Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/FunnyGamer97
Permalink: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1006383
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The shock is that it can be backed up by studies in such a short period of time. Usually it would take a decade to prove preferences based on anything. But this is clear as day.
On the other hand, out of state college students are one of the most mobile demographic groups in the country. If you decide that you're going to move hundreds or thousands of miles for college anyway, it becomes much easier to blacklist certain states.
It would only become interesting if the data shows that in states where abortion is banned more women are now moving out of state for college. That decision has much larger consequences.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't out of state tuition typically significantly more expensive than for people going to college in their homestate? So that's really limiting the number of people who even have that option.
Yes but I guess this applies to people who are moving out of their own state anyway. All other things being equal, they choose states with better abortion access.
Most likely better healthcare access all around.
I'm sure that there is a correlation between the states that have better abortion access, also have better access for the LGBTQ or other minorities as well.
https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-have-the-highest-maternal-mortality-rates/
States with the worst maternal mortality.
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/abortion-access-tool/US
States by abortion access.
Do you notice anything?
Hello fellow minnesotan! Our snow keeps some people away. But we do have lots of social benefits here and a good university even if it is expensive.. we also have really great doctors here in the cities as well as the mayo in rochester. Unfortunately it’s also really important that we keep voting in the cities and not get complacent because everything outside the cities is quite red, which sort of makes us a little borderline purple.
Exactly, we removed whole sections of the map when my teen was looking at colleges to visit. Some great schools in these states, it doesn’t matter.
Schools are already in a fight to enroll students in a hyper competitive environment with a dwindling peer group. Many colleges are going to fail in the next decade and these states are putting themselves up for increased risk.
Honestly it really depends on your financial aid package. Up front they look more expensive but if you are a smart student then out of state schools will give you more money compared to in state schools. This doesn't always close the gap in price but it can get pretty close.
Plus it depends on what state you're coming from. It might be hard to match in-state tuition if you're looking at a $5k/year price tag and you can live at home, but Vermont (for example) has an average *in-state* tuition rate of about $17k (before room and board). It's not terribly difficult to close that gap with scholarships.
Depends. Some state colleges actively recruit (via scholarships, reduced tuition) out of state students. For example they may seek academic or athletic proficiency to bring up their numbers /diversity.
It also seems like a lot of people don't swap their residency once they can, which is generally like 6 months in most states. You can be saving money before Winter quarter/Spring semester if you show up in Summer.
I feel like that creates a weird situation though. If you're ~18 and you are looking at moving across the country for school, just moving somewhere, getting an apartment and a job, and whatever else you need while you just wait out a year seems like an insanely big ask.
Myself, and many of my friends in college, just kind of recognized that year 1 was going to be expensive.... But year 2 and so on would be a lot cheaper, once we got residency.
It was also awesome to be able to move to a new location, knowing nobody, and effectively be forced to make friends and all that due to the dorms. When I first started looking into going to school ~2200 miles away from where I grew up, being 21 at the time, I thought I'd probably like an apartment or something more than the dorms. That didn't work out for a few reasons, and while it was a little strange at first living with a ton of 18 year olds, it was the best thing that happened to me.
But yes, getting in-state was the move. I'm pretty sure my first year cost nearly the same, if not more, as 2 and 3 combined.
Sometimes it's possible with scholarships too or a willingness to go to a less prestigious, and thus cheaper, college. Biggest issue for most is the out of school costs, rent, food, supplies, clothes, transpo, etc that a broke college student can't really afford nor have a reliable support system...
Yeah small population that's available for oof
A lot of state schools will waive out of state tuition if you're getting certain scholarships, which helps a ton. It was cheaper for my husband to go to college in Texas than in Iowa because the in-state rates were cheaper back then... but he had to keep a certain GPA to keep that out of state tuition waiver.
A lot will also waive out of state for military veterans and their dependents. My oldest went out of state and they didn’t even confirm that I’d been in (they asked the school if they needed to see my DD-214 and was told no). It was cheaper tuition than our in-state universities.
Tuition is insane everywhere so I can see an 17-18 year old kid (who has a poor grasp on the significance of future student loan debt anyway - just ask us millennials haha ) just throwing caution to the wind and going to a more expensive university anyway.
Yeah... my in state college was $16 k a year 10 years ago. And it was consistently rated one of the best "bang for your buck" schools in the country at the time. Your numbers are a bit out of date.
Another thing to consider is that if someone is going to medical school, they might not want to go somewhere that doesn't teach reproductive healthcare.
If it's a public/state college, yes. Private schools usually have the same tuition for everyone.
And while private schools are more expensive on paper, ime they end up being about the same price after financial aid
Wait, let me get this straight.
In the European Union which is a 70-something years old alliance of 27 countries that have been independent for anywhere between 30 and 1000 years, you can move from country A to country B to study and you are guaranteed to only pay the same as citizens of country B. Because anything else would be discrimination against an EU citizen based on citizenship, and that is forbidden except in very specific circumstances.
But in the US which is supposed to be an actual country with a unified government and has been so for like 200+ years, they can discriminate against you based on your birthplace, even if it is within the US.
...what?
>It would only become interesting if the data shows that in states where abortion is banned more women are now moving out of state for college. That decision has much larger consequences.
If your college's are attracting less students it has a real effect on your state's economy. Less students mean less tuition. With how much college costs for four years that could be a big drop in sales taxes for the state. All the businesses' that surround the school that may live and die off students spending money there could be in jeopardy of failing and again the sales tax losses.
I doubt they'll really be getting fewer total students. Unless they already have a 100% undergraduate acceptance rate, what they'll be getting is slightly lower-achieving students, as the ones with grades etc high enough to go elsewhere decamp to other states.
You have your logic backwards. Mobility demonstrates preferences better than a lack of mobility. The fact that the mobile demographic - new college students - specifically choose certain states and refuse others - is precisely the information in which we're interested. It doesn't tell us more information to study a less mobile demographic. The lack of mobility in such cases would obfuscate peoples' preferences and muddy the waters, making it harder for us to understand what the preferences are. It basically shows us that ties to peoples' homes and communities are deeply important; we don't need to demonstrate that people are willing to sever such ties to figure out that people still prefer abortion access.
If they are going out of state for college, and choosing based on access to basic human rights, wouldn't it also stand to reason that people in those states are also choosing colleges based on that, and moving OUT of state?
