Laura D’Elia ABA Writing Competition May 31, 2013

Is Pro Life Also Pro Domestic Violence? : Exploring the Relationship Between Abortion Restrictions and Domestic Violence

On August 20th 2012, former Congressmen Akin became infamous for a statement he made regarding the right of rape victims to have an abortion. According to Akin there is no need for rape victims to have access to abortion because: “it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try and shut the whole thing down.” 1 This statement is troubling because it furthers an ideological worldview that has long been linked with the domestic violence movement. The statement endorses power and control over women because it advocates that the state should have the power to force a woman, who has already been through a terrible ordeal, to carry a pregnancy to term that she may not want. Additionally, the statement unfairly blames the victim for the violence. Reading between the lines of his statement the message is clear; if a victim gets pregnant from rape it is somehow her fault because she must have really wanted it. Unfortunately, Akin’s statement is just one example of how anti-abortion rhetoric furthers dangerous societal views, which result in increased levels of domestic violence. Anti-abortion rhetoric, however, is not the only problem abortion restrictions pose for domestic violence. Many of the abortion restrictions currently being proposed and implemented by state legislatures make obtaining an abortion particularly difficult for domestic violence victims. This is troubling because these women may often have a greater need than most to obtain an abortion. This paper will more fully explore the relationship between abortion restrictions and domestic violence. Part I will address the right of women to have an abortion and current regulations and proposals that threaten that right. Part II will address the problems abortion restrictions pose for domestic violence victims individually. Part III will address problems abortion restrictions and antiabortion rhetoric pose for domestic violence globally, and lastly Part IV will address proposals for future action.

1

Lori Moore, Rep. Todd Akin: The Statement and the Reaction, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 20, 2012).

1

I.

The Current Status of a Women’s Right to Have an Abortion In 1973, in a seminal opinion, the Supreme Court recognized the right of women to make

a private decision regarding the termination of her pregnancy in Roe v. Wade.2 The Court held that a person has a fundamental right to privacy and that the right of privacy necessarily encompasses a women’s private decision concerning whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.3 The Court, however, also recognized that the state has an interest in protecting health and potential human life and therefore set up a trimester system to balance the mother’s right to privacy in making her decision with the state’s interest in protecting potential life.4 The Court, however, ultimately abandoned this trimester framework in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, and replaced it with the narrower undue burden test.5 Under this test the state can regulate abortions as long as the regulations do not impose an undue burden on a women’s right to make a decision concerning whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. 6 The Court cautioned that a mere incidental effect of making the procedure more expensive or difficult to obtain would not be considered an undue burden.7 Recently, in 2007 the Supreme Court limited abortion rights even further in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, holding that for the first time an abortion regulation with no exception for the life of the mother was constitutional under the undue burden test.8 The Court’s gradual erosion of a protection for a women’s right to have an abortion has allowed states to pass increasingly broad regulations of abortion. Bans on how late in her pregnancy a women can have an abortion are moving consistently earlier. Twenty-one states 2

Roe v. Wade, 401 U.S. 113 (1973). See id. at 153. 4 See id. at 154, 162-64. 5 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). 6 See id. at 874. 7 See id. 8 See Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 163-65 (2007). 3

2

currently ban an abortion as early as twelve weeks into the pregnancy, and eight other states ban an abortion after twenty weeks.9 Additionally, mandatory waiting periods, a required number of days between when a women first goes to the clinic to inquire about an abortion and when the clinic can legally preform the procedure, are becoming more common with currently twenty-nine states requiring a waiting period of some length. 10 Another trend in abortion restrictions is passing legislation designed to make it more expensive for women to obtain an abortion. Currently, nine states ban insurance coverage for abortion in the private exchange, eleven states ban insurance coverage in the state exchange, and ten states require women to pay extra for abortion coverage.11 Proposed bills in the state legislatures threaten to further erode access to abortion. For example, in 2011 fourteen states considered personhood bills, which would grant legal personhood to fetuses from the moment of fertilization thus almost certainly banning abortion altogether.12 Several states considered TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider) Laws, which are designed to make it more difficult for abortion clinics to remain open by imposing costly, and often unnecessary, building requirements the clinics must comply with. 13 The expense of complying with these new laws is made more difficult in many states by regulations that also seek to limit funding to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. 14 Additionally, under the guise of ensuring informed consent, eighteen states considered laws that require a woman to get an ultrasound and hear the fetal heartbeat prior to obtaining an abortion15

