Moral Barriers to Birth Control Access: How the Pill Changed Dutch Women’s Lives – When Religion Did Not Get in the Way

O. Marie, E. Zwiers
{"title":"Moral Barriers to Birth Control Access: How the Pill Changed Dutch Women’s Lives – When Religion Did Not Get in the Way","authors":"O. Marie, E. Zwiers","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3924928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We investigate how religious beliefs affected the take up of the birth control pill and impacted women’s outcomes using the 1970 liberalization of oral contraceptives in the Netherlands. We first document a massive and immediate drop in fertility among minor women, aged 21 or younger, for whom access restrictions were most drastically lifted. We then evaluate how area level social norms – as proxied by votes for religiously opposed political parties –influenced pill adoption by examining its impact on female fertility control and human capital formation. We find that younger women who grew up in more liberal areas were much less likely to experience a birth or marriage as a minor, invested more in education, and ended up in wealthier households. Finally, we study the potential additional impact of supply side frictions stemming from the moral views of the gatekeepers to the new birth control technology. We show that a larger proportion of religiously opposed health professionals – GPs and pharmacists – around a woman at the time of liberalization cancels out the short- and long-run benefits from pill access.","PeriodicalId":149805,"journal":{"name":"Labor: Demographics & Economics of the Family eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Labor: Demographics & Economics of the Family eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3924928","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We investigate how religious beliefs affected the take up of the birth control pill and impacted women’s outcomes using the 1970 liberalization of oral contraceptives in the Netherlands. We first document a massive and immediate drop in fertility among minor women, aged 21 or younger, for whom access restrictions were most drastically lifted. We then evaluate how area level social norms – as proxied by votes for religiously opposed political parties –influenced pill adoption by examining its impact on female fertility control and human capital formation. We find that younger women who grew up in more liberal areas were much less likely to experience a birth or marriage as a minor, invested more in education, and ended up in wealthier households. Finally, we study the potential additional impact of supply side frictions stemming from the moral views of the gatekeepers to the new birth control technology. We show that a larger proportion of religiously opposed health professionals – GPs and pharmacists – around a woman at the time of liberalization cancels out the short- and long-run benefits from pill access.
避孕途径的道德障碍:避孕药如何改变荷兰妇女的生活——当宗教没有妨碍的时候
我们调查宗教信仰如何影响避孕药的使用,并使用1970年荷兰口服避孕药的自由化影响妇女的结果。我们首先记录了21岁或21岁以下的未成年妇女的生育率迅速大幅下降,对她们的准入限制被彻底取消。然后,我们通过检查其对女性生育控制和人力资本形成的影响,评估地区层面的社会规范(以宗教上反对的政党的选票为代表)如何影响避孕药的采用。我们发现,在更自由的地区长大的年轻女性在未成年时生育或结婚的可能性要小得多,她们在教育上的投资更多,最终进入了更富裕的家庭。最后,我们研究了供应方摩擦的潜在额外影响,这些摩擦源于守门人对新生育控制技术的道德观。我们的研究表明,在自由化时期,女性周围更大比例的宗教反对卫生专业人员——全科医生和药剂师——抵消了获得避孕药的短期和长期好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信