Department of Economics 
School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg  
Vasagatan 1, PO Box 640, SE 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden  
+46 31 786 0000, +46 31 786 1326 (fax) 
www.handels.gu.se    info@handels.gu.se 
      
 
 
 
WORKING PAPERS IN ECONOMICS 
 
 
No 661 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Impact of Abortion Legalization on Fertility 
and Maternal Mortality: New Evidence from 
Mexico 
 
 
Damian Clarke and Hanna Mühlrad 
 
 
June 2016 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ISSN 1403-2473 (print) 
ISSN 1403-2465 (online) 
 
 
 
The Impact of Abortion Legalization on Fertility
and Maternal Mortality: New Evidence from
Mexico∗
Damian Clarke† Hanna Mu¨hlrad‡
June 13, 2016
Abstract
We examine the effect of a large-scale, free, elective abortion program implemented in Mexico
City in 2007. Prior to this program, all states and districts in Mexico had very limited, or no,
access to elective abortion. A localized reform in Mexico City resulted in a sharp increase in
the request and use of early term elective abortions: approximately 90,000 abortions were
administered by public health providers in the four years following the reform, versus only
62 in the five years preceding the reform. We provide evidence using national vital statistics
data from Mexico covering over 23 million births and over 11,000 cases of maternal deaths.
Our difference-in-difference estimates suggest that this program resulted in a reduction in
births by 2.3 to 3.8% among women aged 15-44 and by 5.1 to 7.1% among teenage women
(15-19 year-olds). Similar results are found for maternal mortality, for which we find a sharp
fall in the rate of maternal deaths, by 8.8 to 16.2% for women aged 15-44 and by 14.9 to as
much as 30.3% among teenagers. All told, the reform appears to increase the average age
of women at first birth, and reduce the number of mothers giving birth at higher parities.
Keywords: Fertility, Maternal Mortality, Abortion legalization, Mexico
JEL Codes: J13, I15, I18, O15.
∗We are grateful to Andreea Mitrut, Randi Hjalmarsson, Elin Larsson, Blair G. Darney, Hans Gro¨nqvist
and seminar audiences at the Department of Economics at University of Gothenburg, SOFI Stockholm Univer-
sity, Karolinska Institute and the CSAE conference for their very useful comments and discussions. We thank
Alejandro del Valle for sharing data, and Susanna Lindahl for excellent research assistance.
†Department of Economics, Universidad de Santiago de Chile. Contact: damian.clarke@usach.cl
‡Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg. Contact: hanna.muhlrad@gu.se
1
1 Introduction
Breathtaking figures suggest that world-wide, unsafe abortions may result in as many as 8
maternal deaths per hour (The Lancet, 2009). By the best available estimates, 13% of all
maternal deaths are due to complications surrounding clandestine and unsafe abortion, with
these numbers being much higher in certain regions and groups (WHO, 2011). Nevertheless, the
issue of abortion legalization continues to be a highly controversial social topic. This is especially
true in Latin America, which has some of the world’s most rigid abortion laws (United Nations,
2014) as well as the highest estimated rates of unsafe abortions in the world, with 31 abortions
per 1,000 fertile-aged women compared to the worldwide rate of 14 per 1,000 women. The high
number of unsafe abortions in the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region corresponds to
an estimated 4.2 million unsafe induced abortions each year, and 12% of all maternal deaths in
the region (WHO, 2011).
The relative paucity of recent large-scale reforms to abortion law has meant that estimating
the causal effect of safe access to legal abortion procedures has not always been straightforward.
This is particularly so when considering the effect of legalized abortion on rates of maternal
death, given the well-known measurement challenges involved in collecting these figures (Hogan
et al., 2010). While evidence from historical reforms points to large potential effects on rates
of births and a wide range of social outcomes (Ananat et al., 2009; Angrist and Evans, 1996;
Donohue and Levitt, 2001; Charles and Stephen, 2002; Bailey et al., 2013; Pop-Eleches, 2006),
and while ample evidence exists to suggest that unsafe abortions have an extremely high toll on
women’s health (see for instance Grimes et al. (2006)), few estimates of the effect of legalizing
abortion on maternal deaths when using complete vital registries are available.
In this study, we examine the effect of a sharply defined local abortion reform in Mexico
2
City and document the effect of free access to legal and safe abortion services on fertility and
maternal mortality. We combine the state-level variation over time resulting from this natural
experiment with high quality vital statistics data on 23 millions of births and more than 11,000
maternal deaths. This reform—the so called legal interruption of pregnancy program (or ILE
for its name in Spanish)—was of considerable importance. During the pre-reform period of
2001-2007 a total of 62 legal abortions (available in restrictive conditions) were performed in
Mexico City. Following the 2007 reform, more than 90,000 women accessed safe legal abortion
between 2008 and 2012.
Abortion laws are determined at the state level in Mexico, where Mexico City (also known
as the federal district of Mexico) has its own legislative assembly. The ILE reform provided
all women who reside in Mexico City with access to legal and safe abortion procedures, free of
charge and for any reason, during the first trimester of pregnancy. The law was a radical change
from previous legislation in Mexico City, and also compared to the rest of the states of Mexico,
where abortion is still banned in all but the extreme circumstances of rape, to save the mother’s
life, or in cases of severe fetal malformation.1 Moreover, by legalizing abortion, Mexico City
distinguishes itself from nearly all other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean which
remain highly restrictive in their policies related to elective abortion (Fraser, 2015).2
We find that providing access to safe and legal abortions free of charge resulted in a decrease
in rates of fertility between 2.3 to 3.8% and a reduction in maternal deaths by 11.1 to 20.0%
among women aged 15-44 years. When considering only the direct effect of the reform on
maternal mortality net of the mechanical reduction in deaths due to lower rates of birth, we
find a lower, but still significant, reduction in rates of maternal deaths of between 8.8 and
1Depending on the state, these circumstances include none, some, or all of rape, fetal inviability or grave
danger to the health of the mother. One exception is the state of Yucatan, which, since 1931, has permitted
legally induced abortions for socio-economic reasons for women with at least three children (Juarez et al., 2013).
2According to the most recent United Nations figures (United Nations, 2014), Mexico is one of only three
countries in the LAC region (along with Uruguay and Guyana) to be classified as the “Least restrictive” in
abortion policy, implying that abortions are permitted for economic or social reasons upon request.
3
16.2%. Our results suggest that there are heterogeneous effects across ages. We document a
particularly strong effect among teenage women (aged 15-19) of a 5.1-7.1% reduction in fertility
and between a 14.9 to 30% reduction in the maternal mortality rate (when considering only the
direct effect of the reform). The decline in teenage fertility in Mexico City is consistent with
the findings from abortion legalization in other circumstances around the world. For example,
estimates of the effect of Roe v. Wade in the US suggest an 8-12% reduction in teenage fertility
(Angrist and Evans, 1996). These findings are noteworthy given the high proportion of teenage
motherhood in Mexico (18% of all pregnancies are teenage pregnancies) and a well-documented
negative association between teenage childbearing and education and labor market outcomes
(Furstenberg, 1976).
When turning to the composition of all mothers, we find that the reform has a number
of important effects on the characteristics of women giving birth. Firstly, and unsurpisingly,
we find that conditional on motherhood, the probability of the birth occurring to a teenager
decreases by 5.6%. We also find that the probability of having a first birth increases (compared
to higher order births) and that the average age by parity (birth order) slightly increases. That
is to say, following the reform, cohorts of mothers became on average older, less likely to be
teenagers, and shifts in parity towards lower total fertility were observed. Finally, the reform
explicitly encouraged contraceptive usage by giving out contraceptives to women who accessed
abortions, as well as improved sexual education in schools. We supplement out analysis using
vital statistics data with survey data from the Mexican Family Life Survey (MxFLS), and find
that the main mechanism of reduced fertility and mortality during the period under study was
access to legal and safe induced abortion, rather than other minor components of this program.
Despite increasing attention being paid to rates of morbidity and mortality following unsafe
abortion procedures (Grimes et al., 2006; Brown, 2007; Kulczycki, 2011), adequately measuring
the impact of access (or lack thereof) to safe abortion is often hindered by poor and incomplete
4
vital registration systems, especially in developing countries (Grimes et al., 2006). In this study,
we provide a rich set of empirical results to begin to fill this gap. Moreover, this is the first study
to evaluate the overall effect on both fertility and maternal mortality from the 2007 abortion
reform in Mexico City using the full set of available vital statistics for the period 2002-2011.3
Many previous studies examine the effect of abortion legalization that took place in conjunction
with other major laws and reforms. In contrast to those studies, contraception has been legal
and freely provided by the government since 1974 in Mexico.
All told, the results from this study suggest that the April 2007 abortion reform in Mexico
City is associated with an important reduction in fertility and maternal mortality. These re-
sults are highly relevant when considering the achievement of international development goals,
including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which require a two thirds reduction in
maternal deaths world-wide by the year 2030.
2 Mexican Context and the ILE Reform
The fertility rate in Mexico declined rapidly from roughly 6 children per woman in 1975 to
approximately 2.2 in 2015. This major shift in fertility can be partially attributed to changes
in access to modern contraceptive methods in the country (Juarez et al., 2013). In 1975, the
Mexican government passed the General Population Law, which obliged the government to
supply family planning services and provide contraceptives via the public health care sector
free of charge. Although 67% of all women of childbearing age in Mexico report using modern
contraceptive methods (and 5% use traditional and less safe methods), it is estimated that
3This is, however, not the first study of the effect of Mexico’s 2007 abortion reform. A considerable academic
literature exists across the fields of law (Johnson, 2013), public health (Contreras et al., 2011; Schiavon et al.,
2010; Becker, 2013; Mondrago´n y Kalb et al., 2011) and medicine (Madrazo, 2009). It is, however, the first
comprehensive analysis of the reform’s effect using the full power of the vital statistics data. Other existing
studies either use infrequent registers and focus only on fertility (Gutierrez-Vazquez and Parrado, 2015) or highly
questionable data selection and analysis techniques (Koch et al., 2015).
5
more than half of all pregnancies are unintended. Estimates suggest that up to 54% of these
unintended pregnancies are terminated (Juarez et al., 2013).
Mexico consists of 32 federal entities, 31 of which are federal states plus the federal district of
Mexico (also known as Mexico D.F. or Mexico City). As well as having a national constitution,
each of the 32 federal entities has its own state or local constitution, defined by its own legislative
power. Abortion laws in all of Mexico are determined at the state level (Becker, 2013). Mexico
City contains approximately 8% of the entire population (8.9 million of Mexico’s 119.5 million
inhabitants according to 2015 estimates) and, since 2007, is the only state that allows for elective
abortion during the first trimester.
Prior to the reform in Mexico City, abortion laws were rather uniform across the 32 federal
entities of Mexico. Induced abortion continues to be considered a criminal offense with the risk
of legal consequence of up to 30 years imprisonment in many states (Juarez et al., 2013), and
legal abortion was only permitted in the limited cases if rape, threat to the life of the mother,
or severe malformation of the fetus. In practice, even in these limited cases, legal abortion has
been described by human rights organizations as extremely difficult to access due to rigid legal
barriers (Juarez et al., 2013). In the densely populated Mexico City, only 62 abortions were
legally performed during 2001-2007 (Becker, 2013). As a substitute to legal options, abortions
were performed in clandestine and often unsafe settings. For example, in 2009 alone, medical
records from public hospitals show that an estimated 159,000 women in Mexico were treated for
abortion-related complications (Juarez et al., 2013). The estimated national abortion rate in
Mexico is 38 abortions per 1,000 women of fertile age (Juarez et al., 2013), which is considered
high internationally (Becker, 2013).
Due to the high number of unsafe abortions as well as a growing movement for women’s
reproductive health rights, the legislative assembly of the Federal District of Mexico City voted
6
to legalize elective abortion (termed legal interruption of pregnancy, or ILE for its name in
Spanish) on April 24, 2007, reforming Articles 145-148 of the penal code of Mexico City, and
Article 14 of the Health Code. These reforms were signed into law the following day, and
published in the official Gazette of the Federal District on April 26, 2007 (Ciudad de Me´xico,
2007). A broader discussion of the reform’s social and legal setting is provided in Kulczycki
(2011); Madrazo (2009) and Johnson (2013). This immediately permitted women above the age
of 18 to request legal interruption of pregnancy at up to 12 weeks of gestation without restriction,
while for those aged under 18, access required a parent or guardian’s consent. The law included
public provision of abortion procedures free of charge for women with residency in Mexico City
at a selected number of public health clinics operated via the Ministry of Health in Mexico
City (MOH-DF)4. Additionally, under this law sexual education in schools was improved, and
post-abortion contraceptives were made freely available directly from the health clinics which
provided abortions (Contreras et al., 2011). Records from public hospitals show that the demand
for post-abortion contraceptives is high (approximately 82% of all women accept contraceptives)
and that prevalence of repeated abortion procedures are low (Becker, 2013).
On August 29 in 2008 the decision to pass the ILE law was ratified by the Supreme Court of
Mexico. The abortion reform in Mexico City is distinguishable as a major social and political
reform and makes Mexico City, together with Cuba and Uruguay, the most liberal jurisdiction
in terms of abortion legislation in the entire Latin American and Caribbean region (Fraser,
2015).
Women with residency outside Mexico City can also access the public provision of abortion
through MOH-DF but are charged with a sliding fee scale determined with regard to the woman’s
socioeconomic background. In 2010, 74% of all women who received an abortion through the
4The public health care sector in Mexico is divided at both federal and state level, where the Ministry of
Health (MOH) in Mexico City provides abortion procedures at a selected number of MOH-DF hospitals. Other
MOH facilities (federally or state funded) are not legally required to provide abortion procedures.
7
public health care were women living in Mexico City, 24% were living in the state of Mexico
(which shares a border with Mexico City) and 2% were living in other states (Mondrago´n y
Kalb et al., 2011). Figures from the Secretary of Health’s administrative data suggest that
abortions were used by women of all ages, though were disproportionately sought by younger
(21-25 year-olds) and older women (36 year-olds and above), with lower rates of abortion among
26 to 35 year olds. The proportion of all births by age and all abortions in public health clinics
by age is presented in figure 1.
The law also allowed for private clinics to provide abortion services. Information regarding
the private provision of abortion services is limited due to the lack of supervision of the private
market for legal abortion services (Becker, 2013). During the year of 2007, (when the reform
was implemented), more than 7,000 abortion procedures were performed at 14 selected MOH-
DF clinics. Over the years, the MOH-DF abortion program expanded its services and became
more efficient at meeting the high demand for elective abortion (shifting from surgical abortion
procedures to medical procedures). As of 2012, approximately 90,000 abortions have been
carried out at the MOH-DF clinics (Becker, 2013), with no significant complications reported.
3 Data
To examine the effects on fertility and maternal mortality, we use vital statistics on all births and
maternal deaths in Mexico for the time period 2002-2011. The data is provided by the National
Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI for its name in Spanish) and covers 23,151,080
live births and 11,858 maternal deaths among women aged 15-44. Vital statistics for births in
Mexico are compiled by INEGI based on birth registries completed by each parent or guardian
at the civil registry, rather than being based on birth certificates issued at hospitals (as is the
case, for example with the National Vital Statistics System in the USA). Using data from the
8
2010 census and birth records up until 2009, recent (backward looking) analysis suggests that
93.4% of all births in Mexico were registered within 1 year of birth of the child, and in total,
94.2% of birth are eventually registered at the national level (Instituto Nacional de Estad´ıstica y
Geograf´ıa, 2012). The birth register is released once per year, containing all births registered in
that year, as well as the year the birth occurred. In order to avoid problems of under-reporting,
differential reporting over time, and double-reporting, we collate all birth registers between
2002-2014, and then keep all births registered within 3 years of the date of birth5. This implies
that we only have complete birth registers based on birth years up to (and including) 2011.
Maternal death data is taken from INEGI’s full mortality register, which officially classifies
maternal deaths according to ICD-10 codes and the World Health Organization’s definition
(see the data section of the online appendix for full details). Mexico’s register of maternal
deaths is recognised to be of high quality, with Mexico being classified as belonging to the
“A-class” (World Health Organization, 1987) in the latest WHO report on maternal mortality
trends. This data has had particular improvements from 2002, and as such, we restrict our
period of analysis to 2002 and beyond (see Schiavon et al. (2012) and the online appendix to
this paper for further details). In the online appendix (table A1), we display the number of
births and maternal deaths recorded in each federal entity over the period of study. There
exists considerable variation in births and deaths (in line with large variations in population
between geographic areas), and also considerable variation in rates of maternal deaths per live
births. This ranges from as low as 25 deaths per 100,000 live births in the relatively highly
developed state of Colima to as high as 87 deaths per 100,000 live births in the mountainous
state of Guerrero. On average in the whole country over the period of study, microdata records
suggest that the maternal mortality ratio was 51.21 deaths per 100,000 live births, a value
which agrees with the official international figures released by WHO for this period (World
5This is very similar to the methodology employed by Mexico’s population authority in their calculation of
official demographic trends (Consejo Nacional de Poblacio´n, 2012).