9

Who Decides: The Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in America, NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA (Jan. 2010), http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/download-files/who-decides-2010.pdf. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. Of course the ban would be unenforceable even under the Court’s more limited protection of abortion rights jurisprudence. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id.

3

and several other states considered laws that would require clinics to inform patients that abortion is linked to increased rates of breast cancer and suicide despite a lack of scientific evidence of these connections.16 II.

The Unique Problem Abortion Restrictions Pose For Domestic Violence Victims Abortion restrictions pose a unique problem for domestic violence victims, because they

make it practically impossible for many victims to obtain an abortion. This is particularly troubling because domestic violence victims often have a greater need than most to obtain an abortion. While the Supreme Court has recognized to some extent the additional burdens abortion regulations may have on domestic violence victims they have not went far enough in protecting domestic violence victim’s right to have an abortion. Part A will address the special need for many domestic violence victims to have an abortion. Part B will address the ways in which abortion regulations significantly limit domestic violence victim’s ability to obtain an abortion and lastly Part C will address the Court’s failure to fully recognize the burdens abortion regulations have on domestic violence victims. A.

Domestic Violence Victims Often Have a Great Need For an Abortion.

One of the main reasons there is a particular need for many domestic violence victims to obtain an abortion is that victims are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies.17 A study of intimate partner violence in Colombia revealed that women who reported either physical or sexual abuse by their partner were four times more likely to have an unplanned pregnancy than women who did not report abuse. 18 The authors estimate that if domestic violence were

16

Laura Bassett, South Dakota Law Linking Abortion, Suicide, Held Up in Court, HUFFINGTON POST, July 24, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/south-dakota-abortion-suidice-law-appeals-court_n_1699615.html. 17 See Christina C. Pallitto and Patricia O’Campo, The Relationship Between Intimate Partner Violence and Unintended Pregnancy: Analysis of a Regional Sample From Colombia, INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING PERSPECTIVES, 2004, 30(4). 18 Id. at 169.

4

eradicated there would be between 32,000 and 45,000 fewer unintended pregnancies. 19 One possible reason to explain the increase in unintended pregnancy in cases of domestic violence is that often abusers refuse to use contraception. 20 A qualitative study of low-income teenage mothers suggested that a significant percentage of mothers who did not plan their pregnancy were in an abusive relationship where the batterer made all decisions concerning contraception. 21 One young women in an abusive relationship explained that she did not use contraception because “he didn’t want to do it, so of course, I said ok fine. I was being a pushover. I wanted him to be happy. I wanted him to have his way because if he didn’t he would get upset and argue.”22 Numerous other women in abusive relationships echoed similar sentiments and this suggests that the batterers control over contraception is factor explaining the increased rates of unplanned pregnancy in the domestic violence context, which creates a greater need for abortion services.23 Additionally, domestic violence victims have a greater need for abortion services because often the batterer is more abusive to the woman during pregnancy. Numerous studies support this proposition,24 and qualitative accounts further demonstrate this point. For example, many lowincome teenage mothers in Rosen’s study reported that the abuse started or was severely escalated when they were pregnant.25 One woman reported being beaten so severely while she was pregnant that she had a miscarriage and another women reported that when she was three

