The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My New Article on "Abortion and Foot Voting in a Post-Dobbs America"
It examines whether people are likely to "vote with their feet" based on interstate differences in abortion policy, after Dobbs. The first in a series of two articles on this topic.

Yesterday, Australian Outlook (a publication of the Australian Institute for International Affairs), published my article on "Abortion and Foot Voting in a Post-Dobbs America." It's the first in a series of two pieces on the question of whether people are likely to "vote with their feet" based on state variations in abortion policy in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling overturning Roe v. Wade last year. Here is an excerpt:
In June 2022, the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision holding that abortion is a protected constitutional right. In the aftermath of Dobbs, numerous conservative "red states" with Republican Party-controlled state governments enacted legislation severely restricting abortion or restored old abortion restrictions that had been blocked by Roe. By contrast, multiple Democratic-controlled "blue" states strengthened abortion rights.
More than at any other time in American history, we now have massive variation in abortion rights between states. That situation raises many issues, one of which is to what extent people will "vote with their feet" for the abortion regime they prefer. If they do, it's possible that pro-life states will experience a "brain drain," as high-skilled workers decamp for greener pastures. The answer to this question will only become clear over a period of several years.
For now, I tentatively predict that Dobbs will result in only modestly expanded foot voting in the sense of people permanently moving from one state to another. That is largely because many women seeking abortions can still get them through less costly forms of foot voting, such as getting an abortion in another state or getting a "medication" abortion using drugs ordered by mail. But the situation could potentially change, for reasons I will cover in part two of this series….
In some ways, severe abortion restrictions resemble the kinds of oppression and economic privation that have historically led to large-scale foot voting. An unwanted pregnancy can be a severe burden, and sometimes even a serious threat to a woman's health. But many women have alternative, lower-cost options for avoiding that burden. I take "my body, my choice" further than most, and therefore believe most abortion restrictions are unjust. But that does not tell us how many people will vote with their feet to avoid them….
The combination of contraception, mail-order abortion pills, and travelling to get abortions out of state seems likely to keep abortion-drive migration low. This is particularly true in the case of more affluent, higher-educated women, who are especially well-positioned to take advantage of these options. For that reason, abortion-driven "brain drain" scenarios seem unlikely to occur on a large scale.
In a sense, these alternatives are actually lower-cost forms of foot voting than interstate migration. In my book Free to Move, I describe how private-sector alternatives to public services and government policies often function as a cheaper form of foot voting, with lower moving costs. Private-sector foot voting can help reduce the impact of state abortion restrictions, too.
I also briefly consider the little-discussed possibility that pro-lifers might leave "blue" states out of opposition to the pro-choice policies of the latter; I conclude this is unlikely to happen on any significant scale.
In the second article in this series, I will consider some factors that might lead to more abortion-drive migration than I currently expect.
This article is my first-ever in an Australian publication. I am a little surprised that they would ask me to write about this particular issue. But the US debate over abortion has attracted widespread attention around the world.
I have previously written about abortion and foot voting here and here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I also briefly consider the little-discussed possibility that pro-lifers might leave "blue" states out of opposition to the pro-choice policies of the latter; I conclude this is unlikely to happen on any significant scale.
Of course it's unlikely. Even a pro-lifer might want an abortion some time.
many women seeking abortions can still get them through less costly forms of foot voting, such as getting an abortion in another state or getting a "medication" abortion using drugs ordered by mail.
This argument overlooks the possibility of needing an abortion at a time when travel is risky. A woman of child-bearing age may well want to avoid taking that chance. There is also the problem of Ob-Gyn specialists choosing not to practice in states with abortion bans, which adds an element of risk as well.
Just like most Infantryman never kill anyone, most OB/GYN's don't either.
It's funny, most go into OB/GYN because they like delivering babies, what a bunch of weirdos!!!!!!!
Frank
Most OB/GYNs will not provide abortions, but they have to be free to do them when necessary. It is also true that many OB/GYNs procedures are similar to abortion procedures and they will not like being questioned about their treatment for a patient. Many miscarriages are followed up by a D&C to remove dead tissue.
Which is the problem with the abortion pill.
"Many miscarriages are followed up by a D&C to remove remains of the DEAD FETUS." FIFY
I think it’s true for a different reason. What proportion of the population is directly affected by an abortion in their lifetime? 5%? Less?
People aren’t going to disrupt their lives and move over a policy in their state that doesn’t affect them. There won’t be a stream of pro-choicers leaving red states for the same reason.
Whoa! You can't let rationale facts get in the way of snark!
Those weren't facts, BL, they were made up numbers you happen to like.
Rookie mistake to make.
First, your 5% is way off.
Second, having laws that constrict your freedom is an effect in itself for many.
Maybe not to move out, but certainly to avoid jobs that move you in. I have had these discussions.
Huh, what is the number?
QA posted it. Maybe you don't hang around feminists much, but that's not an unknown number.
What’s the number, genius? You don’t know either, and not knowing means you can’t say it’s “way off”. Because despite your arrogant and confident assertion, you have no idea either.
Point is, whatever the number is, it’s very small. Most people live their entire lives without any exposure to anyone who has had or considered or performed an abortion.
Want something more factual that you’re too lazy intellectually to look up. Estimates of annual abortions in the US run around 750,000 annually. Double it just for shits and giggles. That’s around 0.2% of the population. Not even enough to call round off.
You’re too goddamn political. People aren’t going to go through the pain in the ass of moving, or turn down a good job opportunity, over something that will never affect them personally.
Most people live their entire lives without any exposure to anyone who has had or considered or performed an abortion.
