Over at National Review, Michael New insists that abortions have declined since the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision. In particular, he objects to contrary findings based on the WeCount project, which is fairly new and doesn't have very much pre-Dobbs data. He's right about that, but the Guttmacher Institute does have many years of data and their estimates suggest the same thing as WeCount:
As you can see, the abortion rate was already climbing from 2017-20, and Guttmacher's annual figures go only through 2020. So we don't know for sure precisely what happened in 2022 before and after red states began banning abortion. Still, the evidence strongly suggests that Dobbs had little effect because most of the affected women simply traveled to nearby states for abortions:
It's also the case that many red states have long made abortions difficult to get, so the pre and post-Dobbs environment in those states may not have been all that different.
What we do know is that Dobbs gave states the power to ban abortions, forcing upwards of 100,000 women in 2023 to travel long distances to end their pregnancies. We also know that the worst of these states are now desperately trying to ban women from even doing that. And we also know about a string of tragedies have already been caused by inhumane laws that have forced women to wait for lifesaving care.
So has Dobbs had an impact? Oh yes. It's just not the one conservatives were hoping for.
NOTE: Guttmacher data for 1973-2020 is here. Data for 2023 is here. Data for out-of-state travel is here.
The chart shows the number of abortions, not the abortion rate.
An increase in one may not reflect an increase in the other.
"It's just not the one conservatives were hoping for"
I dunno, causing expense, pain, hardship, and anxiety for women who need to end pregnancies and for folks working in reproductive healthcare is probably pretty high up on the list of what conservatives were hoping for.
Beat me to it. Causing pain to those who "deserve" it is very big among "conservatives." The cruelty, as they say, is the point.
Exactly. Cruelty is the point.
I think Dobbs has had exactly the effect on women that conservatives wanted. And once they are allowed to trap women in these hellhole states, the conservatives triumph will be complete.
"It's just not the one conservatives were hoping for."
It's doing exactly what conservative politicians wanted, keep their base voters happy and get re-elected. Policies created are irrelevant, getting re-elected is the goal.
The biggest challenge is to get men out of women's pants, both literally and figuratively.
Way back, I had to have 'what's his name's' permission to have a tubal ligation. What the hell. He was the one demanding it because he refused to have a vasectomy.
We really haven't come far at all.
"So has Dobbs had an impact? Oh yes. It's just not the one conservatives were hoping for."
Added to above comments: sadism is at the core of modern American 'conservatism.' The movement in openly authoritarian and even fascistic in some dimensions, shriveled to pathological, virulent, soulless self interest; sadism is an inevitable outcome and defining characteristic of this worldview. Our shadow has come to haunt us, as it always will.
It's also the case that many red states have long made abortions difficult to get, so the pre and post-Dobbs environment in those states may not have been all that different.
Abortion or not, as long as the women *suffer* plenty of fear, pain, and humiliation, that's what matters.
"forcing upwards of 100,000 women in 2023 to travel long distances to end their pregnancies."
It isn't as high as 100,000 since there are cities and towns that are very close to clinics where abortion is legal. Within 5 years, there will be light-red states that will allow abortion leaving very few states that don't allow at least first trimester abortions.
Here in MO, pre-Dobbs we had *one* clinic where abortion was available. Post-Dobbs, you now have to go 10 miles over the border into Illinois.
Although that might not seem like a lot, in this area 10 miles is pretty far, and makes it that much more difficult to navigate via public transportation.
Neither situation is reasonable for a state of ~7 million people.
“Still, the evidence strongly suggests that Dobbs had little effect because most of the affected women simply traveled to nearby states for abortions:”
The word “simply” is doing a fuckton of work there, especially since it costs significant money and time to travel out of some states than span thousands of miles. It’s like saying “you can get a passport the same day as your international travel if you *simply* travel first to one of the handful of passport offices in the country and wait in line all day and pay an expedited fee.” (I once had to fly from DC to Buffalo, stay overnight in a hotel and fly back to DC before an international flight, because my passport was stolen - so it was due to no fault of my own - and all the closer passport offices were completely booked up. Very simple indeed.)
What’s simple in the eyes of a man who will never have an abortion isn’t always so simple to the women who do.
'"What’s simple in the eyes of a man who will never have an abortion isn’t always so simple to the women who do."
This is so true. When I read anything written about abortion by a man I know it's going to be clueless at best and downright terrible at worst.
You managed to quote two different parts of Drum's post to insult him, but somehow managed to miss this one: "And we also know about a string of tragedies have already been caused by inhumane laws that have forced women to wait for lifesaving care."