19

Id. at 165. Daniel Rosen, I Just Let Him Have His Way: Partner Violence in the Lives of Low Income Teenage Mothers, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, Jan. 2004. 21 Id. at 13-14. 22 Id. at 14. 23 See id. 24 See, e.g., Caroline Bettinger-Lopez et al., Domestic Violence in the United States, A Preliminary Report Prepared For Rashida Manjoo, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women (Apr. 11, 2011), http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/newsletter/DV%20in%20the%20US_Br%20Paper%20to %20SR%20on%20VAW.pdf. 25 Rosen, supra note 20 at 18-19. 20

5

months into her pregnancy her abuser drove her to an isolated area where he arranged for seven people to attack her.26 Another reason domestic violence victims may have a greater need for an abortion is that pregnancy and childbirth severely weaken a victim’s ability to leave her abuser. Pregnancy and childbirth are a significant drain on a family’s financial resources.27 A recent study illustrating this shows that women who were unable to get an abortion were three times more likely to be in poverty than women who had abortions.28 Additionally, having a child may interfere with the victim’s ability to work, or get necessary job training and education. This is problematic because poverty and an inability support oneself is one reason that many domestic violence victims stay with their abusers.29 Another concern is that once the victim has the child she has ensured that she will have a life long connection with her abuser. Studies have shown that batters use their children to continue abusing the mother.30 Often they use visitation and transfers of custody as an opportunity to continue their verbal and physical abuse.31 Furthermore, courts are generally not receptive to victims’ claims of fear of their abuser in the child custody context. For example, in the case of Jordan v. Jordan the court required a victim to continue to be in contact with and cooperate with her abuser through the use of a parenting coordinator. 32 As these cases illustrate domestic violence victims often have a special need to access abortion services because they are

26

Id. Catherine Pearson, Pregnancy Cost: Is Having Kids Becoming Unaffordable For the Middle Class, HUFFINGTON POST, Sept. 5, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/pregnancy-cost-having-kids-too-expensive-middleclass_n_1843796.html. The average cost of raising a child from birth to age 17 is approximately $235,000. Id. 28 Aaron Sankin, Abortion Poverty Study Finds Link Between Lack of Access and Income, HUFFINGTON POST, Nov. 14, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/abortion-poverty-study_n_2130890.html. 29 See Shelly Kintzel, The Effects of Domestic Violence on Welfare Reform: An Assessment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act as Applied to Battered Women, 50 U. KAN. L. REV. 591, 599 (2002). 30 LORRAINE RADFORD AND MARIANNE HESTER, MOTHERING THROUGH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 91-95 (2007). 31 Id. 32 See 14 A.3d 1136 (D.C. 2011). 27

6

more likely to have an unplanned pregnancy and if they are forced to carry the pregnancy to term they face a significant risk of increased violence and a weakened ability to escape the abuse. B.

Abortion Restrictions Pose an Undue Burden on Domestic Violence Victim’s Ability to Obtain an Abortion.

Many of the new or proposed abortion restrictions will greatly impair a domestic violence victim’s ability to obtain an abortion because they increase the cost of the procedure and increase the chance that the abuser will find out about the abortion. Laws that require women to make multiple trips to the clinic, including waiting periods and mandatory ultrasounds, and laws that limit the number of clinics, such as TRAP Laws, and laws defunding abortion clinics, are all problematic because they increase the likelihood that the abuser will find out about the victim’s intended abortion, which may subject her to increased violence.33 Abortion regulations requiring women to make multiple trips to the clinic increase the likelihood of the abuser finding out about the abortion in several ways. First, many abusers closely monitor their victim’s whereabouts, they monitor the victim’s car mileage to make sure that she is not going places without telling them and they often call the victim repeatedly throughout the day to make sure she is where she claims to be.34 This makes it difficult enough for the victim to get to the abortion clinic even once, and each additional required trip increases the likelihood of discovery. Second, only sixteen states have laws preventing protestors from harassing patients going into abortion clinics35 and many of these protestors have put videos of people going into abortion clinics on YouTube, taken pictures of people going into clinics and posted them online, and threatened to

