Four reasons it’s not as easy as pro-abortionists want it to be to put their absolutist agenda in play

By Dave Andrusko

The headline in the Ohio Capital Journal is “4 reasons why abortion laws often clash with the majority’s preferences in the U.S.” Its authored by three Harvard Kennedy School academics, not the ripest field for a pro-life outcome. Nonetheless, it’s very much worth your time to read.

It’s conclusions are in line with congressional Democrats who are determined to end any restriction/limitation on abortion. Period.

Let me quote the four reasons:

  1. Gerrymandering
  2. Low and uneven voter turnout
  3. Design of American political institutions
  4. Geographic polarization

So, let’s pick two, starting with number two. “Outcomes in the U.S. democracy – for example, policies and regulations adopted – are skewed toward representing people who vote over those who do not, so policies can become biased against people who don’t turn out.”

“Biased against people who don’t turn out”? Hmmm. They offer reasons why people don’t vote, but that is a far cry from the system being “biased.”

Number three?

The Founding Fathers feared the “tyranny of the majority.” They worried that direct democracy would be unstable, tyrannical and eventually result in violent failure.

In contrast, a large, representative republic bound by the Constitution theoretically creates a system in which interests would counteract one another to prevent any one from dominating the others. The system was intended to elect representatives who were more patriotic, enlightened and committed to the public good than the people at large, and thus to limit the direct representation of the people.

But the Founding Fathers’ design of American political institutions also contributes to the disconnect between the people and public policy.

Disconnect? “Of the six Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, three were appointed by a president who lost the national popular vote.” Do we really prefer a system where New York and California and Illinois, all pro-abortions stalwarts, have an outsized influence in electing a president who nominates Supreme Court justices?

Though Profs. Matthew A. Baum, Alauna Safarpour, and Kristin Lunz Trujillo stop short of making a familiar leap, for Democrats the “answer” to correcting the “disconnect” is to increase the number of justices, or limit their tenure on the court.

By the way, number 4 is

The U.S. is politically polarized along geographic lines, particularly among states and across population density. Rural areas tend to support Republicans and are more anti-abortion compared to urban areas.

The primary causes of this geographic polarization are the influence of location itself, including local sociocultural differences, as well as preexisting demographic patterns that reflect differences between typical members of the two parties.

So, you wind up with cities—urban city centers—loaded with young and highly educated people who “who tend to align with the Democratic Party” while “Residents of rural areas tend to be older, less educated and white, all characteristics typically associated with the Republican Party.” So?

In the case of abortion, geographic polarization has contributed to a disconnect between public preferences and government policies by yielding state legislatures whose members are, on average, more strongly anti-abortion than the overall state populations they represent.

The “disconnect”—a disconnect to the authors—is built into the system.

The U.S. system of government was forged in the 18th century from a compromise between relatively rural and urban states with widely varying population levels. It was designed to insulate the government from popular passions while making policy change difficult, and has inevitably led to public policies that fail to reflect the will of the majority.

Recent trends like those described above have exacerbated these tendencies. Abortion is merely the latest, and among the more contentious, cases in point. The Conversation

You can, as I do, disagree with the post, and still learn something: “4 reasons why abortion laws often clash with the majority’s preferences in the U.S.”