Post-Roe v Wade and Voting with your Feet

[jsc1953]

The consensus seems to be that if Roe v Wade is indeed overturned, the impact would not be wholesale ban on abortion, but that it would be up to the states to determine how to handle the issue.

If this were to happen...and let's say that other Culture War issues are resolved the same way (for instance, same-sex marriage) -- would we start seeing subtle population shifts? Would there be a trend towards pro-lifers moving from a Pro-Life State to a Pro-Choice State (and vice versa)?

And would this then tend to further polarize the red state/blue state divide? If, for instance, the population of California becomes even more liberal (as the conservatives move to Kansas), and the population of Kansas becomes even more conservative (as the liberals pack up and head for Californee) would the policies of those states start shifting to reflect the new political dynamic of their state population?

Would we then wind up with California as a socialist free-dope utopia, and Kansas as a theocracy (ridiculous extremes, of course)?

[Lemur866]

Why would a pro-lifer move to a state where abortion is illegal? Presumably the pro-lifer isn't going to get an abortion no matter what the law says, and moving to a state where abortion is illegal isn't going to save any unborn babies.

A pro-choice person moving to a state where abortion is legal makes some sense, if they felt they might someday need to have one, but the reverse doesn't.

[John Mace]

Would we then wind up with California as a socialist free-dope utopia, and Kansas as a theocracy (ridiculous extremes, of course)?
Probably. Just as the founders envisioned (w/o your ridiculous exageration, of course)!

Lemur: I think that was an obvious typo.

[jsc1953]

Lemur: I think that was an obvious typo.

Yes indeed, a typo. Not the first time I wished we could edit our own posts.

[SuaSponte]

A pro-choice person moving to a state where abortion is legal makes some sense, if they felt they might someday need to have one.Actually, it doesn't. Instead, a pro-choice person in need of an abortion would travel to a pro-choice state, have the abortion, then return. That's basically what happened in the pre-Roe days.
That, of course, assumes that the person has sufficient disposable funds to (a) travel to and from the pro-choice state, and (b) pay for the procedure. If you are poor and live in a pro-life state, you are SOL, or have to find a doctor willing to (illegally) perform the abortion. Again, like in the pre-Roe days.

So, in answer to the OP, nope, I don't expect population shifts.

Sua

[BrainGlutton]

People decide to relocate from one state to another for many reasons. I think the most important are job opportunities and various quality-of-life factors. Finding like-minded neighbors probably ranks far down the list. Besides, if you're afraid you or your daughter might need an abortion one day, why should you care if you live in a state where that's illegal? You can always go to a women's clinic one or two states over.

Unless the prolife state you live in also passes a law against any pregnant woman leaving the state for purposes of procuring an abortion. And actually tries to enforce it. And then we have problems -- practical social, political, legal and constitutional. In fact, the problems are so obvious I doubt any state would dare to try to enforce such a law.

[John Mace]

People decide to relocate from one state to another for many reasons. I think the most important are job opportunities and various quality-of-life factors.
But that ignores how people would react if the political differences among the states was significantly greater, which is the whole point of the OP.

[Bryan Ekers]

would we start seeing subtle population shifts?

States that ban abortion might see even more babies born to poor families and (if some statisticians are to be believed) commensurate rises in violent crime 15 years later.


Should be fun to watch from a distance.

[Barbarian]

I caught a bit of the Alito confirmation hearing yesterday, and was surprised when Rep. Hancock said that 90% of aborted fetuses are terminated because they have down syndrome, and it's just wrong to eliminate an entire class of people that way.

[Otara]

"Unless the prolife state you live in also passes a law against any pregnant woman leaving the state for purposes of procuring an abortion. And actually tries to enforce it. And then we have problems -- practical social, political, legal and constitutional. In fact, the problems are so obvious I doubt any state would dare to try to enforce such a law."

Ireland went through a period of that so its probable the US would too - ie try to stop it but eventually lose. Also foundations started up where people offered material aid and assistance to people wanting to travel to a country allowing abortion - so they tried to limit them for a while too.

Otara

[BrainGlutton]

Ireland went through a period of that so its probable the US would too - ie try to stop it but eventually lose. Also foundations started up where people offered material aid and assistance to people wanting to travel to a country allowing abortion - so they tried to limit them for a while too.

Otara

You speak of that as if it's all in the past. What's Ireland's abortion policy now?

[DianaG]

But that ignores how people would react if the political differences among the states was significantly greater, which is the whole point of the OP.
People don't move to a different state because the taxes are lower, or because their state is trying to teach creationism as science, so I don't think many people would pick up and move their entire life just on the off chance they may someday need an abortion.

