Limiting Abortion...

[Mehmentum]

Wouldn't it actually help Democrats? (in the long term)  Limiting abortion would theoretically increase birth rates among minorities and low income people, which are Democratic voting populations.

Edit (because it proved very necessary): As in, if Republicans succeed in their attempts to outlaw or restrict abortion, it might actually hurt them in the long run.  I'm not proposing this as a way for Democrats to increase their vote share.

[Person Man]

Wouldn't it actually help Democrats? (in the long term)  Limiting abortion would theoretically increase birth rates among minorities and low income people, which are Democratic voting populations.

Would that even necessarily happen?

[All Along The Watchtower]

....

[DC Al Fine]

Wouldn't it actually help Democrats? (in the long term)  Limiting abortion would theoretically increase birth rates among minorities and low income people, which are Democratic voting populations.

Would that even necessarily happen?

Aborted babies are disproportionately black, so yes?

[Bojack Horseman]

*facepalm*

[Rockefeller GOP]

Oh my God.

[Indy Texas]

By this logic, Republicans should support wealth redistribution so that the bottom half of Americans will be wealthy enough to be more likely to vote Republican.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The availability of abortion changes behavior and social relations in a way that is hard to measure. If you look at fertility rates in the US, they were dropping quite a lot during the 1960s and 70s. It's easy to see that the pill likely had a lot to do with that, plus more women working outside the home. But then, after Roe v Wade the fertility rate didn't start decreasing even more, it actually coincided roughly with plateau at about 2 per woman where it's been (more or less) ever since.

A population increase, at least in the short term, is a likely possibility from limiting abortion but you can't count on it.

[SWE]

What could have possibly compelled you to make this thread?

[user12345]

What could have possibly compelled you to make this thread?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What could have possibly compelled you to make this thread?

I don't believe he is actually suggesting that abortion policy should be driven by political demography. This is a forum on political demography so wondering what the effects of policy on it is an okay thing to wonder about (though as I indicated, any effects in this case are questionable). 

Would it be wrong to ask whether policy toward immigration reform would be a demographic plus or minus for a certain party?

[Mehmentum]

What could have possibly compelled you to make this thread?

I don't believe he is actually suggesting that abortion policy should be driven by political demography. This is a forum on political demography so wondering what the effects of policy on it is an okay thing to wonder about (though as I indicated, any effects in this case are questionable). 

Would it be wrong to ask whether policy toward immigration reform would be a demographic plus or minus for a certain party?

THANK YOU.

[Mechaman]

What could have possibly compelled you to make this thread?

I don't believe he is actually suggesting that abortion policy should be driven by political demography. This is a forum on political demography so wondering what the effects of policy on it is an okay thing to wonder about (though as I indicated, any effects in this case are questionable). 

Would it be wrong to ask whether policy toward immigration reform would be a demographic plus or minus for a certain party?

This might sound weird, but I actually thought his question was actually a pretty interesting scenario to ponder.  Then again, I read it as "suppose the government (doesn't say which party) managed to get pro-life legislation passed that reduced the number of (legal) abortions, would Democrats actually benefit more than Republicans due to demographic advantages."

Rereading the OP, I can certainly understand how someone could misread what he said.

I might comment more at length, later about the possible effects.

[Person Man]

First of all, looking at what is being done in states that are trying to ban abortion through targeted regulation, it seems as if they are not interested in whether or not there are still illegal abortions or out of state ones. Their data shows that they are preventing about 50-70% of legal abortions in their state. However, in the past and present, there is evidence to show that personhood/right-to-life laws don't really prevent that many abortions.

I'd imagine that a large numbers of abortions would be prevented, whether legal or illegal, if there was some sort of "War on Abortion", with a lot of money, personnel and volunteer Church Police going towards its enforcement. In that situation, maybe demographic changes would occur and the overcrowding of prisons would accelerate.   

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

[TJ in Oregon]

On the alternative side of things, one can quite easily question the sincerity in the Republican Party's efforts to actually ban abortion. The Republican Party had ample opportunity to overturn Roe in the 80s and early 90s if they hadn't screwed their Supreme Court nominations up. It casts a rather different perspective on say, the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney: pay lip service to the Pro-Life movement but when the chips are down and they actually have choice between protecting life and maintaining power, what will the choice be?

