From <i>Relf v. Weinberger</i> to Drive-Through Delivery: Unpacking Democratic Responsiveness and Administrative Levers in U.S. Sterilization Policy

Female sterilization occupies a paradoxical place in reproductive policy. When chosen freely, it is a safe and effective contraceptive method, yet has also been deployed as a tool of coercion and state control. This dual legacy makes the United States, where sterilization remains more common than other high-income democracies, an important case for examining how public accountability and policy design shape permanent contraceptive use. From a theoretical perspective, highly visible, accountability-driven interventions such as the 1974 Relf v. Weinberger case might be expected to generate larger behavioral changes than less visible administrative reforms, though prior scholarship offers mixed expectations about the relative influence of legal visibility versus economic incentives. To test these competing expectations, we analyze a harmonized panel of contraceptive surveys from 190 nations (1965-2010) and apply the synthetic-control method. We examine the behavioral impact of Relf as a democratic accountability event and contrast it with a later unrelated administrative change in U.S. hospital reimbursement policy in the 1990s. We find that the public outrage and litigation following Relf produced formal consent safeguards but were associated with limited changes in the national sterilization rates. In contrast, the 1990s payment reforms, aimed at cost containment, were associated with a sustained national decline. Together, these contrasting impacts suggest that reforms driven by court decisions and financial architecture may influence entrenched policies through different, potentially complementary, channels. Taken together, the findings affirm the important role of administrative levers alongside legislative activism, levers often overlooked in reproductive rights debates despite their capacity to reshape clinical practice.