Putting Roe v. Wade in Perspective

In a previous post, I discussed what would likely happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned. My conclusion was that very little would change. In Wednesday's USA Today, Laura Vanderkam makes essentially the same point, but she actually has some empirical data to back her up. Vanderkam points out that there are only about 11 states where a ban on abortion is politically feasible. Vanderkam further notes that, as it stands, there are virtually no abortion providers in those states. The atmosphere is simply to hostile. She writes:

"In Mississippi, Kentucky and the Dakotas, 98% of
counties have no abortion providers; in Missouri and
Nebraska, 97% lack them. In these Roe-unfriendly
states, women already have to travel hours to obtain
abortions; in a post-Roe world of crossing state lines,
that story wouldn't change."

Her conclusion:

"This reality means that however much energy is spent
on Supreme Court nominee battles, a Roe reversal wouldn't
change the country's total number of abortion providers
much. In fact, a year after Roe is overturned, it would be
the rare woman who would notice any difference in her life
at all."

Don't get me wrong. I certainly don't think a reversal of Roe would be a good thing (or, fortunately, a very likely thing). But it's always good to keep things in perspective. As for pro-lifers, I can only imagine their disillusionment if they were to finally get their Holy Grail, the reversal of Roe, only to find that it changed virtually nothing.