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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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
Don’t be absurd.
[ol]
[li]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.[/li][li]Do you consider Ireland, or West Germany before reunification, to have been apartheid-like states?[/li][li]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.[/li][li]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.[/li][/ol]
Sua
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
I don’t believe this is true, see here
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.
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. 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.