I caught a bit of the Alito confirmation hearing yesterday, and was surprised when Rep. Hancock said that 90% of aborted fetuses are terminated because they have down syndrome, and it's just wrong to eliminate an entire class of people that way.
That's ridiculous.

From the Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.html):
The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).

From University Healthcare (http://www.universityhealth.org/114916.cfm):
In the United States, about 58% of all abortions are performed in the first 8 weeks (first trimester) of pregnancy; 88% are performed before 13 weeks.
Downs is usually detected by amniocentesis, which is usually performed around 15 weeks or later, although there are newer tests which can detect it during the first trimester.

The estimated incidence of Down syndrome is between 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 1,100 live births. (http://www.ds-health.com/pueschel.htm)

24% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2] (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)

That math doesn't work at all.

[Mr. Moto]

There is some basis for that number, but it refers to 90% of Down's Syndrome babies being aborted, not the majority of abortions being for this purpose:

Today, Down syndrome is considered grounds for abortion in an increasing number of countries. The number of children born with Down syndrome is decreasing due to the large number of abortions following an early diagnosis of Down syndrome during pregnancy. In a hearing before the German Parliament, doctors stated that 90% of all fetuses prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. This number is consistent with the official statistics, wherein 1500 children with Down Syndrome should, statistically, have been born per year (at a prevalence rate of 1:600), but only 63 per annum were listed in the 1995 birth register.

Cite. (http://www.answers.com/topic/down-syndrome)

[Mr. Moto]

Regarding the OP, I do think the political culture of a state can affect relocation decisions. Especially in situations where there are choices close by, it seems obvious that this can happen. How much it happens is anyone's guess.

I do know when I relocated to the DC area, I had a choice of living in DC, the Maryland suburbs or the Virginia suburbs. Now, I typically lean Republican and I own a few guns. This influenced my decisions a bit, let me tell you. For one thing, it crossed DC completely off of the list.

[AHunter3]

Unless the prolife state you live in also passes a law against any pregnant woman leaving the state for purposes of procuring an abortion. And actually tries to enforce it. And then we have problems -- practical social, political, legal and constitutional. In fact, the problems are so obvious I doubt any state would dare to try to enforce such a law.

Meanwhile, underground railroads would be operated and those of us in prochoice states would have sleeping bags out on our floors to put up refugees from Kansas and Alabama. In fact, we already do (http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/features/15248/).

[BrainGlutton]

I do know when I relocated to the DC area, I had a choice of living in DC, the Maryland suburbs or the Virginia suburbs. Now, I typically lean Republican and I own a few guns. This influenced my decisions a bit, let me tell you. For one thing, it crossed DC completely off of the list.

:confused: Why? DC is the one place in the Washington Metro Area where you might have a practical use for guns. ;)

[Neurotik]

You can't own a gun in DC.

But I think DC is a special situation since you have two states and a state-like entity to choose to reside in. Suppose you had a great opportunity in LA (pretending they had the exact same restrictions as DC here), would you pass it up simply because of the inability to own a gun?

[jsc1953]

Just to add something to my OP -- perhaps the general principle (if any) is that making policy decisions at the federal level would tend to have a moderating influence on those policies. If the policy-making process moves to the state level, those policies might tend to become more radical (in either direction). And what effect would that have on the body politic as a whole?

[19ForMe]

You can't own a gun in DC.

But I think DC is a special situation since you have two states and a state-like entity to choose to reside in. Suppose you had a great opportunity in LA (pretending they had the exact same restrictions as DC here), would you pass it up simply because of the inability to own a gun?

This probably depends on why you have the guns. People into; hunting, collecting and target shooting may be very reluctant to move to a location with a tight ban. These guys spend their free time using guns as a hobby. They would be in for quite an adjustment moving to a state with a tight ban. Try to imagine a surfer moving to Wyoming. If you keep a single loaded pistol under your pillow for shooting intruders, that's a different story. You are either in a terrible location and would jump at the chance to move or are a paranoid that would refuse to move because it is an obvious trap.

This strikes me as totally different from the OP discussion of abortion. That is a matter of political philosophy. No one has abortions as a hobby. If someone was radically pro-choice and moved to a radically pro-life state, they could still endulge their radicalism. They can go to all the meeting, rallies and protests they want. Their radical lifestyle is not impacted. The hobby is still intact. I'm not sure they would pass up a great job because of a difference of political philosophy with the majority of the state. They may even see it as a challenge. They could be the big fish in the small pond.

