The most advantaged women have always been able to afford to travel to get abortions… The Macro impact of loss of abortion access will be growing poverty of mothers and children. This will be most extreme in states which provide few support services for the poor.
Your analysis is compelling. I am greatly disturbed by the impact it will have on those least able to travel for abortion services. The High Court’s literalist application of federalism principles will inevitably cause poor pregnant individuals to be trapped in unfriendly states.
Until such time as a legislative alternative can be crafted, the only practical solution is for the major charitable trusts, corporations, humanitarian organizations, Planned Parenthood, billionaires, and open-minded churches to organize coordinated transport networks.
A century and a half ago, the Underground Railroad provided precisely the same kind of protective relocation services to slaves escaping from The Confederacy to the Northern States.
It’s hardly a mystery that many of the very same states from which slaves sought northern refuge are the states from which poor abortion-seekers must escape.
Given recent unfavorable migration patterns, reverse migration of freedom-loving individuals from “Red States” to “Blue States” might be a welcome opportunity for northern states and California to stem the ongoing tide by motivating people and companies to move back from “Red” to “Blue” states.
Major companies (especially technology firms) with progressive leaders are very concerned about ESG principles, which investment giants like CALPERS and Blackrock have embraced.
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria are a set of standards for a company’s behavior used by socially conscious investors to screen potential investments.
In a separate post, I intend to point out how the current “literalist” Supreme Court (especially in the West Virginia v. EPA ruling) may actually have done Blue states a favor by inviting progressive state leaders to further distinguish themselves from the more socially conservative Red states. Legislation at the state level is an often-overlooked tool for progressive thinkers.
Even a literalist approach to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution (in light of The Federalist Papers) leads the Supreme Court to recognize that our founding documents protect and encourage all manner of transportation and commerce between and among the several United States.
The power of the Commerce Clause is key to ensuring that the diversity of the states engenders lively interaction and economic exchange, including goods, people, and ideas. No state can prevent the free movement of people and goods from one corner of the Union to the other. The Supreme Court acknowledges this in its most recent cases.
Our representative democracy (a Constitutional Republic by definition) provides almost limitless opportunity for diverse individuals to realize their potential, to obtain protection, and to achieve influence by grassroots efforts or by personal interaction with their state and local leaders.
The recent line of cases from the current Supreme Court encourages people within the United States to do the same thing that waves of migrants are currently doing as they move from Central and South America toward the border between Mexico and the United States. We US citizens, along with those who have not yet achieved citizen status, have the ultimate power over our own bodies, our lives, and our destinies - and that is the power of motility.
The greatest strength of individuals for self-actualization is the opportunity to “vote with our feet.”
If Dobbs v. Jackson motivates people to seek out others who can help them realize their dreams, then that court case may ultimately produce something more beneficial than anguish, suffering, and fear. By bringing together those who are compassionate and those who need compassion, some good may come of this yet.