Abortion: electoral politics, demographics, and cities

[fnr]

Even with Donald Trump’s victory, and potential to name another pro-life Supreme Court justice to replace a pro-choice one, I do not believe that overturning Roe v. Wade can be maintained politically. Demographically, the Democratic electoral coalition consists of groups with the highest rates of abortion: age <45 years, blacks, unmarried women, people who never attend religious services, and residents of cities over 50,000 people. By contrast, the Republican electoral coalition consists of people aged 45+, white men, white non-college graduates, married men, Christians, people who attend religious services at least monthly, suburban, and small city and rural residents. See: foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/exit-polls

Abortion “rights” (e.g., Roe v. Wade’s right to privacy) only applies to one demographic group: women of childbearing age. That’s a very powerful demographic group of voters. Women know how to organize their votes, and in cities, pro-chioce women have access to electoral coalitions that make them a powerful voting block. While about 2/3 of state legislatures are Republican-controlled, about 2/3 of large cities are Democrat-controlled. In electoral politics, large cities help pool power for their residents, which tend to be younger, more likely to be minorities, single, and poor.

There are recent examples of Republican state legislatures attempting to control the actions of their “liberal cities,” only to be outflanked by those cities. Take, for example, the North Carolina 2016 “bathroom bill,” which first arose in response to the Charlotte City Council passed a non-discrimination ordinance that included gender identity in public accommodations. The NC legislature and governor passed “House Bill 2” to require individuals to use restrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate. The bill also prevented NC municipalities from enacting anti-discrimination policies of their own. While the “bathroom use” part of the law was repealed in March 2017, largely due to economic pressure from corporate and nonprofit events and activities pulling out North Carolina, the other parts of the bill remained. Municipalities throughout North Carolina also passed resolutions against the bill. The North Carolina example illustrates how cities can reach beyond their boundaries to organize power effectively.

I’ll also add that in every state I’ve examined, urban county abortion rates and ratios are much higher than non-urban counties.

In my opinion, abortion needs to move beyond a partisan issue, or I don’t see real progress ever being made.

 

[dmelosi]

Even with Donald Trump’s victory, and potential to name another pro-life Supreme Court justice to replace a pro-choice one, I do not believe that overturning Roe v. Wade can be maintained politically. Demographically, the Democratic electoral coalition consists of groups with the highest rates of abortion: age <45 years, blacks, unmarried women, people who never attend religious services, and residents of cities over 50,000 people. By contrast, the Republican electoral coalition consists of people aged 45+, white men, white non-college graduates, married men, Christians, people who attend religious services at least monthly, suburban, and small city and rural residents. See: foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/exit-polls

Abortion “rights” (e.g., Roe v. Wade’s right to privacy) only applies to one demographic group: women of childbearing age. That’s a very powerful demographic group of voters. Women know how to organize their votes, and in cities, pro-chioce women have access to electoral coalitions that make them a powerful voting block. While about 2/3 of state legislatures are Republican-controlled, about 2/3 of large cities are Democrat-controlled. In electoral politics, large cities help pool power for their residents, which tend to be younger, more likely to be minorities, single, and poor.

There are recent examples of Republican state legislatures attempting to control the actions of their “liberal cities,” only to be outflanked by those cities. Take, for example, the North Carolina 2016 “bathroom bill,” which first arose in response to the Charlotte City Council passed a non-discrimination ordinance that included gender identity in public accommodations. The NC legislature and governor passed “House Bill 2” to require individuals to use restrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate. The bill also prevented NC municipalities from enacting anti-discrimination policies of their own. While the “bathroom use” part of the law was repealed in March 2017, largely due to economic pressure from corporate and nonprofit events and activities pulling out North Carolina, the other parts of the bill remained. Municipalities throughout North Carolina also passed resolutions against the bill. The North Carolina example illustrates how cities can reach beyond their boundaries to organize power effectively.

I’ll also add that in every state I’ve examined, urban county abortion rates and ratios are much higher than non-urban counties.

In my opinion, abortion needs to move beyond a partisan issue, or I don’t see real progress ever being made.

Yes it sure does need to move beyond partisan. That is improbable as long it is firmly a part of the Democratic party platform as well as those that continue to support the party because of mainly a single issue.

 

[Whalljim]

“In my opinion, abortion needs to move beyond a partisan issue, or I don’t see real progress ever being made.”

I’m 100% in favor of this. Its not a partisan issue, its a human rights issue. We have to win over people by changing their hearts; and this has to happen world wide.

