Nathan Moore's Thoughts
The Roe Effect, Democrats, and Shakers
The rate of pregnancies ended by abortion has been dropping drastically, now reaching the lowest point since 1975, In short, there haven’t been fewer abortions per capita since shortly after abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade
in 1973. This should surprise no one.
It is data like this that brings to the fore the inherent problem for those who advocate abortion rights. Abortion rights supporters and Shakers are brethren in the path to their own extinction. In simple terms, the Roe Effect explains that those likely to support abortion rights in the future are those aborted today. As the sociological data reliably shows that children tend to mirror the political tendencies of their parents, it is only natural that the cessation of reproduction by a particular political strata would have longterm electoral effects. Because of Roe v. Wade, there are approximately 40 million likely Democrat-inclined voters who never had the opportunity to exist. As the vast majority of women who seek abortions are Democrats, the eventual effect, from congressional redistricting and representation to actual voting practices, will result in a slow population trend away from the more ardent liberal views mired in an unrestrained advocacy of abortion-on-demand of the Democrat Party to the more reasonable and moderate views of the mainstream Republican Party.
It is this self-imposed dearth of future voters that has already cost Democrats in a variety of ways. James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal has been one of the foremost advocates explaining the results
of the Roe Effect
Compounding the GOP advantage is what I call the Roe effect. It is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, to observe that every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. More than 40 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States since 1973, and these are not randomly distributed across the population. Black women, for example, have a higher abortion ratio (percentage of pregnancies aborted) than Hispanic women, whose abortion ratio in turn is higher than that of non-Hispanic whites. Since blacks vote Democratic in far greater proportions than Hispanics, and whites are more Republican than Hispanics or blacks, ethnic disparities in abortion ratios would be sufficient to give the GOP a significant boost–surely enough to account for George W. Bush’s razor-thin Florida victory in 2000.
There certainly is an identifiable effect of a particular political group’s proclivity to have more abortions. The degree of the effect, admittedly, is up for debate. No absolute answer can be determined because it’s relatively hard to poll the political tendencies of those who never existed. However, to say the Roe Effect may have swung a few hundred votes in Florida to George W. Bush in 2000 is well within the realm of believability. Congress? Who knows. The actual influence on policy by lost Roe Effect votes is likely dwarfed by the loss of new congressional seats in Democrat friendly regions.
So, in a perverse sort of way, Republican efforts to minimize abortions actually help Democrats win future elections. With enemies like us, you don’t need friends.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Nathan,
I think you are going with the basic (and faulty) assumption that people who chose not to have an abortion, support making abortions illegal.
I choose not to go to strip clubs, but that doesn’t mean I think they should be illegal.
The truth is, better sex education, coupled with emergency contraceptives, and an increasing acceptance of unmarried pregnant women, has probably lead to the decrease in abortion; not an increase in ideological opposition to its legalization.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Besides, studies show my generation is one of the most liberal since the 1960s…we are a post-Roe generation.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I think I’ve been reading otherwise as to the liberalness of our generation. I hope so, anyway.
Most people are moderates, who favor fewer abortions, with certain exceptions, but not outright prohibition. Those people aren’t necessarily associated with either party and probably split depending on other more pressing issues each cycle.
In the aggregate, the Roe Effect is confirming the obvious regarding those who actually do have abortions. The ardent pro-abortionists who actually have abortions are certainly cutting down on the number of future voters with similar views. Certainly there is an effect. Like I said, we can debate the degree, but it is not negligible.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Certainly there is an effect. Like I said, we can debate the degree, but it is not negligible.
Show me some evidence that shows that anti-abortion views, in the sense that abortion should be made illegal, is gaining ground?
January 17th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
That’s not what I said, and wouldn’t change the point, anyway.
Not having 40 million or so Democrat-leaning voters / households in existence has certainly changed the political makeup of the country. What would these potential children of Democrats likely be doing, besides living in Democrat dominated areas, or voting Democrat themselves?
January 17th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Your reasoning is absurd. This has nothing to do with the politics or views of aborted zygotes. Ridiculous.
Abortions, not only in America, but worldwide have declined most where abortion it is safe – legal verified by the Oct. ‘07 World Health Organization report published in The Lancet that found:
The abortion rate decreased more in developed countries, where abortion is generally safe and legal on broad grounds, than in developing countries, where the procedure is largely illegal and unsafe.
So, anti-women’s rights people, you “pro-lifers” – this is what you’re campaigning for:
“Each year, about 70,000 women die due to unsafe abortion and an additional five million suffer permanent or temporary disability.”
–Dr. Paul F.A. Van Look, director of WHO’s Department of Reproductive Health and Research.
Essentially, what these studies are saying is that if you are anti-choice and would support stripping away women’s reproductive choice – making abortion illegal, you would be increasing the incidence of abortions and the incidence of death and injury to women who seek them.
Great position you have there ‘pro-lifers’ … now isn’t THAT an oxymoron!
See post on http://tennesseefree.com/
January 17th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Nathan,
You are basing your assumption on the idea that all of the women who have abortions are Democrats…utter BS. There are plenty of little Brentwood Republicans who “take care of the problem” while still dutifully attending church the next day.
The biggest effect seen so far from Roe v. Wade was a dramatic drop in crime in the 1990s. Why? Because women know when they can or can’t take care of a child. And a child born to a mother who can’t care for it, or will take out their frustrations on the child, is more likely to grow up to be a criminal.
The other assumption that there is a one-to-one loss in the population rate for every abortion. There is a very good chance that many women who have had an abortion, will later go on to have babies under more stable conditions.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Exceptions don’t diminish my argument.
I am discussing the aggregate effects. It is simply incorrect to say that there are a significant number of abortions obtained by upper middle class white Republicans to discredit the Roe Effect hypothesis.
We possess the numbers to show that is not the case. I am talking about majority effects – multiply the 40 million by 0.60 if you want, or 0.55. There is still a colorable effect.
Taranto breaks down the numbers for me in that WSJ article he did in 2005, so I’m not going to do it again. Quite frankly, I find it compelling.
As for that post by “William” … I think it speaks loudly enough for itself.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I recommend you read this Pew study on Youth…the results are basically that views about abortion among young people are the same as with other age groups, however, we are far more likely to support giving women earlier control over whether they have a child.
“By a margin of 59%-32% Gen Nexters favor allowing women to get the so-called morning
after pill without a doctor’s prescription. Older generations are more skeptical about this proposal – 46% of those over age 25 favor making the morning-after pill available and 43% oppose this.”?
We are also the most liberal generation.
In addition to being more Democratic, Gen Nexters are more liberal than their older counterparts. When asked to describe their political views, 26% of Nexters say they are liberal; 36% describe themselves as moderate; and 29% say they are conservative. Fewer older Americans think of themselves as liberal and more identify themselves as conservative.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I don’t think you passed high school statistics, did you?
You do realize that 78% of the women who have an abortion end up bringing a child to term later, correct? And that 24% of adoptions terminate a second or later pregnancy? (Hepplewhite 1997)
Your ideas of causality are tremendously skewed and don’t actually have any data behind them, do they?
January 18th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
You need to study up on the vast difference between conditioning and genetic predisposition. We share the same opinion, but your complete and utter misuse of statistics and a spurious argument do a lot to undermine the conservative movement. I suggest reading a good textbook on using critical thinking frameworks to analyse social problems; your argument wouldn’t pass the first round of analysis, unfortunately, but I do think it’s possible to craft a logically consistent argument with the same conclusion that does.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
daylesford accommodation
daylesford accommodation
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
[...] Conservative Custos Fidei Moore Thoughts Dad Manly Posse Incitatus These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share [...]