Abortion Fangqi Presentation Stamped

Dalhousie University
From the SelectedWorks of Stéphane Mechoulan
Winter 2023
Abortion Legalization and the Fabric of American

College Students presentation.pdf
Stéphane Mechoulan, Dalhousie University
Available at: https://works.bepress.com/stephane_mechoulan/29/

Abortion Legalization and the Fabric of American
College Students
Stéphane Mechoulan
Dalhousie University
Faculty of Management
February 13, 2023

Introduction
▶ Analyze the consequences of abortion legalization on the

socio-demographic characteristics of American college and
university students.
▶ Reveal whether abortion legalization contributed to promoting
or degrading social mobility and gender equality in higher
education.
▶ Two factors enable this study:
▶ Quasi-experimental setting with staggered policy adoption:
legal access to abortion in the U.S. varied chronologically
across states.
▶ Data: the Freshman Survey - a relatively unexplored collection
of surveys that have sampled first-year college and university
students since 1966.
1 / 39
Introduction
Add to empirical literature linking abortion legalization to a wide

range of unintended social outcomes:
▶ Levine et al. (1999); Ananat et al. (2007): reduced fertility -
particularly out-of-wedlock fertility.
▶ Gruber et al. (1999): reduced a number of adverse outcomes.
▶ Ananat et al. (2009): increased the likelihood of college
graduation, lowered rates of welfare use, and lowered the odds
of being a single parent decades later through selection.
2 / 39
Introduction
The questions here are less amenable to being guided by theory:

▶ The effects on participation in higher education depend on the
unobservable characteristics underlying the distributions of
unintended pregnancies, termination decisions, and illegal and
self-induced abortions.
▶ It is not intuitive whether the effects would be more
significant among females or among males.
▶ Abortion reforms are consistent with two forms of
participation effects and one form of sorting effect.
3 / 39
Introduction
Methods
▶ Use difference-in-differences (DiD) modeling in the context of

‘staggered adoption’ of institutional changes.
▶ Supplement the traditional, linear regression based two-way
fixed effects and event study approaches with the non-
parametric DiD estimators and diagnostic tools proposed by
De Chaisemartin and d’Haultfoeuille (2020); De Chaisemartin
and D’Haultfœuille (2021).
▶ Take heterogeneous treatment effects into account.
4 / 39
Introduction
Results
▶ Abortion legalization contributed to a marked degradation of

social mobility.
▶ It led the share of low parental education students to decrease
for both females and males by some four percentage points.
▶ The effects are concentrated in private, non-selective four year
colleges: relative crowding out of low parental education
students reached double digits.
▶ Much of these findings remain when looking at the impact on
the increasing proportion of high parental income students.
▶ There is evidence that these results stem from participation
effects as opposed to mere sorting effects within a constant
profile of students.
▶ No effects on the gender or religious mix of students appear.
5 / 39
Data
Freshmen Survey
▶ Freshmen Survey: Cooperative Institutional Research Protocol

(CIRP) survey program housed by the Higher Education
Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA since 1973.
▶ Information: freshman students’ background characteristics,
high school experiences, attitudes, behaviors, and
expectations for college.
▶ Large sample size: from over 240,000 observations per cohort
in the 1960s to over 300,000 in the 1970s.
▶ Years: from 1966 (survey started) to 1980 (selected
arbitrarily).
6 / 39
Data
Summary Statistics
N Mean
Full Sample: 4,267,836
Female 4,267,836 0.481
High Parental Income 3,582,564 0.087
First Generation College Student 4,209,680 0.390
Two College Exposed Parents 4,141,225 0.186
Catholic 3,827,841 0.307
Home 100 Miles or Less from College 3,209,964 0.567
Female: 2,053,995
Catholic 1,861,752 0.305
Male: 2,213,841
Catholic 1,966,089 0.309
7 / 39
Data
Limitations
▶ There is no information on home state before 1982.