OK. 750K a year.
That means that over an adult lifetime - say 50 years - there will be 37,500,000 abortions. Let's guess that involves 25,000,000 women, to allow for duplicates. Are you claiming that most people never know any of them? And don't know anyone who has even considered an abortion?
Seems implausible.
Besides, all this statistical talk is nonsense. It ignores the fact that pregnancy is risky, and women may not want to live in a state where they can't get an abortion for a medical reason. It also ignores the fact that some Ob-Gyn's are reluctant to practice in red states for fear of having to choose between proper medical care and possible criminal charges, and that medical residents in some of those states can't get proper training.
I'm not saying there will be a mass exodus, but differences at the margins can have a large effect.
Yes, most people never know any of them. It’s well under 10% of the population. What fraction of the country do you actually know?
I don’t know about you, of course, but I went through high school and college and young adulthood in the 70s and 80s (abortion legal nationally) and I never knew one person who had one. Neither has my wife. I suspect by numbers that our experience is pretty common.
It’s not a factor in moving for almost anyone. In or out.
Yes, most people never know any of them. It’s well under 10% of the population. What fraction of the country do you actually know?
Go back to math class. If I know 50 people - and I know more than that - the chance that they are all in the 92.5% that haven't had an abortion is about two percent.
I don’t know about you, of course, but I went through high school and college and young adulthood in the 70s and 80s (abortion legal nationally) and I never knew one person who had one.
You can't possibly know that, and I doubt it is true.
Fine. You make my point. The impact of abortion is not widespread enough to induce people to move.
There are laws in Texas that I don’t like. One I’ve mentioned a couple of times that’s related to abortion that I consider personally offensive. But I never considered moving because of it.
I’m not defending Dobbs at all. I’m just saying the impact isn’t enough to make any material number of people disrupt their lives.
I make your point???
You claim that almost no on one knows anyone who has had and abortion, and I point out that your claim is innumerate and idiotic, and yet somehow that proves your point???
You claim you never knew anyone who ever had an abortion, and I point out that you have absolutely no way of knowing that, and that it is all but absolutely certain to be false, and I'm proving your point???
I’m just saying the impact isn’t enough to make any material number of people disrupt their lives.
And I said, above:
I’m not saying there will be a mass exodus, but differences at the margins can have a large effect.
And of course, if the small number who move are physicians and nurses the secondary effect might be significant.
Here’s a not-so-fun read–Maternal mortality rates by US state 2023
Consequences.
"The U.S. maternal mortality rate measures the rate of deaths from any cause related to or aggravated by pregnancy childbirth, or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy."
That's how our numbers are so much higher -- but these still are very small numbers -- https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db427.pdf
" If I know 50 people – and I know more than that – the chance that they are all in the 92.5% that haven’t had an abortion is about two percent."
More like 14%, assuming that not everybody you know is a woman...
Well, not quite, Brett.
You are assuming that half the people I know are women. Fair assumption. But the 92.5% frequency of non-abortion is for the entire population. Among women it will be 85%, since 25 million women are about 15% of the total.
.85^25 = .017, a bit under 2%.
And of course the 50 number is implausibly low.
Maybe it's implausibly low for an extrovert...
I've generally found Guttmacher reliable, they don't appear to have any interest in fudging their numbers to make things look better; For instance, they don't try to pretend that elective late term abortions aren't a thing.
I'm not entirely confident about their methodology here though, given that they're starting with women who have abortions, and reasoning back to the general population on the assumption that they're representative of women in general. That seems a rather dubious assumption, no? Also assuming that women who have multiple abortions casually admit it. (And to their credit, they admit this.) But I think we can take their number as a reasonable upper bound.
I think what I found most interesting (And encouraging!) was that last column in table 1. Apparently abortion rates are dropping, and dramatically. Yay!
These are not actually encouraging numbers for the pro-abortion movement. They suggest that elective abortion is becoming increasingly unpopular. (The drops are lowest in the groups that had the lowest rates to begin with; This likely represents actual medically necessary abortions continuing.)
I'd say that any effort to render medically necessary abortions illegal is going to be political suicide, but since only the most extreme of extremists actually want to do that, that's not happening. Instead, pro-lifers will continue to push for laws that prohibit elective abortion, with medical necessity strictly defined to put a stop to evasion by pretextual claims of medical necessity.
And the pro-abortion movement will continue to characterize every limit on abortion as a flat ban, because a flat ban is the only thing they can actually win against in most of the country. The media will help them with that, of course.
I’d say that any effort to render medically necessary abortions illegal is going to be political suicide, but since only the most extreme of extremists actually want to do that, that’s not happening.
Of course it's happening. Do you read the news, other than those joke web sites you seem to rely on?
And the pro-abortion movement will continue to characterize every limit on abortion as a flat ban, because a flat ban is the only thing they can actually win against in most of the country. The media will help them with that, of course.
Classic Bellmore.
"The extremists on my side are the extreme of the extreme. The extremists on your side make up the entire movement. And they are conspiring with the media."
So, you actually answered your own point. Yes, I do read the news accounts of restrictions being characterized as flat bans. Then I go look at the actual text of the laws and find that they're misrepresenting the laws.
And do you look at how physicians and hospitals are reacting to the bans, and the problems they cause?
Because, you know, there are such things as complicated cases, and doctors really don't want to run afoul of some ambitious MAGA asshole DA.
bevis, all you are proving is that you are the last person the women in your life would confide in with regard to an abortion.
There are probably fewer homosexuals in the US than women who've had an abortion, assuming your 10% number is correct. How many people don't know a single lesbian or gay person in the US?
