of Amount
 poverty (in dollars)
 (3) (4)

U.S. Total/National Average 17 6,004
ALABAMA 21 1,968
ALASKA (*) 15 11,076
ARIZONA 20 4,164
ARKANSAS 24 3,330 (***)
CALIFORNIA (*) 17 11,208 (***)
COLORADO 17 5,052
CONNECTICUT (*) 9 9,276 (***)
DELAWARE 14 4,056
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 15 6,720 (***)
FLORIDA 19 3,636 (***)
GEORGIA 18 5,088 (***)
HAWAII (*) 15 8,544 (***)
IDAHO 25 3,804
ILLINOIS 14 5,904 (***)
INDIANA 18 3,456
IOWA 19 6,792 (***)
KANSAS 19 5,760 (***)
KENTUCKY 21 6,312 (***)
LOUISIANA 21 3,096 (***)
MAINE 18 6,636 (***)
MARYLAND (*) 11 5,208 (***)
MASSACHUSETTS (*) 10 9,300 (***)
MICHIGAN 15 6,804 (***)
MINNESOTA 15 8,508 (***)
MISSISSIPPI 24 4,416
MISSOURI 19 3,504
MONTANA 23 6,132 (***)
NEBRASKA 21 5,904 (***)
NEVADA 18 4,176
NEW HAMPSHIRE 12 7,824 (***)
NEW JERSEY (*) 10 7,092 (***)
NEW MEXICO 23 4,284
NEW YORK (*) 14 9,408 (***)
NORTH CAROLINA (*) 20 6,528 (***)
NORTH DAKOTA 23 5,580 (***)
OHIO 16 4,092
OKLAHOMA 22 5,652 (***)
OREGON (*) 19 7,356 (***)
PENNSYLVANIA 15 5,604 (***)
RHODE ISLAND 13 8,892 (***)
SOUTH CAROLINA 21 5,280
SOUTH DAKOTA 25 5,004
TENNESSEE 20 5,112 (***)
TEXAS 20 3,300 (***)
UTAH 23 6,624 (***)
VERMONT (*) 18 10,392 (***)
VIRGINIA 15 4,296 (***)
WASHINGTON (*) 17 8,004 (***)
WEST VIRGINIA (*) 22 3,480 (***)
WISCONSIN 16 8,268 (***)
WYOMING 21 4,320

 ANUAL MEDICAID AND TO FAMILIES WITH
 INCOME DEPENDENT CHILDRREN
 ELIGIBILITY
 CEILING, 1994
 (AFDC) BENEFITS
 Amount as
 percent of Maximum monthly
 poverty benefit (in dollars)
 (5) (6)

U.S. Total/National Average 49 396
ALABAMA 16 164
ALASKA (*) 72 (**) 923
ARIZONA 34 347
ARKANSAS 27 204
CALIFORNIA (*) 91 607
COLORADO 41 356
CONNECTICUT (*) 75 680
DELAWARE 33 338
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 55 420
FLORIDA 30 303
GEORGIA 41 280
HAWAII (*) 60 (**) 712
IDAHO 31 317
ILLINOIS 48 367
INDIANA 28 288
IOWA 55 426
KANSAS 47 429
KENTUCKY 51 228
LOUISIANA 25 190
MAINE 54 418
MARYLAND (*) 42 366
MASSACHUSETTS (*) 75 579
MICHIGAN 55 459
MINNESOTA 69 532
MISSISSIPPI 36 120
MISSOURI 28 292
MONTANA 50 401
NEBRASKA 48 364
NEVADA 34 348
NEW HAMPSHIRE 64 550
NEW JERSEY (*) 58 424
NEW MEXICO 35 357
NEW YORK (*) 76 577
NORTH CAROLINA (*) 53 272
NORTH DAKOTA 45 409
OHIO 33 341
OKLAHOMA 46 324
OREGON (*) 60 460
PENNSYLVANIA 45 421
RHODE ISLAND 72 554
SOUTH CAROLINA 43 200
SOUTH DAKOTA 41 417
TENNESSEE 41 185
TEXAS 27 184
UTAH 54 414
VERMONT (*) 84 638
VIRGINIA 35 354
WASHINGTON (*) 65 546
WEST VIRGINIA (*) 28 249
WISCONSIN 67 517
WYOMING 35 360

 CHARGE FOR ABORTION


 Charge as percent
 Average charge of monthly
 (in dollars) AFDC payment
 (7) (8)

