This hypothesis is supported by the results in Figure 3, which shows estimated effects on net family change-of-address outflows per 10,000 in Panel A and estimated effects on net individual change-of-address outflows per 10,000 in Panel B. Both sets of estimates are consistent with our main results in exhibiting a trend-break after the Dobbs decision and indicating statistically significant effects of bans on net outflows. However, the magnitude of the effect and the extent to which it appears to be growing over time is much greater for individual movers.
This study shows that state-level abortion bans following the Dobbs decision increased net migration outflows, highlighting that reproductive healthcare access has a measurable effect on residential decisions. The effects are particularly large and growing over time for single-person households, suggesting an outsized influence
of reproductive rights on younger, more mobile populations.
I think this is wishful thinking. People have been moving to sunbelt states for years for their good weather. Yes, they are often red states. There are a few blue states with good weather but they seem to have their own problems.
Not everyone seeks abortions. But many do want reasonable care for situations like miscarriages.
One hopes voters in those states reach some reasonable compromises. Predicting they will move to icey northern states looks iffy to me.
Red states keep telling us so many northerners are moving in some are barely southern anymore.
There are many states that allow abortion. Many of them in places with little ice. Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington. The studies that both Dr.Bob and I both posted show that people that are single and of child bearing age are definitely moving. This is concerning because if it continues the states that have abortion control will eventually become retirement communities with little or no economical power.
You may be missing the fact that there is only one study. “My” study is “your” study.
The issue is that none of the 13 states have had a population decline since Dobbs in 2022. Overall their population growth matches that of the US as a whole.
The authors say the goal is to measure the effect of the policy on population change relative to an estimated baseline.
They do this by trying to statistically estimate the effect of policy on population change relative to the “baseline” population change that they estimate would happen in the absence of any policy effect.
So their goal is measuring an effect relative to a baseline, regardless of whether that baseline is down, flat or up and regardless of whether the net effect (which you say is no decline) is down, flat or up.
For the purposes of measuring policy effect per se, which is the point of the study, I don’t think the key “issue” is net decline or not.
Yes. As I wrote upthread “One might argue that the states would have grown faster, but the population situation is certainly not dire.”
So, we have 13 states that could have grown at a faster rate than the US as a whole but instead matched the national growth rate. Quite different than:
“This is starting to look dire…”
“Exactly, and the population is still going down.”
and
“TX may lose a seat in the House if the population keeps dropping.”
Also worth keeping in mind: the trend change is based on just the 12 months post-Dobbs. That may have been peak-reaction; we will need follow up studies over longer periods to know.
But much clearer than
“This is starting to look dire…”
“Exactly, and the population is still going down.”
and
“TX may lose a seat in the House if the population keeps dropping.”
I think the real goal, of the authors and of the people discussing it, is to find data that shows that banning any abortion is “bad” and allowing all abortion is “good”. Hence the use of extreme words to describe minuscule statistical changes of population. It’s essentially a political discussion rather than a purely data based discussion.
Another reason to leave red states is their typically terrible education systems. As I have said of the former red tide that controlled Lansing, the priority seems to be defunding education, so the “JCs” can have low taxes.
I know the Gov of one state brags about making his state a bigot magnet, as evidenced by the vote shift over recent years. That state, and Michigan, seem to rank in the middle, as they are neither among the worst, or best, on the list.
That is incorrect. I already showed you the passage from your study. Taken directly from your study. But you refuse to acknowledge it. It seems you have a habit of glossing over anything you choose not to agree with.
Not if all the people of child bearing age are moving to blue states. That is the real crux of this report and why your statements that population is slightly decreasing is misleading. I am surprised you missed that.
That is the key point. Innovation, creativity, and new businesses tend to happen most in the pre-40 age group, which is the group moving to blue states. They leave the red states because they realize there is no future (and much family/financial risk) for them if they do NOT move.