There was an entire, successful civil rights campaign based entirely on that question.
BTL you are way off base here. Most women don't talk about their abortions and especially to men. I suspect that you would be very surprised by the number of women around you that may have had an abortion at some time in their lives.
Too bad your mother didn't have one
What's wrong with you?
Whats wrong with you? You don't support "Moderation4ever's" mom having the choice to abort him?
The operative number is not how many talk about one, it’s the more fundamental number of how many had one. Which is a tiny fraction of the population.
It’s not enough to induce people to move.
As usual, you are making guesses based on nothing and trying to sound very confident about your guesses. In reality, neither you nor your wife really know whether or not any of the women you know have had an abortion. Nor do you know whether this issue is important enough to a significant number of women to induce them to move to another state. You're certainly entitled to your guesses, as is anyone else.
By the way, your apparent need to attack Sarcastro incessantly is becoming tiresome. Just mute him, and live a happier life.
Good idea.
I admit I don’t know with certainty how many people will move because of Dobbs. Neither do the people who disagree with me. I’ve said what I think in response to the original post and explained why I think it, so perhaps it’s good to just let it lie.
But one other question. It’s been nine months since Dobbs was announced. Has there been a groundswell of people that have moved for that reason? Has the trend of people moving from blue states to red reversed itself? Or even leveled off a little?
The people moving to red states from blue aren't doing it because they don't want the ability to choose an abortion, so I'm not sure what that measurement will tell you. Some of it is political and some of it is taxes and a bit of it was COVID.
A harder but probably more relevant number to find is how many college graduates looking for work automatically exclude states with worse health outcomes and freedom for women? How many doctors and scientists? What is the impact of that missed opportunity for those states? More closed maternity wards, at a minimum, as some staff leave and new staff become harder to recruit.
They’re doing it for financial and quality of life reasons. Which is why virtually everyone moves.
Hardly anyone ever moves for obscure policy reasons that don’t affect them. How many people do you know that moved and when you asked them why they said “I don’t like my state’s marijuana policy”. Or whatever.
As I said, there’s an abortion related policy that passed in Texas that I hate with every fiber of my being. But it’s minor and I never considered moving because they passed it into law.
I brought up the blue to red migration as a data point that suggests that Dobbs hasn’t caused a noticeable migration. That’s all. No political argument intended, simply a numbers point.
My guess would be that the amount of immigration directly caused depends a lot on the specific legislation passed by the state. To take a drastic example, if a state passed a law outlawing abortions in the case of ectopic pregnancy, and were I a female or married to a female trying to get pregnant, I would certainly move out of the state. In that case, the immigration was only indirectly caused by the Dobbs decision.
What’s the number, genius? You don’t know either,
Read like 2 posts above mine.
Jesus.
People aren’t going to go through the pain in the ass of moving, or turn down a good job opportunity, over something that will never affect them personally.
What was a good job opportunity turns into a no-sale for plenty of people based on location.
That's not from my own 'too political' self, that's from talking to people who are in the job market. Maybe the DCMA has more mobile people than average, but I've got some external information from real life other people, and you've got your own intuition.
"that’s from talking to people who are in the job market."
Wow, and they all agreed with your premise! what are the odds of that?
Yes, Bob, that’s what I said – every woman I talked to agreed.
Good reading, great job.
Ooh, some of the 20 people you’ve talked to about this (assuming you’re not making it up), most of whom are likely politically over sensitized, might ultimately move somewhere. Maybe.
That’s really going to move the needle.
How large of an after tax pay cut and an increase in living expenses are they willing to stomach to make a political statement that nobody will notice? Did you ask them that? How much upfront cost to move?
Given that the alternative in most cases is keeping what you’ve got and simply going to the state next door if you need an abortion, it’s gonna be real hard to justify a move. From Texas you can take SWA to several abortion-legal states for less than $100.
The only time you fuckers mention freedom is on this issue.
You people, the Federal communists, are the most anti-freedom tribe on the planet.
Academic freedom is a big discussion right now, bucko. Once again your feelings have overcome your ability to remember things.
Yes, but women are irrational regarding abortion. I know upper middle class women in their late 40s who already have their children and are extremely unlikely to get pregnant again and who live in the bluest of states who still threw a tantrum about Dobbs.
You on the other hand are a very rational Nazi.
thank you Mr. Godwin
If you choose to go to the expense, time, and trouble to move your home and job to a different state, totally based on abortion laws, you have serious mental issues. (I would include "and move your children from familiar schools and friends" in that list, but it's obvious such a person would not have to worry about such a thing).
There is a reason that the largest segment of our population under psychiatric care is liberal white women. They are all mentally ill! When you make you life's major decisions on whether or not you can kill your child, you need to take a serious look at your lifestyle and choices.
Labeling people you don't agree with as mentally ill certainly makes it easier to rationalize the correctness of your own choices.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t labeling anyone as anything. Just the opposite, really, my position is based on virtually everyone making the rational decision as to their financial situation.
There aren’t many people that can afford to diminish their financial situation because they’re pissed at their state leadership. I’ve been pissed at my state’s leadership pretty much ever since Mark White lied to us about the new seat belt law in the ‘80s, but given my degree Texas was where the money (and my family) was for me so I never thought about screwing myself by moving. Economics usually trumps everything else.
While I don't believe a lot of women will relocate/flee/foot-vote away for other reasons than the one you state, I wanted to point out that you're being too narrow with your perspective. It isn't just women who are "directly affected by an abortion" (not even sure what that encompasses, really) but also women who think they may want/need one in the future, are generally upset at having their personal freedom taken away, any men or other women partnered to them, and anyone in the medical industry that is placed at higher risk of being sued or jailed for their role in women's healthcare.