U.S. Total/National Average 296 75
ALABAMA 272 166
ALASKA (*) 461 50
ARIZONA 249 72
ARKANSAS 248 122
CALIFORNIA (*) 293 48
COLORADO 309 87
CONNECTICUT (*) 374 55
DELAWARE 247 73
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 229 55
FLORIDA 271 89
GEORGIA 319 114
HAWAII (*) 422 59
IDAHO 303 96
ILLINOIS 272 74
INDIANA 288 100
IOWA 280 66
KANSAS 340 79
KENTUCKY 320 140
LOUISIANA 228 120
MAINE 328 78
MARYLAND (*) 264 72
MASSACHUSETTS (*) 330 57
MICHIGAN 352 77
MINNESOTA 270 51
MISSISSIPPI 256 213
MISSOURI 348 119
MONTANA 330 82
NEBRASKA 279 77
NEVADA 275 79
NEW HAMPSHIRE 372 68
NEW JERSEY (*) 316 75
NEW MEXICO 332 93
NEW YORK (*) 338 59
NORTH CAROLINA (*) 291 107
NORTH DAKOTA 370 90
OHIO 298 87
OKLAHOMA 281 87
OREGON (*) 248 54
PENNSYLVANIA 296 70
RHODE ISLAND 322 58
SOUTH CAROLINA 292 146
SOUTH DAKOTA 400 96
TENNESSEE 300 162
TEXAS 257 140
UTAH 298 72
VERMONT (*) 276 43
VIRGINIA 267 75
WASHINGTON (*) 270 49
WEST VIRGINIA (*) 251 101
WISCONSIN 276 53
WYOMING 378 105

 MEDICAID ABORTIONS



 Expenditures
 Number (in $000s)
 (9) (10)

U.S. Total/National Average 207,303 82,400
ALABAMA na na
ALASKA (*) 829 416
ARIZONA na na
ARKANSAS na na
CALIFORNIA (*) 111,196 40,720
COLORADO na na
CONNECTICUT (*) 6,501 1,994
DELAWARE na na
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA na na
FLORIDA na na
GEORGIA na na
HAWAII (*) 1,403 901
IDAHO na na
ILLINOIS na na
INDIANA na na
IOWA na na
KANSAS na na
KENTUCKY na na
LOUISIANA na na
MAINE na na
MARYLAND (*) 3,200 2,950
MASSACHUSETTS (*) 5,106 [+] 2,272 [+]
MICHIGAN na na
MINNESOTA ++ ++
MISSISSIPPI na na
MISSOURI na na
MONTANA na na
NEBRASKA na na
NEVADA na na
NEW HAMPSHIRE na na
NEW JERSEY (*) 13,034 7,529
NEW MEXICO na na
NEW YORK (*) 49,700 20,500
NORTH CAROLINA (*) 2,230 465
NORTH DAKOTA na na
OHIO na na
OKLAHOMA na na
OREGON (*) 3,648 841
PENNSYLVANIA na na
RHODE ISLAND na na
SOUTH CAROLINA na na
SOUTH DAKOTA na na
TENNESSEE na na
TEXAS na na
UTAH na na
VERMONT (*) 452 98
VIRGINIA ++ ++
WASHINGTON (*) 9,064 3,380
WEST VIRGINIA (*) 940 334
WISCONSIN ++ ++
WYOMING na na

 MEDCAID ABORTIONS IF ESTIMATED STATE
 EXPENDITURES
 FUNDING RESTORED AND SAVINGS IF
 ABORTION
 FUNDING RESTORED (IN
 $000s)

 Predicted
 number Expenditures
 (11) (12)

U.S. Total/National Average 331,030 64,197
ALABAMA 1,422 187
ALASKA (*) 829 208
ARIZONA 3,742 526
ARKANSAS 1,131 132
CALIFORNIA (*) 111,196 20,360
COLORADO 3,804 794
CONNECTICUT (*) 6,501 997
DELAWARE 884 197
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 4,439 988
FLORIDA 6,957 1,354
GEORGIA 8,217 1,381
HAWAII (*) 1,403 451
IDAHO 115 15
ILLINOIS 20,471 4,555
INDIANA 4,956 815
IOWA 760 126
KANSAS 2,380 435
KENTUCKY 1,465 205
LOUISIANA 1,160 141
MAINE 445 73
MARYLAND (*) 3,200 1,475
MASSACHUSETTS (*) 5,106 [+] 1,136
MICHIGAN 15,618 3,000
MINNESOTA 1,911 389
MISSISSIPPI 828 79
MISSOURI 2,311 413
MONTANA 456 59
NEBRASKA 565 100
NEVADA 1,154 257
NEW HAMPSHIRE 281 63
NEW JERSEY (*) 13,034 3,765
NEW MEXICO 032 75
NEW YORK (*) 49,700 10,250
NORTH CAROLINA (*) 2,230 164
NORTH DAKOTA 154 21
OHIO 9,034 1,572
OKLAHOMA 870 116
OREGON (*) 3,648 317
PENNSYLVANIA 11,690 2,379
RHODE ISLAND 922 183
SOUTH CAROLINA 1,081 141
SOUTH DAKOTA 187 27
TENNESSEE 1,040 155
TEXAS 4,487 733
UTAH 227 27
VERMONT (*) 452 38
VIRGINIA 4,513 1,004
WASHINGTON (*) 9,064 1,623
WEST VIRGINIA (*) 940 85
WISCONSIN 3,369 603
WYOMING 49 8

