Possibly uninformed speculation
Jan. 12th, 2006 11:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dweniusI've been following the Alito hearings, with the expected amount of horror. Somewhat surprisingly, Alito wouldn't even agree with Roberts, who said in his confirmation hearings that Roe was "settled law".
So, let's jump forward a few years. Alito gets confirmed. Roberts is still Chief. God forbid, Bush gets to appoint another justice. And after a handful of minor cases, they pull the trigger and successfully overturn Roe.
As I understand it, control over abortion would revert to the states. Some states-- maybe even a majority of them in the South and Midwest-- would rush to ban abortion. Other states, say California and New York, would go out of their way to expressly keep it legal. As others have pointed out already, the states that are likely to ban abortion are already poor places to operate a clinic, and represent less than 10% (worst case) of abortion providers nationwide. In other words, for the women in those states, it's already difficult if not impossible to get an abortion, just because there's no place to go, not enough doctors to perform the procedure. But now with Roe off the books, in some states will be completely, officially, illegal to get an abortion. What kind of psychological impact will that have? I suspect the backlash will be much more severe than anyone on the Right assumes, but I don't know what form that backlash will take.
There will be other, more immediate and predictable changes. The first thing that will happen is that abortion clinics will spring up right across the border from states where the procedure is banned. This is of questionable taste, and there will be an outcry in some areas, but this is the U.S.; we are nothing if not opportunistic when it comes to chasing profits. Even if the clinics are not right across the border, you will see women traveling to safe states to get an abortion; possibly even more women than travel now. Eventually, you will see people deciding that they want to work and raise a family in an abortion-legal state, and there will be a steady migration to those states. The resulting population growth-- and make no mistake, most of the folks doing this will be young, idealistic, and possibly childless at the time that they move-- will boost population in a way that shifts the distribution of seats in Congress [*] and in the Electoral College towards the left.
I have to wonder, has any politician on either side of this argument thought these issues through? Is there a win-by-losing strategy here (or a lose by winning risk)?
[*] Unless they get rid of "One Man, One Vote" also, in which case, hoooo boy, revolution.
So, let's jump forward a few years. Alito gets confirmed. Roberts is still Chief. God forbid, Bush gets to appoint another justice. And after a handful of minor cases, they pull the trigger and successfully overturn Roe.
As I understand it, control over abortion would revert to the states. Some states-- maybe even a majority of them in the South and Midwest-- would rush to ban abortion. Other states, say California and New York, would go out of their way to expressly keep it legal. As others have pointed out already, the states that are likely to ban abortion are already poor places to operate a clinic, and represent less than 10% (worst case) of abortion providers nationwide. In other words, for the women in those states, it's already difficult if not impossible to get an abortion, just because there's no place to go, not enough doctors to perform the procedure. But now with Roe off the books, in some states will be completely, officially, illegal to get an abortion. What kind of psychological impact will that have? I suspect the backlash will be much more severe than anyone on the Right assumes, but I don't know what form that backlash will take.
There will be other, more immediate and predictable changes. The first thing that will happen is that abortion clinics will spring up right across the border from states where the procedure is banned. This is of questionable taste, and there will be an outcry in some areas, but this is the U.S.; we are nothing if not opportunistic when it comes to chasing profits. Even if the clinics are not right across the border, you will see women traveling to safe states to get an abortion; possibly even more women than travel now. Eventually, you will see people deciding that they want to work and raise a family in an abortion-legal state, and there will be a steady migration to those states. The resulting population growth-- and make no mistake, most of the folks doing this will be young, idealistic, and possibly childless at the time that they move-- will boost population in a way that shifts the distribution of seats in Congress [*] and in the Electoral College towards the left.
I have to wonder, has any politician on either side of this argument thought these issues through? Is there a win-by-losing strategy here (or a lose by winning risk)?
[*] Unless they get rid of "One Man, One Vote" also, in which case, hoooo boy, revolution.