And while this is outside of the scope of foot-voting, it also includes people who will never move to a state because it has such laws. Those numbers may be higher but are also more difficult to estimate. It isn't just the number of doctors a state will lose, but the number of doctors that will never consider a future employment opportunity there. The cost of *not* moving to such a state is far, far lower--essentially zero unless you include opportunity cost, which for doctors these days is probably also zero given high demand.
Maybe so, Shaun. I don’t claim perfect knowledge here. I just disagree with the premise that Dobbs will cause a noticeable population shift. And I’ve said why.
I would also note that the regulars who post on this board are much more, uh, politics-sensitive than the average American. That’s going to make life decisions based on politics seem more important to this group than to the general population. Again, not a criticism, just an observation.
100% of the Aborted Babies are "Directly Affected" by Abortion. And what would have happened if Barry Hussein's mom could have had an Abortion in 1961?? Certainly was a tough sitch-you-asian, Single Mom, abandoned by a Dirty old African Chieftain, trying to raise a 1/2 Black kid in the early 60's, would have been much easier to "Just take the Pill" like Barry Hussein Hisself would recommend years later.
Only the hyper partisan woke will vote with their feet due to dobbs.
If you can think ahead enough to move to another state, you can think ahead enough to never need an abortion.
May those thoughts comfort clingers as educated, skilled, modern women -- and the employers (businesses, schools, hospitals, etc.) who rely on educated employees -- accelerate the bright flight that has fueled the decline of America's desolate, poorly educated, economically inadequate communities for generations.
You expressed concern for my health so I will share some very good news with you.
My pain got much worse on the 16th and I ended up in the ER. They did a microdiscectomy on the 18th and the result was amazing. I am well on the way to recovery. I can stand upright and walk (with a little limp from muscle pain).
Good news.
I don't know what this is but anything concluding with "ectomy" sounds important. I am glad it worked and hope it gets even better.
Good luck. There is never enough good news in our world.
thank your lucky stars you live in Amurica. In Canada/England they'd give you some Lidocaine patches and a bullet to bite on (now you probably can't even get a bullet) or like Barry Hussein famously said "Maybe it's better to just take a Pill!!"
Castro didn't come to New Yawk for his Aortic Valve Replacement just to take in a show,
Frank
(Dr.) Jerry Sandusky Ladies and Gentlemans!!!!! World Renowned (Actually "Notorious" would be more accurate) OB/GYN and Sex Criminal!!
I'm not sure I buy it either, but I am always amused with the differing takes based on which issue it is.
Todays Over/Under:
# of Black Feti Aborted in America Since January 22, 1973
this is from a year ago
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nation's oldest pro-life organization, estimates that 63,459,781 abortions have taken place since 1973. That estimate was gathered by tracking data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, which previously served as a research arm of the nation's preeminent abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.
and since Peoples seem to be so Preoccupied with Race....
In the District of Columbia and 29 states that reported racial and ethnic data on abortion to the CDC, 39% of all women who had abortions in 2020 were non-Hispanic Black, while 33% were non-Hispanic White, 21% were Hispanic, and 7% were of other races or ethnicities.
So My guess is "Conservatively" (get it?) 1/3 of Abortions have been Potential Afro-Amuricans, or some
21,153,260.3333 Black Feti in the Suction Cannister,
Frank "Numbers Man"
Given that fact, I would expect you to enthusiastically support abortion rights.
You expect that only because you project your racism onto other people.
Michael, not even you are stupid enough to believe that.
Because I don't like Babies in General?? that may be true, just as I don't like Doctors, Lawyers, Indian Chiefs(only anesthetized one, what an A-hole, but in the Chief's defense he swallowed that Endotracheal tube like it was a Peace Pipe), Peoples who order Corvettes with Automatics, People with Tatoos unless you're a legitimate member of an "Outlaw Motorcycle Club"(Saw a supposed "Hells Angel" checking out of a Hilton Garden Inn, should have his "Colors" burned (with him in them) or Combat Veteran,
but don't support killing of any of them, except maybe Lawyers, and even then, I think a good old fashioned "Tar & Feathering" would be better,
Frank
No, because you don’t like blacks. Even Michael P, for whom missing the point is an art form, got what I was driving at.
because YOU don't like blacks, or if you say you do, you have a strange way of showing it, (since I posted those numbers, 43 more Afro-Amuricans have been aborted (OK, just made that up, but it's probably close)
Frank
I just think black women have the right to make their own reproductive choices. Regardless of outcome.
But only AFTER they're born, what a humanitarian!!!!
Considering that many/most of the "Pro Choice" states are also deep blue, tend to have the highest property and other taxes, how can you differentiate the real reasons for relocation of an individual or a family?
Illinois, like New York and California, has been losing population for more than a 5 years now. Mainly due to one of the highest property taxes in the US, coupled with some of the worst performing schools.
Terminating your next generation (with extreme Prejudice) doesn't help.
I would expect most of the foot voting (however much that may be) would be towards the pro-choice states, so a slowing or reversal of the population loss would demonstrate I think.
As DonP posted blue states have been losing population and I will add red states like Florida and Texas have been gaining population. I doubt the reason peeps are moving to either state is for abortion access.
I wouldn't read too much into foot voting numbers because there are too many variables at work. Sure, some people move from California to Texas for political reasons, but the reason it's so expensive to live in California is that it's a desirable place to live. If it weren't a desirable place to live, a lot more people would move out and prices would drop. And a lot of that desirability comes from blue policies.