▶ This complicates the interpretation of estimation results:
observed effects may be decomposed into participation effects
and sorting effects.
▶ Using the full sample may lead to an imputation error in
assigning legal regimes to observations based on students’
institution location.
▶ The choice of studying out of one’s state is endogenous.
Restricting the sample to students studying close enough to
home would not result in a representative subset.
▶ I will refer to results from that subset as circumstantial pieces
of evidence only (relatively less mobile).
8 / 39
Data
Local
Figure: Proportion of Freshmen Studying 100 Miles or Less Away from

Home, by Abortion at Age 18 Adoption Time
(a) Female (b) Male
9 / 39
Data
Limitations
▶ The survey does not purport to be a representative sample -

institutions choose to participate (300 to 400 each year).
▶ Within each state, participation is independent of the timing
of abortion legalization.
▶ Test this hypothesis by running DiD models using the
proportion of colleges with different characteristics as the
outcome of interest.
▶ No compelling significant effect appears.
10 / 39
Data
Limitations
▶ The response rates differ across colleges.

▶ Norms sub-sample: its first-time full-time student population
with a certain minimum response rate (not representative).
▶ Students from more selective institutions have been
represented in higher proportions.
▶ I include the entire sample in the analysis.
11 / 39
Data
Socio-economic Variables
Parental income: an ordinal variable encoded by income bracket
categories - inflation adjustment will result in undesirable jumps.
▶ Any construction of the low income variable was too

unreliable to be included in the analysis.
▶ Create a high income variable:
1966-1969: > $30,000 ; 1970-1972: > $35,000 ; 1973-1975: > $40,000 ;
> $50,000 afterwards
12 / 39
Data
Socio-economic Variables
▶ First generation: either parent had been college exposed

(including students who answered for one parent but left
blank the answer for the other parent).
▶ High parental education variable: both parents graduated from
college (requiring information on both parents to be present).
13 / 39
Data
Socio-demographic Variables
▶ Catholic dummy variable: drawn from the original variable

coding for religious affiliation (Protestant, Roman Catholic,
Jewish, Other, None).
14 / 39
Data
Coding of Legal Regimes
▶ This study focuses on abortion legalization for women age 18

(most relevant for entering college students), versus age 21 in
the literature.
▶ Age: how old will you be on December 31st?
▶ For 21% of the female student body (who report an age of 19
and above), legal abortion would have been available for the
entire portion of the calendar year prior to orientation.
▶ For approximately 55% (75% of the 73% who report an age of
18), legal abortion would have been available for some part of
the calendar year prior to orientation.
▶ Group states in four categories: early adopters (Alaska,
Hawaii, New York, and Washington), California, most states
and Washington D.C., and late adopters (Massachusetts,
Missouri, North Dakota, and South Carolina).
15 / 39
Data
Assigning Legal Regimes to Observations
▶ Because any coding procedure will lead to some error on the

relevant timing of adoption, the average of instantaneous and
dynamic effects is expected to be measured more precisely.
▶ Treat the legal environment as that which describes the state
of the institution, not dependent on the age.
▶ The assignment is lagged by one year - abortion legalization
taking place in calendar year x is coded as relevant for college
admission starting in x + 1.
16 / 39
Data
Alternative Specifications
▶ Include state-specific time trends: absorb confounding factors

evolving approximately linearly within states over time. But
recent doubts as to whether this should be the preferred
specification.
▶ Add an extra control: the availability of the birth control pill
at age 18 (another independent, state-level staggered variable
having an impact on fertility)
17 / 39
Data
First Generation
Figure: Proportion of First Generation Freshmen, by Abortion at Age 18

Adoption Time
(a) Female (b) Male
18 / 39
Data
High Education
Figure: Proportion of Freshmen with Two College Exposed Parents, by

Abortion at Age 18 Adoption Time
(a) Female (b) Male
19 / 39
Data
High Income
Figure: Proportion of High Parental Income Freshmen, by Abortion at

Age 18 Adoption Time
(a) Female (b) Male
20 / 39
Data
Catholic
Figure: Proportion of Catholic Freshmen, by Abortion at Age 18