 ESTIMATED STATE ESTIMATED FEDERAL
 EXPENDITURES
 AND SAVINGS IF EXPENDITURES AND
 ABORTION SAVINGS IF ABORTION
 FUNDING FUNDING RESTORED (IN
 RESTORED (IN $000s)
 $000s)


 Savings Expenditures
 (13) (14)

U.S. Total/National Average 251,394 73,269
ALABAMA 475 446
ALASKA (*) 561 208
ARIZONA 1,786 1,139
ARKANSAS 420 371
CALIFORNIA (*) 100,173 20,360
COLORADO 3,096 899
CONNECTICUT (*) 6,744 997
DELAWARE 684 197
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 4,063 988
FLORIDA 5,087 1,742
GEORGIA 4,767 2,275
HAWAII (*) 831 451
IDAHO 54 36
ILLINOIS 14,143 4,555
INDIANA 2,635 1,390
IOWA 343 212
KANSAS 1,379 624
KENTUCKY 538 447
LOUISIANA 373 375
MAINE 265 125
MARYLAND (*) 4,453 1,475
MASSACHUSETTS (*) 8,914 1,136
MICHIGAN 12,179 3,950
MINNESOTA 1,577 462
MISSISSIPPI 192 290
MISSOURI 1,213 616
MONTANA 230 144
NEBRASKA 339 152
NEVADA 1,092 257
NEW HAMPSHIRE 186 63
NEW JERSEY (*) 11,259 3,765
NEW MEXICO 294 206
NEW YORK (*) 30,081 10,250
NORTH CAROLINA (*) 881 301
NORTH DAKOTA 73 47
OHIO 6,200 2,448
OKLAHOMA 340 271
OREGON (*) 1,972 524
PENNSYLVANIA 4,574 2,823
RHODE ISLAND 653 228
SOUTH CAROLINA 371 340
SOUTH DAKOTA 82 57
TENNESSEE 622 308
TEXAS 2,299 1,264
UTAH 104 74
VERMONT (*) 151 60
VIRGINIA 3,298 1,004
WASHINGTON (*) 6,547 1,757
WEST VIRGINIA (*) 370 249
WISCONSIN 2,401 897
WYOMING 30 14

 ESTIMATED FEDERAL
 EXPENDITURES AND
 SAVINGS IF ABORTION
 FUNDING RESTORED (IN
 $000s)


 Savings
 (15)

U.S. Total/National Average 360,539
ALABAMA 1,549
ALASKA (*) 687
ARIZONA 5,042
ARKANSAS 1,544
CALIFORNIA (*) 123,787
COLORADO 4,691
CONNECTICUT (*) 8,610
DELAWARE 930
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 5,419
FLORIDA 8,534
GEORGIA 10,225
HAWAII (*) 1,151
IDAHO 161
ILLINOIS 19,563
INDIANA 5,746
IOWA 773
KANSAS 2,646
KENTUCKY 1,613
LOUISIANA 1,331
MAINE 567
MARYLAND (*) 5,577
MASSACHUSETTS (*) 11,308
MICHIGAN 19,792
MINNESOTA 2,336
MISSISSIPPI 914
MISSOURI 2,489
MONTANA 684
NEBRASKA 668
NEVADA 1,424
NEW HAMPSHIRE 264
NEW JERSEY (*) 14,339
NEW MEXICO 999
NEW YORK (*) 39,619
NORTH CAROLINA (*) 2,049
NORTH DAKOTA 202
OHIO 11,890
OKLAHOMA 1,054
OREGON (*) 4,083
PENNSYLVANIA 6,871
RHODE ISLAND 1,070
SOUTH CAROLINA 1,216
SOUTH DAKOTA 226
TENNESSEE 1,553
TEXAS 5,289
UTAH 352
VERMONT (*) 290
VIRGINIA 4,534
WASHINGTON (*) 9,001
WEST VIRGINIA (*) 1,467
WISCONSIN 4,345
WYOMING 65

Sources: Columns 1, 2 and 3-AGI, data from a special tabulation of 1990
U.S. Census, 1994;

