A blog post over at Wizbang! reminded me of an article I read last July at the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal site about a phenomenon the author called "The Roe Effect" brought on by the Roe v. Wade decision. The author opines:
Compounding the GOP advantage is what I call the Roe effect. It is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, to observe that every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. More than 40 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States since 1973, and these are not randomly distributed across the population. Black women, for example, have a higher abortion ratio (percentage of pregnancies aborted) than Hispanic women, whose abortion ratio in turn is higher than that of non-Hispanic whites. Since blacks vote Democratic in far greater proportions than Hispanics, and whites are more Republican than Hispanics or blacks, ethnic disparities in abortion ratios would be sufficient to give the GOP a significant boost--surely enough to account for George W. Bush's razor-thin Florida victory in 2000.
That's a rather chilling thought. We are talking about human lives here, and it is a scientific fact that since the decision in 1973, there are fewer people on the planet than there -*would*- have been if the decision had gone the other way. Think about that for a second. That's not a maybe, or a could have been, that's a hard fact. One supreme court decision resulted in the loss of 40 million human lives. That's a hard thing to think about, regardless of which way you feel about abortion.
The article goes on to show how this has affected minorities harder than Whites. If you think about how it could play out in the long-run, with pro-Abortion people having fewer and fewer children, the country will eventually become less liberal simply through atrition. The evidence of this is already evident in the numbers shown in this OpinionJournal article on the fertility gap between liberals and conservatives.