9
Health Organization, 2015). Data from the birth and death registers is aggregated by each age
group between 15-44, state, and year, resulting in a total of 9,600 cells (years×states×age). The
INEGI Birth Register contains information about the date of birth, actual birthplace and the
official residency of the mother. In addition, information on maternal characteristics such as
age, total fertility, educational attainment, marital status and employment status are recorded.
The death register has a similar structure to the birth register and also records background
information on the deceased women.
We then merge a range of time-varying covariates with birth and death data for each year and
state group described above. This includes the population of women (variation by age, state
and year) from the National Population Council of Mexico (CONAPO), socioeconomic vari-
ables including illiteracy, schooling, and access to health insurance from the National Institute
for Federalism and Municipal Development (INAFED) and the National Education Statistical
Information System (SNIE), and data on the municipal-level roll-out of the national health
insurance program Seguro Popular6 from the INEGI data bank. Socioeconomic data and mea-
sures of Seguro Popular coverage vary by state and year. We provide further details of data
access and construction of covariates in the online appendix.
Summary statistics are presented in table 1. In the top panel we present state-level charac-
teristics, and in the bottom panel, individual characteristics from the vital statistics registers.
Unsurprisingly, there are relatively large differences between the densely populated Mexico City
and the nearby state of Mexico and the rest of the country. Residents of Mexico City have higher
education and better access to health care. There are also substantial differences in the age
composition, where mothers in Mexico City are, on average, older especially when having their
6Mexico’s General Health Law underwent a major reform in 2003, which intended to provide 50 million
Mexican citizens lacking social security with subsidized and publicly financed health insurance. The core of this
reform was the health insurance program Seguro Popular (SP). The “People’s Insurance” or Seguro Popular was
launched in 2002, offering health service free of charge or subsidized to those without formal health insurance.
By 2005, two years before the reform, all 32 states had enrolled the SP program (Knaul et al., 2007).
10
first and second child. Women dying from causes related to childbirth are on average less edu-
cated compared to the mean: a pattern observed in all areas of the country. Turning to rates of
maternal death and births per woman, Mexico City has slightly higher rates of maternal death
than the country in general (see online appendix table A1 for a full breakdown), and lower rates
of fertility per woman.
4 Empirical Strategy
The impact of the abortion reform is evaluated by using the subnational variation in abortion
laws, and thus the access to legal and safe abortion procedures, resulting from the ILE reform.
Given the temporal- and geographical-variation in availability of free legal abortions, we estimate
the following difference-in-differences (DiD) specification:
Outcomeast = β0 + β1ILEst + β2CloseILEst +Xstδ + αs + νt + pia + λs · t+ εast (1)
where Outcomeast represents our dependent variable of interest (fertility or maternal death) for
age group a in state s and year t. The treatment variable is determined by the official residency
of the woman, and indicated by ILEst. This variable takes the value of one in Mexico City nine
months after the ILE reform was adopted in order to compensate for the lag caused by the
pregnancy length (assuming 40 weeks of gestation), and zero otherwise.7 As discussed in the
previous section, a non-negligible proportion of all elective abortions were accessed by women
with residency in the neighbouring state of Mexico. Thus, to account for the potential spillover
effects of the reform, we separately control for this state using the binary variable CloseILEst
7We choose the most conservative definition of the post-treatment period starting in January 2008 and onwards
for our baseline specification. A more detailed description of the definition of treatment is provided in the online
appendix, particularly table A3. As a robustness check, we use data at a monthly level and control separately
for the partially treated births and maternal deaths and show that these results are consistent with our baseline
results. These are available in online appendix tables A6-A7.
11
(equal to one in the state of Mexico nine months or more after the reform was passed, and zero
otherwise).
The difficulty in evaluating effects of a new law lies in the fact that legislative changes
often are endogenously determined. That is, abortion legalization is likely to be correlated
with observed and unobserved characteristics of Mexico City. Even though the distribution
of treatment is non-random, the inclusion of state (αa), year (νt) and age (pia) fixed effects
allows us to estimate the impact of the reform in a so called difference-in-difference setting.
Under the parallel-trends assumption that in the absence of the reform treated and untreated
states would have followed similar trends over time, DiD gives the causal impact of the reform
on outcome variables. We examine the veracity of this assumption in following sections. In
certain specifications, we include a full set of state-level time varying controls Xst, and also
allow for differential linear time trends in each state over time, captured by the λs · t term. The
idiosyncratic error term εast is clustered at the state level in order to allow for autocorrelation
of unobserved shocks within states over time8, and age by state by year cells are weighted by
the state population (see for example Dell (2015) for a discussion).
In our main specifications, births are measured as the log number of total births occurring
in each cell. While births can be measured in a number of ways, including counts, gross fertility
rate and total fertility rate (which we report in the online appendix), we prefer the logged
number of births for a number of reasons. Firstly, we lack micro-data registers of population
in each year and are constrained to demographic projections based on the census, quinquennial
surveys, migration, births and deaths (Consejo Nacional de Poblacio´n, 2012). Secondly, we
8This is the generally accepted method in a DiD model (Bertrand et al., 2004). However, there is a potential
inconsistency in the standard error caused by serial correlation when the time period is long and numbers of
groups (i.e. states) are small (Bertrand et al., 2004). A likely outcome in these circumstances is underestimated
standard errors leading to falsely significant DiD estimates. This raises concern, since the number of clusters in
our case are 32, which is slightly below commonly accepted “rule of thumb” thresholds for consistent estimation
of standard errors (Angrist and Pischke, 2009; Cameron and Miller, 2015). One suggested way of dealing with
this problem is to use wild bootstrapped standard errors (Bertrand et al., 2004; Cameron and Miller, 2015), and
as such, we also examine our main specifications using wild bootstrapped standard errors and show that these
results are consistent with our baseline results.
12
estimate regressions with log births using ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions. Without
the log normalisation of births, regression residuals are not normally distributed, and predicted
values are at times negative. Taking the log transformation allows us to resolve these issues in
our case.
In contrast to the birth data which is strictly positive in all cells, the data on maternal
mortality has a large number of cases where zero deaths are observed. In our main specifica-
tions for maternal deaths, we estimate using the count of maternal deaths as the dependent
variable, and use a Poisson regression model (estimates using the maternal mortality ratio and
OLS are presented in the online appendix). When using Poisson regression, the log average
number of maternal deaths is modeled as a function of explanatory variables (log(µ) = xβ),
and taking the exponential of estimated coefficients gives the incidence rate ratios (percentage
effect) corresponding to the reform.
5 Results
5.1 The effect of the reform on fertility and maternal mortality
In table 2 we present the results of the ILE reform on fertility. Results are presented for all
15-44 year-old women in columns 1-5, and for adolescents (15-19 year-olds) in columns 6-10. We
present results separately for adolescents given that rates of teenage childbearing in Mexico are
very high (approximately 18% of all births are to teenage mothers) and that teenage motherhood
is correlated with worse outcomes in terms of education and poverty (see for instance (Fursten-
berg, 1976).) We begin by estimating simple DiD models, excluding state-specific linear time
trends and time-varying controls (columns 1 and 6). We then gradually include trends (column
2 and 7) and further time-varying controls (economic, education and health factors). These
13
results clearly indicate that the reform resulted in a reduction in childbearing. For women of all
ages, the ILE reform is associated with a reduction in birth rates of between approximately 2.3
and 3.8%, while the reform had a larger effect on young women: between 5.1-7.1% depending
on the specification used. These results are similar in magnitude to historical reforms in the
United States and Romania (Levine, 2004; Pop-Eleches, 2010) and more recent results from
Nepal (Valente, 2014). For women with residency in the state of Mexico (the neighboring state
to Mexico City), we find little evidence to suggest a statistically significant effect of the reform,
perhaps unsurprising given lower rates of usage spread over a much larger population.
Results examining maternal deaths are presented in table 3. In this case, as outlined above,
rather than estimate using OLS regression, we use Poisson regression models. The point esti-
mates for the full sample of women aged 15-44 (column 1-5) suggest that the abortion reform
is associated with a significant decline in maternal mortality: by between 11.1 and 20.0% de-
pending on the specification examined.9 For 15-19 year-olds (columns 6-10), the point estimates
suggest a much larger reduction in rates of maternal death of between 19.0-37.6%. The effects
on teenage women are double the magnitude of the full sample results but are only marginally
statistically significant when including trends and state level controls. For women living close
to the reform area (i.e. in Mexico State), a significant effect is found for the full sample and for
teenage women, however is no longer statistically significant in the most demanding specifica-
tions.
The effect sizes for maternal mortality are very large, particularly when cast in terms of
prevailing estimates of the proportion of maternal deaths due to abortion. When examining the
cause of maternal deaths in Mexico between 1990-2008, Schiavon et al. (2012) estimate the 7.2%
of maternal deaths were due to unsafe abortion, while the WHO estimates that approximately
9The effect size is calculated by taking the exponent of coefficients i.e. exp(βˆ)-1, and can be interpreted as
the incidence rate ratio.
14
13% and 10% of maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortion in the world and the Americas
respectively (WHO, 2011). However, it is important to note that these estimates nest both the
mechanical reduction in maternal deaths due to the reform’s effect on fertility, as well as the
direct effect of the reform on fewer unsafe abortions, and hence fewer maternal deaths.
We can conduct a back of the envelope calculation to determine what proportion of the
reform’s effect is due to the fact that there are fewer undesired births in general (and hence a
lower likelihood of maternal death in childbirth), and what proportion is due to the remaining
direct effect of the reform. For all women, our most demanding estimates suggest that the
reform resulted in 3.8% fewer births. From table 1, we know that there were 1,505,790 births
and 818 maternal deaths recorded in Mexico city during the period under study, resulting in a
maternal mortality ratio of 54.3 deaths per 100,000 live births. Thus, if the rate of maternal
death remained constant, the mechanical effect of the reform would be to (similarly) reduce the
number of maternal deaths by 3.8%. In reality, our corresponding estimate is a 20% reduction,
implying that the direct effect of the reform (net of the mechanical effect) is a 16.2% reduction
in maternal deaths: much closer to proportion of deaths due to unsafe abortion estimated by
the WHO. In the same vein, the direct effect on young women is estimated to vary between
14.9 and 30%, depending on the specification examined, and in this case the lower bound value
is quite close to the WHO’s estimate of the percent of maternal deaths due to unsafe abortion.
The regression results for births and for maternal deaths appear to be quite robust to
alternative specifications and definitions of the control group. Quantitatively similar results are
found when we work only with urban states (online appendix table A8), or omit the nearby
state of Mexico entirely from the analysis. Likewise, estimating at a monthly rather than a
yearly level leads to similar conclusions (online appendix table A6). Alternative definitions of
outcome variables (for example birth rates and the maternal mortality ratio) are examined in
table A9, and results using Wild bootstrap for clustering are presented in appendix table A10.
15
5.2 Validity of Difference-in-Differences Strategy
The quasi-experimental framework which we use to motivate estimation is based on the reform’s
arrival only to Mexico city, and not to other areas of the country simultaneously. While resulting
in a striking change in rates of access to safe abortion, consistent estimation in a DiD framework
requires the parallel trend assumption to hold. This requires, among other things, that no
prevailing difference in average trends between the treatment and control area existed before
the ILE law was passed in Mexico City. We provide some partial tests of this assumption in
this section.
Raw trends in the main outcome variables over the time period of interest are presented
in figure 2. Although there is a clear level difference in the number of births (panel A) and
births per 1,000 woman of fertile age (panel B) between Mexico city and the rest of the country,
changes in the number of births appear to be parallel by visual inspection prior to the reform.
For maternal mortality the variation is large and it appears rather difficult to draw conclusions
from a visual inspection (see Figure 2c and Figure 2d).
In order to test this more formally, we run an event study analysis surrounding the date
of the reform. This consists of fully interacting the treatment indicator (1 if Mexico City, 0
otherwise) with a dummy for each year in our sample, both before and after the arrival of the
reform. If the difference between treatment and control areas really only does emerge after the
reform, we should see that no pre-treatment interaction terms are significantly different to zero,
with the differential effect only emerging once the ILE reform has taken place.10
Results for these event studies are presented in figure 3. In these figures, point estimates
10We also test whether a linear time trend in the control group for the pre-treatment period is statistically
different from the trend in Mexico City. This test suggests that no statistically distinguishable trend exists in
either outcome variable in the pre-reform period.
16
reflect the interaction between the treatment area dummy and each respective lag or lead, and
95% confidence intervals are plotted to accompany each estimate. Year 2007 is omitted as
the base year in each case, so all estimates are cast as changes relative to this year. In both
cases, we see that the difference between Mexico City and the rest of the country (Mexico
state is excluded to ensure that local spillovers do not bias the control group) occurs only after
the introduction of the reform. In panel A the event study for log births is presented. This
suggests an immediate effect of the reform occurring when examining births in 2008, and then
a further reduction, before approximately constant coefficients (at approximately −4 to −5%)
in years 2009-2011. Although the effect size is similar in the final two years of data, these
are not significantly different, due to larger standard errors on effects given that the absolute
number of births in early and late years is most different to the number in the omitted base
case. Similarly, in panel B the event study on maternal deaths suggests a similar dynamic: a
small but significant difference in the first post-reform year, which then increases in magnitude
(though is less tightly estimated) in later post-reform years. In both cases, these results provide
support for the parallel trends assumption and the use of DiD estimates to assess the impact of
the reform.
5.3 Compositional Changes
We examine whether the ILE reform had distinguishable effects on the characteristics of cohorts
of mothers. In order to do so, we use the disaggregated (micro-level) data on all births and
maternal deaths contained in the Mexican vital statistics. By comparing the characteristics of
all mothers before and after the reform in Mexico city, and comparing them with any changes
in general characteristics in the rest of the country, we can estimate the reform’s effect on any
compositional changes in a similar logic to the DiD tests described in section 5.1.
17
There is considerable evidence to suggest that abortion reforms can have important effects
on the composition of mothers, and, subsequently, children over the long- (Ananat et al., 2009;
Pop-Eleches, 2006; Bailey, 2013) and even short-term (Bailey et al., 2014). Here, given the
reform’s timing, we are restricted to looking at short-term changes in the characteristics of
mothers. Given that the most complete record of motherhood is available in the birth registry,
we are also restricted to analysis with variables recorded in this data. As such, we examine
the effects of the reform on the probability of teenage motherhood, the probability of a given
birth being a mother’s first, second, or higher order birth, and the age of birth at each of these
parities.11 In each case, the regression from equation 1 is estimated, however at the individual-,
rather than aggregate-level.
Results are displayed in Table 4. The DiD analysis suggest that, conditional on motherhood,
the reform decreases the probability of teenage motherhood by 5.6% when comparing the esti-
mate to the mean of the dependent variable (column 1). The significance and magnitude of this
result from micro-data provides good support for the aggregate results described in previous
sections. In columns 2-4 we examine the effect of the reform on the parity at which births occur.
While point estimates suggest a shift of births from higher to lower birth orders, these are not
large, nor statistically significant results. In examining age at birth, we find some evidence
to suggest that mothers are slightly older (though only for their second birth). This provides
some evidence that the ILE reform did affect birth timing and birth spacing, though again, the
evidence is not particularly strong. While these results suggest that the immediate effect of the
reform has done relatively little to change the characteristics of mothers in Mexico City, this
is perhaps unsurprising given the well known difference between short-term and longer-term
changes in cohorts of mothers, as well as the next generation, following contraceptive reform
(Ananat et al., 2009; Gruber et al., 1999).
11In online appendix tables we present additional available measures of mother’s education. We do not report
these results in the paper given that examination of trends between reform and non-reform areas suggests that
DiD estimates are unlikely to be causal.
