Second order effect of Dobbs decision - fertility change by race?

[Financial.Velociraptor]

I've been trying to Google-FU and ChatGPT my way to reliable stats on how the US fertility rate has changed by race since Dobbs.

Good data apparently mostly hasn't been collected yet.  There is an article on CNN that comes up on multiple platforms noting Hispanic women in Texas have had a near 5% increase in fertility.  Other data points don't seem to exist in the public realm. 

I suspect red states are going to see a material increase in the percentage of poor, urban, and non-white new voters in 4 more Presidential cycles.  See no evidence either party is planning for that yet.

[reeshau]

I suspect red states are going to see a material increase in the percentage of poor, urban, and non-white new voters in 4 more Presidential cycles.  See no evidence either party is planning for that yet.

Sure they are!  Texas carved up Houston into a bunch of new congressional districts, blended with the suburbs.  (Which, BTW, pissed off our local GOP.  Our district was neatly matched with our county, and now they are split in two, which now stretch into Houston proper)  But gerrymandering is nothing new.

95% of Texas' growth in the 2020 census was people of color.  Texas gained 2 congressional districts at that time.  Both new districts were drawn up to be majority white.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

I suspect red states are going to see a material increase in the percentage of poor, urban, and non-white new voters in 4 more Presidential cycles.  See no evidence either party is planning for that yet.

Sure they are!  Texas carved up Houston into a bunch of new congressional districts, blended with the suburbs.  (Which, BTW, pissed off our local GOP.  Our district was neatly matched with our county, and now they are split in two, which now stretch into Houston proper)  But gerrymandering is nothing new.

95% of Texas' growth in the 2020 census was people of color.  Texas gained 2 congressional districts at that time.  Both new districts were drawn up to be majority white.

I partly agree.  However for state level races and POTUS, gerrymandering provides no benefit.  Statewide elections could be largely blue after 2040.  Sooner?

[reeshau]

I suspect red states are going to see a material increase in the percentage of poor, urban, and non-white new voters in 4 more Presidential cycles.  See no evidence either party is planning for that yet.

Sure they are!  Texas carved up Houston into a bunch of new congressional districts, blended with the suburbs.  (Which, BTW, pissed off our local GOP.  Our district was neatly matched with our county, and now they are split in two, which now stretch into Houston proper)  But gerrymandering is nothing new.

95% of Texas' growth in the 2020 census was people of color.  Texas gained 2 congressional districts at that time.  Both new districts were drawn up to be majority white.

I partly agree.  However for state level races and POTUS, gerrymandering provides no benefit.  Statewide elections could be largely blue after 2040.  Sooner?

There's still the state legislature, although the state-wide positions would be a sign.  Texas has been on a steady march toward blue for the last 6 elections, although Harris got 42%, underperforming Biden and comparable to 2012.

The longer history (you can expand the chart to 12 elections) is more mixed.

[waltworks]

Hispanic people as a group (which is obviously not monolithic, I'm generalizing) are not inherently liberal/democratic voters anymore, so I'd temper your enthusiasm about blue Texas.

-W

[reeshau]

Hispanic people as a group (which is obviously not monolithic, I'm generalizing) are not inherently liberal/democratic voters anymore, so I'd temper your enthusiasm about blue Texas.

-W

I do have suspicions about the causality there.  Were they moving more conservative--many are deeply religious--and then were identified by candidates?  Or, were they targeted out of necessity, as they became a bigger voting block, and candidates stoked hot buttons?

[Financial.Velociraptor]

Hispanic people as a group (which is obviously not monolithic, I'm generalizing) are not inherently liberal/democratic voters anymore, so I'd temper your enthusiasm about blue Texas.

-W

This is certainly true as I know hard core MAGA Hispanics (who curiously have deporting illegals as their main issue).  They are mostly skilled tradesmen and business owners.  The Ctholos in the Wards are a different matter.  Guess which type of Hispanic doesn't have access to reproductive care, including contraception?  At least that is what I see here in Houston...

Same with black men sometimes supporting Trump instead of a woman this cycle.  It is different if you are black and have a degree versus black and from a neighborhood where you went to a K-12 school you maybe didn't finish and left you barely capable of reading a bus schedule. 

Same as well for poor WHITE urban people.  There are just as many on S8 and SNAP and they are the ones who are getting cut off from reproductive care.  White people in my neighborhood are fully capable of getting medication from out of state or Mexico or going "camping" on the west coast. 

[YttriumNitrate]

I suspect red states are going to see a material increase in the percentage of poor, urban, and non-white new voters in 4 more Presidential cycles.  See no evidence either party is planning for that yet.

I think you're correct. Both sides' positions on abortion are contrary to bolstering their numbers in the long run so I'm expecting there to be long term oscillations in policy.

Supporting a woman's right to abortion: Based solely on which side in the US has more organization and momentum, I foresee a nationwide abortion ban with no exceptions.

Abortion is an interesting case as there are feedback loops that could have significant ramifications on the opinions of future generations. While we cannot know what the specific opinions of any specific aborted, based on demographics [1][2] we can make some reasonable estimations as to the aborted cohort as a whole. Using race of the mother, limited economic mobility, religious affiliation, moderate transfer of beliefs from the parent(s), etc., I expect roughly two-out-of-three of the aborted would have been pro-choice.

With that in mind, when there are more restrictions on abortions, I would expect the pro-choice population to gradually increase leading to increasing access to abortions. Conversely when abortions are readily available I would expect the relative proportion of pro-life population to gradually become higher leading to tightening of restrictions on abortions and the cycle repeating.

Basically, my guess would be that abortion is going to be a fight that's still going on hundreds of years from now.

EDIT: Looking at exit polls from the last election, we can make some guesses about what would have happened if Dobbs had been 20 years earlier. For every aborted Hispanic voter, the Democrats could have picked up about 1/20th of a vote. In contrast, for every aborted Black voter the Democrats could have picked up 3/4ths of a vote. At least among Hispanics, it's going to take a lot of abortions not happening to have a significant impact on future elections.

[LifeHappens]

Reliable data on births tends to lag at least 2-3 years, depending on county and state. I suspect more data will start showing up this summer.