Adoption Time
(a) Female (b) Male
21 / 39
Data
October CPS
Use October CPS to complement HERI when checking for the
proportion of females among freshman students.
22 / 39
Data
October CPS
(a) Female (b) Male
23 / 39
Methods
Two Way Fixed Effects
▶ Under the standard common trends assumption, the TWFE

estimator corresponds to a weighted sum of the Average
Treatment Effects (ATE) in each group and period.
▶ In the presence of heterogeneous treatment effects, weights
may be negative. The TWFE estimator may then be negative
even when all ATE are positive.
▶ TWFE may not be robust to heterogeneous effects. Use the
diagnostic tools based on to gauge the magnitude of the
problem.
▶ The proportions and sum of negative weights in the TWFE
estimator.
▶ σ fe : whether the DGP is compatible with an average of the
various implicit ATT equal to zero.
▶ σ : whether the DGP is compatible with all ATT being of a
fe
different sign than the TWFE estimator.
24 / 39
Methods
Event Study
▶ Event study: TWFE with leads and lags to conduct causal
inference about treatment effect dynamics.
▶ It breaks down when groups treated at different times have
treatment effects characterized by different shapes.
▶ With variation in treatment timing, the coefficient on a given
lead or lag can be contaminated by effects from other periods,
and apparent pretrends can arise solely from treatment effects
heterogeneity.
▶ Use eventdd command with the caveat that event study
models have been shown to be underidentified or identified
only up to a linear trend when all (remaining) units adopt
treatment at the same time.
▶ Use accumulate option to accumulate leads (the placebos)
and lags (the dynamic treatment effects) beyond certain
maximum lead and lag periods.
25 / 39
Methods
Coping with Heterogeneity
The main results are derived using the two DiD estimators
computed by did multiplegt command (De Chaisemartin and
d’Haultfoeuille, 2020; De Chaisemartin and D’Haultfœuille, 2021).
▶ DIDM - instantaneous:
weighted average, across all pairs of consecutive time periods
t, of DiDs that compares the outcome evolution among the
switches to the same evolution among control groups.
tru - dynamic:
▶ δ̂+
weighted average, across time periods t, of DIDs comparing
the t − l − 1 to t outcome evolution, between groups whose
treatment changed for the first time in t − l, the first-time
switchers, and the groups of the not-yet switchers up to t.
26 / 39
Results
Parental Education
Table: Effect of Abortion Legalization at Age 18 on the Proportion of
First Generation Freshmen
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Panel A: Effect on the Proportion of First Generation Freshmen among Female Freshmen
TWFE -0.007 0.007 0.027 -0.024*** 0.031* -0.062** -0.010 -0.029*** -0.087***
(0.012) (0.013) (0.021) (0.006) (0.018) (0.026) (0.012) (0.008) (0.028)
Sum of Negative Weights -.48 -.723 -.492 -.474 -.693 -.446 -.442 -.524 -.604
σ fe .002 .002 .011 .007 .009 .016 .003 .008 .022
σ fe .005 .004 .024 .017 .019 .037 .008 .018 .042
DIDM -.015 -.042 .006 -.024 -.001 -.031 .012 -.037 -.078
(.018) (.03) (.031) (.022) (.019) (.028) (.011) (.064) (.062)
Placebos Significant 0/7 1/2 0/7 1/7 0/5 0/5 0/7 0/7 0/5
p-value Joint Test .002 .095 .06 .001 0 .828 .186 .04 .001
tru
δ̂+ -.040** -.056*** -.008 -.043 -.004 -.056** .007 -.081 -.122**
(.018) (.015) (.026) (.027) (.027) (.027) (.013) (.067) (.053)
p-value Joint Test .139 .654 .061 .001 .683 .01 .288 .006 .01
Panel B: Effect on the Proportion of First Generation Freshmen among Male Freshmen
TWFE -0.005 -0.004 -0.006 -0.012 0.043** -0.063** 0.006 -0.020*** -0.095***
(0.008) (0.005) (0.014) (0.008) (0.018) (0.025) (0.015) (0.006) (0.030)
σ fe .002 .001 .002 .004 .013 .018 .002 .006 .026
σ fe .004 .002 .006 .009 .024 .043 .005 .013 .049
DIDM -.017 -.05 -.005 -.032* -.007 -.03 .005 -.044 -.057
(.016) (.036) (.02) (.017) (.01) (.023) (.015) (.034) (.058)
tru
δ̂+ -.043*** -.059* -.025 -.050* -.012 -.055* .006 -.106** -.150**
(.014) (.032) (.024) (.028) (.027) (.031) (.016) (.054) (.064)
p-value Joint Test .046 .531 .042 .001 0 0 .312 .004 .6
27 / 39
Results
Parental Education
Figure: DIDpl
+,l , DIDM and DID+,l Estimators
Placebo, Immediate, and Dynamic Effects on the Proportion of First
Generation Freshmen
(a) Female (b) Male
28 / 39
Results
Parental Education