18
5.4 Abortion Access, Contraceptive Use, or Education?
The 2007 ILE reform had three components, with legal access to safe and free abortion being
the most central. However, the reform also called for improved sexual education in schools
as well as access to free post-abortion contraceptives through the MOH-DF program (Becker,
2013). In the analysis up to this point, we have examined the general effect of the reform, which
will capture all changes flowing from each aspect: access to abortion, as well as contraceptive
knowledge and access. To close, we examine the mechanism through which the reform reduced
rates of births and maternal death.
In order to examine potential mechanisms, we generate data on contraceptive use and knowl-
edge from the Mexican Family Life Survey (MxFLS), a panel survey which was conducted in
2002-2003, 2005-2006 and 2009-2012 and covers a representative sample (at the state level) of
15,768 women. Using these survey waves, we are thus able to generate quite rich measures of
contraceptive use and contraceptive knowledge, both in Mexico City and the rest of the country,
though only at three points in time. We provide a description of this dataset and its generation
in the online appendix to this paper.
In order to determine whether these simultaneous changes crowd out the estimated effect of
the reform, we re-estimate equation (1) by DiD, however now supplement the regression models
to include measures of contraceptive useage and knowledge. For those time periods in which no
data is available from the MxFLS, we linearly interpolate points (see online appendix).
These results are presented in Table 5. Column 1 displays baseline results from table 2 and 3
when controlling for a full set of fixed effects, state-specific trends and time varying covariates.
To this specification, we then add controls for each of: the prevalence of usage of modern
contraceptives by fertile aged women (column 2), current use of any type of contraceptives by
19
fertile aged women (column 3), and knowledge about modern contraceptives (column 4). For
fertility, we see that the estimated effects of the reform in all cases hold up, even when controlling
for these potential correlated inputs. The baseline effect of a 3.8% reduction in fertility is, at
most, attenuated to a 2.5% reduction in rates of births. Similarly, in examining the results
for maternal deaths, the main estimated effects of the reform remain, even conditional upon
changes in contraceptive knowledge and use. The estimated baseline effect (with trends) of
a 23.3% reduction in maternal deaths, never falls below 22.6% when including contraceptive
controls, and in no case are the coefficients statistically distinguishable.
Overall, the results of this exercise seem to confirm the notion that the main channel by
which fertility and maternal deaths were affected by the reform were through the access to
free and legal abortion procedures. Although only based on infrequently available survey data,
adding additional covariates, which may themselves be an effect of the reform, does little to
dampen the significant estimated effects of the 1000 fold increase in legally accessed abortions
in Mexico City.
6 Conclusion
In this paper, we examine the effect of abortion legalization on women’s fertility and health
in Mexico City. The 2007 passing of the ILE law was a major social and political reform,
providing all women with residency in Mexico City access to safe elective abortion during the
first trimester. Prior to the reform very few legal abortions were performed, although clandestine
abortion was very common (Becker, 2013) leading to a high number of women suffering from
complications associated with unsafe procedures each year (Juarez et al., 2013). By using sub-
national variation in abortion laws, we analyze the effect of the reform on fertility and maternal
mortality using vital statistics from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI)
20
during the time period 2002-2011.
We document two main findings. Firstly, the reform has a considerable effect on fertility
rates, reducing births in Mexico City by between 2.3 and 3.8%. Secondly, access to elective
abortions significantly reduces maternal mortality by between 11.1 to 20.0%. These effects are
especially strong among teenage women, with a decline in fertility of between 5.1 and 7.1%
and in maternal mortality of between 14.9 to 30%. Moreover, our results suggest that the
reform affected the composition of mothers. Conditional on motherhood, we find that mothers
are 5.6% less likely to be teenage mothers and a document a small effect on age by parity,
where age slightly increases for the second child. In addition, we utilize survey data from the
MxFLS regarding knowledge and use of contraceptives and investigate potential mechanisms.
Our findings indicate that the main mechanism behind these striking reductions in fertility and
maternal death was free access to legal and safe induced abortion, with only smaller effects
flowing from the program’s other complimentary (and more minor) aspects.
The reduction in fertility indicates that despite the large number of risky clandestine abor-
tions practiced prior to the reform in Mexico City, considerable unmet demand for contracep-
tion still remained. In the presence of high rates of teenage pregnancy and undesired births,
the legalization of abortion was thus responsible for an important reduction in the number of
births observed. Moreover, our maternal mortality results suggest that safe procedures in legal
environments can have large impacts on the significant number of women who still die from
complications due to unsafe abortion in Mexico.
This last finding has significant implications for reproductive health policy in Mexico. The
Sustainable Development Goals, to which Mexico is a signatory, require a 75% reduction in
maternal deaths by 2030. If Mexico is to achieve such a reduction, this would require cutting
maternal deaths from 50 deaths per 100,000 births to approximately 13: ratios prevailing in
21
countries like France, New Zealand, or South Korea (World Health Organization, 2015). To
do so will require a multifaceted response, involving significant work on health infrastructure,
accessibility in remote regions, and work with marginalized groups. However, the results in this
paper suggest that even with impressive gains in other areas, clandestine abortions currently
play an important role in maternal deaths in Mexico. The natural experiment played out over
the past decade suggests that abortion legalization can have extremely important impacts on
women’s health, and lead to significantly fewer maternal deaths.
22
References
Ananat, E. O., J. Gruber, P. B. Levine, and D. Staiger (2009): “Abortion and Selec-
tion,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 124–136.
Angrist, J. D. and W. N. Evans (1996): “Schooling and Labor Market Consequences of the
1970 State Abortion Reforms,” NBER Working Papers 5406, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Inc.
Angrist, J. D. and J.-S. Pischke (2009): Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist’s
companion, Princeton University Press.
Bailey, M., M. Guldi, and B. Hershbein (2013): “Recent Evidence on the Broad Benefits
of Reproductive Health Policy,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32, 888–896.
Bailey, M. J. (2013): “Fifty Years of Family Planning: New Evidence on the Long-Run Effects
of Increasing Access to Contraception,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 46, 341–409.
Bailey, M. J., O. Malkova, and J. Norling (2014): “Do Family Planning Programs
Decrease Poverty? Evidence from Public Census Data,” CESifo Economic Studies, 60, 312–
337.
Becker, D. (2013): “Decriminalization of Abortion in Mexico City: The Effects on Women’s
Reproductive Rights,” American Journal of Public Health, 103, 590–593.
Bertrand, M., E. Duflo, and S. Mullainathan (2004): “How Much Should We Trust
Differences-in-Differences Estimates?” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119.
Brown, H. (2007): “Abortion round the world,” BMJ, 335, 1018–1019.
Cameron, A. C. and D. L. Miller (2015): “A Practitioner’s Guide to Cluster-Robust
Inference,” Journal of Human Resources, 50, 317–372.
Charles, K. K. and M. Stephen, Jr. (2002): “Abortion Legalization and Adolescent Sub-
stance Use,” NBER Working Papers 9193, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Ciudad de Me´xico (2007): “Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal,” Gaceta Ofi-
cial, No 70, O´rgano del Gobierno del Distrito Federal, 26 April, 2007, accessed at
http://web.archive.org/web/20150924024041/http://www.inmujeres.df.gob.mx/wb/
inmujeres/decreto_por_el_que_se_reforma_el_codigo_penal_para (consulted April
26, 2016).
Consejo Nacional de Poblacio´n (2012): “Proyecciones de la poblacio´n de Me´xico 2010–
2050,” Tech. Rep. Documento Metodolo´gico, CONAPO.
Contreras, X., M. G. van Dijk, T. Sanchez, and P. S. Smith (2011): “Experiences
and Opinions of Health-Care Professionals Regarding Legal Abortion in Mexico City: A
Qualitative Study,” Studies in Family Planning, 42, 183–190.
Dell, M. (2015): “Trafficking Networks and the Mexican Drug War,” American Economic
Review, 105, 1738–79.
Donohue, J. J. and S. D. Levitt (2001): “The Impact Of Legalized Abortion On Crime,”
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 379–420.
Fraser, B. (2015): “Tide begins to turn on abortion access in South America,” The Lancet,
383, 2113 – 2114.
23
Furstenberg, F. F. (1976): Unplanned parenthood: The social consequences of teenage child-
bearing, Free Press.
Grimes, D. A., J. Benson, S. Singh, M. Romero, B. Ganatra, F. E. Okonofua,
and I. H. Shah (2006): “Unsafe Abortion: The Preventable Pandemic,” The Lancet, 368,
1908–1919.
Gruber, J., P. Levine, and D. Staiger (1999): “Abortion Legalization and Child Living
Circumstances: Who is the “Marginal Child”?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114,
263–291.
Gutierrez-Vazquez, E. Y. and E. A. Parrado (2015): “Abortion Legalization and Fertility
Rates in Mexico,” Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, available at http:
//paa2015.princeton.edu/uploads/151146.
Hogan, M. C., K. J. Foreman, M. Naghavi, S. Y. Ahn, M. Wang, S. M. Makela, A. D.
Lopez, R. Lozano, and C. J. Murray (2010): “Maternal mortality for 181 countries,
1980–2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5,” The
lancet, 375, 1609–1623.
Instituto Nacional de Estad´ıstica y Geograf´ıa (2012): “Derecho a la identidad. La
cobertura del registro de nacimiento en Me´xico en 1999 y 2009,” Tech. rep., INEGI and
UNICEF.
Johnson, T. (2013): “Guaranteed Access to Safe and Legal Abortions: The True Revolution
of Mexico City’s Legal Reforms Regarding Abortion,” Columbia Human Rights Law Review,
44, 437–476.
Juarez, F., S. Singh, I. Maddow-Zimet, and D. Wulf (2013): “Unintended Pregnancy
and Induced Abortion in Mexico: Causes and Consequences,” Tech. rep., Guttmacher Insti-
tute, New York.
Knaul, F. M., H. Arreola-Ornelas, O. Me´ndez-Carniado, C. Bryson-Cahn,
J. Barofsky, R. Maguire, M. Miranda, and S. Sesma (2007): “Evidence is good for
your health system: policy reform to remedy catastrophic and impoverishing health spending
in Mexico,” Salud Pu´blica De Me´xico, 49, S70–87.
Koch, E., M. Chireau, F. Pliego, J. Stanford, S. Haddad, B. Calhoun, P. Aracena,
M. Bravo, S. Gatica, and J. Thorp (2015): “Abortion legislation, maternal healthcare,
fertility, female literacy, sanitation, violence against women and maternal deaths: a natural
experiment in 32 Mexican states,” BMJ Open, 5.
Kulczycki, A. (2011): “Abortion in Latin America: Changes in Practice, Growing Conflict,
and Recent Policy Developments,” Studies in Family Planning, 42, 199–220.
Levine, P. B. (2004): “Abortion policy and the economics of fertility,” Society, 41, 79–85.
Madrazo, A. (2009): “The evolution of Mexico City’s abortion laws: From public morality to
women’s autonomy,” International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 106, 266 – 269.
Mondrago´n y Kalb, M., A. Ahued Ortega, J. Morales Velazquez, C. Diaz Olavar-
rieta, J. Valencia Rodriguez, D. Becker, and S. Garcia (2011): “Patient character-
istics and service trends following abortion legalization in Mexico City, 2007-10,” American
journal of public health, 3, 159–66.
Pop-Eleches, C. (2006): “The Impact of an Abortion Ban on Socioeconomic Outcomes of
Children: Evidence from Romania,” Journal of Political Economy, 114, 744–773.
24
——— (2010): “The Supply of Birth Control Methods, Education, and Fertility: Evidence from
Romania,” Journal of Human Resources, 45, 971–997.
Schiavon, R., M. E. Collado, E. Troncoso, J. E. S. Sa´nchez, G. O. Zorrilla,
and T. Palermo (2010): “Characteristics of private abortion services in Mexico City after
legalization,” Reproductive Health Matters, 18, 127–135.
Schiavon, R., E. Troncoso, and G. Polo (2012): “Analysis of maternal and abortion-
related mortality in Mexico over the last two decades, 1990–2008,” International Journal of
Gynecology & Obstetrics, 118, Supplement 2, S78 – S86.
The Lancet (2009): “Unsafe abortions: eight maternal deaths every hour,” The Lancet, 374,
1301 –.
United Nations (2014): “Abortion Policies and Reproductive Health around the World,”
Tech. Rep. E.14.XIII.11, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Population Division.
Valente, C. (2014): “Access to abortion, investments in neonatal health, and sex-selection:
Evidence from Nepal,” Journal of Development Economics, 107, 225–243.
WHO (2011): “Unsafe abortion: global and regional estimates of incidence of unsafe abortion
and associated mortality in 2008,” Tech. Rep. 6th edition, World Health Organization Geneva.
World Health Organization (1987): “Studying Maternal Mortality in Developing Coun-
tries: A Guidebook,” Tech. Rep. HO/FHE/87.7, WHO.
——— (2015): “Maternal mortality ratio (modeled estimate, per 100,000 live births),” WHO,
UNICEF, UNFPA, The World Bank, and the United Nations Population Division. Trends in
Maternal Mortality: 1990 to 2015., accessed at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
SH.STA.MMRT (consulted April 26, 2016).
25
Tables
Table 1: State and Maternal Characteristics
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Mexico State of Rest of Full
City Mexico Mexico Country
State Characteristics
Birth rate 64.7 85.7 88.5 86.0
(33.5) (48.9) (47.7) (47.3)
Maternal Mortality Ratio 54.3 54.7 50.3 51.2
(47.4) (41.6) (68.0) (63.8)
Illiteracy 2.409 11.74 8.756 8.606
(0.257) (1.202) (5.125) (5.104)
People aged 6-14 with no schooling 2.951 7.976 5.373 5.398
(0.151) (1.005) (1.562) (1.706)
No health rights 39.13 59.74 42.74 43.52
(4.334) (11.35) (15.47) (15.43)
Individual Characteristics
Mothers
Age 26.51 25.60 25.61 25.66
(6.235) (6.064) (6.146) (6.145)
Age at first birth 24.71 22.78 22.72 22.94
(6.140) (5.620) (5.453) (5.559)
Incomplete Primary 2.123 6.810 13.06 12.16
(0.346) (2.150) (9.363) (9.273)
Primary 10.51 20.60 25.66 24.62
(1.937) (2.742) (6.207) (6.847)
Secondary 39.35 44.70 34.69 35.48
(0.750) (1.795) (7.704) (7.703)
Preparatory 28.93 19.40 16.68 17.45
(1.333) (2.339) (4.588) (5.153)
Professional education 19.08 8.490 9.911 10.29
(1.470) (0.847) (2.840) (3.397)
Deceased Mothers
No Schooling 2.049 5.810 10.60 9.903
(8.949) (14.64) (25.32) (24.36)
Incomplete Primary 18.44 30.47 35.45 34.32
(26.29) (27.00) (40.25) (39.22)
Primary 10.25 10.76 10.18 10.22
(19.99) (17.69) (26.34) (25.64)
Secondary 32.05 29.99 24.27 24.98
(32.17) (24.51) (36.79) (36.05)
Prepatory 22.94 14.59 11.40 12.15
(29.17) (17.32) (27.04) (26.82)
Professional education 14.28 8.380 8.101 8.426
(24.28) (14.38) (23.06) (22.76)
N Births 1,505,790 3,186,751 18,464,578 23,157,119
N Maternal Deaths 818 1,745 9,295 11,858
N States 1 1 30 32
Note to Table 1: The data regarding fertility, mortality and maternal characteristics is obtained
from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography and covers all births and deaths among
women aged 15-44 during the time period 2002-2011. Data on state level education and health
care is obtained from the National Institute for Federalism and Municipal Development respec-
tively the National Education Statistical Information System for the same period. Proportion
of the population in percentage and standard deviation in the parenthesis.
26
T
ab
le
2:
E
ff
ec
ts
of
th
e
R
ef
or
m
on
F
er
ti
lit
y
F
u
ll
-S
a
m
p
le
1
5
-4
4
T
ee
n
a
g
e
w
o
m
en
1
5
-1
9
(1
)
(2
)
(3
)
(4
)
(5
)
(6
)
(7
)
(8
)
(9
)
(1
0)
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
R
ef
or
m
-0
.0
21
8*
*
-0
.0
28
2*
**
-0
.0
35
3*
**
-0
.0
37
6*
**
-0
.0
37
9*
**
-0
.0
50
9*
**
-0
.0
58
1*
**
-0
.0
71
7*
**
-0
.0
70
4*
**
-0
.0
71
1*
**
(0
.0
09
)
(0
.0
05
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
08
)
(0
.0
07
)
(0
.0
12
)
(0
.0
07
)
(0
.0
07
)
(0
.0
10
)
(0
.0
10
)
R
ef
or
m
C
lo
se
-0
.0
08
65
0.