The flip side of that coin is that I'm a Democrat who lives in Florida and who is completely horrified at the current social and political climate here. (See earlier thread about the school principal who got fired because students were allowed to see Michelangelo's David.) But I'm not horrified enough to sell my house, give up a job I've had for 20 years, say goodbye to all the friends I've made here, and move somewhere else. I suppose it's theoretically possible I could become sufficiently horrified to do so at some point, but I'm nowhere near that yet.
There are lots of different variables to why people move, politics being only one of them.
It’s mostly economics. Taxes, regulation, maybe concern about crime in certain jurisdictions where crime is rising because of prosecutorial decisions. Maybe weather in a handful of cases.
People aren’t going to move because of abortion laws or marijuana policy or stuff like that because those things don’t directly affect them.
"or marijuana policy"
thats the one good thing California has going for it, so nice to be able to buy some high quality Shit cheaper and without all the drama and "High"(get it?)-Jinx I have to go through in Georgia or Te-jas, too bad everything else about California sucks so bad.
10+ Years of Barry Hussein and Senescent J, and Marriage-a-Juan-A's still classified the same as Heroin Federally,
The cost of living is driven by geography and zoning rules, not "blue policies." California makes it extremely expensive to build housing, and so there is a massive undersupply, which drives up costs. And of course taxes are much higher, in general, in blue than in red states.
In general, middle-class families tend to be Republican, while those who are less affected by housing costs -the extremely rich and extremely poor- are less likely to be Republican (and less likely to be married and have children). Those groups are less sensitive to taxes and to housing costs, and so they are more likely to stay in blue areas.
Ummm, "Blue Policies" are a major part of what creates the high cost of housing and zoning issues. You kind of skipped over that part.
Most of the desirability of California living comes from the weather.
There are other states with nice weather.
"There are other states with nice weather."
Its weather plus location.
Very few places in the world have as nice a climate as coastal California. Warm but not real hot most of the year, low humidity, ocean breezes. Mountains and deserts a few hours away.
Nothing like it in the US. Washington and Oregon are too rainy, Gulf Coast and Lower Atlantic horribly humid half the year. Anything north cold and snowy.
Umm yes, the cool summer breezes of Twenty Nine Palms
Not in, say, Bakersfield it doesn’t.
I love visiting California, but I’d never move there. And the reasons for the higher cost of living are tax/policy related. But not all of them.
Question - there are a lot of rich Californians and a lot of rich Texans. Why is real estate so much more expensive in California?
Why is real estate so much more expensive in California?
More people and less land?
Texas has population density of 114/sq. mi. California is 251.
Far from the whole story, of course, but a starting point.
Exactly. And rules in California that make permitting more difficult.
It’s a combination, not just regulation or space. More space + less rules = more housing = lower prices.
It’s demand. Difficult permitting (which is true) is meaningless in a state with low housing demand. People want to live in California more than any other state and so California has more people. They also want to live along the coasts and mostly South of San Francisco. It should be noted that the top third of the state is practically vacant. (Hat tip to Bob’s comment regarding Oregon, which applies here to that Northern third.) Then you have the coastal mountain ranges that hug the coastline and limit the available land to a relative sliver, add to that the water stress cities are dealing with, and you’ve got high demand with low availability. Too many of my fellow citizens moved into their homes when demand and prices were lower and have fought tooth-n-nail to preserve that vision of suburban California where the car is king.
Meanwhile, every time LA flushes its collective toilet, Lake Mead drops an inch.
More to the point, almost everybody wants to live in the same tiny fraction of California, along the coast. Pretty much the whole state is a desert, the coast at least has the advantage of being a coastal desert, so that's where people live.
They have the record of being the most urbanized state in the union, miles and miles of virtually empty land, and almost all the population huddled against the sea.
My brother lives in coastal California. It would be a very nice place to live were it not for the government there being stark raving insane, probably a direct consequence of that record high urbanization and urban density.
Because people (not me, but lots of others) are eager to live among Californians, and reluctant (me included) to live among Texans.
"the school principal who got fired because students were allowed to see Michelangelo’s David"
it's actually that he was allowing students to see Michelangelo's David's "Johnson"
and funny, but I went through 13 years of Amurican Pubic Screw-els without any Principals making me look at anyone's Johnson.
And you know if it was "Michelangelo's Mary" with her Va-J-J in perfect anatomical detail you'd have every NOW Bee-otch in the Hemisphere there burning there Brustenhalters.
Frank
"(See earlier thread about the school principal who got fired because students were allowed to see Michelangelo’s David.)"
As a resident of Tallahassee since the 1970s I have to point out that this is five feet of pure dog shit. First off the principal was given a choice of resigning, which she did, or being fired so while under law it may have been a "constructive discharge" she did resign.
Maybe more to the point while her contract was at will employment and there was no need for the school board to have a reason to fire her they did have a valid reason; in fact they had multiple reasons. Before showing nude images to students the parents are suppose to be notified with the option to opt out; something she did not do in this case and in the past as well; something she had been notified about more than once. The school board gave her this reason for giving her the option of resigning or being fired if she did not resign. This was also not the first time parents had complained about her actions.
As in the case of many MSM click bait headlines it is much easier to attract eyeballs with explosive half truths than a headline along the lines of 'principal resigns after multiple complaints from parents'.
it may have been a “constructive discharge” she did resign.
Even you admit this is a bullshit defense.
Before showing nude images to students the parents are suppose to be notified with the option to opt out;
Wait, are you arguing Michelangelo’s David counts as something requiring parental notification?
As in the case of many MSM click bait headlines it is much easier to attract eyeballs with explosive half truths than a headline along the lines of ‘principal resigns after multiple complaints from parents’.
What were the complaints about, ragebot? The MSM went into that, and for some reason you aren't really. Other than to agree with the moron parents.
You claim to have lotsa defenses, but they all amount to either just declaring that the indefensible is good, actually, or formalistic handwaiving.
I did read the Florida code that covers this sort of thing and, as a non-lawyer, it did seem to require parental permission for any sort of nudity and specifically mentioned sculptures.
Oh, I certainly believe this could fall under some bad law that only just now turned up.
That doesn't make this not bad. It's a bad law, enforced badly, to do something bad.
You're not even a little concerned about this teacher having multiple instances of failing to notify parents?
Look, even if you think the notification requirement is BS, employers don't generally tolerate serial refusal to comply with the rules.
As a parent, I'm not terribly enthusiastic about teachers who think they're entitled to keep ANY of their interactions with their minor students secret from their parents.
About Michelangelo's David? No, I'm not worried.
Look, even if you think the notification requirement is BS, employers don’t generally tolerate serial refusal to comply with the rules.
Look: you're wrong. BS requirements are often not enforced. Aren't you the one that says the best way to kill a law is to enforce it to it's fullest extent?
It's the best way to kill a bad law, anyway. I doubt you'll convince many parents that parental notification laws are bad laws.
How the fuck did this get here?
It is illegal to send abortifacients by mail. The fact that the current administration chooses not to enforce the law doesn’t prevent a future admnistration from doing so.
The Justice Department memo saying otherwise is frivolous and would easily be found so by any fair-minded judge. A manufacturer of drugs whose only approved use is abortion lacks the intent to have the drugs used for abortion in pretty much the same way a shooter who fires bullets indiscriminately into a crowd lacks the intent to kill. In both cases, there are no doubt many possible uses for the article delivered, and the sender no doubt dowsn’t know FOR SURE how the article delivered will affect the recipients. But anybody who looks at the conduct and the law fairly would not consider this a lack of intent case.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461
Interesting read. For you next article, how about analyzing School Choice & foot voting?
Way to Cherry Pick Queenie! (who doesn't have a Cherry) The other 8 losers are all "Blue" States, but I do admit Louisiana Sucks, and Alaska, is well, Alaska. And Maine and Delaware are 15th/16th in the "Winning" I guess that's sort of in the "top 10"
I think the most likely people to vote with their feet are medical staff. Doctors, nurses, midwife are not going to appreciate the government looking over their shoulders while they treat their patients. Medical schools will lose accreditation if they cannot train their student on a basic OB/GYN procedure. So, student will not these schools.
If medical staff leave you will others follow. Young couples looking to start families are not going to accept shortage of physicians.
Find me a Medical School that trains students to do Abortions, shit, most of them can't start an effing IV. Another "Expert" who doesn't know what he's talking about, are you "Dr. Ed 2"???
For starters: University of Pittsburgh, and UCSF, probably.
Every medical school trains doctors to do abortions. An abortion is not always an elective procedure. In November2009 a young woman received an abortion at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in AZ, a Catholic Hospital. She had the abortion because even though she wanted the baby she was dying and saving her meant aborting the baby. This happens even at institutions that would never think to do the procedure. The doctors at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center and every other hospital that treats women need to know how to perform an abortion.
Trying to think of the word for your claims.
"Bullshit" is the most accurate, My Medical School (I could tell you.... an "Accredited" US one (albeit a Southern State School so take your shot Reverend Sandusky) didn't teach anyone except OB/GYN Residents, who are Doctors who've grad-jew-ma-cated already, and then only the ones who didn't have Religulous Qualms (and when you eliminated the Baptists/Catholics/Atheists (many of whom surprisingly don't like killing babies) there weren't many.
Oh, yeah, and the Dept Chairman was a Mormon, so there was that.
And back then, most OB/GYN's hadn't been trained to do them, because, Duh, they were Ill-legat (at Bush-wood and most of Amurica) before Dr. Blackmun gave his opinion in 1973
Frank
I see your "bullshit" and raise you a "bullshit". I find it pretty hard to believe that abortion is not covered in the course of medical school because it is a real possibility for doctors who work at hospitals and in the OB/GYN field. If I pulled a comprehensive OB/GYN text off the shelf would abortions be included in its topics? As you yourself noted residents in OB/GYN are trained in abortion. As for those that object, when I was in college the Medical School (UW- Madison early 1970's) did not require residents to perform abortions, if they objected, but did require they observe the procedure. Finally, prior to Roe all abortions would have been surgical and all OB/GYNs would know how to do D&Cs. As older woman will tell you prior to Roe only poor women had abortions, for the wealth the procedure was called a D&C.
Mod you are a fucking retard. Just as most lawyers specialize in say criminal law, or real estate law, or any of probably dozens of other areas the same is true of doctors.
As I have posted endlessly before only a tiny number of doctors perform abortions. While some doctors do have moral objections the reality is that insurance coverage to perform abortions is prohibitively expensive which makes abortions a cost center not a revenue center. The tiny number of doctors who do perform abortions do the majority of them in abortion mills run by organizations like Planned Parenthood who often shun any insurance coverage.
The dirty little secret of abortions is that most abortions are concentrated in groups of women that are poor, lack medical coverage, and often have no prenatal care sometimes until the time of the abortion. Just as public defenders are often shit lawyers who are scraping the bottom of the barrel doctors who perform abortions are shit doctors.
