Roe effects?

By Diogenes ( articles ) | Jan 29, 2004

James Taranto points out that only 13% of New Hampshire primary voters belonged to the 18-29 age group, and suggests that Democrats may have aborted themselves off the charts:

Why so few young voters? Part of it, of course, is that younger adults tend not to show up at the polls. But part of it as well, as we noted last week, is that they tend not to exist. That's right, Dean once again has fallen victim to the Roe effect. Not that Dean would have won the election had more young voters shown up at the polls, but Kerry would not have dealt him such a trouncing.

Because the two political parties have become polarized on abortion, it seems reasonable to assume that more potential Democrats than potential Republicans have been aborted. After all, their would-have-been mothers show through their actions that they agree with the Democratic position on the issue. Result: fewer younger voters in Democratic primaries, as we saw last night, and probably a boost for Republican candidates in the general election.

Taranto may be right about the demographics of the 18-29 bloc, but my uninformed hunch is that any electoral gain for pro-life causes will be offset by two other factors. First, the percentage of women who have had abortions is already over 50% and can be expected to climb in the near future, and it seems likely that most of these will be pro-abortion in the voting booth as well. Second, as the ratio of retired benefit-recipients to working taxpayers increases, the economic pressure to eliminate "useless eaters" at both ends of life will also increase. And the Democrats won't be alone in the push.