If the RATE of abortion relative to population is an indication, then this may be of some use:
CA, NV, FL, IL, NY, NJ, MD, DC, DE and others would find it hard to ban abortion, where it is QUITE profitable and widespread. It's a little hard to tell from this image, but DC is the only one in the "over 56%" section - which means more pregnancies end in abortion than childbirth. Trying to ban abortion in that place would be one tough cookie.
Texas would probably ban it, as would Louisiana. Michigan would have a huge fight on it. California wouldn't ban it, but then California would probably pass some weirdly out of place law on it because that's what California always does. New Hampshire is less clear-cut than one might think, since both Senators from NH are routinely pro-life or very pro-life.
In the end, it would matter little. There would still probably be over a million abortions annually, as there are now. It would likely be reduced, though.
I don't see why it's any different than when the country was half-slave, half-free. Half the country kills babies legally, half wouldn't. Not much change, there'd be cross-border abortions all the time. If you give a damn about life then murder has to be as universally illegal as slavery is today.
WTF. Source please.
When Washington State isn't busy electing terrorists to the Senate, we're getting the state government to fund abortions!
