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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
[QUOTE=OtaraIreland 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[/QUOTE]
You speak of that as if it’s all in the past. What’s Ireland’s abortion policy now?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Why? DC is the one place in the Washington Metro Area where you might have a practical use for guns. 