Voting Restrictions and Increased Odds of Adverse Birth Outcomes in the US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disparities persist in adverse birth outcomes - preterm birth and small-for-gestational age (SGA) among racialized populations. Previous studies have indicated that voting restrictions are associated with health outcomes, such as access to health insurance and teenage birth rates. This paper examines whether the association between voting restrictions and adverse birth outcomes varies according to birthing individuals' race/ethnicity. METHODS: These analyses merged individual-level 2019-2020 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS, 8th edition) data with state-level exposure information. The exposure, the Cost of Voting Index (COVI), is a 2020 state-level measure of voting restrictions, and the outcomes were preterm birth and SGA. Multilevel logistic regression, survey-weighted models adjusted for sociodemographic and geographically-based characteristics. Subanalyses examined if the association differed by race (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, API, Other). RESULTS: In the unadjusted model, a standard deviation increase in COVI was associated with increased odds of preterm birth (OR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.98, 1.25) and SGA (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.02, 1.22). The association for SGA was still significant in the fully adjusted models. Results differed by race/ethnicity with the largest effects among API (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.95, 1.52) for preterm birth and OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.01, 1.59) for SGA respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest structural voting barriers disproportionately increase the odds of adverse birth outcomes, especially for API-birthing individuals. Increasing voting restrictions may amplify existing birth inequities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".