00
54
3
0.
00
10
9
0.
00
35
6
0.
00
21
1
-0
.0
26
1*
*
0.
00
92
6
0.
00
22
3
0.
00
05
73
-0
.0
02
88
(0
.0
09
)
(0
.0
05
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
11
)
(0
.0
12
)
(0
.0
12
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
11
)
(0
.0
13
)
R
2
0.
98
8
0.
98
9
0.
98
9
0.
98
9
0.
98
9
0.
99
3
0.
99
4
0.
99
4
0.
99
4
0.
99
4
M
ea
n
of
D
ep
.
V
ar
.
7.
81
9
7.
81
9
7.
81
9
7.
81
9
7.
81
9
7.
91
8
7.
91
8
7.
91
8
7.
91
8
7.
91
8
O
b
se
rv
at
io
n
s
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
16
00
16
00
16
00
16
00
16
00
N
u
m
b
er
of
w
om
en
26
91
89
19
3
26
91
89
19
3
26
91
89
19
3
26
91
89
19
3
26
91
89
19
3
53
57
05
02
53
57
05
02
53
57
05
02
53
57
05
02
53
57
05
02
S
ta
te
,
Y
ea
r
an
d
A
ge
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
ta
te
S
p
ec
ifi
c
L
in
ea
r
T
re
n
d
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
co
n
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
d
u
ca
ti
on
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
H
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
N
ot
e
to
T
ab
le
2.
D
iff
er
en
ce
-i
n
-d
iff
er
en
ce
s
es
ti
m
at
es
fr
om
O
L
S
re
gr
es
si
on
s
ar
e
p
re
se
nt
ed
.
T
h
e
sa
m
p
le
co
n
si
st
s
of
al
l
b
ir
th
s
am
on
g
w
om
en
ag
ed
15
-4
4
(c
ol
u
m
n
1-
5)
an
d
th
e
su
b
-s
am
p
le
of
15
-1
9
ye
ar
-o
ld
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
6-
10
)
fo
r
th
e
p
er
io
d
20
02
-2
01
1.
T
h
e
in
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
R
ef
or
m
ta
ke
s
th
e
va
lu
e
on
e
in
M
ex
ic
o
C
it
y
n
in
e
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
IL
E
la
w
w
as
p
as
se
d
.
S
im
il
ar
ly
,
R
ef
or
m
C
lo
se
is
a
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
eq
u
al
to
on
e
in
th
e
n
ei
gh
b
or
in
g
S
ta
te
of
M
ex
ic
o
n
in
e
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
re
fo
rm
w
as
in
tr
od
u
ce
d
.
T
h
e
ec
on
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l
in
co
m
e,
u
n
em
p
lo
ym
en
t
an
d
ru
ra
li
ty
.
T
h
e
co
nt
ro
ls
fo
r
ed
u
ca
ti
on
ar
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l
il
li
te
ra
cy
an
d
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
p
eo
p
le
ag
ed
6-
14
w
h
o
ar
e
n
ot
en
ro
ll
ed
in
sc
h
oo
l.
T
h
e
h
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
th
e
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
re
si
d
en
ts
w
it
h
n
o
h
ea
lt
h
ri
gh
ts
an
d
th
e
co
ve
ra
ge
of
th
e
n
at
io
n
al
h
ea
lt
h
in
su
ra
n
ce
p
ro
gr
am
“S
eg
u
ro
P
op
u
la
r”
(a
t
th
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l)
.
F
ix
ed
eff
ec
ts
co
n
si
st
of
ag
e,
st
at
e
an
d
ye
ar
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
s.
S
ta
n
d
ar
d
er
ro
rs
ar
e
cl
u
st
er
ed
at
st
at
e
le
ve
l.
**
*
p
<
0.
01
,*
*
p
<
0.
05
,*
p
<
0.
1.
27
T
ab
le
3:
E
ff
ec
ts
of
th
e
R
ef
or
m
on
M
at
er
na
l
M
or
ta
lit
y
F
u
ll
-S
a
m
p
le
1
5
-4
4
T
ee
n
a
g
e
w
o
m
en
1
5
-1
9
(1
)
(2
)
(3
)
(4
)
(5
)
(6
)
(7
)
(8
)
(9
)
(1
0)
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
N
u
m
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
R
ef
or
m
-0
.1
18
**
*
-0
.2
20
**
*
-0
.2
15
**
*
-0
.2
17
**
*
-0
.2
24
**
*
-0
.2
11
**
*
-0
.4
28
**
-0
.4
40
**
-0
.4
54
*
-0
.4
71
*
(0
.0
27
)
(0
.0
50
)
(0
.0
61
)
(0
.0
67
)
(0
.0
64
)
(0
.0
67
)
(0
.1
88
)
(0
.1
92
)
(0
.2
35
)
(0
.2
50
)
R
ef
or
m
C
lo
se
-0
.1
02
**
*
-0
.0
21
3
0.
00
83
5
0.
03
64
0.
04
61
-0
.1
62
**
-0
.1
03
-0
.1
46
-0
.1
21
-0
.1
80
(0
.0
27
)
(0
.0
50
)
(0
.0
58
)
(0
.0
64
)
(0
.0
63
)
(0
.0
68
)
(0
.1
85
)
(0
.1
90
)
(0
.2
34
)
(0
.2
07
)
P
se
u
d
o
R
2
0.
32
2
0.
32
4
0.
32
4
0.
32
4
0.
32
4
0.
29
5
0.
29
9
0.
29
9
0.
29
9
0.
30
1
M
ea
n
of
D
ep
.
V
ar
.
2.
58
8
2.
58
8
2.
58
8
2.
58
8
2.
58
8
1.
93
5
1.
93
5
1.
93
5
1.
93
5
1.
93
5
O
b
se
rv
at
io
n
s
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
16
00
16
00
16
00
16
00
16
00
N
u
m
b
er
of
b
ir
th
s
23
15
71
19
23
15
71
19
23
15
71
19
23
15
71
19
23
15
71
19
40
53
83
2
40
53
83
2
40
53
83
2
40
53
83
2
40
53
83
2
S
ta
te
,
Y
ea
r
an
d
A
ge
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
ta
te
S
p
ec
ifi
c
L
in
ea
r
T
re
n
d
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
co
n
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
d
u
ca
ti
on
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
H
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
N
ot
es
to
T
ab
le
3.
T
h
e
ta
b
le
d
is
p
la
ys
th
e
d
iff
er
en
ce
in
d
iff
er
en
ce
es
ti
m
at
es
fr
om
P
oi
ss
on
re
gr
es
si
on
s.
T
h
e
sa
m
p
le
co
n
si
st
s
of
al
l
m
at
er
n
al
d
ea
th
s
am
on
g
w
om
en
ag
ed
15
-4
4
(c
ol
u
m
n
1-
5)
an
d
su
b
-s
am
p
le
of
te
en
ag
e
w
om
en
ag
ed
15
-1
9
(c
ol
u
m
n
6-
10
),
fo
r
th
e
p
er
io
d
20
02
-2
01
1.
T
h
e
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
is
d
e-
fi
n
ed
as
th
e
nu
m
b
er
of
m
at
er
n
al
d
ea
th
s.
R
ef
er
to
ta
b
le
2
fo
r
a
d
es
cr
ip
ti
on
of
co
nt
ro
l
va
ri
ab
le
s.
S
ta
n
d
ar
d
er
ro
rs
ar
e
cl
u
st
er
ed
at
st
at
e
le
ve
l.
**
*
p
<
0.
01
,*
*
p
<
0.
05
,*
p
<
0.
1.
28
T
ab
le
4:
E
ff
ec
ts
of
th
e
R
ef
or
m
on
th
e
C
om
p
os
it
io
n
of
M
ot
he
rs
M
at
er
n
al
C
o
m
p
o
si
ti
o
n
(1
)
(2
)
(3
)
(4
)
(5
)
(6
)
(7
)
O
L
S
T
ee
n
B
ir
th
O
L
S
1s
t
C
hi
ld
O
L
S
2n
d
C
hi
ld
O
L
S
3r
d
C
hi
ld
O
L
S
A
ge
1s
t
C
hi
ld
O
L
S
A
ge
2s
t
C
hi
ld
O
L
S
A
ge
3s
t
C
hi
ld
R
ef
or
m
-0
.0
09
86
**
*
0.
02
20
**
-0
.0
02
51
-0
.0
10
9*
**
0.
08
28
0.
12
5*
**
0.
04
37
(0
.0
02
)
(0
.0
10
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
03
)
(0
.0
84
)
(0
.0
40
)
(0
.0
48
)
O
bs
er
va
ti
on
s
11
57
30
1
11
57
30
1
11
57
30
1
11
57
30
1
49
13
07
32
09
60
34
50
34
R
2
0.
00
20
3
0.
01
07
7
0.
00
32
7
0.
00
20
3
0.
01
85
0
0.
01
32
8
0.
00
54
0
M
ea
n
of
D
ep
.
V
ar
.
0.
17
5
0.
42
5
0.
27
7
0.
16
5
22
.9
4
25
.5
6
29
.6
4
F
E
s,
T
re
nd
s
an
d
C
on
tr
ol
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
ot
es
to
T
ab
le
4.
T
h
e
ta
b
le
d
is
p
la
ys
th
e
d
iff
er
en
ce
in
d
iff
er
en
ce
es
ti
m
at
es
fr
om
O
L
S
re
gr
es
si
on
s.
T
h
e
sa
m
p
le
co
n
si
st
s
of
a
re
p
re
se
nt
at
iv
e
5%
of
al
l
b
ir
th
s
fo
r
w
om
en
ag
ed
15
-4
4
fo
r
th
e
p
er
io
d
20
02
-2
01
1.
T
h
e
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
s
ar
e
th
e
p
ro
b
ab
il
it
y
of
te
en
b
ir
th
(c
ol
u
m
n
1)
,
p
ro
b
ab
il
it
y
of
fi
rs
t
ch
il
d
(c
ol
u
m
n
2)
,
p
ro
b
ab
il
it
y
of
se
co
n
d
ch
il
d
(c
ol
u
m
n
3)
,
p
ro
b
ab
il
it
y
of
th
ir
d
or
h
ig
h
er
or
d
er
ch
il
d
re
n
(c
ol
u
m
n
4)
,
m
ot
h
er
’s
ag
e
at
fi
rs
t
ch
il
d
(c
ol
u
m
n
5)
m
ot
h
er
’s
ag
e
at
se
co
n
d
ch
il
d
(c
ol
u
m
n
6)
an
d
m
ot
h
er
’s
ag
e
at
th
ir
d
ch
il
d
(c
ol
u
m
n
7)
.
A
d
d
it
io
n
al
d
et
ai
ls
on
co
nt
ro
l
va
ri
ab
le
s
ar
e
p
ro
vi
d
ed
in
ta
b
le
2.
S
ta
n
d
ar
d
er
ro
rs
ar
e
cl
u
st
er
ed
at
st
at
e
le
ve
l.
**
*
p
<
0.
01
,*
*
p
<
0.
05
,*
p
<
0.
1.
29
Table 5: Mechanism
(a) Fertility
Full-Sample 15-44
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Baseline
OLS
Log
N. Births
Modern Method
OLS
Log
N. Births
Any Method
OLS
Log
N. Births
Information
OLS
Log
N. Births
Reform -0.0332*** -0.0387*** -0.0348*** -0.0253**
(0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010)
ReformClose 0.0124 0.0270** 0.0309** 0.0141
(0.012) (0.012) (0.012) (0.012)
R2 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.989
Mean of Dep. Var. 8.064 8.064 8.064 8.064
Observations 4890 4890 4890 4890
Number of women 188587527 188587527 188587527 188587527
FEs, Trends, Controls X X X X
Use of modern method X
Use of any method X
Information X
(b) Maternal Mortality
Full-Sample 15-44
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Baseline
Poisson
N. Deaths
Modern Method
Poisson
N. Deaths
Any Method
Poisson
N. Deaths
Information
Poisson
N. Deaths
Reform -0.266*** -0.271*** -0.256*** -0.320***
(0.070) (0.066) (0.066) (0.067)
ReformClose 0.0445 0.0743 0.103 0.0244
(0.075) (0.076) (0.068) (0.074)
Pseudo R2 0.322 0.322 0.322 0.322
Mean of Dep. Var. 3.089 3.089 3.089 3.089
Observations 4890 4890 4890 4890
Number of births 15825960 15825960 15825960 15825960
FEs, Trends, Controls X X X X
Use of modern method X
Use of any method X
Information X
Notes Table 5. State-level information on contraceptive use and knowledge is obtained
from the Mexican Family Life Survey (MxFLS). The baseline specification is presented
in column 1. We include state-level information on current use of modern contraceptives
(column 2), current use of any type of contraceptives (column 3) and knowledge about
modern contraceptives (column 4). In all regressions, fixed effects (age, state and year),
state-specific trends and state-level controls are included (see notes to Table 2). The sam-
ple size is smaller compared to the main results due to missing values for some states.
*** p<0.01,** p<0.05,* p<0.1.
30
Figures
Figure 1: Birth and Abortion Descriptives: Mexico
0
.
1
.
2
.
3
.
4
Pr
op
ort
ion
11−
15
16−
20
21−
25
26−
30
31−
35
36−
40
41−
45
46−
50
 
Mother’s Age
Proportion of Abortions Proportion of Births
Notes to figure: Total births are plotted between 2002 and 2011. Abortions are plotted from the date
of reform (April 26, 2007) until 2011. The total quantity of births is 23.2 million (all of Mexico), and total
abortions are 69,861 (Mexico City only). Births are calculated from administrative data (INEGI) and abortions
from administrative data (Secretary of Health, Mexico DF).
31
Figure 2: Trends in Reform and non-Reform Areas
(a) Trends in number of births 10000001250000150000017500002000000 #births in the rest of Mexico100000125000150000175000200000#births in Mexico City 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011YearMexico CityRest of Mexico (b) Trends in birth rates405060708090100110Birth Rate 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011YearMexico CityRest of Mexico
(c) Trends in number of maternal deaths0200400600800100012001400 # deaths in the rest of Mexico020406080100120140# deaths in Mexico City 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011YearMexico CityRest of Mexico (d) Trends in maternal mortality ratio01020304050607080Maternal Mortality Ratio 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011YearMexico CityRest of Mexico
Note to Figure 2: Each figure is constructed from administrative data made available by INEGI. Trends are
constructed based on population weighted means for fertile aged women 15-44. The vertical dashed line indicates
the year of the reform. The State of Mexico is excluded due to potential spillover effects. In Figure a) trends
in the number of births are displayed. In Figure b) trends in birth rates (the annual number of births per 1,000
women) are presented. In Figure c) the number of maternal deaths are presented followed by the trends in
maternal mortality ratio (the annual number of deaths per 100,000 deaths) presented in Figure d). In Figure a)
and c) the y-axis to the left shows the levels in Mexico City and y-axis to the right shows the levels in the rest
of Mexico.
32
Figure 3: Placebo tests
(a) Event study, Fertility
-.25-.2-.15 -.1-.050.05 .1.15.2.25Log Num of Births -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4Years before and afterPoint Estimates CI (b) Event study, Maternal mortality-2.5-2-1.5-1 -.50.511.5 22.5Num. of deaths -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4Years before and afterPoint Estimates CI
Note to Figure 3: The coefficient plot shows point estimates and confidence intervals estimated using OLS
regressions (Figure 3a) and Poisson regressions (Figure 3b). The sample consists of all births and maternal
deaths among women aged 15-44 for the period 2002-2011. Leads and lags (5 years before and 4 years after
the reform) defined by interaction terms for each year and the treatment area (Mexico City) are included in
order to examine anticipatory effects as well as post treatment effects for fertility (a) and maternal mortality (b)
respectively. The year of the reform, 2007, is used as the baseline category. The State of Mexico is excluded due
to potential spillover effects. A full set of fixed effects, time varying controls and state-specific linear time trends
are included in each regression (see note to Table 2).