Column 4-National Governors' Association, "State Coverage of Pregnant
Women and Children-July 1994," MCH Update, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1994,
Table 3;

Column 5-calculated on the basis of the federal poverty standard for a
family of three ($15,400 in Alaska, $14,170 in Hawaii and $12,320 in the
remaining states) published in U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, "Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines," Federal
Register, 59:6277-6278, 1994;

Column 6-U.S. House of Representatives, Overview of Entitlement
Programs: 1994 Green Book, Washington, D.C., July 15, 1994, Table 10-11,
pp. 366-367;

Column 7-AGI, tabulations of responses of nonhospital facilities to the
1993 AGI Abortion Provider Survey, 1994;

Column 8-calculated by dividing column 7 by column 6;

Columns 9 and 10-D. Daley and R.B. Gold, "Public Funding for
Contraceptive Sterilization and Abortion Services, Fiscal Year 1992,"
Family Planning Perspectives, 25:244-251,1993. (Figures for
Massachusetts are estimated based on Medicaid abortion rate reported in
ACT, Abortions and the Poor: Private Morality, Public Responsibility,
New York, 1979, Figure 14, p. 19);

Column 11-for states currently funding abortions, Daley and Gold, 1993,
op. cit.; other states were assumed to fund the same proportion of
abortions as were covered by Medicaid in 1977, reported in AGI, 1979,
op. cit.;

Columns 12 and 14-for states currently funding abortions, the same
expenditures for abortions as as were reported for FY 1992 in Daley and
Gold, op. cit.; for other states, assumes an average abortion cost of
$445, which was the 1992 average cost of $396 in funding states adjusted
for inflation to 1994.

Columns 13 and 15-savings calculated using the benefit/cost ratios for
each state, which range from 2.2 to 8.9, as reported in A. Torres et
al., "Public Benefits and Costs of Government Funding for Abortion,"
Family Planning Perspectives, 18:111-118,1986; Distribution of
expenditures and savings to state and federal governments is based on
the FY 1995 federal matching percentages published in U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, "Federal Percentages and Federal Medical
Assistance Percentages, Effective October 1, 1994-September 30, 1993
(Fiscal Year 1995)," Federal Register, 58:66363, 1993.

Notes:

(*)States in which most abortions were covered by Medicaid in FY 1992.

(**)the poverty guidelines for Alaska and Hawaii differ from those in
other states. In Alaska, the poverty level for a family of three is
$15,400; in Hawaii, it is $14,170. In ths other states, it is $12,320.

(***)States taht extend coverage to the medically needy in addition to
AFDC recipients. In seven states-- Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Montana,
North Carolina, Oklahoma and Tennessee--the eligibility ceiling for the
medically needy is lower than the ceiling for AFDC recipients, and
therefore the ceiling for AFDC recipients is shown.

(+)Estimated. See Sources.

(++)States that paid for abortions in very limited cases beyond life
endangerment (seven abortions in Minnesota, 147 in Virginia and six in
Wisconsin) in FY 1992; these expenditures are not included in
calculations.

na= not aplicable.

Column 4-Medicaid eligibility ceilings are as of July 1994 for a family
of three.

Column 6-AFDC benefits are for a one-parent family of three.

Column 7-average charge is for an abortion peformed at 10 weeks.

Columns 13 and 15-estimated savings assume taht 20% of Medicaid-eligible
women are unable to obtain abortions when Medicaid excludes abortion
services. If a larger proportion is unable to get abortions, then
savings from providing abortion services would be greater than those
shown here. State savings shown in Column 13 include only those savings
related to prenatal care and delivery services and health and welfare
expenditures for two years after a birth; they do not include state
savings of abortion expenditures that would be paid instead by the
federal government (for states now funding abortions with their own
money).
COPYRIGHT 1995 Guttmacher Institute
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1995 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:The Politics of Blame: Family Planning, Abortion and the Poor
Article Type:Topic Overview
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 1995
Words:5273
Previous Article:Making the decision to have an abortion.
Next Article:Gaps in financial assistance.
Topics:


Related Articles
An economic approach to abortion demand.
A note on "An Economic Approach to Abortion Demand." (response to Donna S. Rothstein, The American Economist, vol. 36, no. 1, p. 53)
Percentage of respondents, by selected measures related to abortion experience and attitudes, by age, race/ethnicity and county of residence.
Clear and compelling evidence: the Polish Tribunal on Abortion Rights.
The accessibility of abortion services in the United States, 2001. (Articles).
Illegal abortions safer with higher socio-economic status, Latin America.
The economics of sexual health.
The human drama of abortion: a global search for consensus.
An overview of clandestine abortion in Latin America.
Confronting our ambivalence: the need for second-trimester abortion advocacy.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters