- Feb 5, 2002
- 184,704
- 67,554
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
A few decades back, a Wall Street Journal editor named James Taranto posited what he called “the Roe Effect.” The idea was spawned by data showing a correlation between a woman’s political views and her views and actions regarding abortion.
Taranto argued that, over time, conservative women and families would have more children and liberal woman, accepting abortion, would have a lower birth rate, and this would lead to diminishing popular support for legal abortion.
Writing in 2005, Taranto said, “The RoeEffect ... refers specifically to the nexus between the practice of abortion and the politics of abortion. It seems self-evident that pro-choice women are more likely to have abortions than pro-life ones, and common sense suggests that children tend to gravitate toward their parents' values. This would seem to ensure that Americans born after Roe v. Wade have a greater propensity to vote for the pro-life party — that is, Republican — than they otherwise would have.”
Taranto believed that this differential was real, and his analysis of electoral data from that period supported a Republican advantage. But he also believed that even if this population trend led to a more pro-life nation, the result would be a reversal of Roe v. Wade that would force both major political parties to moderate their messages and pursue policies at the state level, avoiding the national stage and resuming the “status quo ante Roe.”
Taranto’s writing proved prescient, and as of 2022, the national abortion right was ended in the Dobbs ruling. National political players in both parties, meanwhile, while not completely avoiding the topic, have largely adopted a states’ rights perspective that de-emphasizes national debate and votes in the Congress. With the strongest messages on both sides muted, Taranto wrote, both Roe and the Roe Effect contained “the seeds of their own demise.”
Continued below.
washingtonstand.com
Taranto argued that, over time, conservative women and families would have more children and liberal woman, accepting abortion, would have a lower birth rate, and this would lead to diminishing popular support for legal abortion.
Writing in 2005, Taranto said, “The RoeEffect ... refers specifically to the nexus between the practice of abortion and the politics of abortion. It seems self-evident that pro-choice women are more likely to have abortions than pro-life ones, and common sense suggests that children tend to gravitate toward their parents' values. This would seem to ensure that Americans born after Roe v. Wade have a greater propensity to vote for the pro-life party — that is, Republican — than they otherwise would have.”
Taranto believed that this differential was real, and his analysis of electoral data from that period supported a Republican advantage. But he also believed that even if this population trend led to a more pro-life nation, the result would be a reversal of Roe v. Wade that would force both major political parties to moderate their messages and pursue policies at the state level, avoiding the national stage and resuming the “status quo ante Roe.”
Taranto’s writing proved prescient, and as of 2022, the national abortion right was ended in the Dobbs ruling. National political players in both parties, meanwhile, while not completely avoiding the topic, have largely adopted a states’ rights perspective that de-emphasizes national debate and votes in the Congress. With the strongest messages on both sides muted, Taranto wrote, both Roe and the Roe Effect contained “the seeds of their own demise.”
Continued below.
The Partisan Divide in Sinking U.S. Birth Rates
A few decades back, a Wall Street Journal editor named James Taranto posited what he called "the Roe Effect." The idea was spawned by data showing a correlation