[Person Man]

On the alternative side of things, one can quite easily question the sincerity in the Republican Party's efforts to actually ban abortion. The Republican Party had ample opportunity to overturn Roe in the 80s and early 90s if they hadn't screwed their Supreme Court nominations up. It casts a rather different perspective on say, the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney: pay lip service to the Pro-Life movement but when the chips are down and they actually have choice between protecting life and maintaining power, what will the choice be?

But will Republican Presidents actually be allowed to make Supreme Court nominations anymore that will not align with the Religious Right (unless they are replacing a Liberal justice or Kennedy in a Senate that can come up with a coalition who will block that nomination)?

I can even see Kennedy seeing the writing on the wall and concurring or joining a decision that throws out Roe, Casey and Griswold if a personhood  law soon gets passed at the state level and a Republican Government gets elected in 2016. However, I will contend that if abortion is still legal after the next president leaves office, it probably will never be a crime.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Plus, the speeding up of global warming due to more overpopulation will help Democrats.

Seriously, this is a terrible idea.

[Skill and Chance]

On the alternative side of things, one can quite easily question the sincerity in the Republican Party's efforts to actually ban abortion. The Republican Party had ample opportunity to overturn Roe in the 80s and early 90s if they hadn't screwed their Supreme Court nominations up. It casts a rather different perspective on say, the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney: pay lip service to the Pro-Life movement but when the chips are down and they actually have choice between protecting life and maintaining power, what will the choice be?

But will Republican Presidents actually be allowed to make Supreme Court nominations anymore that will not align with the Religious Right (unless they are replacing a Liberal justice or Kennedy in a Senate that can come up with a coalition who will block that nomination)?

I can even see Kennedy seeing the writing on the wall and concurring or joining a decision that throws out Roe, Casey and Griswold if a personhood  law soon gets passed at the state level and a Republican Government gets elected in 2016. However, I will contend that if abortion is still legal after the next president leaves office, it probably will never be a crime.

Do you think the ideological pressure is strong enough that Republicans would kill the SCOTUS filibuster to replace Kennedy or Ginsburg with someone like Paul Clement?  Of course, that could mean Goodwin Liu replacing Alito or Thomas later on, so there could be a huge downside.  Do you imagine Scalia and Kennedy would retire in 2017-18 if Republicans had full control?  I can see why Breyer is holding out- he would be the swing vote with one more Democratic appointment.  I am quite surprised that Ginsburg isn't going to retire under Obama, though.     

[Person Man]

On the alternative side of things, one can quite easily question the sincerity in the Republican Party's efforts to actually ban abortion. The Republican Party had ample opportunity to overturn Roe in the 80s and early 90s if they hadn't screwed their Supreme Court nominations up. It casts a rather different perspective on say, the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney: pay lip service to the Pro-Life movement but when the chips are down and they actually have choice between protecting life and maintaining power, what will the choice be?

But will Republican Presidents actually be allowed to make Supreme Court nominations anymore that will not align with the Religious Right (unless they are replacing a Liberal justice or Kennedy in a Senate that can come up with a coalition who will block that nomination)?

I can even see Kennedy seeing the writing on the wall and concurring or joining a decision that throws out Roe, Casey and Griswold if a personhood  law soon gets passed at the state level and a Republican Government gets elected in 2016. However, I will contend that if abortion is still legal after the next president leaves office, it probably will never be a crime.

Do you think the ideological pressure is strong enough that Republicans would kill the SCOTUS filibuster to replace Kennedy or Ginsburg with someone like Paul Clement?  Of course, that could mean Goodwin Liu replacing Alito or Thomas later on, so there could be a huge downside.  Do you imagine Scalia and Kennedy would retire in 2017-18 if Republicans had full control?  I can see why Breyer is holding out- he would be the swing vote with one more Democratic appointment.  I am quite surprised that Ginsburg isn't going to retire under Obama, though.     

She's seems to be feeling alright and she could live and work as long as Stevens did (another 10 years) and if something were to happen to her during a time of a right-wing Government, it would be seen by many as simply speeding up what was inevitably going to happen, anyways. See Unknown Unknowns thread.