Abortions done in a Hospital??? Now you've really revealed how big of an (redacted) Idiot you are, 99% of Abortions aren't done in Hospitals, even though that would be safer when you get the occasional "Complication" (name me another medical procedure where the expected outcome is death (for at least one of the patients), in fact, the few states that have tried making Abortatoriums comply with Hospital standards have been called Nazi/bla bla bla,
You might be surprised but abortions were commonly done in hospitals following the 1973 Roe decision. Many were also done in outpatient clinics and political pressure moved most voluntary abortions out of hospitals. Today the majority of abortion are medical, drugs induced, which really means they are not location specific. Many medically necessitated abortions and abortion related procedures are still done in hospitals.
This is a bit dated, but this 2014 paper indicated that about 4% of abortions were performed in hospitals.
"Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2014"
RK Jones, J Jerman - Perspectives on sexual and reproductive …, 2017 - Wiley Online Library
I'd be surprised?? Actually I though most abortions prior to "Roe" were done in back alleys with Rusty Coathangers or in a Hospital in the few States that permitted them (HT Ronaldus Maximus), because Duh, most surgical procedures were done in Hospitals back then.
Today's Abortionists are usually flown in from out of state, like a Moe-Saad Assassin, and flee just as fast, being an Abortionist can be detrimental to your health in some parts of the US. And they're one specialist who don't have to clean up their messes, if I had a dime for every "Mis Carriage" I used to see moonlighting in ER's that were just fucked up Legal Abortions by monsters like Gosnell,
Frank
Put your glasses on an reread my response. I said that following the Roe decision, not prior, that hospital and particularly training hospitals provided abortion services. Over time and with political pressure voluntary abortions were moved to outpatient clinics. In these cases OB/GYN training programs would sent residents to the outpatient clinics. Because while few in numbers, some abortions are medically necessary and doctors need to know the procedure if they encounter such a situation.
"Few in numbers" Yes, I guess "Zero" could be considered "Few".
Give me one example where Abortion is "Medically Necessary" that's not some bullshit "Mental Health of the Mother", want to see women with fucked up mental problems? usually have had an abortion (OK, lots of children cause the mental problems too)
Yesterday, Bonner General Hospital, a small facility in rural Idaho announced an end to maternity care.
But hospital leadership also pointed to Idaho's legal and political climate around healthcare, including punitive abortion bans that "criminalize physicians for medical care nationally recognized as the standard of care."
"Highly respected, talented physicians are leaving. Recruiting replacements will be extraordinarily difficult," hospital leadership said in the news release. "Consequences for Idaho physicians providing the standard of care may include civil litigation and criminal prosecution, leading to jail time or fines."
What a pile of shit. No question there is a shortage of not just doctors but health care professionals in general. Every small rural community in the US is facing problems of doctors/health care professionals leaving for better salaries and life style advantages getting out of the boondocks.
Accepting the Medicaid expansion might actually help with that.
Yes, Doctors are just running over each other to get those Medicaid patients!
Could a state prosecute an accreditation agency for this?
Suppose an accreditation agency announces that it will only accredit medical schools whose students demonstrate their knowledge of sexual practices by sleeping with the accreditation committee members when they visit the school. It seems to me a state could have recourse if an accreditation agency attempts to condition accreditation on an act illegal in that state.
It’s one thing to argue in the abstract about what the law should be or what makes for a good education etc. Maybe it really is educationally important for medical students to be able to demonstrate practical knowledge of sex, and maybe the state and its students (and their spouses) are just being rubes to object. But it’s another to induce a specific person to engage in a specific act with specific incentives when doing so is illegal.
To the extent an accreditation agency conditions a thing of value (not just its mere opinion) on performing an illegal act, it is engaging in crime facilitating speech.
Not sure I follow.
Is the accreditation agency not a private organization?
Suppose I propose to donate $1 million to every medical school in the country, provided they retain whatever abortion training they provided pre-Dobbs.
Are you saying I am paying people to engage in criminal activity?
Could you name the states where abortion is currently 100% illegal with no exceptions? We've seen some attempts at this but these laws seem to run afoul of state constitutions at least as far as preserving the life of the mother. So if an abortion is legal in only a very narrow set of circumstances, it isn't illegal for the purpose of being required learning.
I shall name the states where "Abortion is currently 100% illegal with no exceptions"
There, that's it.
Frank
and just to be accurate, wouldn't Womens moving "based on interstate differences in abortion policy" be "Voting with their Twats" instead of "Feet"??
Frank
Perhaps you, Professor Somin, or someone else, should consider the more specific question whether health-care workers, especially those whose specialties touch on the abortion issue (OBs, GYNs, reproductive medicine specialists, genetic counselors, ER docs, Oncologists, pediatricians, adolescent-medicine specialists, pharmacists, etc.) will vote with their feet.
Agreed.
Oncologists? Pharmacists?
C’mon.
10 seconds of Googling says:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797062
Pregnant mothers who need chemo have a dilemma.
Dobbs delivers context to critique the weakness at the root of the foot voting concept. It can be a remarkably brief critique.
Voting is not a choice, it is not a right, it is more than both. It is a sovereign power. It is a fundamental means to control governments.
Foot voting is nothing of that kind. It is instead a concession that the powerless acknowledge governments' power to turn them into refugees.
How many people in the EU moved to Britain, and currently move to the Netherlands, citing the much more liberal abortion laws there than in the rest of Europe?
Or, say, are currently moving from more-restrictive-than-North-Carolina France to the allowed-at-any-point, eager-for-Francophone-immigrants Quebec?
