Political, Ideological and Economic Determinants of Abortion Position: An Empirical Analysis of Stale Legislatures and Governors By LEO H. KAHANH* ABSTRACT. The Supreme Court's decisions in the 1989 Websteranti 1992 Casey cases shifted the focus of abortion legislation from the federal to the state level. In light of this shift, the factors that affect the position taken by state level otRce holders on abortion is examined using state level data. Results of a probit analysis show that a governor's position on abortion is significantly influenced by the governor's ideology as well as the abortion demand of his or her constituency. Similar probit analyses for state senates and stale houses shows that a consti- tuenc>''s abortion demand as well as factors representing the constituency's demand for access to legal abortion services significantly affect the position both legislative bodies take on abonion. Policy maker's ideology is found to play a significant role in shaping state senates' position on abortion, but not the positions of state houses'. This last result is consistent with tbe proposition that policy makers who have a narrow constituency, such as state house members, have less freedom to make decisions based on their own ideology and are more beholden to the views of their constituency, all else equal. I Introduction THE U.S. StiPRE.ME COURT'S 1973 Hoe v Wade decision, that interpreted the con- stitutional right to privacy to include a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, gave rise to perhaps the most intense, divisive debate in the U.S. today. The debate has been further complicated by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the 1989 case Webster v Reproductive Health Services, (492, U.S. 490) and tbe related 1992 decision Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v- Casey, (112, S. Ct. 2791). In essence, these decisions bolster pro-life groups' efforts by allowing states to enact legislation restricting or regulating abortion (e.g. mandatory 24 hour waiting periods) wben such legislation does not pose an "undue burden" on women. The dispute (jver abortion rights, which has • [Leo H. Kabane, Plil)., is assistant professor of economics at California State t^fiiversuy. Hay- ward, CA 9-i'>42.] Thanks are expressed lo Chuck Haird, GreR Christainsen, Tony Lima, Nan Maxwell, Steve Shmanske and anonymous referees for cogent and helpful sugj^estions. Anii'rican Journal of Economics and Sociiilogj', Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jf Iv. 199 i) © 199'i American Journal uf Economics and SocioloRy, Inc.