Plus, the speeding up of global warming due to more overpopulation will help Democrats.

Seriously, this is a terrible idea.

It is, but the proponents of personhood and the carbon industry do not see their policies having such negative consequences or think they are worth it.

[Skill and Chance]

On the alternative side of things, one can quite easily question the sincerity in the Republican Party's efforts to actually ban abortion. The Republican Party had ample opportunity to overturn Roe in the 80s and early 90s if they hadn't screwed their Supreme Court nominations up. It casts a rather different perspective on say, the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney: pay lip service to the Pro-Life movement but when the chips are down and they actually have choice between protecting life and maintaining power, what will the choice be?

But will Republican Presidents actually be allowed to make Supreme Court nominations anymore that will not align with the Religious Right (unless they are replacing a Liberal justice or Kennedy in a Senate that can come up with a coalition who will block that nomination)?

I can even see Kennedy seeing the writing on the wall and concurring or joining a decision that throws out Roe, Casey and Griswold if a personhood  law soon gets passed at the state level and a Republican Government gets elected in 2016. However, I will contend that if abortion is still legal after the next president leaves office, it probably will never be a crime.

Do you think the ideological pressure is strong enough that Republicans would kill the SCOTUS filibuster to replace Kennedy or Ginsburg with someone like Paul Clement?  Of course, that could mean Goodwin Liu replacing Alito or Thomas later on, so there could be a huge downside.  Do you imagine Scalia and Kennedy would retire in 2017-18 if Republicans had full control?  I can see why Breyer is holding out- he would be the swing vote with one more Democratic appointment.  I am quite surprised that Ginsburg isn't going to retire under Obama, though.     

She's seems to be feeling alright and she could live and work as long as Stevens did (another 10 years) and if something were to happen to her during a time of a right-wing Government, it would be seen by many as simply speeding up what was inevitably going to happen, anyways. See Unknown Unknowns thread.

Plus, the speeding up of global warming due to more overpopulation will help Democrats.

Seriously, this is a terrible idea.

It is, but the proponents of personhood and the carbon industry do not see their policies having such negative consequences or think they are worth it.

If natural gas keeps displacing coal for power generation and particularly if this spreads to Asia, global warming becomes much less of a policy concern in the immediate future.  Any of the really bad stuff would be shunted off another 100 years if the US/Europe/China/India are only using 25-50% as much carbon as today.  While it would still be happening, it would likely slow enough that you couldn't build a political movement against it.

[Person Man]

On the alternative side of things, one can quite easily question the sincerity in the Republican Party's efforts to actually ban abortion. The Republican Party had ample opportunity to overturn Roe in the 80s and early 90s if they hadn't screwed their Supreme Court nominations up. It casts a rather different perspective on say, the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney: pay lip service to the Pro-Life movement but when the chips are down and they actually have choice between protecting life and maintaining power, what will the choice be?

But will Republican Presidents actually be allowed to make Supreme Court nominations anymore that will not align with the Religious Right (unless they are replacing a Liberal justice or Kennedy in a Senate that can come up with a coalition who will block that nomination)?

I can even see Kennedy seeing the writing on the wall and concurring or joining a decision that throws out Roe, Casey and Griswold if a personhood  law soon gets passed at the state level and a Republican Government gets elected in 2016. However, I will contend that if abortion is still legal after the next president leaves office, it probably will never be a crime.

Do you think the ideological pressure is strong enough that Republicans would kill the SCOTUS filibuster to replace Kennedy or Ginsburg with someone like Paul Clement?  Of course, that could mean Goodwin Liu replacing Alito or Thomas later on, so there could be a huge downside.  Do you imagine Scalia and Kennedy would retire in 2017-18 if Republicans had full control?  I can see why Breyer is holding out- he would be the swing vote with one more Democratic appointment.  I am quite surprised that Ginsburg isn't going to retire under Obama, though.    

She's seems to be feeling alright and she could live and work as long as Stevens did (another 10 years) and if something were to happen to her during a time of a right-wing Government, it would be seen by many as simply speeding up what was inevitably going to happen, anyways. See Unknown Unknowns thread.