[Thudlow Boink]

If this were to happen...and let's say that other Culture War issues are resolved the same way (for instance, same-sex marriage) -- would we start seeing subtle population shifts? Would there be a trend towards pro-lifers moving from a Pro-Life State to a Pro-Choice State (and vice versa)?Over the abortion issue? I doubt it, for reasons that others have already mentioned. It's a little more likely to happen over things that are more ongoing way-of-life issues, like the legality of same-sex marriage, but I still have trouble imagining it happening to any great extent.

The last time the U.S. was fundamentally divided into different "kinds" of states based on what was or was not legal there was when we had Slave States and Free States.

[AHunter3]

This [gun ownership / gun control stuff] strikes me as totally different from the OP discussion of abortion. That is a matter of political philosophy. No one has abortions as a hobby. If someone was radically pro-choice and moved to a radically pro-life state, they could still endulge their radicalism. They can go to all the meeting, rallies and protests they want. Their radical lifestyle is not impacted.

Being a prochoice person in a state that banned abortion could be a lot like being a civil rights person in an apartheid nation such as South Africa back in Botha's day. The presence of that state of social affairs is going to permeate all your social relations. Suppose you're male and you anticipate dating women?

[John Mace]

People don't move to a different state because the taxes are lower, or because their state is trying to teach creationism as science, so I don't think many people would pick up and move their entire life just on the off chance they may someday need an abortion.
Oh yeah? They certianly do take these things (taxes, etc) into account when they retire. But you need to re-read the OP. This is more than about abortion-- it's about a complete rethinking of federalism where there are much more significant differences among the states than there is today. Don't be fooled by the thread title.

[jsc1953]

Just further thoughts...if the population tended to sort itself geographically, driven by political leanings (which makes me think of the partition of India and Pakistan as an extreme example), this might tend to make state legislatures more bold. What would a legislature do if they had 90% approval ratings?

Would we see California enact (SSM + handgun bans + doctor-assisted suicide + legalized marijuana + unrestricted abortions), while Kansas went (mandatory Intelligent Design + abortion ban + alcohol ban)?

And with states so polarized...how on earth would we ever elect a president?

But that's a big if in the premise.

[19ForMe]

Being a prochoice person in a state that banned abortion could be a lot like being a civil rights person in an apartheid nation such as South Africa back in Botha's day. The presence of that state of social affairs is going to permeate all your social relations. Suppose you're male and you anticipate dating women?

I just don't see it. The various social debates, in the US, generally involve issues that impact people directly and/or constantly. I doubt people would make a choice about where they would like to live based on these issue unless it both directly and constantly impacts them.

A gun ban would be direct and constant negative for a shooter. Legalized gay marriage would be a direct and constant positive for a homosexual couple. Integrated public accomodations are a direct and constant positive for blacks. I suspect people consider these items when they move.

Abortion is direct but not constant. It can impact you individually but you're not likely to think about it when moving. I'd imagine its similar to a state's position of imminent domain or bankruptcy exclusions. Your house might be seized and given to Walmart but you can't live your life worrying about it. Sure there are the odd committed wiedos that see everything through the prism of their one true issue but there cannot be enough of them to make any impact on migration.

The OP is about moving from one US state to another not moving from paradise to hell. If you live in some horrible turd world conditions, you'd gladly move to a modern state that banned abortions. If you lived in today's North Korea or Sudan, you'd probably fight for a spot on the bus to Botha's South Africa. If you are considering moving from Virginia to Florida, you'll consider family locations, cost of living and your general lifestyle. You won't weigh the odds of the state snatching you off the street to disappear down a meatgrinder.

[Otara]

"You speak of that as if it's all in the past. What's Ireland's abortion policy now?"

Sorry the bits in the past as far as I know are the legal attempts to restrict travel or these organisations. Currently women still have to travel overseas unless they fit inside some fairly strict categories.

Otara

[SuaSponte]

Being a prochoice person in a state that banned abortion could be a lot like being a civil rights person in an apartheid nation such as South Africa back in Botha's day. The presence of that state of social affairs is going to permeate all your social relations. Suppose you're male and you anticipate dating women? Don't be absurd.


An abortion is a medical procedure, not an immutable characteristic. In an anti-abortion state, a woman would not allowed to have a medical procedure, not be discriminated against in all aspects of life.
Do you consider Ireland, or West Germany before reunification, to have been apartheid-like states?
3. A male, even in a pro-choice state, is dependent upon the intentions of the woman as to abortion. Do males consider whether the potential date would be willing to have an abortion now before beginning to date her? I certainly never did.
Finally, if a male dates a woman and she gets pregnant in an anti-abortion state, all that would be necessary if the woman wants an abortion is to hop a flight to a pro-choice state.

