Wall Street Street Editor James Taranto over the past couple of years have penned an interesting theory that the political effect of Roe v Wade has been to reduce the number of liberal voters and will continue to have a profound effect upon politics in the upcoming decades.
Here some thoughts that support the contention. President Bush carried 97 of the nation’s 100 fastest-growing counties; many of whom are in subdivisions at the peripheral of major cities. This has helped in solidifying Republican hold in the “red states” while giving Republicans some foothold in so-called “blue states”, in particular the Midwest.
In the more liberal states that favored John Kerry, fertility rates are 12% lower than in those states that voted for George Bush. In 2000, the results were similar. States that favored Bush, the average woman produced 2.11 children; which is above what is considered replacement levels. The states that went for Gore, the number was 1.89, which is below replacement levels. After the 2000 census, Southern and Western states saw an increase in congressional representatives and this occurred at the expense of the more liberal Northeast. If present trends continue to hold, the Red States will continue grow in population and in political importance at the expense of the Blue States.
James Taranto concluded, “ Not all women, after all, are equally likely to have abortions. It’s almost a truism that women who have abortions are more pro-choice than those who carry their pregnancies to term, and it stands to reason that they generally have more-liberal attitudes about sex and religion. It also seems reasonable to assume that parents have some influence on their children, so that if liberal women are having abortions, the next generation will be more conservative than it otherwise would be.” The one direct effect of legalized abortions is that fewer liberal voters are being born.
Another aspect of this decision is the effect it is having upon African-Americans. 1 out of every 3 abortions are African-Americans and Africans-Americans are three times more likely to abort their unborn children. The first effect is obvious. Since African-Americans vote nearly 90% for Democratic candidates, this has reduced the number of Democratic voters. The second is just as obvious. Liberals have unwittingly designed a birth control program that is mildly eugenic since it effects minorities more than Whites.
In the early 90’s, I was involved in a debate over a pro-life declaration among United Methodist. The Durham Declaration, as it was called, presented a Christian case against the liberalized abortions laws then and now in effect. The Declaration was signed by variety of Church members that ranged from liberal theologians to the more conservative evangelicals. The declaration engineered widespread criticisms from many pro-choice Methodist. What I found fascinating was the response of one leading critic, Professor John Swomley. Professor Swomley had been a leading advocate of the pro-choice movement within the Church and a advocate of population control in general.
Professor Swomley, a long time leftist and critic, had written much on the need for population control in the third world as a needed panacea for economic growth. Swomley’s thesis was simple- reduce the number of children born in “over populated” country and present resources can be better spread among the rest. My own observation then as now, was that Professor Swomley’s policies was specifically designed to reduce the number of babies born to parents of Africans, Hispanic and Asian descents. Since birth rates among developed White dominated population had already reached population stabilization and was even headed down below replacement levels, much of the population control efforts were and still is being conducted in developing nations.
It is ironic that the mostly “progressive policy” of liberalized abortions may be having a mildly eugenic effect upon both minorities and liberal voters. Taranto’s thesis is that as long as abortions remains legal, then conservative voters will continue to grow at a larger number. The catch is that it is conservative voters are more likely to oppose liberalized abortion laws despite the fact that it works against their political interest whereas liberal voters are likely to support policies that reduces their voter pool.
I do not suggest that Pro-choice advocates are engaged in a purposeful eugenic policy. They are not. What I am suggesting is that liberal supporters of Roe have supported a policy that is reducing their voter base.Powered by Sidelines