Plus, the speeding up of global warming due to more overpopulation will help Democrats.

Seriously, this is a terrible idea.

It is, but the proponents of personhood and the carbon industry do not see their policies having such negative consequences or think they are worth it.

If natural gas keeps displacing coal for power generation and particularly if this spreads to Asia, global warming becomes much less of a policy concern in the immediate future.  Any of the really bad stuff would be shunted off another 100 years if the US/Europe/China/India are only using 25-50% as much carbon as today.  While it would still be happening, it would likely slow enough that you couldn't build a political movement against it.

Fracking might be the compromise between the Carbon industry and Green industry and movement...at least until the need for a new energy source until one that is clearly superior to fracking or dirtier Hydrocarbons is found. My bet is that it will happen when the military perfects nuclear power in the form of fusion to power its new energy weapons on its vehicles and ships. When that happens, there could be a transition to civilian use.


So, maybe by 2030, fracking will be a bigger thing than oil and coal and around that time, the Navy will start building ships that use fusion power energy weapons provided their current experiments between them and their contractors don't end in failure. By 2040, there could be civilian plants and by 2060 or 2070, fusion could be the dominant source of power.

So maybe necessitated technological change (the need to save money on ammunition when the military is constantly involved in low to mid intensity warfare) will make Global Warming a moot point. Then again, if energy isn't a concern, maybe food would be...but back to the original topic,
if a lot of socon policies were implemented after decades of trying to implement them, there would probably be a big initial backlash.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

On the alternative side of things, one can quite easily question the sincerity in the Republican Party's efforts to actually ban abortion. The Republican Party had ample opportunity to overturn Roe in the 80s and early 90s if they hadn't screwed their Supreme Court nominations up. It casts a rather different perspective on say, the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney: pay lip service to the Pro-Life movement but when the chips are down and they actually have choice between protecting life and maintaining power, what will the choice be?

But will Republican Presidents actually be allowed to make Supreme Court nominations anymore that will not align with the Religious Right (unless they are replacing a Liberal justice or Kennedy in a Senate that can come up with a coalition who will block that nomination)?

I can even see Kennedy seeing the writing on the wall and concurring or joining a decision that throws out Roe, Casey and Griswold if a personhood  law soon gets passed at the state level and a Republican Government gets elected in 2016. However, I will contend that if abortion is still legal after the next president leaves office, it probably will never be a crime.

There is absolutely no way Kennedy is going to touch Griswold - he's based a lot of his decisions on it.  He may be willing to modify Casey similar to the way that Casey modified Roe.

[Skill and Chance]

On the alternative side of things, one can quite easily question the sincerity in the Republican Party's efforts to actually ban abortion. The Republican Party had ample opportunity to overturn Roe in the 80s and early 90s if they hadn't screwed their Supreme Court nominations up. It casts a rather different perspective on say, the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney: pay lip service to the Pro-Life movement but when the chips are down and they actually have choice between protecting life and maintaining power, what will the choice be?

But will Republican Presidents actually be allowed to make Supreme Court nominations anymore that will not align with the Religious Right (unless they are replacing a Liberal justice or Kennedy in a Senate that can come up with a coalition who will block that nomination)?

I can even see Kennedy seeing the writing on the wall and concurring or joining a decision that throws out Roe, Casey and Griswold if a personhood  law soon gets passed at the state level and a Republican Government gets elected in 2016. However, I will contend that if abortion is still legal after the next president leaves office, it probably will never be a crime.

There is absolutely no way Kennedy is going to touch Griswold - he's based a lot of his decisions on it.  He may be willing to modify Casey similar to the way that Casey modified Roe.

I'm actually more concerned about Wickard or even West Coast Hotel going down than Roe or Griswold.  Kennedy is far more likely to be persuaded by a radical economic conservative argument.  But I think a major part of the reason Roberts defected on NFIB was to signal that he wouldn't be part of any majority that went there.  But if, say, Andrew Napolitano and Paul Clement take Ginsburg's and Kennedy's seats in the near future, the New Deal could very well go down, whether Roberts likes it or not.

[H. Ross Peron]

Would Roberts even vote to overturn Roe?