Sua

[Martin Hyde]

Why would a pro-lifer move to a state where abortion is illegal? Presumably the pro-lifer isn't going to get an abortion no matter what the law says, and moving to a state where abortion is illegal isn't going to save any unborn babies.

A pro-choice person moving to a state where abortion is legal makes some sense, if they felt they might someday need to have one, but the reverse doesn't.

I agree with this.

Most people don't vote with their feet no matter what's going on, anyways. Look at the population of blacks in the South, they didn't leave during the worst of Jim Crow. Turning your entire life upset down and displacing your family is a huge endeavor for many people, and nearly impossible if you're short on funds.

Plus, you can probably easily go to another state to get an abortion, anyways.

[Der Trihs]

Plus, you can probably easily go to another state to get an abortion, anyways.Unless you are poor.

Besides, if the abortion = murder people win in a state, they'll just toss her in prison as soon as she comes home. Or execute her.

[yo no se]

Would we then wind up with California as a socialist free-dope utopia, and Kansas as a theocracy (ridiculous extremes, of course)?


I really don't believe there are that many us 280,000,000 in this country that really care enough about this one issue. RvW gets overturned (as it should be) and a few states will behave badly. People will travel to 'friendly' states when necessary -- just like some people travel to IN to buy cigarettes because they're cheaper than IL., or buy a car from a state or two over to save a few hundred bucks. Ho hum. It'll become the molehill that it is. Arguably, it will do this country good.

But I'd bet you'd hear about a lot more newly-borns left on the doorsteps of Churches, Fire Stations, Hospitals, trash bins, in those states that outlaw it.

[Martin Hyde]

Unless you are poor.

Besides, if the abortion = murder people win in a state, they'll just toss her in prison as soon as she comes home. Or execute her.

That would depend on how poor you are. As it is, even some very penniless people have made cross-country trips, it's a matter of will and resourcefulness.

Also, prior to Roe v. Wade in the states in which abortion was illegal none of them had it as a capital offense. In fact abortion being a capital offense is not something that's a realistic possibility.

Of course your fears are unfounded due to the technical fact that state A doesn't have jurisdiction over things that happen in state B. It's just like some states getting caught with X amount of marijuana = a small fine and in others it = much larger fine, possible jail time et cetera. If you get caughtin the state in which it's a small fine with marijuana, the other state can't prosecute you, a court can't try someone without jurisdiction, anything that happens outside a court's jurisdiction is beyond the scope of said court.

[burundi]

It would not surprise me at all if North Carolina moved to restrict abortion or continued to prohibit same-sex marriage. I wouldn't be happy about it, and I'd work to change things, but pick up and move? Nuh-uh.

North Carolina is my home. I've lived here all my life. My family has been here for over two hundred years. My roots run deep. This place belongs to liberal ol' me just as much as it belongs to my conservative neighbors. I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives in California and New York who feel the same way about their home state.

[XaMcQ]

I think a very few pro-choice people might move, not because they might someday want to have an abortion, but to live among more like-minded people. Nobody that I have ever heard of makes plans to have an abortion. I haven't researched it, but I would think that the majority of women who have them didn't plan to get pregnant in the first place. And it's wrong to assume that they weren't being responsible and using birth control; birth control isn't 100% effective. Condoms break, and missing a single pill, or taking it with some other medications like antibiotics will leave you vulnerable to an unplanned and possibly unwanted pregnancy. This has happened to me. I can assure you I would have much rather had not had to make such a decision, and plenty of people in the medical community made sure I felt good and guilty about it even though it turned out to be an ectopic pregnancy.

What I can't get over it the fact that in the same states they want abortion illegal, they also don't want to teach kids anything about sex education, and quite a few abortion foes would also like to outlaw birth control. It's abstinence only, and if you have sex without intending to procreate you should be punished with a child.

Women of means will find a way around it and the birth rate among the poor and underage will soar.

[Evil Captor]

What I can't get over it the fact that in the same states they want abortion illegal, they also don't want to teach kids anything about sex education, and quite a few abortion foes would also like to outlaw birth control. It's abstinence only, and if you have sex without intending to procreate you should be punished with a child.

That's always been the dead giveaway as far as I'm concerned -- you'll read a lot of concerned mealy-mouthing on the Dope about the anti-choice movement being a matter of ethics, but the fact of the matter is that for the majority of its supporters, it's all about women being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

[SuaSponte]

Besides, if the abortion = murder people win in a state, they'll just toss her in prison as soon as she comes home. Or execute her.
Nope. The anti-abortion state would lack jurisdiction over the "murder" of the fetus in the pro-choice state. North Carolina cannot try someone for a crime that was allegedly committed in New York, even if both the perpetrator and the victim are citizens of North Carolina.
One possible exception: if the woman gets assistance from another in North Carolina to travel to New York, it may be possible to get her and the assister for conspiracy. But I have a very strong feeling that would not fly.