Its difficult though; both parties use it as a club; though the Dems are tied in via the big money route in support of it.

 

[dmelosi]

“In my opinion, abortion needs to move beyond a partisan issue, or I don’t see real progress ever being made.”

I’m 100% in favor of this. Its not a partisan issue, its a human rights issue. We have to win over people by changing their hearts; and this has to happen world wide.

Its difficult though; both parties use it as a club; though the Dems are tied in via the big money route in support of it.

I think it is more than the big money, I believe they see it is a way of population control. They are drifting further and further away from seeing it as a life and death issue, at least it sure seems they are training their “apologists” to be able to do so.

 

[mikekle]

I think its strange overall that ‘big money’ is even part of this, usually big companies or industries as a whole could not care less about a persons beliefs, morals, ethics, etc. They just want paying customers, people spending, etc. why alienate a percentage of potential customers based on their moral beliefs?

Back when i was a manager for a chain pizza place, a porn video store was planning to open next door in the strip mall, local news reporters came since was it was a big deal, the city was split 50/50 on it being allowed to open and operate. The corporate office instructed us to say ‘NO COMMENT’ if approached by reporters, they said, " at the end of the day, we want the patrons of the video shop AND those who oppose it to buy pizza from us", why risk loosing customers over a moral issue?

It makes no sense for any corporation or industry to have any opinion on this sort of thing to begin with, why would they even care or even financially/ publicly support such things? LOL

 

[Whalljim]

I think its strange overall that ‘big money’ is even part of this, usually big companies or industries as a whole could not care less about a persons beliefs, morals, ethics, etc. They just want paying customers, people spending, etc. why alienate a percentage of potential customers based on their moral beliefs?

Back when i was a manager for a chain pizza place, a porn video store was planning to open next door in the strip mall, local news reporters came since was it was a big deal, the city was split 50/50 on it being allowed to open and operate. The corporate office instructed us to say ‘NO COMMENT’ if approached by reporters, they said, " at the end of the day, we want the patrons of the video shop AND those who oppose it to buy pizza from us", why risk loosing customers over a moral issue?

It makes no sense for any corporation or industry to have any opinion on this sort of thing to begin with, why would they even care or even financially/ publicly support such things? LOL

From a strictly capitalist viewpoint you are, I think, correct.

In my opinion, however, political involvement skews things. Planned Parenthood is able to act as an NGO and get money from people who support it. PP has also been able to cover itself in the mantle of ‘women’s rights’ that appeal to secular progressives; and they donate. PP then uses that money to support politicians, who then write bills to give more money to PP…

Right now PP gets enough money from donors, abortions, and the government that it has become its own ‘Big’ organization. It swings a ton of weight; and like a corporation that would jealously guard a patent will jealously guard their access to the government spigot.

 

[dmelosi]

People that label themselves with either political party, could have mixed social or fiscal views.

Someone that is liberal on Social and Fiscal issues would always be a Democrat or other “to the left party”.

Someone that is conservative on Social and Fiscal issues would always be a Republican or other “to the right party”.

Would almost always identify as Democrats if;
-There was 1 MAIN issue that affected them personally and they agreed with what the democratic party loudly claimed about that issue.
or -Believe that the government should take care of others and know better what is good for people than the people do themselves.
or -Also believe that Abortion is NOT a life and death issue for the unborn human being.

Would almost always identify as Republicans if;
-They believe mostly in personal responsibility.
or -Believe more in the government help those that need help, but prefer that the government include incentives to help people take more personal responsibility.
or -Also believe that Abortion is a life and death issue for the unborn human being.

Either party could consist of a mix of Social and Fiscal issues, but I believe that anyone who truly believes that abortion is a life and death issue for the unborn human being, is a Catholic, and still supports and is an apologist for the Democratic party, does not truly believe that abortion is a life and death issue for the unborn human being as the church teaches.

 

[Whalljim]

"Someone that is liberal on Social and Fiscal issues would always be a Democrat or other “to the left party”.

Someone that is conservative on Social and Fiscal issues would always be a Republican or other “to the right party”."

I’m a mix. My deepening of my faith has brought me ‘leftward’ on many issues.

In my opinion, faith isn’t a ‘left/right’ thing. It should always challenge you.

I’m 100% pro life. I think abortion is an evil on the same level as slavery and worse than segregation. It dehumanizes people in order to kill them.

That’s not to say its an easy situation. The outliers (rape, incest) are horrific situations; but still, we cannot kill the innocent.

