Unintended Pregnancy and Taxpayer Spending

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 88-93

  Monea, Emily ^a   Thomas, Adam ^a  

^a BROOKINGS INSTITUTION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD HEALTH CARE; CHILD WELFARE; COST CONTROL; ECONOMICS; FAMILY PLANNING; FEMALE; FETUS DEATH; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; INDUCED ABORTION; INFANT; METHODOLOGY; PREGNANCY; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICE; STATISTICS; TAX; UNITED STATES; UNWANTED PREGNANCY;

ABORTION, INDUCED; CHILD HEALTH SERVICES; CHILD, UNWANTED; COST SAVINGS; FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES; FEMALE; FETAL DEATH; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; INFANT; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY, UNWANTED; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES; TAXES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79958703044     PISSN: 15386341     EISSN: 19312393     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1363/4308811     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2006, 38(2):90-96.
2. Logan C et al., The consequences of unintended childbearing: a white paper, Washington, DC: Child Trends, 2007, <>, accessed Apr. 6, 2011.
3. Gipson JD et al., The effects of unintended pregnancy on infant, child, and parental health: a review of the literature, Studies in Family Planning, 2008, 39(1):18-38.
4. Finer LB and Lindberg L, Guttmacher Institute, New York, special tabulations of unpublished data, 2010.
5. Special tabulations of data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.
6. Sonfield A et al., The public costs of births from unintended pregnancies: national and state-level estimates, 2011, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 43(2):94-102.
7. Frost JJ et al., Estimating the impact of expanding Medicaid eligibility for family planning services, Occasional Report, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006, No. 28.
8. Frost JJ et al., Estimating the impact of serving new clients by expanding funding for Title X, Occasional Report, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006, No. 33.
9. Frost JJ et al., The impact of publicly funded family planning clinic services on unintended pregnancies and government cost savings, Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 2008, 19(3):778-796.
10. Foster DG et al., Expanded state-funded family planning services: estimating pregnancies averted by the Family PACT program in California, 1997-1998, American Journal of Public Health, 2004, 94(8):1341-1346.
11. Amaral G et al., Public savings from the prevention of unintended pregnancy: a cost analysis of family planning services in California, Health Services Research, 2007, 42(5):1960-1980.
12. Foster DG et al., Cost savings from the provision of specific methods of contraception in a publicly funded program, American Journal of Public Health, 2009, 99(3):446-451.
13. Biggs MA et al., Cost-Benefit Analysis of the California Family PACT Program for Calendar Year 2007, San Francisco: Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, 2010.
14. Machlin SR and Rohde F, Health Care Expenditures for Uncomplicated Pregnancies, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2007.
15. Trussell J et al., Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States, Contraception, 2009, 79(1):5-14.
16. Monea E and Thomas A, The Public Cost of Pregnancy, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2010, <>, accessed Apr. 6, 2011.
17. Sonfield A and Gold RB, Public funding for contraceptive, sterilization and abortion services, FY 1980-2001: national and state tables and figures, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2005, <>, accessed Mar. 28, 2011.
18. Merrill C and Steiner C, Hospitalizations Related to Childbirth, 2003, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2006.
19. Ventura SJ et al., Estimated pregnancy rates for the United States, 1990-2005: an update, National Vital Statistics Reports, 2009, Vol. 58, No. 4.
20. Cheng D et al., Unintended pregnancy and associated maternal preconception, prenatal and postpartum behaviors, Contraception, 2009, 79(3):194-198.
21. Kost K et al., Predicting maternal behaviors during pregnancy: Does intention status matter? Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 30(2):79-88.
22. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Update 2005: States Make Modest Expansions to Health Care Coverage, Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2005.
23. Medicaid Undercount Project, Phase II Research Results: Examining Discrepancies Between the National Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), <>, accessed Apr. 6, 2011.
24. Chandra A et al., Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, Vital and Health Statistics, 2005, Series 23, No. 25.
25. Ananat EO and Hungerman DM, The power of the pill for the next generation: oral contraception's effects on fertility, abortion, and maternal and child characteristics, Review of Economics and Statistics, forthcoming.
26. Bailey MJ, More power to the pill: the impact of contraceptive freedom on women's life cycle labor supply, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2006, 121(1):289-320.
27. Goldin C and Katz LF, The power of the pill: oral contraceptives and women's career and marriage decisions, Journal of Political Economy, 2002, 110(4):730-770.
28. Ananat EO et al., Abortion and selection, Review of Economics and Statistics, 2009, 91(1):124-136.
29. Gruber J et al., Abortion legalization and child living circumstances: Who is the "marginal child"? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1999, 114(1):263-291.
30. Donohue JJ and Levitt SD, The impact of legalized abortion on crime, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2001, 116(2):379-420.
31. Maynard RA and Hoffman SD, The costs of adolescent childbearing, in: Hoffman SD and Maynard RA, eds., Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, Washington DC: Urban Institute Press, 2008, pp. 359-401.
32. P.L. 11-80, Title IV, Oct. 21, 2009.
33. P.L. 111-117, Division D, Title II, Dec. 16, 2009.
34. Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update, Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, 2010.
35. Johnson N et al., An Update on State Budget Cuts: At Least 46 States Have Imposed Cuts that Hurt Vulnerable Residents and the Economy, Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2011, <>, accessed Feb. 17, 2011.
36. Thomas A, Plans Are Useless, but Planning Is Indispensable: A Benefit-Cost Assessment of Three Strategies to Prevent Unintended Pregnancy, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2010.