33
ONLINE APPENDIX
For the paper:
The impact of abortion legalization on fertility and maternal
mortality: New evidence from Mexico
Damian Clarke and Hanna Mu¨hlrad
Contents
A Data Appendix A2
A.1 Vital Statistics Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A2
A.2 Time Varying Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A3
A.3 MxFLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A3
B Additional Details of the ILE Reform A4
B.1 Reform Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A4
B.2 Spillover Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A5
C Appendix Tables A7
D Appendix Figures A19
A1
A Data Appendix
A.1 Vital Statistics Data
Vital statistics data are publicly available from Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics
and Geography (INEGI). We download all microdata files from 2002 to 2014 (the most
recent data available at the time of writing). We then keep all records corresponding to
events occurring in 2002 to 2011. We do not use data from 2012 onwards given problems
of reporting births in subsequent years, and concerns that births may be only partially
recorded until a number of years after the event (Consejo Nacional de Poblacio´n, 2012).
This results in data on 23,157,119 births, and 11,858 cases of maternal deaths (see table
A1).
Maternal deaths are recorded officially in the vital statistics registers of deahts, and
are classified accourding to the 10th revision of the International Classification of Disease
(ICD-10) codes. Formally, maternal deaths are defined by the WHO as “The death of a
woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the
duration and the site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the
pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes”.
The final sample consists of all births and maternal deaths of women aged 15-44 (most
fertile ages) occurring during 2002-2011, though results are not sensitive to including
all women up to the age of 49. The time period is chosen due to data availability and
quality. In the effort of meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG 5), a study
was conducted in 2002 in order to investigate misclassification of maternal mortality in
Mexico. Maternal deaths were found to be incorrectly registered in the death certificates
as well as underreported. This together with lagged reporting in live births (affecting the
denominator) gave the false impression of a reduction in the maternal mortality ratio. To
correct these deficiencies, large improvements were made in 2002 by deliberately searching
for maternal deaths as well as reclassifying maternal deaths according to the standards
of the WHO. As such, we begin analysis in year 2002, when the updated maternal death
reporting standards were put into place.
A2
A.2 Time Varying Controls
We merge data on the female population with birth and death data aggregated at the level
of age, year and state. This population data is obtained from the National Population
Council in Mexico (CONAPO), and is constructed from censal and inter-censal survey
data, which is a national representative sample of over ten million individuals stratified
geographically by municipality (Consejo Nacional de Poblacio´n, 2012). This survey was
conducted in 2000, 2005 and 2010 and the data between those years are interpolated using
multiple imputation.
The economic and educational variables available at the state level are rates of illit-
eracy, schooling and the proportion of the population that lacks health insurance. These
variables are obtained from the National Institute for Federalism and Municipal Devel-
opment (INAFED) and the National Education Statistical Information System (SNIE)
respectively. Information on the roll out of the national health insurance program Seguro
Popular is obtained from the INEGI data bank. The full dataset is made available on the
authors’ webpages.
A.3 MxFLS
In order to examine potential mechanisms through which the reform may have affected
fertility and maternal mortality, longitudinal data on contraceptive use and knowledge is
collected from the Mexican Family Life Survey (MxFLS). The MxFLS is a nationally rep-
resentative longitudinal dataset that follows individuals over time, covering various topics
regarding the well-being of the Mexican population including information on reproductive
health. This survey was conducted during three waves in 2002-2003, 2005-2006 and 2009-
2012. The data between the years when the survey was conducted is generated by linear
interpolation. The analysis sample used consists of women aged 15-44 who completed
the reproductive health questionnaire resulting in a total of 15,114 individuals. Further
descriptive statistics are displayed in table A2.
In classifying contraceptive use, modern contraceptives are defined as condoms, oral
or injectable implants of hormones preventing ovulation, IUD, sterilization and emergency
contraception. Traditional or less safe methods are defined as the usage of the calendar
A3
method or rhythm method, coitus interruptis, herbs or teas. A detailed account of modern
and traditional methods is provided by World Health Organization (2015).
B Additional Details of the ILE Reform
B.1 Reform Background
A brief description of the reform and its timing is provided in section 2 of the main
paper. In figure A1, a map of Mexico is presented, with the reform are (Mexico City)
highlighted in grey. In table A3, we provide a break down of reform timing and affected
cohorts. A medical abortion is a non-invasive procedure that causes contractions of the
womb terminating the pregnancy. The MOH-DF program offers both surgical and medical
abortion procedures and is the main provider of medical abortion (Winikoff and Sheldon,
2012). Medical abortion procedures are safer and more cost-efficient compared to other
methods and the patient self-administers the abortion at home. The large shift from 25%
of all abortion procedures being medical in 2007 to as much as 74% in 2011 have played
a key part of meeting the demand (Becker, 2013).
A final concern regarding the identification strategy is interventions occurring at the
same time as the abortion reform. Of particular concern is the large scale welfare program
called Seguro Popular (SP) or “People’s’ Insurance” that was launched in 2002. SP is a
national health insurance program with the aim to provide the then 50 million uninsured
Mexican citizens with access to health care. The evidence of SP’s impact on actual health
outcomes is mixed. Results from multiple previous studies on SP show a positive effect on
public health care utilization (see for instance Knox (2008) and Barros (2008)). In contrast
to these studies, results indicating no effect on public health care utilization, medical ex-
penditure and self-assessed health has also been found King et al. (2009). Moreover, there
is evidence that SP is associated with lower infant mortality and improved antenatal care
(Conti and Ginja, 2014) and better access to obstetric care (Sosa-Rubi et al., 2009). How-
ever, to the best of our knowledge there is no evidence of decreased maternal mortality, see
for instance (Conti and Ginja, 2014) who analyze mortality. In 2005 all 32 states had en-
rolled in the SP program (Knaul et al., 2007) and the program was implemented in a time
varying fashion up until 2013. As of 2010, 90% of the uninsured population was affiliated
A4
with SP (Bosch et al., 2012). The SP program offers a wide range of health care services,
including 250 indispensable services and 57 expensive interventions of “catastrophic dis-
eases” (Darney et al., 2016). Amongst these are services related to childbirth, antenatal
care (Knox, 2008) and contraceptives (Darney et al., 2016). However, contraceptives and
other family planning services have been provided free of charge by the government since
1975 (Juarez et al., 2013). Moreover, to the best of our knowledge there is no evidence of
an effect on fertility from the SP program. Similarly, the effect on mortality from the SP
program has been documented only for infants (Conti and Ginja, 2014). Nevertheless, the
SP program may have a direct or indirect effect on fertility and maternal mortality, which
is why we control for the roll out of this program as well as the percentage of population
that is covered by health insurance at the state level.
B.2 Spillover Effects
The ILE reform took place in Mexico City, and in our main specification, we compare
changes in fertility and maternal deaths in Mexico City with those occurring in the rest
of the country. The causal effect of the reform can only be estimated in the absence of
spillover effects. Women with residency outside of Mexico City, traveling to Mexico City
to have an induced abortion would lead to a partially treated control group causing a
downward bias in the estimates. Even in the presence of spillover effects however, the
treatment effect can be estimated if these spillover effects occur in areas located close to
Mexico City but not in more distant areas. This assumption is further supported by data
available from the public hospital records (MOH), showing that approximately 74% of all
women accessing the reform are women with residency in Mexico City, 24% are resident
in the neighboring State of Mexico and only 2% of the women accessing the reform are
residents in other states. Accordingly, we assume that the spillover effects are concentrated
to the State of Mexico. In order to mitigate concern for spillover effects in the State of
Mexico, which constitute a large part of the greater metropolitan area of Mexico City,
the State of Mexico is either controlled for or omitted from the analysis. In addition, we
estimate the treatment effect using a specification to flexibly capture local spillover effects:
Outcomeast = β1ILEst +
∑
j
βjClose
j
st +Xstδ + αs + νt + pia + λs × t+ εast, (A1)
for ∈ {0− 5km, 6− 10km, 11− 15km, . . . , 51− 55km}.
A5
This equation is analogous to equation 1 from the paper, however now including mul-
tiple “close to treatment variables” equal to one after the law was passed for states within
j km of Mexico City. As in Equation 1, we include age, year and state fixed effects in
order to account for unobserved heterogeneity. In addition, we include state-specific time
trends as well as state level time-invariant controls. As in the main paper, the fertility
equation is estimated using OLS regression, and the maternal mortality specification is
estimated by Poisson regression. Standard errors are clustered at the level of the state.
Results to this specification are presented in figure A3, which find little evidence to
suggest that spillover important spillover effects exist, at least when agglomerating to the
level of the state.
A6
C Appendix Tables
Table A1: List of States
State
Number of
maternal deaths
Number of
births MMR
Aguascalientes 87 257,576 33.77
Baja California 250 5,68,276 43.99
Baja California Sur 53 120,621 43.94
Campeche 88 160,185 54.94
Chiapas 825 1,220,254 67.61
Chihuahua 440 678,600 64.84
Coahuila 198 552,608 35.83
Colima 31 120,840 25.65
Distrito Federal (Mexico City) 818 1,505,790 54.32
Durango 154 362,410 42.49
Guanajuato 489 1,160,802 42.13
Guerrero 702 809,783 86.69
Hidalgo 297 538,216 55.18
Jalisco 577 1,522,825 37.89
State of Me´xico 1,745 3,186,751 54.76
Michoaca´n 458 946,165 48.41
Morelos 185 326,129 56.73
Nayarit 109 216,272 50.40
Nuevo Leo´n 204 882,618 23.11
Oaxaca 639 851,138 75.08
Puebla 739 1,377,091 53.66
Quere´taro 168 385,391 43.59
Quintana Roo 136 256,223 53.08
San Luis Potos´ı 276 552,094 49.99
Sinaloa 173 554,838 31.18
Sonora 197 513,172 38.39
Tabasco 211 477,473 44.19
Tamaulipas 258 630,260 40.94
Tlaxcala 121 261,363 46.30
Veracruz 922 1,467,936 62.81
Yucata´n 176 360,051 48.88
Zacatecas 132 333,368 39.60
Total 11,858 23,157,119 51.21
Administrative data made available by INEGI on all births and maternal deaths by
each state for ages 15-44 during the time period 2002-2011.
A7
Table A2: Descriptives MxFLS data
Mexico City The rest of Mexico
Variable Mean Std. Obs Mean Std. Obs
Contraception use 0,647 0,479 0,479 0,604 0,489 14766
Modern Contraception use 0,612 0,488 0,488 0,563 0,496 14768
Knowledge of contraception 0,981 0,137 0,137 0,969 0,173 23473
Note to Table A2: The data is obtained from the Mexican Family Life Survey (MxFLS).
A8
T
ab
le
A
3:
E
xp
os
ur
e
to
th
e
re
fo
rm
at
ti
m
e
of
co
nc
ep
ti
on
F
er
ti
li
ty
M
at
er
n
al
M
o
rt
al
it
y
P
ar
ti
al
ex
p
o
su
re
F
u
ll
ex
p
o
su
re
P
ar
ti
al
ex
p
o
su
re
F
u
ll
ex
p
o
su
re
M
on
th
of
M
on
th
of
A
bo
rt
io
n
le
ga
l
at
A
bo
rt
io
n
le
ga
l
at
M
on
th
of
S
pi
ll
ov
er
eff
ec
t
N
o
sp
il
lo
ve
r
eff
ec
ts
C
on
ce
pt
io
n
B
ir
th
at
th
e
m
on
th
so
m
e
po
in
t
du
ri
n
g
D
ea
th
fr
om
il
le
ga
l
an
d
ab
or
ti
on
of
co
n
ce
pt
io
n
th
e
fi
rs
t
tr
im
es
te
r
ab
or
ti
on
s
av
ai
la
bl
e
th
e
fu
ll
1s
t
tr
im
es
te
r
24
D
ec
06
-2
3
Ja
n
07
24
Se
p-
23
O
ct
,
20
07
no
no
24
A
pr
-2
3
M
ay
,
20
07
ye
s
no
24
Ja
n-
23
F
eb
,
20
07
24
O
ct
-2
3
N
ov
,
20
07
ye
s
no
24
M
ay
-2
3
Ju
n,
20
07
ye
s
no
24
F
eb
-2
3
M
ar
,
20
07
24
N
ov
-2
3
D
ec
,
20
07
ye
s
no
24
Ju
n-
23
Ju
l,
20
07
ye
s
no
24
M
ar
-2
3
A
pr
,
20
07
24
D
ec
07
-2
3
Ja
n,
08
ye
s
no
24
Ju
l-
23
A
ug
,
20
07
ye
s
no
24
A
pr
-2
3
M
ay
,
20
07
24
Ja
n-
23
F
eb
,
20
08
-
ye
s
24
A
ug
-2
3
Se
p,
20
07
ye
s
no
24
M
ay
-2
3
Ju
n,
20
07
24
F
eb
-2
3
M
ar
,
20
08
-
ye
s
24
Se
p-
23
O
ct
,
20
07
ye
s
no
24
Ju
n-
23
Ju
l,
20
07
24
M
ar
-2
3
A
pr
,
20
08
-
ye
s
24
O
ct
-2
3
N
ov
,
20
07
no
ye
s
24
Ju
l-
23
A
ug
,
20
07
24
A
pr
-2
3
M
ay
,
20
08
-
ye
s
24
N
ov
-2
3
D
ec
,
20
07
-
ye
s
24
A
ug
-2
3
Se
p,
20
07
24
M
ay
-2
3
Ju
n,
20
08
-
ye
s
24
D
ec
07
-2
3
F
eb
08
-
ye
s
24
Se
p-
23
O
ct
,
20
07
24
Ju
n-
23
Ju
l,
20
08
-
ye
s
24
Ja
n-
23
F
eb
,
20
08
-
ye
s
T
hi
s
ta
bl
e
di
sp
la
ys
ex
p
os
ur
e
to
th
e
re
fo
rm
at
ti
m
e
of
co
nc
ep
ti
on
fo
r
bi
rt
h
an
d
m
at
er
na
l
de
at
hs
re
sp
ec
ti
ve
ly
.
T
he
ab
or
ti
on
la
w
w
as
pa
ss
ed
on
24
A
pr
il
20
07
.
In
te
rm
s
of
fe
rt
ili
ty
ou
tc
om
e,
th
e
fu
ll
eff
ec
t
of
th
e
re
fo
rm
w
ill
b
e
ob
se
rv
ed
in
Ja
nu
ar
y
20
08
si
nc
e
fe
rt
ili
ty
ex
hi
bi
ts
a
ni
ne
m
on
th
la
g
du
e
to
re
al
iz
at
io
n
of
ge
st
at
io
n
(a
ss
um
in
g
40
w
ee
ks
of
ge
st
at
io
n)
.
T
ha
t
is
,
w
om
en
w
ho
go
t
pr
eg
na
nt
af
te
r
th
e
la
w
w
as
pa
ss
ed
,
ha
d
ac
ce
ss
to
ab
or
ti
on
du
ri
ng
th
ei
r
w
ho
le
fir
st
tr
im
es
te
r
an
d
ar
e
th
er
ef
or
e
co
ns
id
er
ed
as
fu
lly
tr
ea
te
d.
W
om
en
w
ho
go
t
pr
eg
na
nt
th
re
e
m
on
th
s
b
ef
or
e
th
e
la
w
w
as
pa
ss
ed
,
ha
d
at
le
as
t
so
m
e
p
er
io
d
of
ti
m
e
w
he
n
th
ey
co
ul
d
ac
ce
ss
th
e
re
fo
rm
,
an
d
ar
e
th
er
ef
or
e
co
ns
id
er
ed
pa
rt
ia
lly
tr
ea
te
d.
T
he
ea
rl
ie
st
ti
m
e
fo
r
w
hi
ch
an
y
im
pa
ct
on
fe
rt
ili
ty
ca
n
b
e
de
te
ct
ed
w
ou
ld
th
en
b
e
fr
om
O
ct
ob
er
20
07
an
d
on
w
ar
ds
.
R
eg
ar
di
ng
m
at
er
na
l
m
or
ta
lit
y,
w
om
en
co
nc
ei
vi
ng
af
te
r
24
Ja
nu
ar
y
20
07
co
ul
d
ac
ce
ss
th
e
re
fo
rm
at
le
as
t
at
so
m
e
p
oi
nt
du
ri
ng
th
e
fir
st
tr
im
es
te
r
w
hi
le
w
om
en
co
nc
ei
vi
ng
af
te
r
th
e
re
fo
rm
w
as
pa
ss
ed
co
ul
d
ac
ce
ss
th
e
re
fo
rm
du
ri
ng
th
e
w
ho
le
fir
st
tr
im
es
te
r.
