Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

Share

.2010 Mar;100(1):98-129.
doi: 10.1257/aer.100.1.98.

"Momma's Got the Pill": How Anthony Comstock and Griswold v. Connecticut Shaped US Childbearing

Affiliations

"Momma's Got the Pill": How Anthony Comstock and Griswold v. Connecticut Shaped US Childbearing

Martha J Bailey. Am Econ Rev.2010 Mar.

Abstract

The 1960s ushered in a new era in US demographic history characterized by significantly lower fertility rates and smaller family sizes. What catalyzed these changes remains a matter of considerable debate. This paper exploits idiosyncratic variation in the language of "Comstock" statutes, enacted in the late 1800s, to quantify the role of the birth control pill in this transition. Almost 50 years after the contraceptive pill appeared on the US market, this analysis provides new evidence that it accelerated the post-1960 decline in marital fertility.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

F<sc>igure</sc> 1.
Figure 1.. US Fertility and Children Ever Born from 1895to 1985
Notes: The outcome variables are the period fertility rate (and separately for white women) and the mean self-reported number of children by birth cohort. Mean children ever born excludes women who had no children. Birth cohorts are indexed to year of birth and increased by 25 years. (For instance, the birth cohort of 1870 corresponds to the year 1895.) Computations using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series census weights.Source: Annual fertility rates are calculated using historical statistics,http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/t001x01.pdf. The mean number of children ever born per woman is calculated using a sample of ever-married women ages 41 to 70 in the 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1980 IPUMS (Steven Ruggles et al. 2007).
F<sc>igure</sc> 2.
Figure 2.. Distribution of Children Ever Born by Year-of-Birth Cohort
Notes: The outcome variable is the proportion of women born in a specific year who report a given number of children. This variable is created using the question of self-reported children ever born excluding stillbirths, adopted children, and step children. In 1960 this question was asked only of ever-married women, so I exclude never-married women in later census years for consistency. I also top-code children ever born at 12 in 1960 for consistency with the later census years. Year of birth is obtained by subtracting age at the time of the census from the year of observation.Sample: Ever-married women ages 41 to 50 residing in the coterminous United States.Source: 1960–1990 IPUMS (Ruggles et al. 2007).
F<sc>igure</sc> 3.
Figure 3.
Total and Marginal Cost of Averting Births
F<sc>igure</sc> 4.
Figure 4.. Geographic Distribution of Comstock Sales Laws by Type Circa 1960
Notes: No shading: states with no laws mentioning the “prevention of conception.” Light gray: states banning only advertising or the distribution of information (Table 1, columns 2 and 3). Dark gray: states banning advertising and the sale of contraceptives but with physician exceptions (Table 1, columns 3 and 4). Black: states with sales bans and advertising bans with no exceptions for physicians (Table 1, columns 3 and 4)
F<sc>igure</sc> 5.
Figure 5.. Differences in the Cumulative Proportion of Women Ever Using the Pill
Notes: Each point plots the differences in cumulative number of women who report having used oral contraception in states with restrictive sales bans (i.e., no physician exceptions) and women in states without these laws by quarter of first use and region of residence at the time of the survey. Panels A and B take the number of women residing in the region at the time of the survey as the denominator. Panel C takes the number of women who used the birth control pill by 1970 as the denominator. The estimates are noisy due to small sample sizes and the focus should be on trends rather than the quarterly fluctuations. The South is omitted from the post-1965 comparisons, because there are only 22 observations in the sales ban states in the 1970NFS. Underlying counts are presented in the Web Appendix.Source: 1965 and 1970NFS.
F<sc>igure</sc> 5.
Figure 5.. Differences in the Cumulative Proportion of Women Ever Using the Pill
Notes: Each point plots the differences in cumulative number of women who report having used oral contraception in states with restrictive sales bans (i.e., no physician exceptions) and women in states without these laws by quarter of first use and region of residence at the time of the survey. Panels A and B take the number of women residing in the region at the time of the survey as the denominator. Panel C takes the number of women who used the birth control pill by 1970 as the denominator. The estimates are noisy due to small sample sizes and the focus should be on trends rather than the quarterly fluctuations. The South is omitted from the post-1965 comparisons, because there are only 22 observations in the sales ban states in the 1970NFS. Underlying counts are presented in the Web Appendix.Source: 1965 and 1970NFS.
F<sc>igure</sc> 6.
Figure 6.. Differential Evolution of Birth Rates in States with Sales Bans, 1951to 1980
Notes: Panels A through D present point estimates forτ˜1, the coefficients onSales interacted with year dummies, from three alternative specifications of equation (2). See text for details. Panel B performs the same analysis but adds a separate term for states that repealed their laws beforeGriswold and its interaction with year dummies and state fixed effects. Panel C omits one census region at a time and reruns the specification from panel B labeled “relative to states in the same census region with advertising bans + covariates.” Panel D disaggregates the dependent variable into five-year age groups and for each five-year age group separately. Each line in panels C and D plots the estimates from a separate regression model. Panels C and D omit confidence intervals, but these estimates, and estimates for all panels, are included in the Web Appendix.Source: 1950 to 1967 Vital Statistics Volumes (see Appendix B) and 1968 to 1980 Natality Files (ICPSR 2002).
F<sc>igure</sc> 6.
Figure 6.. Differential Evolution of Birth Rates in States with Sales Bans, 1951to 1980
Notes: Panels A through D present point estimates forτ˜1, the coefficients onSales interacted with year dummies, from three alternative specifications of equation (2). See text for details. Panel B performs the same analysis but adds a separate term for states that repealed their laws beforeGriswold and its interaction with year dummies and state fixed effects. Panel C omits one census region at a time and reruns the specification from panel B labeled “relative to states in the same census region with advertising bans + covariates.” Panel D disaggregates the dependent variable into five-year age groups and for each five-year age group separately. Each line in panels C and D plots the estimates from a separate regression model. Panels C and D omit confidence intervals, but these estimates, and estimates for all panels, are included in the Web Appendix.Source: 1950 to 1967 Vital Statistics Volumes (see Appendix B) and 1968 to 1980 Natality Files (ICPSR 2002).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Arellano Manuel. 1987. “Computing Robust Standard Errors for Within-Groups Estimators.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 49(4): 431–34.
    1. Bailey Martha J. 2006. “More Power to the Pill: The Impact of Contraceptive Freedom on Women’s Life Cycle Labor Supply,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(1): 289–320.
    1. Becker Gary S. 1965. “A Theory of the Allocation of Time.” Economic Journal, 75(299): 493–517.
    1. Becker Gary S. 1991. A Treatise on the Family. Enlarged edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    1. Becker Gary S., and Gregg Lewis H. 1973. “On the Interaction between the Quantity and Quality of Children.” Journal of Political Economy, 81(2): S279–88.

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Free PMC article
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp