With abortion on the Nov. 5 ballot, we look back at Steve Levitt’s controversial research about an unintended consequence of Roe v. Wade.
Hey there, It's Stephen Dubner.
Two years ago, the U.S.
supreme Court struck down Roe v.
Wade, the court's 1973 ruling that made abortion legal throughout the U.S.
with this new ruling, the legality of abortion was kicked back to the states.
Since then, 13 states have banned abortion and eight others have imposed more limited restrictions.
This election day, November 5th, voters everywhere will be choosing a president, and the voters in 10 states will also be considering ballot measures that aim to protect abortion access.
Kamala Harris has said that if she becomes president, she would sign a bill to once again make abortion legal nationwide.
Donald Trump's position is less clear.
Harris says that Trump would sign a national abortion ban, but Trump has denied this and said the issue should be left to the states.
Whatever the outcomes on Election Day, the fact is that abortion laws in the US Are in the middle of a big shift with consequences that are hard to predict.
The law of unintended consequences Consequences isn't really a law, but it is at least a principle that we talk about a lot on this show.
And there was one particularly noteworthy unintended consequence of Roe v.
Wade that Steve Levitt and I wrote about in Freakonomics way back in 2005.
We revisited this topic in 2019 in an episode of Freakonomics Radio.
At that time, a lot of state legislatures, especially in the south and Midwest, were already moving to restrict abortions.
Considering the state of play today, I thought it might be worth hearing that 2019 episode again.
It's called Abortion and Crime Revisited.
We have updated facts and figures throughout.
As always, thanks for listening.