Freshman with Two College Exposed Parents
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Panel A: Effect on the Proportion of Freshman with Two College Exposed Parents among Female Freshmen
TWFE -0.001 -0.009 -0.025 0.011 -0.023 0.032 0.003 0.016* 0.059**
(0.006) (0.008) (0.015) (0.007) (0.016) (0.019) (0.012) (0.008) (0.026)
σ fe 0 .002 .01 .003 .006 .008 .001 .004 .015
σ fe .001 .005 .022 .008 .014 .019 .002 .01 .028
DIDM .003 .017 -.012 .009 -.019 .02 -.008 .003 .036
(.012) (.021) (.024) (.015) (.038) (.015) (.009) (.03) (.032)
p-value Joint Test 0 .002 .021 .089 0 .621 .335 0 .002
tru
δ̂+ .013 .022 -.019 .018 -.031 .035** -.01 .039 .073**
(.011) (.018) (.022) (.017) (.023) (.015) (.011) (.038) (.033)
p-value Joint Test .131 .326 .96 .859 .635 0 .083 .534 .242
Panel B: Effect on the Proportion of Freshman with Two College Exposed Parents among Male Freshmen
TWFE 0.002 -0.002 -0.006 0.010 -0.023* 0.036** 0.002 0.014* 0.068***
(0.005) (0.004) (0.006) (0.006) (0.013) (0.018) (0.010) (0.007) (0.021)
σ fe .001 0 .002 .003 .007 .01 0 .004 .019
σ fe .002 .001 .005 .007 .013 .025 .001 .009 .035
DIDM .015* .026 .002 .022** .005 .02 -.005 .034* .047
(.008) (.036) (.006) (.009) (.014) (.014) (.009) (.02) (.035)
p-value Joint Test .005 .007 .021 0 0 .343 .264 0 0
tru
δ̂+ .024** .025 .001 .029** -.003 .036** -.01 .073** .105***
(.008) (.029) (.008) (.014) (.021) (.016) (.01) (.032) (.037)
p-value Joint Test .091 .04 .247 .002 0 0 .2 .007 .978
29 / 39
Results
Parental Education
Figure: DIDpl
Placebo, Immediate, and Dynamic Effects on the Proportion of Freshmen
with Two College Exposed Parents
(a) Female (b) Male
30 / 39
Results
Parental Education
(a) Female (b) Male
31 / 39
Results
Parental Income
High Parental Income Freshmen
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Panel A: Effect on the Proportion of High Parental Income Freshmen among Female Freshmen
TWFE 0.001 -0.001 -0.012 0.006 -0.021** 0.025* -0.002 0.016*** 0.049***
(0.006) (0.007) (0.014) (0.004) (0.009) (0.013) (0.004) (0.006) (0.018)
σ fe 0 0 .005 .002 .006 .006 .001 .004 .012
σ fe .001 .001 .011 .004 .013 .015 .001 .01 .023
DIDM .010* .012** -.001 .015 -.013 .022** -.001 .017 .050**
(.006) (.006) (.011) (.011) (.022) (.01) (.006) (.022) (.023)
p-value Joint Test .859 .075 0 .568 .024 .293 .086 .001 .042
tru
δ̂+ .012* .009** -.007 .015 -.042** .032*** -.001 .027 .066***
(.007) (.004) (.013) (.011) (.021) (.01) (.007) (.023) (.023)
p-value Joint Test .198 .649 .888 .077 .088 .09 .126 0 .011
Panel B: Effect on the Proportion of High Parental Income Freshmen among Male Freshmen
TWFE 0.004 0.002 -0.001 0.008*** -0.016 0.027** 0.002 0.013*** 0.045***
(0.004) (0.006) (0.005) (0.003) (0.010) (0.012) (0.004) (0.004) (0.014)
σ fe .001 .001 .001 .002 .005 .008 .001 .004 .012
σ fe .003 .001 .001 .005 .009 .019 .002 .008 .023
DIDM .012* .011 .005 .018 .001 .015 0 .028** .035*
(.007) (.009) (.004) (.011) (.01) (.012) (.008) (.012) (.021)
p-value Joint Test .206 0 .734 .103 0 .811 .963 0 0
tru
δ̂+ .012** .007 .002 .016* -.019 .027* -.005 .043** .069***
(.006) (.013) (.005) (.009) (.016) (.014) (.008) (.017) (.021)
32 / 39
Results
Parental Income
Figure: DIDpl
Placebo, Immediate, and Dynamic Effects on the Proportion of High
Parental Income Freshmen
(a) Female (b) Male
33 / 39
Results
Parental Income
(a) Female (b) Male
34 / 39
Results
Gender Mix