Sua

[Thudlow Boink]

you'll read a lot of concerned mealy-mouthing on the Dope about the anti-choice movement being a matter of ethics, but the fact of the matter is that for the majority of its supporters, it's all about women being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.Do you have a cite for this claim? While I'm sure the "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" thing probably does figure into the (mixed?) motives of some abortion foes, how would you know for a fact that it's a majority?

[Evil Captor]

Do you have a cite for this claim? While I'm sure the "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" thing probably does figure into the (mixed?) motives of some abortion foes, how would you know for a fact that it's a majority?

Because they also tend to be opposed to sex education and readily available birth control. Duh.

[Thudlow Boink]

Actually, Evil, I was looking for something more along the lines of reputable evidence showing what percent of the anti-abortion people oppose sex education and readily available birth control (assuming that really does equate to wanting them barefoot and pregnant), not an unsupported claim of what they "tend to be."

[Mouse_Maven]

I caught a bit of the Alito confirmation hearing yesterday, and was surprised when Rep. Hancock said that 90% of aborted fetuses are terminated because they have down syndrome, and it's just wrong to eliminate an entire class of people that way.

I don't believe this is true, see here (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm)

3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.

Take whatever a politician says with a grain of salt. Remember, Newt Gingrich said that men were biologically driven to hunt giraffes and women "get infections" if they stay in a ditch for 30 days.

[elfkin477]

IF states all made their own laws about your other hypothetical - same sex marriages - I can see some population shifts. It wouldn't be big shifts, though, because it would only apply to ~10% of people. Unlike abortions, however, this would be more in the nature of a lifestyle than belief, so if they wished for their marriage to be legal, assuming that the "no SSM" states were allowed not to recognize marriages preformed in other states, they'd have to live in a state where it was legal. That's the sort of thing people move for, not mere ideology.

As for the tangent about Downs, that new early detection test has a high false positive rate. The makers claim 5-8% but there are counterclaims that there's up to a 20% false positive rate (http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020301/915.html). Either way, I already know one person in RL whose perfectly normal 3 month-old-grandson had the test come back twice saying that he had it.

[Measure for Measure]

The OP is not completely ludicrous, but I expect that the effect would be small.

By the way, while migration is typically thought to be driven by job considerations, non-economic factors can play a measurable role as well:
link (http://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/iaecre/v11y2005i3p267-274.html)

The empirical estimates indicate that gross state in-migration was an increasing function of expected per capita income on the one hand or actual per capita income on the other hand and a decreasing function of the average cost of living. Interstate unemployment rate differentials per se do not appear to have influenced gross migration, however. In addition, gross state in-migration was an increasing function of the availability of state parks, recreation, warmer temperatures, location in the West, and greater sunshine while being a decreasing function of the violent crime rate and the presence of hazardous waste sites.

[Martin Hyde]

It would not surprise me at all if North Carolina moved to restrict abortion or continued to prohibit same-sex marriage. I wouldn't be happy about it, and I'd work to change things, but pick up and move? Nuh-uh.

North Carolina is my home. I've lived here all my life. My family has been here for over two hundred years. My roots run deep. This place belongs to liberal ol' me just as much as it belongs to my conservative neighbors. I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives in California and New York who feel the same way about their home state.

Yeah, I grew up in the South and when I was very young a lot of civil rights protests and such were happening. At the time I was too young to really know anything about it, I knew that blacks had different color skin than me, and for some reason that meant they were different and that different rules applied to them. I understood the civil rights movement was them not liking that.

I asked my dad one day after watching the news why they didn't just move to another state, wouldn't that be easier than what they were doing? His response was more or less to the effect of, "They're southerners too, why would they want to leave their home?"

[Odesio]

would we start seeing subtle population shifts? Would there be a trend towards pro-lifers moving from a Pro-Life State to a Pro-Choice State (and vice versa)?


Nope, people tend to move either for economic reasons or because other factors forced them to move. (Disaster, war, etc.) You might find a hand full of people who will move, for example I actually know someone who moved to New Zealand because he hates George Bush, but for the most part people will go where the money is.

Abortion is but one political issue in the United States and one that is overblown in my opinion. I don't think most people consider the question of abortion to be all that important to their own lives but it's a hot button issue among some so it gets more press than deserved.

Marc