33

See supra Part II A. Caroline Bettinger-Lopez et al., Domestic Violence in the United States, A Preliminary Report Prepared For Rashida Manjoo, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women (Apr. 11, 2011), at 42, http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/newsletter/DV%20in%20the%20US_Br%20Paper%20to %20SR%20on%20VAW.pdf. 35 Who Decides: The Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in America, NARAL Pro-Choice America (Jan. 2010), http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/download-files/who-decides-2010.pdf. 34

7

tell neighbors if they recognized one of the patients.36 The publication of patient’s pictures and video increase the chance that the abuser will find out about the victim’s procedure and again each additional trip the women is required to make to the clinic increases her risk of exposure.37 Furthermore, in the case of domestic violence victims who have already left their abusers and sought refuge in a shelter, laws requiring multiple trips to the abortion clinic are problematic because each additional trip forces the women to leave the security of the shelter and risk discovery by her abuser.38 Additionally, TRAP laws and law and other laws designed to limit the number of abortion providers significantly increase the victim’s risk of exposure because the further the women has to travel to reach the abortion provider the greater the risk that the abuser will find out about the abortion.39 This is because the victim will have to explain her absence for a longer period of time and may have to explain the extra mileage on the car.40 The other way that abortion regulations significantly burden a domestic violence victim’s ability to obtain an abortion is by increasing the cost of the procedure. Laws that require multiple trips to the abortion clinic, discussed above, are problematic because they increase the cost of obtaining an abortion by doubling the traveling expenses.41 This is especially true in states that have passed TRAP laws or other laws designed to force abortion providers to close because it

36

Caroline Bettinger-Lopez et al., Domestic Violence in the United States, A Preliminary Report Prepared For Rashida Manjoo, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women (Apr. 11, 2011), at 42, http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/newsletter/DV%20in%20the%20US_Br%20Paper%20to %20SR%20on%20VAW.pdf. For an example of one of these appalling websites see http://www.abortioncams.com /co2/pages/-%2015%20couple%20at%20car.htm. 37 Id. 38 Id. 39 Id. 40 Id. Laws designed to force abortion providers to close are particularly problematic in many states that already have very few abortion clinics. For example, in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Mississippi there is already only one abortion provider per state. Dozens of States Make it Hard to Get Abortions, ST. LOUIS POST, Oct. 21, 2012, http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/dozens-of-states-make-it-hard-to-get-abortions/article_7edb7817-181b527c-80cc-013c90bb9563.html. 41 Id.

8

increases the cost of travel by requiring women to travel greater distances.42 Additionally, laws that require ultrasounds before a woman may obtain an abortion increase the cost because women are required to pay for the ultrasound, which can be costly, and are usually not covered by insurance, as they are not medically necessary.43 Besides increasing the cost of the procedure several state and federal laws are designed to limit sources of funding for abortions. Many states limit or ban insurance coverage for abortion, 44 and on the federal level under the Hyde Amendment federal Medicaid funds cannot be used to cover abortions.45 There is an exception for cases of rape but no general exception for domestic violence. 46 It can be argued that these laws increasing the cost and decreasing the funding for abortions affect all women and while that is true, they are especially problematic for domestic violence victims because the laws do not just increase the cost they in many cases make obtaining an abortion impossible.47 First, domestic violence is more common in low-income families meaning that in many cases the victim already lacks sufficient resources. 48 Secondly, many batterers control all of the finances in the relationship and the victims do not have access to large sums of money.49 The combination of these factors make it extremely difficult for domestic violence victims to afford an abortion and laws that seek to increase the expense or decrease the funding available for the procedure compound the problem.