Briefly considered moving to Holland back in the 90's. Nothing related to Abortion, but heard good things from my Bro Vincent Vega. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLIcFP0J5TY
DRM, I doubt it works that way in Quebec. I know it didn’t in 1967, when I toured Expo 67 with a companion who spoke Parisian French. She predicted, and later proved, that if she spoke French we would get rude and hostile responses. She knew that because she had grown up in Montreal.
It's like those French have a different word for everything!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_8amMzGAx4
The link that Prof. Somin posted for his article does not work or, at least, it does not work for me.
This is the “frog boiling” version of foot-voting. If you strip people of their rights slowly enough, will they notice and move?
Stepping away from women’s health freedoms, consider Florida’s laws and practices regarding their LGBT citizenry. Year after year, the state has turned up the heat under that pot and year after year the LGBT residents of Florida adapt to the erosion of their freedoms. Now there are laws telling them what sort of clothes they can wear and the state is pulling liquor licenses from LGBT-serving businesses and still the majority of them don’t move away.
Of the cities in the US with the highest volume of LGBT citizens, Miami/Ft Lauderdale is #5 with an estimated 214,000*, Tampa/St Pete is #17 with 113K, Orlando is #21 with 93K, and Jacksonville is unnumbered at 47K. That’s nearly half a million frogs simmering away who haven’t jumped out of the hot pot and settled somewhere better.
Maybe the bigger question is what would it take for large numbers of citizens to flee (aka: foot-vote) oppressive state governments in noticeable numbers?
* https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-us-msa/
One additional factor to consider is tolerance. Anti-abortion folks know that pro-choice folks in free-choice states won't ever be trying to coerce them into having unwanted abortions or even to change their beliefs. In anti-choice states the anti-abortionistas are already relying on state power to prevent free-choice folks from obtaining surgical and medical abortions and can be expected, I predict, to take aim at all forms of contraception too. In fact, I fear I may yet live to see a time when I might have to go underground to have my vasectomy.
" In fact, I fear I may yet live to see a time when I might have to go underground to have my vasectomy."
Just say you are a man who identifies as a woman and they will be happy to cut off your dick and balls.
Vasectomies are pretty simple, got trained to do them in the Navy when the one Urologist at the base (Mormon, naturally, required potential patients to be married, already have 6+ kids, undergo counseling, waiting period, OK, exaggerating, but not much) Had one of the other docs do mine, you could even conceivably do your own, injecting the local anesthetic is the worst part, followed by clamping the Vas (the part where you tell the patient "You're going to feel a little kick in the Nuts")
There was even a Surgeon "back in the day" who did his own Appendectomy (and later did his Choledochus) They did some crazy surgical shit back then
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_O%27Neill_Kane
Frank "can't even prick my finger"
Ilya, the question considered here is too narrowly-presented for the answer to be of particular interest.
I think you are probably right that Dobbs and the non-availability of certain kinds of reproductive care is unlikely, by itself, to drive very many women to leave the states where they live. But there's a whole lot more going on here than just the question of how easy it is to get a medication abortion (which is how a lot of abortions happen). There's the risks in getting pregnant when certain unwanted outcomes can no longer be treated per best practice. There's ongoing efforts to criminalize or place bounties on abortion care providers and women who seek reproductive care. There's ongoing efforts to yoke employers and businesses into this crusade. And there's the fact that all of this is coming alongside a broader culture war, where Republicans can't seem to stop themselves from thinking of brand new ways to force people to live a certain way - while they are, at the same time, doing fuck-all about the day-to-day problems that actually impact people's lives.
Even with all that, people are unlikely to pack up their lives and move. That's a big, expensive decision, and many people just don't have the means, opportunity, or interest. But I think what we may see is less migration to states like Florida and Texas. Those states compete well on taxes, cost of living, housing, business regulatory environment. But as they make a name for themselves in the realm of imposing ideology on education, orthodoxy on businesses, and religious fanaticism on public life, the case for migration to those states loses its luster. Five, ten years ago, a business could open an office in Austin and make a compelling case for talent nationwide. Now - I think a New Yorker or Californian might have more misgivings about moving there, especially if they're a young, talented woman who might like to raise a family at some point.
No migration to FLA and Texas will increase as normal parents want to flee CRT/DIE indoctrination by the woke left. Protecting your son or daughter from a school system obsessed with sexually mutilating them is a huge incentive to Catholic and Protestant working class and middle-class families.
The hilarious term "normal" is doing a lot of work in that comment.
"highly education" might flee red states and create a brain drain. Ha ha ha. Sure...all those liberal art majors who are DIE consultants, govt workers, education majors, college profs, NGO grifters with "advanced" degrees in gender studies will flee to blue states..please and thank you. The folks who actually increase productivity and create wealth don't care about abortion....and I'm sure millions of engineers/computer programmers from India/China will be more than happy to immigrate to Texas and TN and FLA.
Which is notably smaller than the number which adds abortion-like medical activity following miscarriage, or for other medical reasons. With laws in place criminalizing that activity for abortions, doctors will not as readily engage in those same kinds of activities for other reasons. Non-abortion medical care will be heavily burdened.
It's much much lower for whites and Asians. Most abortions are in black and mestizo women.
Wealth is usually associated with good decision making, and both divorce and unmarried childbearing are usually a consequence of bad decision making on at least one person's part.
It's of course not irrelevant that if a household that counts as affluent splits in two, you'll often get two households that no longer count as affluent...
No, most abortions in USA are done on white women.
(Because there are so many white women.)
(Why do white swans eat so much more than black swans?)
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortions-by-race/
39% black, 31% white.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking it's just one abortion -- women in college often have multiple abortions.
No, they don't.