H
ow
ev
er
,
w
om
en
co
nc
ei
vi
ng
b
ef
or
e
24
Ja
nu
ar
y
20
07
,
th
at
is
w
om
en
pr
eg
na
nt
b
ey
on
d
th
ei
r
fir
st
tr
im
es
te
r
at
th
e
ti
m
e
w
he
n
th
e
re
fo
rm
w
as
pa
ss
ed
,
co
ul
d
ha
ve
an
ill
eg
al
ab
or
ti
on
du
ri
ng
th
e
re
m
ai
ni
ng
si
x
m
on
th
s
of
th
ei
r
pr
eg
na
nc
y
an
d
he
nc
e
“c
on
ta
m
in
at
e”
th
e
m
at
er
na
l
de
at
hs
ta
ki
ng
pl
ac
e
in
th
e
si
x
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
re
fo
rm
w
as
pa
ss
ed
.
T
he
fu
lly
ex
p
os
ed
m
at
er
na
l
de
at
hs
(w
it
ho
ut
co
nt
am
in
at
io
n)
th
er
ef
or
e
oc
cu
rs
fr
om
24
O
ct
ob
er
an
d
fo
rw
ar
d.
A
dd
it
io
na
lly
,
w
e
al
so
ex
p
ec
t
a
la
gg
ed
eff
ec
t
fr
om
m
at
er
na
l
m
or
ta
lit
y
si
nc
e
it
is
a
fu
nc
ti
on
of
fe
rt
ili
ty
(i
.e
lo
w
er
fe
rt
ili
ty
im
pl
ie
s
lo
w
er
m
or
ta
lit
y)
.
A9
Table A4: Heterogeneous Effects of the Reform Across Ages
(a) Fertility
Ages 15-18 Ages 19-24 Ages 25-29 Ages 30-24 Ages 35-39 Ages 40-44
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
OLS
Log
Num. of
Births
OLS
Log
Num. of
Births
OLS
Log
Num. of
Births
OLS
Log
Num. of
Births
OLS
Log
Num. of
Births
OLS
Log
Num. of
Births
Reform -0.0872*** -0.0124 0.0107 -0.0622*** -0.0472*** -0.0358**
(0.011) (0.009) (0.008) (0.011) (0.011) (0.014)
ReformClose -0.00861 0.00693 0.0128 0.00402 -0.0248** 0.0282
(0.013) (0.014) (0.012) (0.015) (0.010) (0.020)
R2 0.994 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.994 0.987
Mean of dep Var 7.753 8.644 8.495 8.091 7.292 5.731
Observations (State*Year*Age) 1280 1920 1600 1600 1600 1600
Number of women 43106477 60894528 47542195 44176996 39516001 33952996
FEs, Trends and Controls X X X X X X
(b) Maternal Mortality
Ages 15-18 Ages 19-24 Ages 25-29 Ages 30-24 Ages 35-39 Ages 40-44
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Poisson
Num. of
Deaths
Poisson
Num. of
Deaths
Poisson
Num. of
Deaths
Poisson
Num. of
Deaths
Poisson
Num. of
Deaths
Poisson
Num. of
Deaths
Reform -0.593** 0.308** -0.690*** -0.393*** 0.0631 -0.371***
(0.253) (0.137) (0.105) (0.128) (0.152) (0.125)
ReformClose -0.460** 0.129 0.0315 0.101 0.247 -0.0261
(0.223) (0.110) (0.097) (0.152) (0.151) (0.073)
Pseudo R2 0.313 0.331 0.330 0.332 0.293 0.228
Mean of dep Var 1.727 2.731 2.791 2.861 2.354 1.037
Observations (State*Year*Age) 1280 1920 1600 1600 1600 1600
Number of births 2732961 8296491 5918229 3948224 1817803 443411
FEs, Trends and Controls X X X X X X
Notes to Table A4. The table shows the difference-in-difference estimates of the heterogeneous effects of the reform on (a) log
number of births (b) and number of maternal deaths by age group. There are six different subsamples of the following age in-
tervals: 15-18, 19-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39 and 40-44 for the period 2002-2011. The dependent variables are defined as the log
number of births (A5a) and number of maternal deaths (A5b). The independent variable Reform takes the value one in Mexico
City nine months after the law was passed due to realization of gestation and zero otherwise. Similarly, ReformClose is a binary
variable equal to one in the neighboring State of Mexico nine months after the reform was introduced. The economic controls
are state level income, unemployment and rurality. The controls for education are illiteracy and proportion of people aged 6-14
who are not enrolled in school. The health controls are the proportion of residents with no health rights and the roll out of the
national health insurance program “Seguro Popular”. The fixed effects consist of age, state and year binary variables. Standard
errors are clustered at state level.*** p<0.01,** p<0.05,* p<0.1.
A10
T
ab
le
A
6:
T
he
E
ff
ec
t
of
th
e
R
ef
or
m
on
B
ir
th
s,
m
on
th
ly
da
ta
F
u
ll
-S
a
m
p
le
1
5
-4
4
T
ee
n
a
g
e
w
o
m
en
1
5
-1
9
(1
)
(2
)
(3
)
(4
)
(5
)
(6
)
(7
)
(8
)
(9
)
(1
0)
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
P
ar
ti
al
ly
B
ir
th
-0
.0
21
7*
-0
.0
08
21
-0
.0
06
92
-0
.0
10
1
-0
.0
09
19
-0
.0
15
3
-0
.0
04
89
-0
.0
02
84
-0
.0
05
26
-0
.0
00
86
1
(0
.0
13
)
(0
.0
09
)
(0
.0
09
)
(0
.0
11
)
(0
.0
11
)
(0
.0
14
)
(0
.0
11
)
(0
.0
10
)
(0
.0
11
)
(0
.0
12
)
F
u
ll
yB
ir
th
-0
.0
30
7*
**
-0
.0
07
81
-0
.0
16
6*
**
-0
.0
14
7*
*
-0
.0
14
4*
*
-0
.0
55
1*
**
-0
.0
37
5*
**
-0
.0
51
7*
**
-0
.0
46
1*
**
-0
.0
46
7*
**
(0
.0
11
)
(0
.0
05
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
11
)
(0
.0
07
)
(0
.0
08
)
(0
.0
09
)
(0
.0
08
)
R
2
0.
97
0
0.
97
0
0.
97
0
0.
97
0
0.
97
0
0.
97
7
0.
97
8
0.
97
8
0.
97
8
0.
97
8
M
ea
n
of
d
ep
V
ar
4.
56
2
4.
56
2
4.
56
2
4.
56
2
4.
56
2
4.
84
6
4.
84
6
4.
84
6
4.
84
6
4.
84
6
O
b
se
rv
at
io
n
s
(S
ta
te
*Y
ea
r*
A
ge
)
11
15
29
11
15
29
11
15
29
11
15
29
11
15
29
18
65
3
18
65
3
18
65
3
18
65
3
18
65
3
S
ta
te
,
Y
ea
r
an
d
A
ge
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
ta
te
S
p
ec
ifi
c
L
in
ea
r
T
re
n
d
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
co
n
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
d
u
ca
ti
on
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
H
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
N
ot
es
to
T
ab
le
A
6.
T
h
e
ta
b
le
d
is
p
la
ys
th
e
d
iff
er
en
ce
in
d
iff
er
en
ce
es
ti
m
at
es
fr
om
O
L
S
re
gr
es
si
on
s.
T
h
e
sa
m
p
le
co
n
si
st
s
of
al
l
b
ir
th
s
am
on
g
w
om
en
ag
ed
15
-4
4
(c
ol
u
m
n
1-
5)
an
d
su
b
-s
am
p
le
of
te
en
ag
e
w
om
en
ag
ed
15
-1
9
(c
ol
u
m
n
6-
10
),
fo
r
th
e
p
er
io
d
20
02
-2
01
1,
on
a
m
on
th
ly
le
ve
l.
P
ar
ti
al
ly
tr
ea
te
d
w
om
en
(w
h
o
h
ad
so
m
e
ex
p
os
u
re
to
th
e
re
fo
rm
b
u
t
n
ot
d
u
ri
n
g
th
e
en
ti
re
tr
im
es
te
r)
,
su
ch
th
at
b
ir
th
s
oc
cu
rr
in
g
b
et
w
ee
n
O
ct
-D
ec
20
07
,
ar
e
ex
cl
u
d
ed
fr
om
th
e
sa
m
p
le
.
T
h
e
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
s
ar
e
d
efi
n
ed
as
th
e
lo
g
nu
m
b
er
of
b
ir
th
s.
T
h
e
in
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
R
ef
or
m
ta
ke
s
th
e
va
lu
e
on
e
in
M
ex
ic
o
C
it
y
n
in
e
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
la
w
w
as
p
as
se
d
d
u
e
to
re
al
iz
at
io
n
of
ge
st
at
io
n
an
d
ze
ro
ot
h
er
w
is
e.
S
im
il
ar
ly
,
R
ef
or
m
C
lo
se
is
a
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
eq
u
al
to
on
e
in
th
e
n
ei
gh
b
or
in
g
S
ta
te
of
M
ex
ic
o
n
in
e
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
re
fo
rm
w
as
in
tr
od
u
ce
d
.
T
h
e
ec
on
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l
in
co
m
e,
u
n
em
p
lo
ym
en
t
an
d
ru
ra
li
ty
.
T
h
e
co
nt
ro
ls
fo
r
ed
u
ca
ti
on
ar
e
il
li
te
ra
cy
an
d
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
p
eo
p
le
ag
ed
6-
14
w
h
o
ar
e
n
ot
en
ro
ll
ed
in
sc
h
oo
l.
T
h
e
h
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
th
e
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
re
si
d
en
ts
w
it
h
n
o
h
ea
lt
h
ri
gh
ts
an
d
th
e
ro
ll
ou
t
of
th
e
n
at
io
n
al
h
ea
lt
h
in
su
ra
n
ce
p
ro
gr
am
“S
eg
u
ro
P
op
u
la
r”
.
T
h
e
fi
xe
d
eff
ec
ts
co
n
si
st
of
ag
e,
st
at
e
an
d
ye
ar
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
s.
S
ta
n
d
ar
d
er
ro
rs
ar
e
cl
u
st
er
ed
at
st
at
e
le
ve
l.
**
*
p
<
0.
01
,*
*
p
<
0.
05
,*
p
<
0.
1.
A11
T
ab
le
A
7:
T
he
E
ff
ec
t
of
th
e
R
ef
or
m
on
M
at
er
na
l
M
or
ta
lit
y,
m
on
th
ly
da
ta
F
u
ll
-S
a
m
p
le
1
5
-4
4
T
ee
n
a
g
e
w
o
m
en
1
5
-1
9
(1
)
(2
)
(3
)
(4
)
(5
)
(6
)
(7
)
(8
)
(9
)
(1
0)
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
M
at
er
n
al
D
ea
th
s
P
ar
ti
al
ly
M
M
R
0.
09
47
*
0.
07
44
0.
05
62
0.
06
08
0.
06
34
0.
30
6*
0.
23
0
0.
22
9
0.
21
1
0.
21
2
(0
.0
52
)
(0
.0
66
)
(0
.0
65
)
(0
.0
64
)
(0
.0
66
)
(0
.1
79
)
(0
.1
72
)
(0
.1
76
)
(0
.1
74
)
(0
.1
75
)
F
u
ll
yM
M
R
-0
.0
41
4
-0
.0
72
8
-0
.1
02
**
-0
.0
77
6*
-0
.0
80
9*
-0
.0
96
6
-0
.2
12
**
-0
.2
31
**
-0
.3
31
**
-0
.3
12
*
(0
.0
26
)
(0
.0
49
)
(0
.0
48
)
(0
.0
46
)
(0
.0
45
)
(0
.0
61
)
(0
.0
89
)
(0
.1
00
)
(0
.1
47
)
(0
.1
69
)
P
se
u
d
o
R
2
0.
13
64
1
0.
13
71
2
0.
13
72
5
0.
13
72
6
0.
13
72
6
0.
14
01
0
0.
14
30
7
0.
14
30
9
0.
14
32
5
0.
14
36
5
M
ea
n
of
d
ep
V
ar
0.
10
3
0.
10
3
0.
10
3
0.
10
3
0.
10
3
0.
07
85
0.
07
85
0.
07
85
0.
07
85
0.
07
85
O
b
se
rv
at
io
n
s
(S
ta
te
*Y
ea
r*
A
ge
)
11
51
46
11
51
46
11
51
46
11
51
46
11
51
46
19
25
9
19
25
9
19
25
9
19
25
9
19
25
9
S
ta
te
,
Y
ea
r
an
d
A
ge
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
ta
te
S
p
ec
ifi
c
L
in
ea
r
T
re
n
d
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
co
n
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
d
u
ca
ti
on
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
H
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
N
ot
es
to
T
ab
le
A
7.
T
h
e
ta
b
le
d
is
p
la
ys
th
e
d
iff
er
en
ce
in
d
iff
er
en
ce
es
ti
m
at
es
fr
om
O
L
S
re
gr
es
si
on
s.
T
h
e
sa
m
p
le
co
n
si
st
s
of
al
l
m
at
er
n
al
d
ea
th
s
am
on
g
w
om
en
ag
ed
15
-4
4
(c
ol
u
m
n
1-
5)
an
d
su
b
-s
am
p
le
of
te
en
ag
e
w
om
en
ag
ed
15
-1
9
(c
ol
u
m
n
6-
10
),
fo
r
th
e
p
er
io
d
20
02
-2
01
1,
on
a
m
on
th
ly
le
ve
l.
P
ar
ti
al
ly
tr
ea
te
d
m
at
er
-
n
al
d
ea
th
s
ar
e
d
ea
th
s
oc
cu
rr
in
g
b
et
w
ee
n
A
p
ri
l-
O
ct
ob
er
20
07
b
ec
au
se
th
es
e
d
ea
th
s
co
u
ld
b
e
d
u
e
to
in
d
u
ce
d
ab
or
ti
on
b
ey
on
d
th
e
fi
rs
t
tr
im
es
te
r,
w
h
ic
h
w
ou
ld
n
ot
oc
cu
r
if
th
es
e
w
om
en
h
av
e
h
ad
ac
ce
ss
to
le
ga
l
fi
rs
t
tr
im
es
te
r
ab
or
ti
on
.
T
h
es
e
ar
e
ex
cl
u
d
ed
fr
om
th
e
sa
m
p
le
.
T
h
e
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
s
ar
e
d
efi
n
ed
as
th
e
nu
m
b
er
of
m
at
er
n
al
d
ea
th
s.
T
h
e
in
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
R
ef
or
m
ta
ke
s
th
e
va
lu
e
on
e
in
M
ex
ic
o
C
it
y
si
x
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
la
w
w
as
p
as
se
d
on
or
d
er
to
ac
co
u
nt
fo
r
la
te
te
rm
ab
or
ti
on
s.
S
im
il
ar
ly
,
R
ef
or
m
C
lo
se
is
a
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
eq
u
al
to
on
e
in
th
e
n
ei
gh
b
or
in
g
S
ta
te
of
M
ex
ic
o
si
x
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
re
fo
rm
w
as
in
tr
od
u
ce
d
.
T
h
e
ec
on
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l
in
co
m
e,
u
n
em
p
lo
ym
en
t
an
d
ru
ra
li
ty
.
T
h
e
co
nt
ro
ls
fo
r
ed
u
ca
ti
on
ar
e
il
li
te
ra
cy
an
d
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
p
eo
p
le
ag
ed
6-
14
w
h
o
ar
e
n
ot
en
ro
ll
ed
in
sc
h
oo
l.
T
h
e
h
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
th
e
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
re
si
d
en
ts
w
it
h
n
o
h
ea
lt
h
ri
gh
ts
an
d
th
e
ro
ll
ou
t
of
th
e
n
at
io
n
al
h
ea
lt
h
in
su
ra
n
ce
p
ro
gr
am
“S
eg
u
ro
P
op
u
la
r”
.
T
h
e
fi
xe
d
eff
ec
ts
co
n
si
st
of
ag
e,
st
at
e
an
d
ye
ar
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
s.
S
ta
n
d
ar
d
er
ro
rs
ar
e
cl
u
st
er
ed
at
st
at
e
le
ve
l.
**
*
p
<
0.
01
,*
*
p
<
0.
05
,*
p
<
0.
1.
A12
T
ab
le
A
8:
St
at
e
of
M
ex
ic
o
is
O
m
it
te
d
F
er
ti
li
ty
M
a
te
rn
a
l
M
o
rt
a
li
ty
(1
)
(2
)
(3
)
(4
)
(5
)
(6
)
(7
)
(8
)
(9
)
(1
0)
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
m
ai
n
R
ef
or
m
-0
.0
21
7*
*
-0
.0
28
5*
**
-0
.0
37
4*
**
-0
.0
33
8*
**
-0
.0
34
1*
**
-0
.1
19
**
*
-0
.2
16
**
*
-0
.2
26
**
*
-0
.1
93
**
*
-0
.2
05
**
*
(0
.0
09
)
(0
.0
05
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
27
)
(0
.0
49
)
(0
.0
60
)
(0
.0
53
)
(0
.0
54
)
R
2
0.