I’m also fiscally conservative; but I’m ambivalent about how we get there. If you want lots of defense/social programs, no problem. Raise taxes. If you want low taxes, no problem, cut spending. Don’t be an idiot with whatever you do: Don’t cut so much infrastructure fails; don’t raise taxes so much people are throttled.

I believe the laffer curve exists, but its not 100% applicable. You can’t cut taxes to 0 and get infinity revenues.

I do believe that the government should play a role in helping people. Like Hayek I believe we should have a decent safety net, but maintain as much freedom as possible.
I’m more liberal in that I don’t mind that safety net being larger. Protecting and helping single mom’s, drug addicts, etc.

I believe strongly in public education. My wife is a teacher and works very hard at her craft. I know alot of public school teachers and believe alot of them get shafted by public perception. I believe also in private education. I don’t want Catholic schools being told what to do.

Finally I believe our republic is broken right now; by big money interests and special interests; or in the case of something like PP; both.

In short. I don’t have a party for which I can vote.

 

[Kielbasi]

Roe can certainly be reversed, and probably will be.

But after it is, the fight against abortion won’t be over by a long shot.

Roe merely mandates legal abortion-on-demand nationwide.

Reversing Roe would just move the issue to the 50 states and to Congress (for military bases/territories and the District of Columbia).

It wouldn’t outlaw the practice.

 

[dmelosi]

"Someone that is liberal on Social and Fiscal issues would always be a Democrat or other “to the left party”.

Someone that is conservative on Social and Fiscal issues would always be a Republican or other “to the right party”."

I’m a mix. My deepening of my faith has brought me ‘leftward’ on many issues.

In my opinion, faith isn’t a ‘left/right’ thing. It should always challenge you.

I’m 100% pro life. I think abortion is an evil on the same level as slavery and worse than segregation. It dehumanizes people in order to kill them.

That’s not to say its an easy situation. The outliers (rape, incest) are horrific situations; but still, we cannot kill the innocent.

I’m also fiscally conservative; but I’m ambivalent about how we get there. If you want lots of defense/social programs, no problem. Raise taxes. If you want low taxes, no problem, cut spending. Don’t be an idiot with whatever you do: Don’t cut so much infrastructure fails; don’t raise taxes so much people are throttled.

I believe the laffer curve exists, but its not 100% applicable. You can’t cut taxes to 0 and get infinity revenues.

I do believe that the government should play a role in helping people. Like Hayek I believe we should have a decent safety net, but maintain as much freedom as possible.
I’m more liberal in that I don’t mind that safety net being larger. Protecting and helping single mom’s, drug addicts, etc.

I believe strongly in public education. My wife is a teacher and works very hard at her craft. I know alot of public school teachers and believe alot of them get shafted by public perception. I believe also in private education. I don’t want Catholic schools being told what to do.

Finally I believe our republic is broken right now; by big money interests and special interests; or in the case of something like PP; both.

In short. I don’t have a party for which I can vote.

I believe I agree with all of what you said and is the reason that I am so against the Democratic party. I am not sure why you can’t vote for a party based on what you believe. For sure there is work to do on the republican side and it is our individual duty to be vocal about what needs changed. The democratic party is so firmly pro abortion, I don’t see a hope for change there.

 

[Whalljim]

I believe I agree with all of what you said and is the reason that I am so against the Democratic party. I am not sure why you can’t vote for a party based on what you believe. For sure there is work to do on the republican side and it is our individual duty to be vocal about what needs changed. The democratic party is so firmly pro abortion, I don’t see a hope for change there.

The Democrats are a mess. The Republicans aren’t much better to me. At least at the State level where I live they are way too anti-public education, and are way to cutting of the social net. Many (though not all) are also very pro death penalty and hard core (knee jerk, to my opinion) anti crime. I am not.

Their constant mucking up at the Federal level doesn’t do much for me either. I believe they have fully supported a surveillance state. The Patriot act is, in my opinion, a blight upon the republic and quite often the fourth amendment.They are way too loose in their regulation of the finance industry and too supportive of large multinationals.

I was a hawk in my youth, but now, while I think the military should be strong, I also think that we can’t just throw money at it, and it should be used very sparingly.

to be fair, Dems have supported many of these things too, with abortion on top of it.

I got tired of holding my nose and voting a long time ago. I tried the thought process of ‘The Republicans just need fixing’ for awhile, but they kept getting worse for me. I don’t believe they are really serious about eliminating abortion, or if they are that they have the power to do it because they keep acting so stupidly (their defense against the accusations of a ‘war on women’ were often pathetic and worse than if they’d just remained mute).