42

Id. Id.; Michelle Chen, It’s Not Just Forced Ultrasound: Abortion Rights Under Attack, SALON, Oct. 21, 2012, http://www.salon.com/2012/10/21/its_not_just_forced_ultrasound_abortion_rights_under_assault/) 44 Who Decides: The Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in America, NARAL Pro-Choice America (Jan. 2010), http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/download-files/who-decides-2010.pdf. 45 Caroline Bettinger-Lopez et al., Domestic Violence in the United States, A Preliminary Report Prepared For Rashida Manjoo, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women (Apr. 11, 2011), at 43, http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/newsletter/DV%20in%20the%20US_Br%20Paper%20to %20SR%20on%20VAW.pdf. 46 Id. 47 Id. 48 Id. 49 See Shelly Kintzel, supra note 29 at 599. 43

9

C.

The Supreme Court Has Not Fully Recognized the Burdens Abortion Regulations Have on Domestic Violence Victims

The Supreme Court has recognized the burdens abortion regulations have on domestic violence victims, however, they have not went far enough to eradicate all regulations which pose an undue burden on victims. In Casey the Court struck down a requirement that a married women notify her husband of her intent to have an abortion before a doctor could legally perform the procedure.50 The Court reasoned that the vast majority of married women who seek abortions do notify their husbands and that those who do not, particularly domestic violence victims, may have very good reasons for not doing so.51 For these victims, the Court reasoned, the notification requirement would be a substantial obstacle.52 The Court rebuffed the state’s suggestion that the law was not an undue burden because it would not affect the large percentage of women who were not in abusive relationships and would notify their husbands regardless of the statute.53 The Court noted, “The analysis does not end with the one percent of women upon whom the statute operates; it begins there. … The proper focus of constitutional inquiry is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom it is irrelevant.”54 The Court’s analysis in holding the spousal notification requirement unconstitutional was extremely promising for domestic violence victims, because the Court seemed to say that any time an abortion regulation presented an undue burden on the right of domestic violence victims the law would be found unconstitutional.55 The remainder of the opinion in Casey, however, significantly undercut the opinion’s holding with respect to domestic violence and foreshadowed lower courts refusal to invalidate abortion regulations even when they are unduly burdensome for domestic violence victims. In 50

See Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 887 (1992). See id. at 892-94. 52 See id. 53 See id. 54 Id. at 894. 55 See id. at 892-94. 51

10

the same opinion that the Court decisively invalidated the spousal notification requirement because of its undue burden on domestic violence victims the Court also upheld the state’s mandatory twenty-four hour waiting period without considering it’s burdensome effect on domestic violence victims. The district court had made some findings that the waiting period would be particularly burdensome for victims, however, the Supreme Court dismissed this and found that it failed to reach the level of an undue burden.56 Lower courts have followed in the Supreme Courts lead limiting Casey’s domestic violence holding to spousal notification requirements and refusing to invalidate other abortion regulations even when there is a showing that they are unduly burdensome for domestic violence victims. For example, in Women’s Choice-East Side Women’s Clinic v. Newman, the Seventh Circuit overturned an injunction on an Indiana abortion regulation despite findings that the law would have negative impact on a domestic violence victim’s ability to obtain an abortion.57 Additionally, in Cincinnati Women’s Services v. Taft, the Sixth Circuit upheld a law requiring a twenty-four hour waiting period despite the fact that opponents of the law adduced considerable evidence showing that the waiting period made it almost impossible for victims of domestic violence to get an abortion.58 Therefore, as these cases illustrate the court has not went far enough in protecting a domestic violence victim’s right to an abortion, because they are still willing to uphold abortion regulations that significantly impair an victim’s ability to obtain an abortion. This is particularly problematic given the great need of many victims to obtain an abortion.59

56

See id. at 885-87. See 305 F.3d 684, 691-93 (7th Cir. 2002). 58 See 468 F. 3d 361, 372-74 (6th Cir. 2006). 59 See infra Part I.A. 57

11

III.