98
6
0.
98
6
0.
98
6
0.
98
6
0.
98
6
P
se
u
d
o
R
2
0.
18
8
0.
19
0
0.
19
1
0.
19
1
0.
19
1
M
ea
n
of
d
ep
V
ar
7.
63
3
7.
63
3
7.
63
3
7.
63
3
7.
63
3
1.
87
5
1.
87
5
1.
87
5
1.
87
5
1.
87
5
O
b
se
rv
at
io
n
s
(S
ta
te
*Y
ea
r*
A
ge
)
93
00
93
00
93
00
93
00
93
00
93
00
93
00
93
00
93
00
93
00
N
u
m
b
er
of
w
om
en
23
19
90
87
9
23
19
90
87
9
23
19
90
87
9
23
19
90
87
9
23
19
90
87
9
N
u
m
b
er
of
b
ir
th
s
19
97
03
68
19
97
03
68
19
97
03
68
19
97
03
68
19
97
03
68
S
ta
te
,
Y
ea
r
an
d
A
ge
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
ta
te
S
p
ec
ifi
c
L
in
ea
r
T
re
n
d
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
co
n
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
d
u
ca
ti
on
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
H
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
N
ot
e
to
T
ab
le
A
8.
T
h
e
ta
b
le
d
is
p
la
ys
th
e
d
iff
er
en
ce
in
d
iff
er
en
ce
es
ti
m
at
es
fr
om
O
L
S
re
gr
es
si
on
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
1-
5)
an
d
P
oi
ss
on
re
gr
es
si
on
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
6-
10
).
T
h
e
sa
m
p
le
co
n
si
st
s
of
al
l
b
ir
th
s
an
d
m
at
er
n
al
d
ea
th
s
am
on
g
w
om
en
ag
ed
15
-4
4
fo
r
th
e
p
er
io
d
20
02
-2
01
1.
T
h
e
S
ta
te
of
M
ex
ic
o
is
om
it
te
d
d
u
e
to
p
ot
en
ti
al
sp
il
lo
ve
r
eff
ec
ts
.
T
h
e
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
s
ar
e
d
efi
n
ed
as
th
e
lo
g
nu
m
b
er
of
b
ir
th
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
1-
5)
an
d
m
at
er
n
al
d
ea
th
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
6-
10
).
T
h
e
in
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
R
ef
or
m
ta
ke
s
th
e
va
lu
e
on
e
in
M
ex
ic
o
C
it
y
n
in
e
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
la
w
w
as
p
as
se
d
.
S
im
il
ar
ly
,
R
ef
or
m
C
lo
se
is
a
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
eq
u
al
to
on
e
in
th
e
n
ei
gh
b
or
in
g
S
ta
te
of
M
ex
ic
o
n
in
e
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
re
fo
rm
w
as
in
tr
od
u
ce
d
.
T
h
e
ec
on
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l
in
co
m
e,
u
n
em
p
lo
ym
en
t
an
d
ru
ra
li
ty
.
T
h
e
co
nt
ro
ls
fo
r
ed
u
ca
ti
on
ar
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l
il
li
te
ra
cy
an
d
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
p
eo
p
le
ag
ed
6-
14
w
h
o
ar
e
n
ot
en
ro
ll
ed
in
sc
h
oo
l.
T
h
e
h
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
th
e
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
re
si
d
en
ts
w
it
h
n
o
h
ea
lt
h
ri
gh
ts
an
d
th
e
ro
ll
ou
t
of
th
e
n
at
io
n
al
h
ea
lt
h
in
su
ra
n
ce
p
ro
gr
am
“S
eg
u
ro
P
op
u
la
r”
(s
ta
te
le
ve
l)
.
T
h
e
fi
xe
d
eff
ec
ts
co
n
si
st
of
ag
e,
st
at
e
an
d
ye
ar
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
s.
S
ta
n
d
ar
d
er
ro
rs
ar
e
cl
u
st
er
ed
at
st
at
e
le
ve
l.
**
*
p
<
0.
01
,*
*
p
<
0.
05
,*
p
<
0.
1.
A13
T
ab
le
A
9:
R
ob
us
tn
es
s
F
er
ti
li
ty
M
a
te
rn
a
l
M
o
rt
a
li
ty
(1
)
(2
)
(3
)
(4
)
(5
)
(6
)
(7
)
(8
)
(9
)
(1
0)
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
P
oi
ss
on
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
m
ai
n
R
ef
or
m
-0
.0
28
3*
*
-0
.0
26
1*
**
-0
.0
30
8*
**
-0
.0
33
1*
**
-0
.0
33
0*
**
-0
.1
48
**
*
-0
.2
17
**
*
-0
.2
50
**
*
-0
.2
78
**
*
-0
.2
67
**
*
(0
.0
12
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
09
)
(0
.0
09
)
(0
.0
19
)
(0
.0
57
)
(0
.0
47
)
(0
.0
60
)
(0
.0
52
)
R
ef
or
m
C
lo
se
-0
.0
14
9
0.
00
74
8
0.
00
53
6
0.
01
12
0.
01
29
-0
.1
32
**
*
-0
.0
16
8
0.
01
76
0.
03
31
0.
06
32
(0
.0
12
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
06
)
(0
.0
13
)
(0
.0
16
)
(0
.0
19
)
(0
.0
57
)
(0
.0
58
)
(0
.0
71
)
(0
.0
71
)
R
2
0.
99
0
0.
99
0
0.
99
0
0.
99
0
0.
99
0
P
se
u
d
o
R
2
0.
37
1
0.
37
2
0.
37
2
0.
37
2
0.
37
2
M
ea
n
of
d
ep
V
ar
7.
88
8
7.
88
8
7.
88
8
7.
88
8
7.
88
8
2.
82
3
2.
82
3
2.
82
3
2.
82
3
2.
82
3
O
b
se
rv
at
io
n
s
(S
ta
te
*Y
ea
r*
A
ge
)
63
00
63
00
63
00
63
00
63
00
63
00
63
00
63
00
63
00
63
00
N
u
m
b
er
of
w
om
en
19
30
99
05
0
19
30
99
05
0
19
30
99
05
0
19
30
99
05
0
19
30
99
05
0
N
u
m
b
er
of
b
ir
th
s
15
76
35
86
15
76
35
86
15
76
35
86
15
76
35
86
15
76
35
86
S
ta
te
,
Y
ea
r
an
d
A
ge
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
ta
te
S
p
ec
ifi
c
L
in
ea
r
T
re
n
d
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
co
n
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
d
u
ca
ti
on
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
H
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
N
ot
e
to
T
ab
le
A
9.
T
h
e
ta
b
le
d
is
p
la
ys
th
e
d
iff
er
en
ce
in
d
iff
er
en
ce
es
ti
m
at
es
fr
om
O
L
S
re
gr
es
si
on
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
1-
5)
an
d
P
oi
ss
on
re
gr
es
si
on
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
6-
10
).
T
h
e
sa
m
p
le
co
n
si
st
s
of
al
l
b
ir
th
s
an
d
m
at
er
n
al
d
ea
th
s
am
on
g
w
om
en
ag
ed
15
-4
4
fo
r
th
e
p
er
io
d
20
02
-2
01
1.
S
ta
te
s
w
h
er
e
m
or
e
th
an
50
%
of
al
l
b
ir
th
s
oc
cu
r
in
ru
ra
l
ar
ea
s
ar
e
om
it
-
te
d
fr
om
th
e
an
al
ys
is
.
T
h
e
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
s
ar
e
d
efi
n
ed
as
th
e
lo
g
nu
m
b
er
of
b
ir
th
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
1-
5)
an
d
m
at
er
n
al
d
ea
th
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
6-
10
).
T
h
e
in
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
R
ef
or
m
ta
ke
s
th
e
va
lu
e
on
e
in
M
ex
ic
o
C
it
y
n
in
e
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
la
w
w
as
p
as
se
d
.
S
im
il
ar
ly
,
R
ef
or
m
C
lo
se
is
a
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
eq
u
al
to
on
e
in
th
e
n
ei
gh
b
or
in
g
S
ta
te
of
M
ex
ic
o
af
te
r
n
in
e
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
re
fo
rm
w
as
in
tr
od
u
ce
d
.
T
h
e
ec
on
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l
in
co
m
e,
u
n
em
p
lo
ym
en
t
an
d
ru
ra
li
ty
.
T
h
e
co
nt
ro
ls
fo
r
ed
u
ca
ti
on
ar
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l
il
li
te
ra
cy
an
d
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
p
eo
p
le
ag
ed
6-
14
w
h
o
ar
e
n
ot
en
ro
ll
ed
in
sc
h
oo
l.
T
h
e
h
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
th
e
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
re
si
d
en
ts
w
it
h
n
o
h
ea
lt
h
ri
gh
ts
an
d
th
e
ro
ll
ou
t
of
th
e
n
at
io
n
al
h
ea
lt
h
in
su
ra
n
ce
p
ro
gr
am
“S
eg
u
ro
P
op
u
la
r”
(s
ta
te
le
ve
l)
.
T
h
e
fi
xe
d
eff
ec
ts
co
n
si
st
of
ag
e,
st
at
e
an
d
ye
ar
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
s.
S
ta
n
d
ar
d
er
ro
rs
ar
e
cl
u
st
er
ed
at
st
at
e
le
ve
l.
**
*
p
<
0.
01
,*
*
p
<
0.
05
,*
p
<
0.
1.
A14
T
ab
le
A
10
:
A
lt
er
na
ti
ve
Sp
ec
ifi
ca
ti
on
s
F
er
ti
li
ty
M
a
te
rn
a
l
M
o
rt
a
li
ty
(1
)
(2
)
(3
)
(4
)
(5
)
(6
)
(7
)
(8
)
(9
)
(1
0)
O
L
S
B
ir
th
R
at
e
O
L
S
B
ir
th
R
at
e
O
L
S
B
ir
th
R
at
e
O
L
S
B
ir
th
R
at
e
O
L
S
B
ir
th
R
at
e
O
L
S
M
M
R
O
L
S
M
M
R
O
L
S
M
M
R
O
L
S
M
M
R
O
L
S
M
M
R
R
ef
or
m
4.
89
8*
**
-1
.7
58
**
*
-2
.2
64
**
*
-2
.3
37
**
*
-2
.3
61
**
*
-3
.0
61
**
-9
.9
30
**
*
-1
1.
21
**
*
-1
1.
03
**
*
-1
1.
32
**
*
(0
.7
05
)
(0
.3
82
)
(0
.5
35
)
(0
.5
84
)
(0
.5
85
)
(1
.2
95
)
(1
.7
53
)
(2
.2
02
)
(2
.2
25
)
(2
.0
97
)
R
ef
or
m
C
lo
se
-1
.0
94
0.
84
3*
*
0.
48
9
0.
70
1
0.
62
4
-5
.2
63
**
*
2.
28
8
2.
71
1
2.
24
3
2.
67
8
(0
.7
04
)
(0
.3
74
)
(0
.5
13
)
(0
.8
59
)
(0
.9
54
)
(1
.2
97
)
(1
.7
50
)
(2
.0
86
)
(3
.3
09
)
(3
.2
23
)
R
2
0.
96
8
0.
96
9
0.
96
9
0.
96
9
0.
96
9
0.
22
1
0.
22
4
0.
22
5
0.
22
5
0.
22
5
M
ea
n
of
d
ep
V
ar
86
.0
3
86
.0
3
86
.0
3
86
.0
3
86
.0
3
51
.2
1
51
.2
1
51
.2
1
51
.2
1
51
.2
1
O
b
se
rv
at
io
n
s
(S
ta
te
*Y
ea
r*
A
ge
)
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
N
u
m
b
er
of
w
om
en
26
91
89
19
3
26
91
89
19
3
26
91
89
19
3
26
91
89
19
3
26
91
89
19
3
N
u
m
b
er
of
b
ir
th
s
23
15
71
19
23
15
71
19
23
15
71
19
23
15
71
19
23
15
71
19
S
ta
te
,
Y
ea
r
an
d
A
ge
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
ta
te
S
p
ec
ifi
c
L
in
ea
r
T
re
n
d
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
co
n
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
d
u
ca
ti
on
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
H
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
N
ot
e
to
T
ab
le
A
10
.
T
h
e
ta
b
le
d
is
p
la
ys
th
e
d
iff
er
en
ce
in
d
iff
er
en
ce
es
ti
m
at
es
fr
om
O
L
S
re
gr
es
si
on
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
1-
5)
an
d
P
oi
ss
on
re
gr
es
si
on
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
6-
10
).
T
h
e
sa
m
p
le
co
n
si
st
s
of
al
l
b
ir
th
s
an
d
m
at
er
n
al
d
ea
th
s
am
on
g
w
om
en
ag
ed
15
-4
4
fo
r
th
e
p
er
io
d
20
02
-2
01
1.
T
h
e
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
s
ar
e
b
ir
th
ra
te
d
efi
n
ed
as
th
e
an
nu
al
nu
m
b
er
of
b
ir
th
s
p
er
1,
00
0
w
om
en
(c
ol
u
m
n
1-
5)
in
a
sp
ec
ifi
c
ar
ea
an
d
m
at
er
n
al
m
or
ta
li
ty
ra
ti
o
d
efi
n
ed
as
th
e
an
nu
al
nu
m
b
er
of
d
ea
th
s
p
er
10
0,
00
0
li
ve
b
ir
th
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
6-
10
).
T
h
e
in
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
R
ef
or
m
ta
ke
s
th
e
va
lu
e
on
e
in
M
ex
ic
o
C
it
y
n
in
e
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
la
w
w
as
p
as
se
d
.
S
im
il
ar
ly
,
R
ef
or
m
C
lo
se
is
a
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
eq
u
al
to
on
e
in
th
e
n
ei
gh
b
or
in
g
S
ta
te
of
M
ex
ic
o
af
te
r
n
in
e
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
re
fo
rm
w
as
in
tr
od
u
ce
d
.
T
h
e
ec
on
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l
in
co
m
e,
u
n
em
p
lo
ym
en
t
an
d
ru
ra
li
ty
.
T
h
e
co
nt
ro
ls
fo
r
ed
u
ca
ti
on
ar
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l
il
li
te
ra
cy
an
d
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
p
eo
p
le
ag
ed
6-
14
w
h
o
ar
e
n
ot
en
ro
ll
ed
in
sc
h
oo
l.
T
h
e
h
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
th
e
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
re
si
d
en
ts
w
it
h
n
o
h
ea
lt
h
ri
gh
ts
an
d
th
e
ro
ll
ou
t
of
th
e
n
at
io
n
al
h
ea
lt
h
in
su
ra
n
ce
p
ro
gr
am
“S
eg
u
ro
P
op
u
la
r”
(s
ta
te
le
ve
l)
.
T
h
e
fi
xe
d
eff
ec
ts
co
n
si
st
of
ag
e,
st
at
e
an
d
ye
ar
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
s.
S
ta
n
d
ar
d
er
ro
rs
ar
e
cl
u
st
er
ed
at
st
at
e
le
ve
l.
**
*
p
<
0.
01
,*
*
p
<
0.
05
,*
p
<
0.
1.
A15
T
ab
le
A
11
:
A
lt
er
na
ti
ve
Sp
ec
ifi
ca
ti
on
s
F
er
ti
li
ty
M
a
te
rn
a
l
M
o
rt
a
li
ty
(1
)
(2
)
(3
)
(4
)
(5
)
(6
)
(7
)
(8
)
(9
)
(1
0)
O
L
S
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
N
u
m
.
of
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
O
L
S
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
O
L
S
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
O
L
S
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
O
L
S
N
u
m
.
of
D
ea
th
s
R
ef
or
m
-4
42
.7
**
*
-4
8.
91
**
-5
9.
30
**
-8
2.
99
*
-7
8.
96
*
-0
.4
82
**
*
-0
.5
58
**
*
-0
.5
46
**
*
-0
.5
79
**
*
-0
.5
95
**
*
(3
2.
68
6)
(2
1.
74
7)
(2
6.
13
8)
(4
2.
34
7)
(4
0.