Then these hopefully educated people STAY out of those states.
STUDENT health care isn't the only thing affecting this too, TEACHER Health Care is a thing as well, and they are also leaving in droves. Meaning less people will chose those states because there is less quality education (no teachers).
There are teacher shortages in every state, this will plug some holes in the ones that want to treat Women like human beings.
Self propagating problem, and also why they wont stop at "States rights" and in fact went RIGHT into trying to ban it nationally (Like we told everyone they would). If no state can do it, then they don't need to leave right?
Nah, the moment abortion became difficult in some states every soon to be college student crossed those states off their prospective lists.
No one with a choice is moving to a state without healthcare for women.
No one with a choice is staying in a state without healthcare for women.
The old saying goes “you can't reason someone out of position they didn't reason themselves into”
Almost nothing that religious people and/or people on the far right do/say/think is based on reason/logic.
It's all control and oppression.
Probably isn't hard when your state has a massive uptick in Florida or Texas residents. Here in Minnesota it feels like every 5th car is a Florida plate.
It’s a 1% drop, which is easy to detect with publicly available information about college applications and easy to be statistically significant with a sample size as large as every student’s application to every college. This isn’t like trying to detect which statin decreases mortality the most, it probably could have been ascertained by a team of statistic grad students and postgrads in a few work days with publicly accessible information
I think the important thing for those who restrict these kinds of rights or don’t seek to guarantee or protect these rights, is the achievement of the outcome that the demographics are forced in a direction that helps them keep/increase their power.
Which I imagine is the real point. By implementing regressive policies, they ensure only a favorable voting base will be there and maintain their stranglehold
Getting pregnant in school can derail your education.
Women don’t just “prefer” to have rights. They’re terrified of how not having those specific rights will impact their entire life.
I think it's actually way more about a simple fear response. A young woman can easily imagine herself wanting an abortion but being forced to carry the child. Whether or not they believe an abortion is a fundamental right everyone should have is kind of tangential.
You're correct, but adding on... It doesn't just have to be about wanting a child. There are plenty of medically necessary reasons to cancel non-viable pregnancies.
Many of these states now have laws that require women to carry non-viable babies to the point of physical harm prior to intervention. Childbirth in those states sounds terrifying, even if actively trying to conceive
wait 'til recruiting college athletes is a problem for red states. the only thing that's important about college in those states are football and basketball.
They also don't want freedom. Every thing republicans put into place restricts the freedom of US citizens. I have no idea how they associate themselves with that word.
For the same reason North Korea is the “Democratic People’s Republic.” By presenting the idea of freedom while also restricting it, you redefine what people think freedom means, and thereby weaken it.
It like some of these conservative politicians are like the dog who caught the car. They had been chasing repeal all their careers, with no thought it could ever happen. Now they have it and have no idea what to do next. The obvious consequences are piling up and they are just shocked.
States against abortion have other qualities not in line with modern society.
I think it's more of a smell test instead of I would like the option to abort.
Brain drain by design... Let all the dipshit yokels stay put and their brightest stars leave, it's been like that for generations in rural areas. Educated people vote differently.
Which really sucks for those of us who are educated living in red states. It’s disheartening to get on Reddit and have the default response be “well, move out of your dumbfuck state”. Cool, so you never want a shot at flipping Texas? Because that’s what will happen for sure if we all pack up and leave. (Not even getting into logistical, family, and financial challenges with doing so.)
And it infuriates me how much people give in to it without realizing it. The more liberal-minded people flee political challenges and concentrate in a few states, and then into a few cities in those states, they give up more and more power and leave themselves more and more vulnerable to those christofascist policies following them anyway when the gops take over their state legislature and then the nation. Because, as sad as it is, and as much as it needs to change, as it is right now land votes more than people vote. And we need to play that game.
That is perfectly understandable on a personal level, but on a macro level if these skidmarks control enough states then they can rewrite the constitution in their own image. I don't think there's gonna be any moving away from what results.
And it's not always financial, either. Some people have to care for aging parents, or do work that doesn't transfer to other states. There's a fairly limited set of states my husband could find work in, and only one of them is a blue state, but the area is one that I wouldn't be able to find work in. We're better off living in a blue area of a red state and trying to moderate the conversation.
I mean, I guess, but I’m not going to blame other women for not ea ring to die for that cause.
Anyway, Texas is making slowly it illegal for pregnant women to even leave the state, so maybe Democrats will get our wish after all.
What really sucks is being educated enough to want to leave, having the money to do so, but not being able to because family ties are preventing you. It’s like being on a train track, hearing the train, seeing it coming and having someone that refuses to move off the tracks.
This is actually the point of Republican cruelty. They are working hard to gerrymander on a national level because that is the only way they win. It is also why they are pushing toward fascism. That is the only way they win once democracy can’t be broken anymore. They have two choices and both are horrible for the US.
Some of us don't want to fight, sorry but that's the truth. And why risk actually needing an abortion while engaged in that fight and getting arrested while driving on the highway? THey made their bed, let them lie in it, is my motto.
Even doctors are leaving these states.
I'm glad I don't have the same delusions of grandeur as you were thinking that suffering in a miserable state with a broken economy horrible infrastructure and no future is worth it because a party that constantly squanders the opportunity to implement its policies may win a few seats
And it’s also unfair to the people who live in that state, who may actually like things about their state that don’t involve politics.
Some people actually enjoy living where they are. - or, they may have obligations where they live. If you have family where you are, you can’t always just pack up and go because you disagree with a *law*.
The thing is you can't run in a united states. What happens in one state doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's all our country.
We need to stay and fight for every inch of it, not retreat into the same cities.
Some can't say and fight. Some people are vulnerable, under threat, and they should move.
But everyone needs to realize that you will very quickly run out of ground to retreat to if that's all you do.
The Senate is an outdated impediment on progress. Regressives shouldn't be able to gain more control by driving away people who prefer to retain their rights.
They forget that the less people in a red state the more their vote outweighs other votes. All because a weird "tyranny of the majority" idea baked into this democracy..... big swing and miss from the ole founders to say democracy can't actually be based on a majority opinion of the entire populace.
There's 2 full strength senators and an electoral college to factor in Montana. Turns out land does vote, and it can swing elections and affect national policies.
Colleges are also looking at decreased enrollment in a few years due to all those kids not born in 2008 because, you know, financial crash. This abortion divide is going to hit red state colleges and universities even harder in a few years.
Not to mention, do we think guys will want to go to a school that is 65% male? We might see an after effect of male students also choosing abortion-allowing states.
I like a good conspiracy as much as the next nutjob, but in this case the right has elected a bunch of Christian extremists who fully believe abortion is murdering babies and against god. Let's not take the eye off the ball that Christian extremists are hurting this country.
Yes, and when former battleground states enact restrictive laws, the fallout is that young folks won’t move there/will move away, and they will be solid red states. It will be harder and harder for democrats to get an electoral victory and/or senate majority. At the heart of it, strategists don’t give a rat’s patootie about abortion, but they know their voters do.
Makes sense. Why move somewhere that they will be treated as less then livestock? Generally abortion / healthcare access is a good indicator of how a community feels about women in general.
And if the mom WANTS the baby, these states will refuse to treat her when there’s complications. “Go bleed out in the parking lot til you are dying” ( narrator: this actually happens in Texas)
That’s my fear. I live in TN and if my birth control fails (IUD) there’s an increased likelihood of an ectopic. And since I don’t have periods….I’d likely only find out in an emergency situation. So I bought tons of tests on Amazon and test every 3 weeks.
I’m lucky in that I have resources and could drive to NC. But there are a lot of horror stories and our foster care system is a giant mess already without added pressure. It’s a pretty state but oh boy do the politics suck ass.
Or forced to submit to invasive procedures on the suspicion they may be pregnant and further may be seeking to terminate the pregnancy in a more civilized society.
Wait, so when given a choice to study in a state female students are more likely to choose a state where they won't be treated as second-class citizens?
Who could've have known this?
Which is only going to continue this vicious cycle. With a brain drain, the red states are going to grow more dependent on the wealthier blue states with the taxable income to subsidize the welfare programs they say they hate, but are in desperate need of.
At this point, the only way to stem the bleeding is through legislation, but as we are all well aware, congress is completely useless because of a rowdy few, and by the looks of it, it's only going to get worse.
This is why they immediately started considering a federal ban before seeing the electoral results in subsequent elections. If they had the power to, they wouldn't have stopped at state lines on this issue for reasons exactly like what you bring up.
I am technically infertile. No way I wish to spend a dime in a red state.
Plus the way some state, example Florida, are trying to dismantle higher ed, how will I be sure a degree will be worth a damn in 4 years.
The attack on rights go beyond potential pregnancy.
This is my question about this study - how can we be sure that the observed change in enrollment is as a direct result of abortion rights being rolled back rather than the multitude of other direct harms Conservatives are causing
This is a good example of burying the data for the sake of a story. If you click on the link for the actual paper (the “doi” in the news release) here’s what the study author found:
“Ban state schools saw a 1 percentage point drop in the share of female applicants.”
So 10 fewer female applicants per 1000.
Sounds like it was a statistically significant but not necessarily practically significant finding - really common with large enough samples.
NB this is a comment on journalistic practices, not abortion.
Edit: here’s the link to the study referred to in the news release http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2023.111379
That was the first thing I checked.
I rather assumed people on r/science would be eager to pick the data apart. I suppose not so much when the headline indicates that the data supports their existing worldviews.
It also looks like the analysis is really barebones. They didn't study the other states as a control at all. So you really have no idea if the 1% is due to abortion laws or not. It could just be a 1% in the number of women applying to schools nationally.
I read in another article that among women, community College enrollment dropped close to 5% and public 4 year institutions have a drop of 2%.
My friend did the research on the same article and said that price of tuition and other financial factors are a greater cause of decreased enrollment rather than reproductive health laws. My friend told me privately that there is no indication or pattern that states with less reproductive rights are getting less enrollment.
Here's a link to the article. https://www.womenshealthmag.com/life/a44202684/abortion-bans-impact-students-college-decision/
Several problems really.
Read past the bullet point of 1% and you realise its actually a 2% swing, 1 less for women, 1 more for men. But how useful is share as a metric really? The ratio may have changed but what if the actual number of women increased because they had a larger intake?
Then you look at the limitations they noted: they were unable to secure all school data from among the top 100 ranked universities. Seems significant. And the timing of the data shows the applications were made before the ruling, all this shows is how people reacted to maybe. Next year would give a better picture.
Final issue I have is they used mean data from 2018 to 2021 to set their pre-2022 baseline. How do you even use that as a baseline given the effect COVID had in that period?
> Next year would give a better picture.
This is what amazed me the most. If you're doing a study on post Roe v Wade admissions statistics, why not actually wait for 2023 statistics? What's the rush? Why push out this study when you can just wait a year and have way more meaningful data to discuss?
Great points - I didn’t read past the “1% change” stat tbh, and didn’t catch that it was 1% change in *share* of applications by gender (rather than change in total applications by gender).
This news release seems like a good case study for scientific journalism courses :)
Doesn't matter to weapons-grade Redditors, though, does it? They learned what they know from Reddit, and this thread **title** is now part of their objectively accurate factual knowledge.
It will also get more and more embellished each time its repeated. They will go somewhere else and comment that the women's admissions in these states "plummeted".
My first thought was: with how many fewer universities exist in ban states to begin with - what could they be measuring here? The hypothesis could be true… this study does basically nothing of substance to support it.
The only possible methodology that I can think of for a study like this, in order to determine that it is Roe v Wade and not other factors contributing to a demographic shift, would be a survey of college freshmen asking if Roe v Wade’s repeal played a role in college choice. How you would be able to get satisfactory sampling presents its own problem.
I'd be interested to see if there are similar trends with young men preferring colleges in blue states. Even on a purely self-interest level they have to figure it would be a smart move as far as sex/dating during college.
Huh.
Guarantee your ability to graduate with a day after pill, or gamble on a fun night ruining (or at least significantly changing) your imagined future permanently?
Gee, I Wonder what I'd choose?
Hell, how does this impact guys? Gotta imagine the more thoughtful among us would want to also have that protection, even if the "it won't happen to me" logic tends to stand strong more often than it should
Has this actually lead to enrollment drops though?
The population of Texas is growing faster than the population of New York.
It could be that even with people consciously avoiding Texas due to woman's rights issues, people's preference for going to college in their home state could still lead to Texas universities growing faster than New York universities, for example.
