• stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    109
    ·
    8 months ago

    I wonder what would happen if even just 50% of all women of child bearing age moved out of the states that added these abortion restrictions, that would basically destroy the states population in a few generations.

    I wonder what the response would be…

    Probably something terrible, and possibly illegal that would still somehow be permitted…

    I am just a guy from Scandinavia looking at the US with complete disbelief that this shit happen in the west in this day and age.

    To everyone fighting for this to be repealed I wish you all the best, and to all of those in favour of these restrictions, just stop voting, and go away.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      8 months ago

      What I have understood as a non American, the state would still have the same voting power though? So -75% of people, leaving just angry men I guess.

      • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        8 months ago

        Sorta, but that’s not the whole story. We have two legislative bodies, the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the senate, every state gets two senators. In the house, every state gets at least two representatives, plus some amount based on population - california has 52, for instance.

        The original idea was to “make sure rural voices were heard”. In practice, it very much has been what you stated - if you’re educated but not rich enough to benefit from republican policies, you flee red states en masse, leaving mostly rich assholes and uneducated chucklefucks who are hurt most by the very people they elect. They then have a massively disproportionate effect on policy versus any joe schmoe in california.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          The problem is moving isn’t free and there aren’t good jobs in rural areas, meaning… Move with what money?

      • stoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        8 months ago

        I wasn’t even thinking about that, a 50% reduction in women in child bearing age would absolutely ruin the future population growth of the state, and on an even more basic level, would mean that a lot of men would never find a partner in the state, so they would need to move to other states to find someone, which means even more population loss.

        At some point the situation would be so critical that there would be no choice but to change the laws back, and even after that it would take a LONG time for people to get the confidence to move back.

      • qantravon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        8 months ago

        The amount of electoral votes per state is adjusted based on its population, but they all get a minimum of 3. So, if enough people left, it would have some effect on the state’s voting power, but once you get to a certain threshold, the weight of each person’s vote actually starts to go up.

    • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      (Sarcasm) Don’t insult the west by lumping the US in with sane respectable nations. (/Sarcasm) The US is a third world country with some lipstick on at this point. We keep hoping to turn things around and put us back on course but. Damn is it exhausting.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m in the USA and we’re a garbage country. Don’t get me wrong, there are good areas and good people. But our broken system allows the craziest minority to have an outsized degree of power and they absolutely take advantage of it.

        How a state like Wyoming, with fewer than a million people, can get as much say (in the senate) as my state of California is beyond me. We have almost 80x their population, yet they get an equal number of senators. I want a revolution that adjusts their voice to be proportional to their goddamned size.

        • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          I am too. There’s a reason I chose a lemmy host outside our borders.

          (OK, it was mostly so the government has free reign to accidentally spy on my international traffic because FISA/PATRIOT act are just so cool and down to earth. /s)

        • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Did you miss civics class? Having both a senate and a house was a compromise between the smaller and bigger states. Small states could have been railroaded by bigger states with strictly proportional representation. It’s almost like you’re repeating something you heard without thinking about it much…

          • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s a stupid compromise to make. It might have made some sense at the time, when society expected them to behave as gentlemen with regard for their honor. Now a much smaller group gets to bully the rest of the country as a result.

          • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            There was a time and a reason for a lot of the old ways. We have the technology to make them irrelevant. That being said, I do feel there should be limitations in Federal decisions given the country is huge, and broad sweeping laws can negatively affect lower population areas.

            We also have a bunch of basic life shit that absolutely should be Federally decided, and instead of letting people be people and live their lives, we apparently purposely try our hardest to go backwards right now. Many states are literally complicit in murdering women by law, and making it so people of different sexual or biological orientations are no longer people. How the fuck is it 2024 and women and others of various alignments are suddenly not people?

            Did you know that the Supreme Court only exists because the “ultra rich” of the founding fathers’ time felt they didn’t have proper representation in government? This was their “check and balance” that let us become a nation.

    • x86x87@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      A few generations? One generation is enough. The population would collapse and they would be fucked.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah any significant change in gender demographics of an area will cause problems. Too few men will cause some issues but our cultures have developed defenses around this problem thanks to cataclysmic wars happening every few generations. Too few women on the other hand will get real bad real fast especially since this will be a situation of existing misogyny driving women away. Some men will get real violent and those capable of living in either society will flee because they won’t get laid otherwise.

    • Turun@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      Forget population and generations. 25% of people just leaving an area will lead to a massive economic downturn.

    • pulaskiwasright
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      You’d give those states all the electoral votes and senate seats, and they’d apply their laws at the federal level. I’m suspicious that’s their plan. Drive all the liberals out of these conservative states that were at risk of turning blue so they can take their policies federal.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Also if it’s mostly women leaving, that makes it easier to recruit men into armies if they are told it will help them get laid when there’s a huge imbalance. And easier to elect leaders who push male superiority ideas and that women should defer to men.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I bet they’d supercharge enforcement of the laws they’ve been testing - such as intercepting women leaving the state for suspected abortions, or parents suspected of taking children out of the state for gender affirming care

      The laws are set up that you could basically set up roadblocks and force a fight through the system to leave the state… Keeping people from leaving is important if you want a fascist state, because they suck and only “true believers” wouldn’t consider moving

      That’s why those laws are so terrifying… They don’t have to convict anyone, they can just be used to suppress movement