60
3)
(0
.0
54
)
(0
.0
96
)
(0
.1
37
)
(0
.1
05
)
(0
.1
02
)
R
ef
or
m
C
lo
se
-4
63
.3
**
*
32
8.
8*
**
32
1.
3*
**
36
9.
1*
**
37
3.
0*
**
-1
.0
98
**
*
0.
34
7*
**
0.
39
2*
**
0.
46
7*
**
0.
49
9*
*
(3
2.
23
8)
(2
1.
01
3)
(2
4.
27
2)
(6
5.
80
4)
(7
0.
54
5)
(0
.0
52
)
(0
.0
95
)
(0
.1
25
)
(0
.1
69
)
(0
.1
83
)
R
2
0.
81
5
0.
81
6
0.
81
6
0.
81
6
0.
81
6
0.
61
2
0.
61
8
0.
61
8
0.
61
8
0.
61
9
M
ea
n
of
d
ep
V
ar
44
02
.4
44
02
.4
44
02
.4
44
02
.4
44
02
.4
2.
58
8
2.
58
8
2.
58
8
2.
58
8
2.
58
8
O
b
se
rv
at
io
n
s
(S
ta
te
*Y
ea
r*
A
ge
)
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
N
u
m
b
er
of
w
om
en
26
91
89
19
3
26
91
89
19
3
26
91
89
19
3
26
91
89
19
3
26
91
89
19
3
N
u
m
b
er
of
b
ir
th
s
23
15
71
19
23
15
71
19
23
15
71
19
23
15
71
19
23
15
71
19
S
ta
te
,
Y
ea
r
an
d
A
ge
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
ta
te
S
p
ec
ifi
c
L
in
ea
r
T
re
n
d
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
co
n
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
d
u
ca
ti
on
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
H
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
N
ot
e
to
T
ab
le
A
11
.
T
h
e
ta
b
le
d
is
p
la
ys
th
e
d
iff
er
en
ce
in
d
iff
er
en
ce
es
ti
m
at
es
fr
om
O
L
S
re
gr
es
si
on
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
1-
10
).
T
h
e
sa
m
p
le
co
n
si
st
s
of
al
l
b
ir
th
s
an
d
m
at
er
n
al
d
ea
th
s
am
on
g
w
om
en
ag
ed
15
-4
4
fo
r
th
e
p
er
io
d
20
02
-2
01
1.
T
h
e
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
s
ar
e
th
e
nu
m
b
er
s
of
b
ir
th
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
1-
5)
an
d
nu
m
b
er
s
of
m
at
er
n
al
d
ea
th
s
(c
ol
-
u
m
n
6-
10
).
T
h
e
in
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
R
ef
or
m
ta
ke
s
th
e
va
lu
e
on
e
in
M
ex
ic
o
C
it
y
n
in
e
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
la
w
w
as
p
as
se
d
.
S
im
il
ar
ly
,
R
ef
or
m
C
lo
se
is
a
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
eq
u
al
to
on
e
in
th
e
n
ei
gh
b
or
in
g
S
ta
te
of
M
ex
ic
o
af
te
r
n
in
e
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
re
fo
rm
w
as
in
tr
od
u
ce
d
.
T
h
e
ec
on
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l
in
co
m
e,
u
n
em
p
lo
ym
en
t
an
d
ru
ra
li
ty
.
T
h
e
co
nt
ro
ls
fo
r
ed
u
ca
ti
on
ar
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l
il
li
te
ra
cy
an
d
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
p
eo
p
le
ag
ed
6-
14
w
h
o
ar
e
n
ot
en
ro
ll
ed
in
sc
h
oo
l.
T
h
e
h
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
th
e
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
re
si
d
en
ts
w
it
h
n
o
h
ea
lt
h
ri
gh
ts
an
d
th
e
ro
ll
ou
t
of
th
e
n
at
io
n
al
h
ea
lt
h
in
su
ra
n
ce
p
ro
gr
am
“S
eg
u
ro
P
op
u
la
r”
(s
ta
te
le
ve
l)
.
T
h
e
fi
xe
d
eff
ec
ts
co
n
si
st
of
ag
e,
st
at
e
an
d
ye
ar
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
s.
S
ta
n
d
ar
d
er
ro
rs
ar
e
cl
u
st
er
ed
at
st
at
e
le
ve
l.
**
*
p
<
0.
01
,*
*
p
<
0.
05
,*
p
<
0.
1.
A16
T
ab
le
A
12
:
In
fe
re
nc
e
F
er
ti
li
ty
M
a
te
rn
a
l
M
o
rt
a
li
ty
(1
)
(2
)
(3
)
(4
)
(5
)
(6
)
(7
)
(8
)
(9
)
(1
0)
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
B
ir
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
D
ea
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
D
ea
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
D
ea
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
D
ea
th
s
O
L
S
L
og
N
u
m
D
ea
th
s
R
ef
or
m
-0
.0
30
0*
*
-0
.0
28
3*
*
-0
.0
37
0*
*
-0
.0
38
5*
*
-0
.0
38
2*
*
-0
.0
67
4*
*
-0
.1
63
**
-0
.1
85
**
-0
.1
87
**
-0
.1
89
**
(0
.0
13
)
(0
.0
12
)
(0
.0
16
)
(0
.0
17
)
(0
.0
16
)
(0
.0
29
)
(0
.0
70
)
(0
.0
80
)
(0
.0
80
)
(0
.0
81
)
R
ef
or
m
C
lo
se
-0
.0
17
3
0.
00
29
0
-0
.0
02
58
-0
.0
02
92
-0
.0
07
66
-0
.1
12
**
0.
10
8*
**
0.
10
1*
**
0.
09
11
**
*
0.
08
91
**
(0
.0
13
)
(0
.0
05
)
(0
.0
05
)
(0
.0
12
)
(0
.0
08
)
(0
.0
48
)
(0
.0
00
)
(0
.0
00
)
(0
.0
00
)
(0
.0
38
)
O
b
se
rv
at
io
n
s
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
96
00
R
2
0.
98
80
6
0.
98
85
3
0.
98
85
4
0.
98
85
4
0.
98
85
5
0.
49
12
9
0.
49
46
8
0.
49
50
8
0.
49
51
5
0.
49
52
0
S
ta
te
,
Y
ea
r
an
d
A
ge
F
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
ta
te
S
p
ec
ifi
c
L
in
ea
r
T
re
n
d
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
co
n
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
d
u
ca
ti
on
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
X
X
H
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
X
X
N
ot
e
to
T
ab
le
A
12
.
T
h
e
ta
b
le
d
is
p
la
ys
th
e
d
iff
er
en
ce
in
d
iff
er
en
ce
es
ti
m
at
es
fr
om
O
L
S
re
gr
es
si
on
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
1-
10
).
T
h
e
sa
m
p
le
co
n
si
st
s
of
al
l
b
ir
th
s
an
d
m
a-
te
rn
al
d
ea
th
s
am
on
g
w
om
en
ag
ed
15
-4
4
fo
r
th
e
p
er
io
d
20
02
-2
01
1.
T
h
e
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
s
ar
e
th
e
nu
m
b
er
s
of
b
ir
th
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
1-
5)
an
d
nu
m
b
er
s
of
m
at
er
n
al
d
ea
th
s
(c
ol
u
m
n
6-
10
)
(w
il
d
b
oo
ts
tr
ap
p
in
g
is
n
ot
co
m
p
at
ib
le
in
n
on
-l
in
ea
r
m
od
el
s
su
ch
as
P
oi
ss
on
re
gr
es
si
on
s)
.
T
h
e
in
d
ep
en
d
en
t
va
ri
ab
le
R
ef
or
m
ta
ke
s
th
e
va
lu
e
on
e
in
M
ex
ic
o
C
it
y
n
in
e
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
la
w
w
as
p
as
se
d
.
S
im
il
ar
ly
,
R
ef
or
m
C
lo
se
is
a
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
eq
u
al
to
on
e
in
th
e
n
ei
gh
b
or
in
g
S
ta
te
of
M
ex
ic
o
af
te
r
n
in
e
m
on
th
s
af
te
r
th
e
re
fo
rm
w
as
in
tr
od
u
ce
d
.
T
h
e
ec
on
om
ic
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l
in
co
m
e,
u
n
em
p
lo
ym
en
t
an
d
ru
ra
li
ty
.
T
h
e
co
nt
ro
ls
fo
r
ed
u
ca
ti
on
ar
e
st
at
e
le
ve
l
il
li
te
ra
cy
an
d
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
p
eo
p
le
ag
ed
6-
14
w
h
o
ar
e
n
ot
en
ro
ll
ed
in
sc
h
oo
l.
T
h
e
h
ea
lt
h
co
nt
ro
ls
ar
e
th
e
p
ro
p
or
ti
on
of
re
si
d
en
ts
w
it
h
n
o
h
ea
lt
h
ri
gh
ts
an
d
th
e
ro
ll
ou
t
of
th
e
n
at
io
n
al
h
ea
lt
h
in
su
ra
n
ce
p
ro
gr
am
“S
eg
u
ro
P
op
u
la
r”
(s
ta
te
le
ve
l)
.
T
h
e
fi
xe
d
eff
ec
ts
co
n
si
st
of
ag
e,
st
at
e
an
d
ye
ar
b
in
ar
y
va
ri
ab
le
s.
st
an
d
ar
d
er
ro
rs
ar
e
es
ti
m
at
ed
u
si
n
g
w
il
d
b
oo
ts
tr
ap
p
in
g.
**
*
p
<
0.
01
,*
*
p
<
0.
05
,*
p
<
0.
1.
A17
Table A13: Educational Composition
(a) Birth Register
Maternal Composition, Education
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
OLS
No
Education
OLS
Primary
Education
OLS
Secondary
Education
OLS
High
School
OLS
Professional
Education
Reform -0.00235 0.00417 0.0191*** -0.0136*** -0.00701***
(0.002) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.002)
Observations 1081393 1081393 1081393 1081393 1081393
R2 0.10147 0.03111 0.05042 0.02922 0.05671
Mean of dep Var 0.120 0.242 0.360 0.176 0.101
State and Year X X X X X
State Specific Linear Trends X X X X X
Economic controls X X X X X
Health controls X X X X X
(b) Deaths Register
Maternal Composition, Education
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
OLS
No
Education
OLS
Primary
Education
OLS
Secondary
Education
OLS
High
School
OLS
Professional
Education
Reform 0.0587** -0.0941*** 0.0296 -0.0247 0.0306**
(0.026) (0.015) (0.018) (0.015) (0.012)
Observations 11556 11556 11556 11556 11556
R2 0.12714 0.08852 0.05357 0.04339 0.02780
Mean of dep Var 0.443 0.101 0.245 0.126 0.0852
State and Year X X X X X
State Specific Linear Trends X X X X X
Economic controls X X X X X
Health controls X X X X X
Note to Table A13. The table displays the difference in difference estimates from OLS regressions. The
sample consists of all births and maternal deaths for women aged 15-44 for the period 2002-2011. The
dependent variables are, conditional on motherhood, the probability of having no or incomplete primary
education (column 1), probability of primary education (column 2), probability of secondary education
(column 3), probability of high school degree (column 4), probability of professional education (column
5) age (column 6) teenage death (column 7) and probability of single motherhood. The independent vari-
able Reform takes the value of one in locations and time where the reform was passed i.e. in the Mexico
City after 2007. A full set of fixed effects, time varying controls and state-specific linear time trends are
included in each regression. Standard errors are clustered at state level.*** p<0.01,** p<0.05,* p<0.1.
A18
D Appendix Figures
Figure A1: Map of Mexico
-Mexico City 
(Reform Area) 
Figure A2: MxFLS data
(a) Current use of modern
method0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.91Current of modern contraceptives 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012YearMexico City Rest of Mexico (b) Current use of modern ortraditional method0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.91Current of any type contraceptives 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012YearMexico City Rest of Mexico (c) Contraceptive knowledge.9.92.94.96.981Knowledge of modern contraceptives 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012YearMexico City Rest of Mexico
Note to Figure A2: The data is obtained from the Mexican Family Life Survey (MxFLS) conducted
in 2002-2003, 2005-2006 and 2009-2012. The sample consists of all women aged 15-44 who completed
the reproductive health questionnaire resulting in a total of 15,114 individuals. The data for the years
between when the surveys were conducted is linearly interpolated. Modern contraceptives are condoms, oral
or/injectable/implants of hormones preventing ovulation, IUD, sterilization and emergency contraception.
Traditional or less safe methods are calendar method or rhythm method, coitus interrupts, herbs or teas.
A19
Figure A3: Spillover Effects
(a) Fertility
-.2-.15 -.1-.05 0.05.1.15 .2Log Num of births 0=DF 10=Mex 15=MR 45=HI&PU 55=TLDistance in KilometersPoint Estimates CI (b) Maternal mortality-2-1.5-1-.50.511.52Num of deaths 0=DF 10=Mex 15=MR 45=HI&PU 55=TLDistance in KilometersPoint Estimates CI
Note to figure A3: The coefficient plot shows point estimates and confidence intervals estimated according
to Equation (A1) using OLS regressions (Figure A3a) and Poisson regressions (Figure A3b). The sample
consists of all births and maternal deaths among women aged 15-44 for the period 2002-2011. We in-
clude multiple treatment variables equal to unity (9 months) after the law was passed for states with the
minimum distance intervals 0-5, 6-10, 11-15 up to 51-55 kilometers to Mexico City, in order to examine
spillover effects. DF=Mexico City, Mex=State of Mexico, MR=Morelos, HI=Hidalgo, PU=Puebla and
TL=Tlaxcala. A full set of fixed effects, time varying controls and state-specific linear time trends are
included in each regression (see note to Table A4).
A20
References
Barros, R. (2008): “Wealthier But Not Much Healthier: Effects of a Health Insurance
Program for the Poor in Mexico,” Discussion Papers 09-002, Stanford Institute for
Economic Policy Research.
Becker, D. (2013): “Decriminalization of Abortion in Mexico City: The Effects on
Women’s Reproductive Rights,” American Journal of Public Health, 103, 590–593.
Bosch, M., M. B. Cobacho, and C. Pages (2012): “Taking stock of eight years of
implementation of Seguro Popular in Mexico,” Washington, DC, United States: Inter-
American Development Bank. Mimeographed document.
Consejo Nacional de Poblacio´n (2012): “Proyecciones de la poblacio´n de Me´xico
2010–2050,” Tech. Rep. Documento Metodolo´gico, CONAPO.
Conti, G. and R. Ginja (2014): Evaluating a Universal Health Insurance Program:
Evidence from Mexico, Unpublished Manuscript.
Darney, B. G., S. Sosa-Rubi, E. Servan-Mori, M. I. Rodriguez, D. Walker,
and R. Lozano-Ascencio (2016): “The relationship of age and place of delivery with
postpartum contraception prior to discharge in Mexico: A retrospective cohort study,”
Contraception, In Press.
Juarez, F., S. Singh, I. Maddow-Zimet, and D. Wulf (2013): “Unintended
Pregnancy and Induced Abortion in Mexico: Causes and Consequences,” Tech. rep.,
Guttmacher Institute, New York.
King, G., E. Gakidou, K. Imai, J. Lakin, R. T. Moore, C. Nall, N. Ravishankar,
M. Vargas, M. M. Te´llez-Rojo, J. E. H. A´vila, et al. (2009): “Public policy
for the poor? A randomised assessment of the Mexican universal health insurance
programme,” The lancet, 373, 1447–1454.
Knaul, F. M., H. Arreola-Ornelas, O. Me´ndez-Carniado, C. Bryson-Cahn,
J. Barofsky, R. Maguire, M. Miranda, and S. Sesma (2007): “Evidence is good
for your health system: policy reform to remedy catastrophic and impoverishing health
spending in Mexico,” Salud Pu´blica De Me´xico, 49, S70–87.
Knox, M. (2008): “Health Insurance for All: An Evaluation of Mexico’s Seguro Popular
Program,” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, University of California
Berkley.
Sosa-Rubi, S. G., O. Galarraga, and J. E. Harris (2009): “Heterogeneous impact
of the “seguro popular” program on the utilization of obstetrical services in mexico,
2001–2006: a multinomial probit model with a discrete endogenous variable,” Journal
of health economics, 28, 20–34.
Winikoff, B. and W. R. Sheldon (2012): “Abortion: what is the problem?” The
Lancet, 379, 594 – 596.
World Health Organization (2015): “Family planning/Contraception,” Fact sheet
Number 351, accessed at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs351/en/
(consulted April 26, 2016).
A21