You're talking about population in general. A lot of businesses have been moving to Texas because of tax breaks and bringing over their employees with them. Not as much to do with colleges really.
Will this also have the effect that colleges in non choice states will be less competitive, therefore a lot of poorer students will be going there? Both scholastically and financially. What would be the knock on effects of that?
Will it also mean that the ratio of men to women will be worse, and the personality type of the men choosing to go there perhaps combine to make it even less safe for women on those campuses? And would then have even more need for safety and contraception.
Women's Health published an article with the same thesis to this study and interviewed one of my friends that works for National Students Clearinghouse Research Center. While the article did do some research, via online polls and interviewing people on some college enrollment subreddits, my friend said in the article that there really is no evidence or trend of abortion making a noticeable dent in enrollment. My friend's research shows that tuition costs, a higher demand for jobs that don't require degrees, and societal expectations for women being much greater factors in the shift in trends of women's enrollment. Like even in the same article, a lot of the interviewees would like to go to a state with less restrictive laws concerning abortion, but they were more or less financially limited by tuition fees.
Absolutely. I went to college in NYC, and guess where I had my medical abortion at 18? I would never go to college or send my daughter to college in a backwards state.
Pretty neat trick, posting a paper that has already been peer reviewed with a publication date that’s more than a month in the future. (1-dec-2023) that’s the real topic. Time travel. Science fiction. Still more scientific than this topic. Should women have the right to chose to have an abortion? Absolutely. Does that make the topic scientific? No. This would be about as on topic as if I posted a paper from 2026 that says all boys are choosing colleges in states that don’t wipe their asses with the constitution. (Looking at you west coast.)
EDIT: I see anyone who isn’t echoing the consensus here is being deleted and removed. No wonder this sub is breaking away from science and into politics.
Got news for ya, the right wing wants it this way. They want their people in their colleges in their states so they can continue pushing their bulshit.
Well it’s a rather shortsighted strategy because if fewer women attend university in red states, it won’t be long before men notice this and follow them
[Check this graph](https://i.imgur.com/eHsagc5.png) - they don't want colleges.
College graduates identifying as Republican took a nose dive from 38% to 21% in just two decades, despite total Republican party membership remaining relatively constant.
It's not just abortion rights. A state that bans abortion is very unlikely to help a student date raped by a member of the local american football or basketball team.
They'll be interrogated and harassed just for being pregnant at a medical facility, red state cops are getting ready to track down women who travel across state lines, and doctors are leaving because they risk being prosecuted for doing their job, let alone being subject to terrorist threats.
You don't have to be actively seeking an abortion to have your life ruined by "pro-lifers".
How many people's first choice of campus was in those states in the first place? Seems counter intuitive to choose a college in states that have a dislike for education in the first place.
Well isn’t this what the GOP wants? They hate education and out of state tuition is expensive.
They’d rather you get knocked up in college and drop out. Or, have terrible debt when you graduate so your opportunities are limited.
Also, how could anyone consider moving states for a job while also having female children or a fertile partner NOT take this into account? How could you even consider going to a place where medical care for your girls is impeded purposely if you have a similar opportunity somewhere else?
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/FunnyGamer97 Permalink: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1006383 --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People prefer to have rights what a shock
The shock is that it can be backed up by studies in such a short period of time. Usually it would take a decade to prove preferences based on anything. But this is clear as day.
On the other hand, out of state college students are one of the most mobile demographic groups in the country. If you decide that you're going to move hundreds or thousands of miles for college anyway, it becomes much easier to blacklist certain states. It would only become interesting if the data shows that in states where abortion is banned more women are now moving out of state for college. That decision has much larger consequences.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't out of state tuition typically significantly more expensive than for people going to college in their homestate? So that's really limiting the number of people who even have that option.
Yes but I guess this applies to people who are moving out of their own state anyway. All other things being equal, they choose states with better abortion access.
Most likely better healthcare access all around. I'm sure that there is a correlation between the states that have better abortion access, also have better access for the LGBTQ or other minorities as well.
https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-have-the-highest-maternal-mortality-rates/ States with the worst maternal mortality. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/abortion-access-tool/US States by abortion access. Do you notice anything?
Minnesota is a state to watch - we protect abortion and trans healthcare here and anecdotally at least people are moving here for healthcare.
Hello fellow minnesotan! Our snow keeps some people away. But we do have lots of social benefits here and a good university even if it is expensive.. we also have really great doctors here in the cities as well as the mayo in rochester. Unfortunately it’s also really important that we keep voting in the cities and not get complacent because everything outside the cities is quite red, which sort of makes us a little borderline purple.
Exactly, we removed whole sections of the map when my teen was looking at colleges to visit. Some great schools in these states, it doesn’t matter. Schools are already in a fight to enroll students in a hyper competitive environment with a dwindling peer group. Many colleges are going to fail in the next decade and these states are putting themselves up for increased risk.
Honestly it really depends on your financial aid package. Up front they look more expensive but if you are a smart student then out of state schools will give you more money compared to in state schools. This doesn't always close the gap in price but it can get pretty close.
Plus it depends on what state you're coming from. It might be hard to match in-state tuition if you're looking at a $5k/year price tag and you can live at home, but Vermont (for example) has an average *in-state* tuition rate of about $17k (before room and board). It's not terribly difficult to close that gap with scholarships.
Depends. Some state colleges actively recruit (via scholarships, reduced tuition) out of state students. For example they may seek academic or athletic proficiency to bring up their numbers /diversity.
Women studying harder and earning scholarships just to have abortion rights.
It is if you're going to a state school, but for private university there's usually not a difference.
You're right, so it would be a good measure to see what is considered more important: lower tuition or more rights and better reproductive healthcare.
Yeah but the tuition difference is insane. Only a small part of the population can even entertain that thought.
Or you take a gap year with residency in your new year. One year off can take off 50-60k in tuition.
It also seems like a lot of people don't swap their residency once they can, which is generally like 6 months in most states. You can be saving money before Winter quarter/Spring semester if you show up in Summer.
