Editing Roe effect (section)

{{Short description|Hypothesis about the effects of legalizing abortion}}
[[File:McGovern abortion plank cartoon.tif|thumb|A 1972 political cartoon referencing the need for procreation and childrearing in order to sustain a political party's youth and energy.]]

The '''Roe effect''' is a hypothesis about the long-term effect of [[abortion]] on the political balance of the United States, which suggests that since supporters of [[Pro-choice|the legalization of abortion]] cause the erosion of their own political base, the practice of abortion will eventually lead to the restriction or illegalization of abortion. It is named after ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', the U.S. Supreme Court case that effectively legalized abortion nationwide in the U.S. Its best-known proponent is [[James Taranto]] of ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' who coined the phrase "Roe effect" in ''Best of the Web Today'', his [[OpinionJournal.com]] column.

Put simply, this hypothesis holds that:
*Those who favor legal abortion are much more likely to have the procedure than those who oppose it.
*Children usually follow their parents' political leanings.
*Therefore, [[Abortion-rights movements|pro-abortion rights]] parents will have more abortions and, hence, fewer children.
*Therefore, the pro-abortion rights population gradually shrinks in proportion to the [[anti-abortion]] population.
*Therefore, support for legal abortions will decline over time.

A similar argument suggests that political groups that oppose abortion will tend to have more supporters in the long run than those who support it. In 2005, the ''Wall Street Journal'' published a detailed explanation and statistical evidence that Taranto says supports his hypothesis.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Taranto |first=James |date=6 July 2005 |title=The Roe Effect |work=[[OpinionJournal]] |url=http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006913 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100103140208/http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006913 |archive-date=3 January 2010}}</ref>

Taranto first discussed the concept in January 2003,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Taranto |first=James |date=17 January 2003 |title=Sex and the GOP |url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002930 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930193413/http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002930 |archive-date=30 September 2007 |access-date=9 July 2022 |website=[[OpinionJournal]]}}</ref> and named it in December 2003. He later suggested that the Roe effect serves as an explanation for the fact that the fall in teen birth rates is "greatest in liberal states, where [[teenage pregnancy|pregnant teenagers]] would be more likely to [have abortions] and thus less likely to carry their babies to term."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Taranto |first=James |date=14 April 2005 |title=Babies Having (Fewer) Babies |url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006557 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930202354/http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006557 |archive-date=30 September 2007 |access-date=9 July 2022 |website=[[OpinionJournal]]}}</ref>

The ''Journal'' has also published articles about this topic by Larry L. Eastland<ref>{{Cite web |last=Eastland |first=Larry L. |date=28 June 2004 |title=The Empty Cradle Will Rock |url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080412215432/http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277 |archive-date=12 April 2008 |access-date=9 July 2022 |website=[[OpinionJournal]]}}</ref> and [[Arthur C. Brooks]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brooks |first=Arthur C. |date=22 August 2006 |title=The Fertility Gap |url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090117040458/http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831 |archive-date=17 January 2009 |access-date=9 July 2022 |website=[[OpinionJournal]]}}</ref> Eastland has argued that Democrats have had higher rates of abortion than Republicans following ''Roe,'' while Brooks points out liberals have a lower [[fertility rate]] than conservatives.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hoover |first=Kevin D. |author-link=Kevin Hoover |date=2008 |title=The Vanity of the Economist: A Comment on Peart and Levy's The "Vanity of the Philosopher" |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/27739718 |journal=[[The American Journal of Economics and Sociology]] |volume=67 |issue=3 |pages=452 |doi=10.1111/j.1536-7150.2008.00581.x |jstor=27739718 |hdl=10161/2039 |issn=0002-9246|hdl-access=free }}</ref>

According to American historian [[Elizabeth Fox-Genovese]] the existence of such an effect "cannot be doubted" but "its nature, causes, and consequences may be." Fox-Genovese said that "Taranto has advanced an arresting argument that deserves more extended treatment."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fox-Genovese |first=Elizabeth |author-link=Elizabeth Fox-Genovese |date=July 2005 |title=Which "Roe effect"? |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF02687479 |journal=[[Society (journal)|Society]] |language=en |volume=42 |issue=5 |pages=27–29 |doi=10.1007/BF02687479 |s2cid=144061448 |issn=0147-2011|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

[[Wellesley College]] Professor of [[Economics]] [[Phillip Levine]], while acknowledging that Taranto's hypothesis cannot be dismissed out of hand, has said there are several flaws in Taranto's reasoning. He writes that the conditions laid out by Taranto make several incorrect assumptions, most notably that pregnancies are events that are completely out of the control of the women. He writes, "If people engage in sexual activity (or not), or choose to use birth control (or not), independent of outside influences, then [Taranto's and Eastland's] statistical statements would be valid." Levine concludes that the hypothesis passes the [[Plausible reasoning|test of plausibility]] but that it "would be unwarranted to draw any definitive conclusions regarding the actual contribution of the Roe Effect in determining contemporary political outcomes."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Levine |first=Phillip B. |author-link=Phillip Levine |date=2005-07-01 |title=Is there any substance to the "Roe effect"? |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02687477 |journal=[[Society (journal)|Society]] |language=en |volume=42 |issue=5 |pages=15–17 |doi=10.1007/BF02687477 |s2cid=144398481 |issn=1936-4725|url-access=subscription }}</ref>