Although abortion remains legal and available to women, access to services is limited by restrictive factors such as parental consent and notification laws, mandatory delay requirements, insurance regulations/bans, and postviability testing requirements. Further, while some states have private, not-for-profit abortion fund organizations (i.e., members of the National Network of Abortion Funds), others do not. Research is lacking and shortcomings exist, that combines and controls for state restrictions outcomes such as the rate of abortion. This study sought to examine the relationships between state restrictions and states' abortion rates. Data for this research were gathered from state statutes, the U.S. Census, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, and the Center for Reproductive Rights. The study employed quantitative analyses with all 50 states over a six year period 1988 – 2000. A hierarchical linear analysis (HLM) was used to test seven hypotheses. In both the final conditional model and in the alternate model (with outliers removed) the independent variable parental consent was statistically significant. In other words, this state restriction (parental consent) lowered the abortion rate in our model. The Medicaid variable did indicate a decrease in the abortion rate, but was not statistically significant. Both models were able to explain at least 30% of the variance (30% by the final conditional model and 35% in the alternate model) but the alternate model was more successful in explaining the variance of the growth model (35% over the 6% of the original model). On a daily basis, states continue to add restrictive legislation to their books despite opposition from citizens and research that some of the restrictions are ineffective. The effect is that as the legislation is enacted, more and more young women, low-income women and women of color are adversely affected and continue to have their basic right to choose abortion taken away. The practice, policy and research implications for social workers will be discussed within the context of the NASW Code of Ethics and the 2003 policy statements.