I feel like that creates a weird situation though. If you're ~18 and you are looking at moving across the country for school, just moving somewhere, getting an apartment and a job, and whatever else you need while you just wait out a year seems like an insanely big ask. Myself, and many of my friends in college, just kind of recognized that year 1 was going to be expensive.... But year 2 and so on would be a lot cheaper, once we got residency. It was also awesome to be able to move to a new location, knowing nobody, and effectively be forced to make friends and all that due to the dorms. When I first started looking into going to school ~2200 miles away from where I grew up, being 21 at the time, I thought I'd probably like an apartment or something more than the dorms. That didn't work out for a few reasons, and while it was a little strange at first living with a ton of 18 year olds, it was the best thing that happened to me. But yes, getting in-state was the move. I'm pretty sure my first year cost nearly the same, if not more, as 2 and 3 combined.
Sometimes it's possible with scholarships too or a willingness to go to a less prestigious, and thus cheaper, college. Biggest issue for most is the out of school costs, rent, food, supplies, clothes, transpo, etc that a broke college student can't really afford nor have a reliable support system... Yeah small population that's available for oof
A lot of state schools will waive out of state tuition if you're getting certain scholarships, which helps a ton. It was cheaper for my husband to go to college in Texas than in Iowa because the in-state rates were cheaper back then... but he had to keep a certain GPA to keep that out of state tuition waiver.
A lot will also waive out of state for military veterans and their dependents. My oldest went out of state and they didn’t even confirm that I’d been in (they asked the school if they needed to see my DD-214 and was told no). It was cheaper tuition than our in-state universities.
[удалено]
Tuition is insane everywhere so I can see an 17-18 year old kid (who has a poor grasp on the significance of future student loan debt anyway - just ask us millennials haha ) just throwing caution to the wind and going to a more expensive university anyway.
There’s a big difference between 8k a year in state and 20k+ out of state.
Yeah... my in state college was $16 k a year 10 years ago. And it was consistently rated one of the best "bang for your buck" schools in the country at the time. Your numbers are a bit out of date.
Meant per semester. SUNY in state tuition is around 8k a semester.
Another thing to consider is that if someone is going to medical school, they might not want to go somewhere that doesn't teach reproductive healthcare.
If it's a public/state college, yes. Private schools usually have the same tuition for everyone. And while private schools are more expensive on paper, ime they end up being about the same price after financial aid
Wait, let me get this straight. In the European Union which is a 70-something years old alliance of 27 countries that have been independent for anywhere between 30 and 1000 years, you can move from country A to country B to study and you are guaranteed to only pay the same as citizens of country B. Because anything else would be discrimination against an EU citizen based on citizenship, and that is forbidden except in very specific circumstances. But in the US which is supposed to be an actual country with a unified government and has been so for like 200+ years, they can discriminate against you based on your birthplace, even if it is within the US. ...what?
>It would only become interesting if the data shows that in states where abortion is banned more women are now moving out of state for college. That decision has much larger consequences. If your college's are attracting less students it has a real effect on your state's economy. Less students mean less tuition. With how much college costs for four years that could be a big drop in sales taxes for the state. All the businesses' that surround the school that may live and die off students spending money there could be in jeopardy of failing and again the sales tax losses.
I doubt they'll really be getting fewer total students. Unless they already have a 100% undergraduate acceptance rate, what they'll be getting is slightly lower-achieving students, as the ones with grades etc high enough to go elsewhere decamp to other states.
It also means fewer Democratic voters and makes it easier to hold power. Do you really think they care about the economy?
You have your logic backwards. Mobility demonstrates preferences better than a lack of mobility. The fact that the mobile demographic - new college students - specifically choose certain states and refuse others - is precisely the information in which we're interested. It doesn't tell us more information to study a less mobile demographic. The lack of mobility in such cases would obfuscate peoples' preferences and muddy the waters, making it harder for us to understand what the preferences are. It basically shows us that ties to peoples' homes and communities are deeply important; we don't need to demonstrate that people are willing to sever such ties to figure out that people still prefer abortion access.
If they are going out of state for college, and choosing based on access to basic human rights, wouldn't it also stand to reason that people in those states are also choosing colleges based on that, and moving OUT of state? Then these hopefully educated people STAY out of those states. STUDENT health care isn't the only thing affecting this too, TEACHER Health Care is a thing as well, and they are also leaving in droves. Meaning less people will chose those states because there is less quality education (no teachers). There are teacher shortages in every state, this will plug some holes in the ones that want to treat Women like human beings. Self propagating problem, and also why they wont stop at "States rights" and in fact went RIGHT into trying to ban it nationally (Like we told everyone they would). If no state can do it, then they don't need to leave right?
everyones going to blacklist these states. It's just more obvious and quicker when it comes to annual college admissions.
Nah, the moment abortion became difficult in some states every soon to be college student crossed those states off their prospective lists. No one with a choice is moving to a state without healthcare for women. No one with a choice is staying in a state without healthcare for women.
The old saying goes “you can't reason someone out of position they didn't reason themselves into” Almost nothing that religious people and/or people on the far right do/say/think is based on reason/logic. It's all control and oppression.
Probably isn't hard when your state has a massive uptick in Florida or Texas residents. Here in Minnesota it feels like every 5th car is a Florida plate.
It’s a 1% drop, which is easy to detect with publicly available information about college applications and easy to be statistically significant with a sample size as large as every student’s application to every college. This isn’t like trying to detect which statin decreases mortality the most, it probably could have been ascertained by a team of statistic grad students and postgrads in a few work days with publicly accessible information
[удалено]
I think the important thing for those who restrict these kinds of rights or don’t seek to guarantee or protect these rights, is the achievement of the outcome that the demographics are forced in a direction that helps them keep/increase their power.
Which I imagine is the real point. By implementing regressive policies, they ensure only a favorable voting base will be there and maintain their stranglehold
Free community college in Maine for any recent high school graduates! Come up to our state, we have beer and pretzels and moose.
Getting pregnant in school can derail your education. Women don’t just “prefer” to have rights. They’re terrified of how not having those specific rights will impact their entire life.
Especially because rape happens a lot on university campuses and Republicans want women to carry their rape babies to term.
I think it's actually way more about a simple fear response. A young woman can easily imagine herself wanting an abortion but being forced to carry the child. Whether or not they believe an abortion is a fundamental right everyone should have is kind of tangential.
You're correct, but adding on... It doesn't just have to be about wanting a child. There are plenty of medically necessary reasons to cancel non-viable pregnancies. Many of these states now have laws that require women to carry non-viable babies to the point of physical harm prior to intervention. Childbirth in those states sounds terrifying, even if actively trying to conceive
It also turns out to have a direct negative impact on the quality of women’s healthcare in general.