If a party wants my vote, they can work for it. I’m fine if I’m not important enough for them not to work for it. I will still vote, just not for the mess.

 

[Whalljim]

Roe can certainly be reversed, and probably will be.

But after it is, the fight against abortion won’t be over by a long shot.

Roe merely mandates legal abortion-on-demand nationwide.

Reversing Roe would just move the issue to the 50 states and to Congress (for military bases/territories and the District of Columbia).

It wouldn’t outlaw the practice.

In the end we win this fight by changing the culture. It can be done. We have to spread the good news, and live the faith.

Ultimately though, we’re called to fight, not win.

 

[ATraveller]

Roe can certainly be reversed, and probably will be.

But after it is, the fight against abortion won’t be over by a long shot.

Roe merely mandates legal abortion-on-demand nationwide.

Reversing Roe would just move the issue to the 50 states and to Congress (for military bases/territories and the District of Columbia).

It wouldn’t outlaw the practice.

This is why a lot has to be done at the ‘grassroots’ level and it can’t all be political.

 

[fastenatingguy]

"Someone that is liberal on Social and Fiscal issues would always be a Democrat or other “to the left party”.

Someone that is conservative on Social and Fiscal issues would always be a Republican or other “to the right party”."

I’m a mix. My deepening of my faith has brought me ‘leftward’ on many issues.

In my opinion, faith isn’t a ‘left/right’ thing. It should always challenge you.

I’m 100% pro life. I think abortion is an evil on the same level as slavery and worse than segregation. It dehumanizes people in order to kill them.

That’s not to say its an easy situation. The outliers (rape, incest) are horrific situations; but still, we cannot kill the innocent.

I’m also fiscally conservative; but I’m ambivalent about how we get there. If you want lots of defense/social programs, no problem. Raise taxes. If you want low taxes, no problem, cut spending. Don’t be an idiot with whatever you do: Don’t cut so much infrastructure fails; don’t raise taxes so much people are throttled.

I believe the laffer curve exists, but its not 100% applicable. You can’t cut taxes to 0 and get infinity revenues.

I do believe that the government should play a role in helping people. Like Hayek I believe we should have a decent safety net, but maintain as much freedom as possible.
I’m more liberal in that I don’t mind that safety net being larger. Protecting and helping single mom’s, drug addicts, etc.

I believe strongly in public education. My wife is a teacher and works very hard at her craft. I know alot of public school teachers and believe alot of them get shafted by public perception. I believe also in private education. I don’t want Catholic schools being told what to do.

Finally I believe our republic is broken right now; by big money interests and special interests; or in the case of something like PP; both.

In short. I don’t have a party for which I can vote.

We must be twin sons of different mothers!

 

[SuperLuigi]

I think its strange overall that ‘big money’ is even part of this, usually big companies or industries as a whole could not care less about a persons beliefs, morals, ethics, etc. They just want paying customers, people spending, etc. why alienate a percentage of potential customers based on their moral beliefs?

Back when i was a manager for a chain pizza place, a porn video store was planning to open next door in the strip mall, local news reporters came since was it was a big deal, the city was split 50/50 on it being allowed to open and operate. The corporate office instructed us to say ‘NO COMMENT’ if approached by reporters, they said, " at the end of the day, we want the patrons of the video shop AND those who oppose it to buy pizza from us", why risk loosing customers over a moral issue?

It makes no sense for any corporation or industry to have any opinion on this sort of thing to begin with, why would they even care or even financially/ publicly support such things? LOL

A lot of the larger companies think they can make more headway if they support left-wing causes.

Sometimes it’s in error as Target has more or less publicly said their bathroom policy has cost them billions.

But there is this perception that among some companies that unless they advocate for X number of causes that are left-leaning, they will be boycotted forever and die out.

A big reason for that is the other doesn’t make their voice heard often enough and tends to be less organized or says “nah, I’m not gonna do that”.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I believe I agree with all of what you said and is the reason that I am so against the Democratic party. I am not sure why you can’t vote for a party based on what you believe. For sure there is work to do on the republican side and it is our individual duty to be vocal about what needs changed. The democratic party is so firmly pro abortion, I don’t see a hope for change there.

If every single Democrat who opposed abortion said they wouldn’t vote until it was gone, the party would take notice.

The Democrats are much more willing to survive as a political entity and get their elites and best buddies government golden parachute benefits than fight for idealism on a sinking ship.