Female Freshman
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Effect on the Proportion of Female Freshman
TWFE -0.006 -0.010 0.001 -0.009 -0.019 0.006 -0.004 -0.022 -0.024
(0.009) (0.011) (0.007) (0.011) (0.019) (0.011) (0.014) (0.017) (0.022)
σ fe .002 .003 0 .003 .005 .002 .001 .006 .006
σ .005 .005 .001 .007 .011 .004 .003 .014 .012
fe
DIDM .02 -.013 .001 .028 .008 .049** .014 .032 .066
(.014) (.053) (.02) (.02) (.032) (.019) (.019) (.02) (.044)
p-value Joint Test .019 .241 .324 .012 .001 .104 .179 0 .031
tru
δ̂+ 0 -.026 -.021 .002 -.002 .034** -.003 .008 .038
(.014) (.05) (.019) (.015) (.025) (.017) (.022) (.017) (.036)
p-value Joint Test .184 .141 .6 .133 .004 .006 .097 .224 .234
35 / 39
Results
Gender Mix
▶ Some college bound women with an unintended pregnancy

being able to get back on track, but if so, from an aggregate
perspective, at the expense of other women.
▶ Similarly for men who could go to college rather than work to
support an unintended family.
36 / 39
Results
Religious Mix
Catholic Freshmen
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Panel A: Effect on the Proportion of Catholics among Female Freshmen
TWFE -0.000 -0.001 0.010 -0.014** 0.023 -0.033* -0.001 -0.023 -0.073*
(0.006) (0.007) (0.015) (0.006) (0.022) (0.019) (0.009) (0.018) (0.042)
σ fe 0 0 .004 .004 .007 .008 0 .006 .018
σ fe 0 .001 .009 .01 .014 .018 0 .014 .034
DIDM .004 -.011 -.01 .002 -.007 -.005 .036** -.031 -.066
(.011) (.008) (.026) (.015) (.048) (.028) (.015) (.032) (.056)
p-value Joint Test .003 . .028 .238 .223 .76 .382 .008 .032
tru
δ̂+ 0 .006 .021 -.007 .006 -.023 .037** -.062** -.098**
(.007) (.02) (.014) (.011) (.062) (.038) (.015) (.027) (.049)
p-value Joint Test .962 . .599 .772 .627 0 .215 .903 0
Panel B: Effect on the Proportion of Catholics among Male Freshmen
TWFE 0.014** 0.012 0.008 0.007 0.044*** -0.032* 0.019 -0.011 -0.081**
(0.007) (0.007) (0.010) (0.007) (0.016) (0.016) (0.015) (0.014) (0.033)
σ fe .005 .003 .003 .002 .013 .009 .006 .003 .022
σ fe .011 .006 .007 .005 .024 .019 .014 .007 .039
DIDM .001 0 -.012 .004 .004 0 .040** -.047* -.085*
(.013) (.049) (.021) (.021) (.024) (.036) (.017) (.024) (.047)
p-value Joint Test 0 . .014 0 .319 .037 .03 .023 .011
tru
δ̂+ .001 .021 .014 -.004 .005 -.012 .039*** -.080*** -.127***
(.009) (.019) (.018) (.015) (.044) (.046) (.013) (.024) (.047)
p-value Joint Test .039 . .911 .042 .165 0 .506 .463 0
37 / 39
Results
Religious Mix
(a) Female (b) Male