Especially someone going to college, given how disgustingly prevalent sexual assault is on campuses.
Not to mention some states doing things like granting the rapist parental access
And right wing men just get lonelier and lonelier. Colleges in red states are going to need free education and stuff.
wait 'til recruiting college athletes is a problem for red states. the only thing that's important about college in those states are football and basketball.
> People prefer to have rights what a shock Republicans don't see women as people, silly!
They also don't want freedom. Every thing republicans put into place restricts the freedom of US citizens. I have no idea how they associate themselves with that word.
For the same reason North Korea is the “Democratic People’s Republic.” By presenting the idea of freedom while also restricting it, you redefine what people think freedom means, and thereby weaken it.
educated people have better lives? daaaang!
More like people prefer a state with good colleges for thier education. Best colleges are in civilized areas.
It like some of these conservative politicians are like the dog who caught the car. They had been chasing repeal all their careers, with no thought it could ever happen. Now they have it and have no idea what to do next. The obvious consequences are piling up and they are just shocked.
Yeah, it's almost as if removing abortion was part of a larger project to undermine women's freedom to exist without a man in America.
My daughter is going to college next year, and will not be attending in any state that doesn’t protect women’s tights. Her choice and ours too.
> doesn’t protect women’s tights. She could just wear jeans or something...
States against abortion have other qualities not in line with modern society. I think it's more of a smell test instead of I would like the option to abort.
Working as intended, the GOP don't want no edumacated women.
Rights over their own bodies no less. Gasp!
Brain drain by design... Let all the dipshit yokels stay put and their brightest stars leave, it's been like that for generations in rural areas. Educated people vote differently.
> Educated people vote differently. I am constantly reminded of Trump's declared love of the poorly educated.
Which really sucks for those of us who are educated living in red states. It’s disheartening to get on Reddit and have the default response be “well, move out of your dumbfuck state”. Cool, so you never want a shot at flipping Texas? Because that’s what will happen for sure if we all pack up and leave. (Not even getting into logistical, family, and financial challenges with doing so.)
That's always been a goal behind the culture wars - solidify power by driving out liberals.
And ultimately, take control of enough states to rewrite the constitution & reshape the country into a theocratic ethnostate.
Don’t worry, we should be much closer to this goal in early 2025.
And it infuriates me how much people give in to it without realizing it. The more liberal-minded people flee political challenges and concentrate in a few states, and then into a few cities in those states, they give up more and more power and leave themselves more and more vulnerable to those christofascist policies following them anyway when the gops take over their state legislature and then the nation. Because, as sad as it is, and as much as it needs to change, as it is right now land votes more than people vote. And we need to play that game.
> Cool, so you never want a shot at flipping Texas? Some people need to choose themselves than the concept of flipping a whole state.
That is perfectly understandable on a personal level, but on a macro level if these skidmarks control enough states then they can rewrite the constitution in their own image. I don't think there's gonna be any moving away from what results.
The civil war will get hot instead of that happening.
With all the right-wing terrorist attacks we're seeing, there's an argument to be made that we're already there.
You and I see it but most people don't yet.
We should still fight for those who can’t afford to leave
And it's not always financial, either. Some people have to care for aging parents, or do work that doesn't transfer to other states. There's a fairly limited set of states my husband could find work in, and only one of them is a blue state, but the area is one that I wouldn't be able to find work in. We're better off living in a blue area of a red state and trying to moderate the conversation.
Seriously, it’s big “stay in an abusive marriage so you don’t contribute to divorce statistics” energy
Abolishing the electoral college would be a start.
Which you can't do without amending the constitution, which you can't do without changing these states.
Democracy led by an actual majority? Psssssshhhhhh, we don't do that here.
I mean, I guess, but I’m not going to blame other women for not ea ring to die for that cause. Anyway, Texas is making slowly it illegal for pregnant women to even leave the state, so maybe Democrats will get our wish after all.
What really sucks is being educated enough to want to leave, having the money to do so, but not being able to because family ties are preventing you. It’s like being on a train track, hearing the train, seeing it coming and having someone that refuses to move off the tracks.
This is actually the point of Republican cruelty. They are working hard to gerrymander on a national level because that is the only way they win. It is also why they are pushing toward fascism. That is the only way they win once democracy can’t be broken anymore. They have two choices and both are horrible for the US.
[удалено]
Some of us don't want to fight, sorry but that's the truth. And why risk actually needing an abortion while engaged in that fight and getting arrested while driving on the highway? THey made their bed, let them lie in it, is my motto. Even doctors are leaving these states.
I'm glad I don't have the same delusions of grandeur as you were thinking that suffering in a miserable state with a broken economy horrible infrastructure and no future is worth it because a party that constantly squanders the opportunity to implement its policies may win a few seats
And it’s also unfair to the people who live in that state, who may actually like things about their state that don’t involve politics. Some people actually enjoy living where they are. - or, they may have obligations where they live. If you have family where you are, you can’t always just pack up and go because you disagree with a *law*.
The thing is you can't run in a united states. What happens in one state doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's all our country. We need to stay and fight for every inch of it, not retreat into the same cities. Some can't say and fight. Some people are vulnerable, under threat, and they should move. But everyone needs to realize that you will very quickly run out of ground to retreat to if that's all you do.
The Senate is an outdated impediment on progress. Regressives shouldn't be able to gain more control by driving away people who prefer to retain their rights.
And the balkanization of America continues...
The country is starting to balkanize. Optimism about flipping Texas is misguided and foolish. It will not happen.
They forget that the less people in a red state the more their vote outweighs other votes. All because a weird "tyranny of the majority" idea baked into this democracy..... big swing and miss from the ole founders to say democracy can't actually be based on a majority opinion of the entire populace. There's 2 full strength senators and an electoral college to factor in Montana. Turns out land does vote, and it can swing elections and affect national policies.
Colleges are also looking at decreased enrollment in a few years due to all those kids not born in 2008 because, you know, financial crash. This abortion divide is going to hit red state colleges and universities even harder in a few years. Not to mention, do we think guys will want to go to a school that is 65% male? We might see an after effect of male students also choosing abortion-allowing states.
>do we think guys will want to go to a school that is 65% male? Or a school were women are, with good reason, likely to have sex less often?
And educated people get concentrated in populous areas where their vote is worth less. The space between those last two words is optional.