Problems of Abortion Restrictions and Anti-Abortion Rhetoric on a Global Scale Abortion regulations not only pose a problem for domestic violence victims on an

individual level, they also have a more global impact because they send a message to society that it is okay to have power and control over women. Numerous studies have shown that a defining characteristic of men who batter is that they feel entitled to exert power and control over their partner. 60 Therefore, abortion regulations and anti-abortion rhetoric lead to increased rates of domestic violence because they reinforce the view that it acceptable to exert power and control over women. This section will examine the global impact of abortion restrictions on domestic violence by first exploring the general relationship between social and economic factors and domestic violence showing that it is plausible for abortion regulations to affect domestic violence, then exploring several groups of data demonstrating a link between abortion restrictions and domestic violence, and finally exploring a qualitative analysis of the link between anti-abortion rhetoric and domestic violence. A.

The Impact of Social and Economic Factors on Domestic Violence

While many studies seeking to explain why men batter explore individual level characteristics that make certain individuals more likely to abuse women, the question of why domestic violence is such a immense problem in society can not be answered by looking at individual level factors alone. There are also certain factors on the societal level that are responsible for increased rates of domestic violence. One factor that has been identified as a contributor to increased rates of domestic violence is the level of equality of men and women in society. In one study from 1990, a Professor sought to explain why there were lower levels of domestic violence among one ethnic group, known as the Wapes, than in the rest of Papua New

60

See, e.g., LUNDY BANCROFT ET AL., ADDRESSING THE IMPACT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ON FAMILY DYNAMIC, 8-9 (2011).

12

Guinea and surrounding countries.61 In order to address this question Professor Mitchell spent a considerable amount of time in the area observing the culture of the people.62 Ultimately, one of his conclusions was there was less incidents of domestic violence among the Wapes than there were among surrounding ethnic groups because the Wape people had higher levels of gender equality.63 Specifically he noted that in Wape society, unlike many of the surrounding societies, men and women were not segregated, women did not provide all of the childcare, and women had a say in whom they married.64 Other research confirms this general finding that the level of equality in society is correlated with domestic violence. A study of seventeen different cultural groups found that rigid gender roles were a significant predictor of increased rates of domestic violence.65 Additionally, another study found that in societies where men performed domestic roles the level of violence was lower than in societies where women performed most of the domestic roles.66 Furthermore, previous research has also shown that social factors including the level of economic inequality between men and women, the level of restriction on women’s economic rights, and the level of access women have to divorce are all predictors of the rate of domestic violence in society.67 Another societal factor that has been associated with increased levels of domestic violence in society is the community’s endorsement of a husband’s right to control his wife. One study that looked at violence in relationships in different areas of India found that the community’s viewpoint concerning the acceptability of wife beating was a strong predictor of

61

William E. Mitchell, Why Wape Men Don’t Beat Their Wives: Constraints Towards Domestic Tranquility in a New Guinea Society, PACIFIC STUDIES, July 1990 13(3) at 141-42. 62 Id. 63 Id. at 144-145. 64 Id. 65 Lori L. Heise, Violence Against Women: An Integrated Ecological Framework, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, June 1998 4(3) at 279-80. 66 Id. 67 LUNDY BANCROFT ET AL. supra note 60 at 29.

13

increased rates of domestic violence.68 Additionally, in another study it was shown that cultural groups that condoned the use of violence had higher levels of domestic violence. 69 Furthermore, Professor Mitchell’s analysis of why there is less violence among the Wape people than among other ethnic groups in the region determined that one factor contributing to the lower levels of violence in the Wape society was the Wape society’s intolerance for violence.70 These studies emphasize that society’s view regarding violence and a husband’s right to control his wife are important indicators of domestic violence in society. All of these studies firmly establish that societal factors, not just individual level characteristics of batterers, contribute to the level of domestic violence in society. Important factors contributing to domestic violence are the extent of gender equality in society and the extent society approves of men controlling their wives. Abortion restrictions represent both of these factors. First anti-abortion restrictions erode gender equality by forcing women to carry pregnancies to term that they may not want. Secondly, abortion restrictions reinforce societies view that is appropriate to control women because the abortion restrictions force women into complying with numerous and often medically unnecessary requirements before obtaining an abortion and if they cannot comply, these restrictions force women to carry their pregnancies to term. Therefore, it is likely that abortion restrictions, like these other social factors, similarly lead to increased rates of domestic violence in society. B.

