Yes, it is both true that most of the women who have abortions are low income, and that educated women are much more supportive of permissive abortion law than women without a college diploma.
How do we explain this? Well, for starters, the majority of women at any income level haven't had an abortion, and variation in opinion among those who haven't may explain the difference.
Or maybe those who have regretted it. Or maybe they think the law should be different. I don't know, and can only get so far by consulting my own imagination.
At any rate, I didn't say that abortion rights were some sort of effete professional woman need. Rather, I think the reasons lower income women have abortions are probably different from the reasons a Harvard freshman does.
And that this may systematically change how those women view abortion rights.
For example, a lot of abortion rhetoric among educated women naturally stresses the effect an unwanted pregnancy might have on finishing your education. Women who never went to college might consider this a less compelling reason to abort.
That's not to say that the educated women are wrong, or selfish, or what have you. I just think they shouldn't assume that their views are shared by most women. Even women who poll as nominally pro-choice might differ substantially on the particulars of when it should be legal.
But I will say that if you don't actually spend a lot of time in working class communities, you probably shouldn't generalize about their views, or suggest that they only hold them because unlike you, they have been brainwashed by misogynist Republican propaganda.
Working class people get their ideas the same way the rest of us do: through a combination of life experience, argumentation, self-reflection, and yes, uncritical acceptance of stuff that is believed by people they like.
The idea that they are mere dupes, waiting to be enlightened by the superior minds of the women's studies department, is beyond arrogant.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 1891, New York State passes a bill to allow the thing to be built. As the price of getting it passed, Albany Republicans, fearful that Tammany will get their greedy, corrupt little fingers on the funding, sets up a rapid transit commission stuffed with good government types
The commission is very, very concerned that everything will only be done in the Best Possible Way, and as a result, they chase their own tails for the better part of a decade, in part because the streetcar companies use procedural tricks to jam them up.
I see claims like this a lot, but Sweden has basically the same abortion rate as the United States, and within the US, our deepest blue states make up half of the top 10, and all of the top 3, for per capita abortions.
I don't say that being deep blue causes a high abortion rate, but the evidence that sex ed or free contraception makes abortion unnecessary is surprisingly weak. Cultural and institutional factors seem to matter more than sex ed programs per se.
I suspect there are threshold effects: if people are truly ignorant, or contraception completely unavailable, changing policy makes a huge difference. But once they know where babies come from and where to buy condoms, other effects dominate sex ed or contraception subsidies.
This is a symptom of a broader problem with how American elites approach diversity. We emphasize certain kinds of demographic diversity a lot--which, yay!--but forget that highly educated professionals are unrepresentative of basically any demographic group they belong to.
Their interests, tastes, needs, and outlook all diverge significantly from the average member of their demographic group. And like all of us, they often tend to be blind to the fact that the things that matter most to them are not necessarily what others most care about.
Looking at abortion opinion, it's actually quite striking how little men and women differ on this question. The whole pro-life is about men telling women what to do with their bodies" schtick simply isn't grounded in reality. news.gallup.com/poll/245618/ab…
Women are somewhat more likely to say abortion should be legal under all circumstances, but that's a minority view among women as well as men. The percentage of men and who say it should be illegal in all circumstances is fluctuates right around 20%, male or female
Men are more likely to self-id as pro-life, and women as pro-choice, but when you drill down into specifics, it's clear this stems from differences in labeling quite similar views.
I just filed a column on how Twitter is a bottomless cesspool of negativity, so let me offer something positive and helpful: the endless braise.
If you're like me, you have a few basic braise recipes in constant circulation all winter. In my case: A tomatillo-based pork braise. A raisin-wine-worcester-and-celery oxtail braise loosely based on a reconstruction of an ancient roman dish. A tomato-wine-and-soy pot roast. Etc.
We always have liquid left over at the end. So instead of throwing it away, or just thickening and serving with pasta or tortillas, I freeze it, and use it to start the next batch.
It's all part of a cycle. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, floors were covered in rich houses, but as carpets got cheaper, they filtered down to the middle class and then the working class, whereupon the rich decided the hardwood or tile floor was more tasteful.
Late in the 19th century, broadloom carpet--aka the stuff we think of as wall to wall carpeting--was invented. If you look at rich people apartments in 1930s movies, they're all covered in broadloom.
Broadloom is quiet, warm, and gives a smooth "Modern" look to those Art Deco places. However, it was vulnerable to the same cycle: as manufacturing improved and synthetics came along, broadloom got cheap. Then it got ubiquitous. Then rich people decided it was declasse.