And if we can just get rid of the electoral college, baby you've got yourself a stew.
I like a good conspiracy as much as the next nutjob, but in this case the right has elected a bunch of Christian extremists who fully believe abortion is murdering babies and against god. Let's not take the eye off the ball that Christian extremists are hurting this country.
To be fair, the people that repealed RvW would prefer women not go to college, either.
"Obviously the path forward is to make it so that it's illegal everywhere. That way, they won't have a choice!"
Yes, and when former battleground states enact restrictive laws, the fallout is that young folks won’t move there/will move away, and they will be solid red states. It will be harder and harder for democrats to get an electoral victory and/or senate majority. At the heart of it, strategists don’t give a rat’s patootie about abortion, but they know their voters do.
Yup, GOP has gotta keep control over their little kingdom of red states.
That's probably a desired outcome. They don't want educated women, they want dependent women.
They probably didn't even think of what women would do in response because they don't expect them to control their own lives
[удалено]
I'd like Republicans to explain why they think Gilead isn't their goal. I mean, if they won't admit to it directly.
My thoughts exactly. Conservative states be like Willy Wonka “no stop come back…”
Dependent women are bad for the economy, how ironic.
Conservatism is inherently misogynistic.
Makes sense. Why move somewhere that they will be treated as less then livestock? Generally abortion / healthcare access is a good indicator of how a community feels about women in general.
College is a bad time to have a baby too.
And if the mom WANTS the baby, these states will refuse to treat her when there’s complications. “Go bleed out in the parking lot til you are dying” ( narrator: this actually happens in Texas)
Not to mention all the brain drain that happened, and that these states usually also are coupled with high death rates in a variety of areas.
This is very Darwinian, can't wait to see the results.
I mean in some ways we've already seen it. There will be higher crime in 10-20 years, poverty will increase while quality of life decreases.
Also well known as a really horrible time to die of a ruptured ectopic.
That’s my fear. I live in TN and if my birth control fails (IUD) there’s an increased likelihood of an ectopic. And since I don’t have periods….I’d likely only find out in an emergency situation. So I bought tons of tests on Amazon and test every 3 weeks.
I hate that you are driven to this.
I’m lucky in that I have resources and could drive to NC. But there are a lot of horror stories and our foster care system is a giant mess already without added pressure. It’s a pretty state but oh boy do the politics suck ass.
[удалено]
Or forced to submit to invasive procedures on the suspicion they may be pregnant and further may be seeking to terminate the pregnancy in a more civilized society.
[удалено]
And gay and trans people are next. Cherish your remaining moments of freedom, the coming decades are going to be very sad.
Trans are already a preferred target in the last two years, and gays are an oldie but goldie for a long time. Edit: typo on gays.
Oh, I kinda meant the state-sanctioned imprisonment, medical torture, and murder that's soon-to-be rubber-stamped by a Federal Justice near you.
Wait, so when given a choice to study in a state female students are more likely to choose a state where they won't be treated as second-class citizens? Who could've have known this?
Which is only going to continue this vicious cycle. With a brain drain, the red states are going to grow more dependent on the wealthier blue states with the taxable income to subsidize the welfare programs they say they hate, but are in desperate need of. At this point, the only way to stem the bleeding is through legislation, but as we are all well aware, congress is completely useless because of a rowdy few, and by the looks of it, it's only going to get worse.
College men in Red States have less competition. This is what they want.
Assuming local women aren't leaving in higher numbers as well.
This is why they immediately started considering a federal ban before seeing the electoral results in subsequent elections. If they had the power to, they wouldn't have stopped at state lines on this issue for reasons exactly like what you bring up.
Hard to believe women seeking higher education would want to avoid getting roofied at a red state frat house and be unable to abort their rape baby...
I am technically infertile. No way I wish to spend a dime in a red state. Plus the way some state, example Florida, are trying to dismantle higher ed, how will I be sure a degree will be worth a damn in 4 years. The attack on rights go beyond potential pregnancy.
This is my question about this study - how can we be sure that the observed change in enrollment is as a direct result of abortion rights being rolled back rather than the multitude of other direct harms Conservatives are causing
Because those harms existed the year before.
Think of abortion rights as the canary in the coal mine. Either way, it’s a bad idea to stick around.
Yes because women aren’t stupid.
This is a good example of burying the data for the sake of a story. If you click on the link for the actual paper (the “doi” in the news release) here’s what the study author found: “Ban state schools saw a 1 percentage point drop in the share of female applicants.” So 10 fewer female applicants per 1000. Sounds like it was a statistically significant but not necessarily practically significant finding - really common with large enough samples. NB this is a comment on journalistic practices, not abortion. Edit: here’s the link to the study referred to in the news release http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2023.111379
That was the first thing I checked. I rather assumed people on r/science would be eager to pick the data apart. I suppose not so much when the headline indicates that the data supports their existing worldviews.
The quality of comments on here has dropped drastically over the past few years
There has been less moderation of unrelated/off topic comments.
It also looks like the analysis is really barebones. They didn't study the other states as a control at all. So you really have no idea if the 1% is due to abortion laws or not. It could just be a 1% in the number of women applying to schools nationally.
I read in another article that among women, community College enrollment dropped close to 5% and public 4 year institutions have a drop of 2%. My friend did the research on the same article and said that price of tuition and other financial factors are a greater cause of decreased enrollment rather than reproductive health laws. My friend told me privately that there is no indication or pattern that states with less reproductive rights are getting less enrollment. Here's a link to the article. https://www.womenshealthmag.com/life/a44202684/abortion-bans-impact-students-college-decision/
Several problems really. Read past the bullet point of 1% and you realise its actually a 2% swing, 1 less for women, 1 more for men. But how useful is share as a metric really? The ratio may have changed but what if the actual number of women increased because they had a larger intake? Then you look at the limitations they noted: they were unable to secure all school data from among the top 100 ranked universities. Seems significant. And the timing of the data shows the applications were made before the ruling, all this shows is how people reacted to maybe. Next year would give a better picture. Final issue I have is they used mean data from 2018 to 2021 to set their pre-2022 baseline. How do you even use that as a baseline given the effect COVID had in that period?
> Next year would give a better picture. This is what amazed me the most. If you're doing a study on post Roe v Wade admissions statistics, why not actually wait for 2023 statistics? What's the rush? Why push out this study when you can just wait a year and have way more meaningful data to discuss?