▶ Empirical test for Akerloff et al. (1996)’s argument: abortion
legalization would reshuffle the cards at the expense of
conservative types and motherhood-oriented women.
▶ The evidence on the overall proportion does not bear it out,
echoing a result on improved life satisfaction among Catholic
women following abortion legalization (Pezzini, 2005).
38 / 39
Conclusion
▶ Abortion legalization increased the proportion of privileged
students, particularly in private, non-selective colleges, at the
expense of students from modest backgrounds.
▶ These effects affected boys and girls in qualitatively similar
ways, echoing a symmetry found by Hock (2007) in the
context of access to the pill.
▶ The proportion of Catholic women attending college was
unaffected by abortion legalization (the same for Catholic
men).
▶ Extensions:
▶ Variables in HERI data: students’ high school records and
experiences, subjective attributes – short-term plans, long-term
goals, motivations, aspirations, attitudes, or personality traits.
But there would be interpretation problems.
▶ Impact of abortion legalization on 1970s college completion
rates by gender and race.
39 / 39
References I
Akerloff, G. et al. (1996). An analysis of out-of-wedlock
childbearing in the united states. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics 111 (2), 277–317.
Ananat, E. O., J. Gruber, and P. Levine (2007). Abortion
legalization and life-cycle fertility. Journal of Human
Resources 42 (2), 375–397.
Ananat, E. O., J. Gruber, P. B. Levine, and D. Staiger (2009).
Abortion and selection. The Review of Economics and
Statistics 91 (1), 124–136.
De Chaisemartin, C. and X. d’Haultfoeuille (2020). Two-way fixed
effects estimators with heterogeneous treatment effects.
American Economic Review 110 (9), 2964–96.
De Chaisemartin, C. and X. D’Haultfœuille (2021).
Difference-in-differences estimators of intertemporal treatment
effects. Working paper.
References II
Gruber, J., P. B. Levine, and D. Staiger (1999). Abortion

legalization and child living circumstances: Who is the ‘marginal
child’ ?
Hock, H. (2007). The pill and the college attainment of american
women and men. Working paper, Available at SSRN 1023042.
Levine, P. B., D. Staiger, T. J. Kane, and D. J. Zimmerman
(1999). Roe v. wade and american fertility.
Pezzini, S. (2005). The effect of women’s rights on women’s
welfare: Evidence from a natural experiment. The Economic
Journal 115 (502), C208 – C227.

Abortion Fangqi Presentation Stamped

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abortion Fangqi Presentation Stamped

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dalhousie University

From the SelectedWorks of Stéphane Mechoulan

Abortion Legalization and the Fabric of American

Available at: https://works.bepress.com/stephane_mechoulan/29/

February 13, 2023

▶ Analyze the consequences of abortion legalization on the

Add to empirical literature linking abortion legalization to a wide

The questions here are less amenable to being guided by theory:

▶ Use difference-in-differences (DiD) modeling in the context of

▶ Abortion legalization contributed to a marked degradation of

▶ Freshmen Survey: Cooperative Institutional Research Protocol

▶ There is no information on home state before 1982.

Figure: Proportion of Freshmen Studying 100 Miles or Less Away from

(a) Female (b) Male

▶ The survey does not purport to be a representative sample -

▶ The response rates differ across colleges.

▶ Any construction of the low income variable was too

▶ First generation: either parent had been college exposed

▶ Catholic dummy variable: drawn from the original variable

▶ This study focuses on abortion legalization for women age 18

▶ Because any coding procedure will lead to some error on the

▶ Include state-specific time trends: absorb confounding factors

Figure: Proportion of First Generation Freshmen, by Abortion at Age 18

(a) Female (b) Male

Figure: Proportion of Freshmen with Two College Exposed Parents, by

(a) Female (b) Male

Figure: Proportion of High Parental Income Freshmen, by Abortion at

(a) Female (b) Male

Figure: Proportion of Catholic Freshmen, by Abortion at Age 18

(a) Female (b) Male

(a) Female (b) Male

▶ Under the standard common trends assumption, the TWFE

(a) Female (b) Male

Table: Effect of Abortion Legalization at Age 18 on the Proportion of

(a) Female (b) Male

(a) Female (b) Male

(a) Female (b) Male

(a) Female (b) Male

Table: Effect of Abortion Legalization at Age 18 on the Proportion of

Effect on the Proportion of Female Freshman

▶ Some college bound women with an unintended pregnancy

(a) Female (b) Male

Gruber, J., P. B. Levine, and D. Staiger (1999). Abortion

You might also like