Reverse Roe Effect?

Hat Tip: James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal. Taranto quotes Dan Harr of The Hartford Courant at length on his rationale for supporting an overturn of the case of Jane Roe v. Henry Wade, which basically is that States like Connecticut would attract social liberals with their more-liberal abortion policy. Social liberals, he seems to think, are smarter and better educated. Then Taranto says this:

We're not sure we agree. It's doubtless true that if Roe is overturned, some women seeking abortions would travel to states where it's legal, as they did in the olden days before 1973. But it's hard to imagine that people would vote with their fetus to such a degree that they'd decide where to live in the hope of aborting future pregnancies.

Still, what if they do? In the short term, it would increase the population of states like Connecticut, while making "red" states even redder. But in the long run it'd be hard to sustain a culture that defines itself by the refusal to reproduce. They may not be celibate, but after a few generations (or the lack thereof) Haar's movers would look a lot like Shakers.

Well, I disagree for another reason: I'll pit my intelligence, my fund of knowledge, my education, and my skills against those "social liberals" any day of the week. Just because I assert that evolution is a fraud, doesn't mean that I don't accept the basic principles of electronic information handling. After all, I'm a software developer by trade. If Mr. Haar wants to start a tug-of-war for brainpower, I'm tanned, fit, rested, and ready to haul against the best he has to offer.