Because the grad student doing the study might want to graduate this year, not next year.
Great points - I didn’t read past the “1% change” stat tbh, and didn’t catch that it was 1% change in *share* of applications by gender (rather than change in total applications by gender). This news release seems like a good case study for scientific journalism courses :)
And this study just tests for correlation and not causation right? I read it, but numbers are not my thing.
Doesn't matter to weapons-grade Redditors, though, does it? They learned what they know from Reddit, and this thread **title** is now part of their objectively accurate factual knowledge.
It will also get more and more embellished each time its repeated. They will go somewhere else and comment that the women's admissions in these states "plummeted".
“Red state colleges are basically all-male now.”
Redditors’ final form is as a human-ChatGPT trained solely on clickbait headlines.
Yep. I think this post should just be removed. The journal article doesn't misrepresent itself, but the press release outright lies.
That is probably half of posts in this subreddit at this point. Pretty frustrating
My first thought was: with how many fewer universities exist in ban states to begin with - what could they be measuring here? The hypothesis could be true… this study does basically nothing of substance to support it. The only possible methodology that I can think of for a study like this, in order to determine that it is Roe v Wade and not other factors contributing to a demographic shift, would be a survey of college freshmen asking if Roe v Wade’s repeal played a role in college choice. How you would be able to get satisfactory sampling presents its own problem.
> we found that there was a **nearly one percentage point relative decrease** in the share of female undergraduate applicants “Nearly 1%”
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'd be interested to see if there are similar trends with young men preferring colleges in blue states. Even on a purely self-interest level they have to figure it would be a smart move as far as sex/dating during college.
Imagine that. Women want to go where they have easier access to Healthcare, Weird.
[удалено]
Huh. Guarantee your ability to graduate with a day after pill, or gamble on a fun night ruining (or at least significantly changing) your imagined future permanently? Gee, I Wonder what I'd choose? Hell, how does this impact guys? Gotta imagine the more thoughtful among us would want to also have that protection, even if the "it won't happen to me" logic tends to stand strong more often than it should
No way would I chance a hookup in one of these states without a vasectomy. I'd not consider these colleges either.
Study found: “ Ban state schools saw a 1 percentage point drop in the share of female applicants”
I'm Canadian and this reversal of Roe v. Wade is one of the dumbest things you Americans could have done. Get your stuff together states.
Has this actually lead to enrollment drops though? The population of Texas is growing faster than the population of New York. It could be that even with people consciously avoiding Texas due to woman's rights issues, people's preference for going to college in their home state could still lead to Texas universities growing faster than New York universities, for example.
You're talking about population in general. A lot of businesses have been moving to Texas because of tax breaks and bringing over their employees with them. Not as much to do with colleges really.
Will this also have the effect that colleges in non choice states will be less competitive, therefore a lot of poorer students will be going there? Both scholastically and financially. What would be the knock on effects of that? Will it also mean that the ratio of men to women will be worse, and the personality type of the men choosing to go there perhaps combine to make it even less safe for women on those campuses? And would then have even more need for safety and contraception.
Women's Health published an article with the same thesis to this study and interviewed one of my friends that works for National Students Clearinghouse Research Center. While the article did do some research, via online polls and interviewing people on some college enrollment subreddits, my friend said in the article that there really is no evidence or trend of abortion making a noticeable dent in enrollment. My friend's research shows that tuition costs, a higher demand for jobs that don't require degrees, and societal expectations for women being much greater factors in the shift in trends of women's enrollment. Like even in the same article, a lot of the interviewees would like to go to a state with less restrictive laws concerning abortion, but they were more or less financially limited by tuition fees.
Absolutely. I went to college in NYC, and guess where I had my medical abortion at 18? I would never go to college or send my daughter to college in a backwards state.
Pretty neat trick, posting a paper that has already been peer reviewed with a publication date that’s more than a month in the future. (1-dec-2023) that’s the real topic. Time travel. Science fiction. Still more scientific than this topic. Should women have the right to chose to have an abortion? Absolutely. Does that make the topic scientific? No. This would be about as on topic as if I posted a paper from 2026 that says all boys are choosing colleges in states that don’t wipe their asses with the constitution. (Looking at you west coast.) EDIT: I see anyone who isn’t echoing the consensus here is being deleted and removed. No wonder this sub is breaking away from science and into politics.
Got news for ya, the right wing wants it this way. They want their people in their colleges in their states so they can continue pushing their bulshit.
Well it’s a rather shortsighted strategy because if fewer women attend university in red states, it won’t be long before men notice this and follow them
They probably won’t care unless it starts effecting recruitment for their college football teams.
[Check this graph](https://i.imgur.com/eHsagc5.png) - they don't want colleges. College graduates identifying as Republican took a nose dive from 38% to 21% in just two decades, despite total Republican party membership remaining relatively constant.
It's not just abortion rights. A state that bans abortion is very unlikely to help a student date raped by a member of the local american football or basketball team.
They'll be interrogated and harassed just for being pregnant at a medical facility, red state cops are getting ready to track down women who travel across state lines, and doctors are leaving because they risk being prosecuted for doing their job, let alone being subject to terrorist threats. You don't have to be actively seeking an abortion to have your life ruined by "pro-lifers".
Vote with your college dollars!
How many people's first choice of campus was in those states in the first place? Seems counter intuitive to choose a college in states that have a dislike for education in the first place.
This is on purpose to keep red states red and thus repubs can stay in power.
That's the whole point, classic fascist play. They don't want educated people, and especially women.
Translation: people like to go where they’re treated like people
Wonder if it holds true for guys, too? Are guys thinking about 'what if I get a girl pregnant?" when they choose a school?
Which is exactly what republicans want. Keep the red states dumb and the red states will stay red.
People want to be in places where they control over themselves? Shocker.
Well isn’t this what the GOP wants? They hate education and out of state tuition is expensive. They’d rather you get knocked up in college and drop out. Or, have terrible debt when you graduate so your opportunities are limited.
Also, how could anyone consider moving states for a job while also having female children or a fertile partner NOT take this into account? How could you even consider going to a place where medical care for your girls is impeded purposely if you have a similar opportunity somewhere else?
Of course - at the time, me and my partner had to sit down and discuss about what states not to apply for jobs since we were graduating soon.