A Statistical Analysis of Domestic Violence and Abortion Data

In order to test whether abortion restrictions and anti-abortion rhetoric have an impact on levels of domestic violence in society data concerning abortion restrictions and levels of

68

Michael A. Koenig, Individual and Contextual Determinants of Domestic Violence in North India, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Jan. 2006 96(1) at 135. 69 Heise, supra note 65 at 282. 70 Mitchell, supra note 61 at 143.

14

domestic violence was collected from within the United States and from around the world. The first two studies look at the impact of abortion restrictions on the level of domestic violence in the United States. The first study is done on the state level and examines the relationship between the number of domestic violence homicides in each state and the state’s support for abortion rights for the year 2010. The data concerning domestic violence homicides was obtained from the FBI Supplemental Homicide Report.71 The number of domestic violence homicides was determined by calculating the number of homicides where the victim was a female, over the age of fifteen, killed by a male with whom she was in an intimate relationship.72 The data concerning a states support for abortion rights was obtained from Pro Choice America, a non-profit group, that does an annual analysis of state’s abortion laws and assigns each state a letter grade ranging from A+ to F based on how supportive they are towards abortion rights.73 States were grouped based on their letter grade and an average number of domestic violence homicides per 100,000 people was calculated for states in each letter grade. The results, available in Chart 1, show that states with lower abortion grades in the D-F range had slightly elevated rates of domestic violence homicides when compared with states that received abortion grades in the A-C range indicating a greater level of support for abortion rights. This suggests that there may be some correlation between increased abortion regulations and increased levels of domestic violence in states.

71

FBI Supplemental Homicide Reports, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, http://ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezashr/asp/ vic_selection.asp. 72 Victims under the age of fifteen were excluded not to suggest that domestic violence does not occur in young relationships but in order to avoid collecting cases of parental abuse. Similarly, only incidents with female victims and male attackers were used, not to suggest that females never engage in domestic violence, but because numerous studies have shown the prevalence of men as the primary batterers in the domestic violence context. LUNDY BANCROFT ET AL. supra note 60 at 5. 73 Who Decides: The Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in America, NARAL Pro-Choice America (Jan. 2010), http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/download-files/who-decides-2010.pdf.

15

The second study similarly examined the effect of abortion regulations and domestic violence on the state level. The states support for abortion was again measured by the grade they received from Pro Choice America. This time, however domestic violence, was measured using data obtained from the census report issued each year by the National Network to End Domestic Violence.74 The census seeks to measure how many individuals are in domestic violence shelters in every state on a particular date by sending requests for data to all known shelters. The response rate for states was not perfect and data was only used in this study if the states reporting rate was at least 90% to avoid a skewed result. Again the states were organized by letter grade and the average number of women per shelters for each grade was calculated. The results of this analysis, available in Chart 2, are less clear. States that received a D- grade for abortion restrictions, indicating that they are not supportive of a women’s right to have an abortion, have the highest average number of people in shelters. States with A+ grades, indicating high support for a women’s right to have an abortion, have a comparatively lower average number of people in shelters, however there is some inconsistency in the middle where states with grades in the A and B range have higher numbers of women in shelters than states with grades in the C range. The data in these two studies do suggest some correlation between increased abortion restrictions and increased levels of domestic violence, but the findings are not statistically significant. This does not mean, however, that abortion regulations do not contribute to levels of domestic violence in society. One possible explanation for the lack of more robust results is that these studies are limited by flaws with the data. Neither measure of domestic violence used is a perfect measure of the actual rate of domestic violence in states.75 The FBI homicide data, used in study one, is limited primary because it fails to include all incidents of domestic violence that 74