Drum's statements are about the effect of Dodds on national abortion numbers: he notes that there are tragedies being caused by Dodds, but that's not the point of his post.
“What we do know is that Dobbs gave states the power to ban abortions, forcing upwards of 100,000 women in 2023 to travel long distances to end their pregnancies.”
I guess everything’s hunky dory then until 1 of those women needs an abortion *right now* to save her life and because of the emergency can’t travel *any* distance to end her pregnancy and all the local doctors are prohibited from - or scared of being jailed for - doing anything about it. Thankfully for the blithe Kevin Drums of the world, that woman is likely to live in the middle of nowhere, so the likelihood that her story will make national news or her experience will shape national statistics is pretty low.
"I guess everything’s hunky dory then..."
A strawman...Gee, what a shock!
As the press gets hold of more and more stories about the hardships of middle-class women unable to obtain much-needed emergency abortions and more and more stories of what women endure to obtain a legal abortion, the Republicans who pegged their hopes on using this issue to hold onto power will find it more and more difficult to do so. Public sentiment is already against them nationally. Biden is set to run on an anti-Dobbs platform, and Trump is stuck with the GOP on this one -- his appointees made it happen.
So while Dobbs sucks, I have hopes that in the next few years we won't be stuck with the status quo on abortion. The GOP is going to hit a wall on this issue.
Reading the comments on the cost of Sanders’ “Medicare for All” proposal, it seems that some information needs to be shared if there is to be reasonable debate. #1: Sanders’ bill does not call for signing everyone up for Medicare as it exists now. It calls for Medicare to be changed to an all encompassing system that fully covers almost every costs that results when you see a doctor, nurse, dentist, or optometrist. It would be as good or better than any other country’s public health insurance. You can find the bill online.
#2. Government in the US already spends much more per capita on healthcare than the total cost in other countries. Around 2019 government spending accounted for about 67% of all healthcare expenditures in the US. These include the ones you think of like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. But also the cost to the state, local, and federal governments of insurance for their employees and retirees. Several hundred billion a year is spent in the form of exclusions from taxes of income spent on health insurance, FSAs, HSAs, and itemized expenses for healthcare.
#3. Government in Canada accounts for about 74% of Canadian healthcare spending. Looking at countries with more generous coverage than Canada, the asymptotic limit for government spending is about 90%. In 2017, the apparent amount extra the US would need to spend to get to 90% was about $800B/yr. State and local governments accounted for about $300B in healthcare spending in 2017. Not all of that goes to the Feds under Sanders’ plan, but most of it does. Let’s say The federal government needs $1T/yr in savings to break even.
#4. You’re not going to get it out of doctors. Yes they get paid a lot, but it only amounts to between 6 and 8% of our healthcare costs. Cut it in half and you’re saving less than $140B/yr. Moreover, think about our system for producing doctors: A would-be doctor needs to get thru college and medical school, likely spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and many years. Failure is a possibility. Then they need to find a suitable residency and we have fewer of those than graduates with MDs. So you can get the MD, but not a license. We’re selecting for gamblers to study medicine. Take away the payoff and the terrible shortage we have will get worse. (Of course Medicare could increase the number of residencies it funds.)
#5. The fellow who pointed at administrative costs is correct. Insurance companies employ millions , and providers even more people trying to get payment from someone. Canada’s health insurance program is not the world model. 40 million people are divided into ten, not quite identical, province run programs. Because some of these programs are not so generous, there is still a good bit of private insurance. Never-the-less, if we only did as well as Canada we’d have saved $600B/yr in 2017. (https://hca-mn.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Adm-Costs-2017.pdf)
This study was only able to capture administrative costs for about 68% of US healthcare spending. Sanders’ broad program should be much more efficient than Canada’s. Let us pencil in $700B in savings on administration.
#6. Where can we get the other $300B. Well we are spending about $600B/yr on drugs which is about twice as much/capita as peer countries. (A congressional study of selected drugs indicated around four times.) Let’s say $300B in potential savings.
#7. Then there’s fraud. Our system seems to be designed to maximize it. People throw around 10% as fraud’s share of our healthcare spending, but no one really knows. Sanders’ plan doesn’t guarantee that anything gets done about fraud, but it becomes possible. As it stands, private insurance companies tolerate a lot of fraud. Where insurance companies are just collecting a percentage of the costs as administrators of the self-insured plans of major employers, fraud increases their profits. Let us guess that a $100B savings is low hanging fruit.
$700B + $300B + $100B > $1T Sanders’ program is very, very doable. But it will hurt the wallets of the rich.