“Census 2010 Report” NNEDV, http://www.nnedv.org/resources/census/2010-report.html. A significant problem for researchers in this field is the unavailability of a uniform and reliable measure of domestic violence rates among states. 75

16

do not rise to the level of homicide. While there is some reason to think that higher rates of domestic violence homicides in a state would indicate higher rates of domestic violence in general in the state this correlation has not been proven. The census data is similarly not ideal. First, not all of the state had one hundred percent reporting rates and this could skew the results. Second, the number of people in a domestic violence shelter may not be the best measure of the level of domestic violence in a society, because some states have significantly fewer shelters available for victims so in these states lower levels of people in shelters may be explained by the inability of many victims to get to shelters or the lack of resources of shelters to house all of the victims rather than a lower level of domestic violence in the state.76 A third study was conducted based on data available from around the world. The study examined the countries support for abortion rights and the level of domestic violence in the country. The data for a countries support of abortion rights was available from the World’s Abortions Laws Organization, which tracks abortion laws around the world and ranks countries into four categories based on their willingness to allow a women to have an abortion.77 Countries in the first group allow abortion without any unreasonable restrictions, countries in the second group allow abortion for socioeconomic reasons, countries in the third group allow abortion for health reasons, and countries in the fourth group either only allow abortion when necessary to save the women’s life or do not allow abortion at all. The data on levels of domestic violence in each country were available from the Center for Health and Gender Equity Population Report, which summarized surveys conducted in various countries all around the word between 1982 and

76

For example, the state of North Dakota has only 21 domestic violence shelters in the state, while South Dakota a comparatively sized state has 44 shelters. Additionally, the small state of Connecticut has 32 shelters, while the much larger state of South Carolina has only 28 shelters. Data concerning the number of domestic violence shelters is available from http://www.womenslaw.org/gethelp_state_type.php?type_id=1189&state_code=AK. 77 The World’s Abortion Laws, 2012, http://worldabortionlaws.com/map/.

17

1999 that measured levels of domestic violence.78 Countries from every continent were included and a percentage of respondents indicating that they had experienced domestic violence at least once during their life for each country was obtained. A Pearson’s correlation of these variables yielded a moderate correlation with a Pearson’s R of .2732 meaning an increase in abortion restrictions is moderately related to an increase in domestic violence. An ordinary least squares regression analysis yielded a coefficient of 2.87, which means that each one unit increase in a states abortion restrictions yielded a 2.87 increase in the percent of reported domestic violence.79 Chart three and four visually depict these results. Chart three shows a scatterplot of the effect of countries support for abortion regulations on the percentage of respondents who indicated that they had experienced domestic violence. As the states increase their restrictions in abortion the percentage of respondents reporting domestic violence increases, with a few outliers. Chart four shows the average percentage of respondents reporting domestic violence in countries by abortion restriction groupings. Countries in group one, with the lowest level of abortion restrictions, have on average a significantly lower percentage of respondents reporting domestic violence than do countries in groups two through four. These findings indicate that on the country level there may be some correlation between increased abortion restrictions and increased levels of domestic violence. These findings, however, should not be overstated. Both models were still not considered statistically significant when measured at conventional levels of statistical significance. Additionally, the data used in this study was also imperfect. The data on levels of domestic violence in each country has some limitations. First, the data is from multiple surveys that were 78

Population Reports Ending Violence Against Women, CENTER FOR HEALTH AND GENDER EQUITY, Dec. 1999 27(4) http://www.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/PopulationReports.pdf. 79 Neither of these coefficients are considered statistically significant. However, while the regression coefficient is not significant at conventional levels of statistical significance, it is marginally significant (p