Archive for July, 2022

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck so …

July 29, 2022

In Biden-speak: It must be an eagle

Of course, we’re talking about the “R” word – Recession.

In a prior post, we “followed the data” to observe that:

The past 10 times the U.S. economy experienced two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, the NBER subsequently confirmed (holistically after-the fact)  that  a recession had occurred.

For details, see: When is a 2-quarter GDP drop not a recession?

Well, as expected, GDP fell for the second consecutive quarter and Team Biden — dismissing the data — stuck to its “reimagination” of a recession … claiming that the 2-quarter drop does not indicate that we’re in a recession.

Here’s what’s interesting …

Biden’s crack team of economists (Yellen, Deese, Bernstein) and media flacks (CNN, AP, Politico)  are on record proclaiming exactly the opposite … that a 2-quarter drop in GDP is RECESSION.

Want some evidence?

Team Tucker did a deep dive into their digital archives,

Here’s a 5-minute then & now montage that nails Team Biden’s hypocrisy… well worth viewing.

click to view (5 min.)

So much for following the data…

Marketing 101: The dogs have to eat the dogfood…

July 28, 2022

Some interesting data on EVs from Consumer Reports

Earlier this year, Consumer Reports surveyed over 8,000 people on the subject of EVs.

The question that drew most of the headlines asked about “purchase intent”.

Which statement below BEST describes your thoughts on buying or leasing an electric-only vehicle if you were to buy or lease a vehicle today?

The answer:

  • 14% said that they would definitely get an EV;
  • 22% would consider getting one;
  • 35% would consider “in the future, not today”;
  • 28% wouldn’t even consider getting one.


Of course, you can look at the glass as half-full or half-empty…

  • Looking only at the “top box”, 14% are hot-to-trot right now
  • Combining the top 2 categories, 36% would definitely get an EV … or at least seriously consider getting one (Note: This was CR’s headlined conclusion)
  • Combining the top 3 categories, 72% are open to the idea of getting an EV some day … i.e. they are “definite maybes”

On the flipside, looking only at the “bottom box”, 28% say that they wouldn’t even consider getting an EV, not now or in the future.

28% translates to about 65 million gas-fueled vehicles currently on the road.

I that a big number (i.e. a show stopper) or a small number (i.e. a “so what?”)?

Draw your own conclusion …


That was CR’s headline question.

What  I found more interesting was a question about EV ownership, now or ever.

The general finding: 95% have never owned or leased an EV.

No news there, since EVs are just getting started in the market.



Let’s dig a little deeper on the other 5%…

The total sample was pretty big — just over 8,000 people.

So, 400 people in the sample currently or previously owned an EV.

Of the 400, 160 currently own an EC.

That leaves 240 who previously owned an EV, but don’t currently own one.

What’s up with that?

That’s 60% of the 400 who apparently “tried” an EV but went back to a gas guzzler.


In my prior life as a marketer, I would have gotten pretty concerned if the majority of customers who “tried” my product didn’t repurchase it … or worse, chucked it after buying it.

In marketing parlance it’s called “buyer’s remorse”.

In plain English, it’s a sign that the dogs aren’t eating the dog food.

Think about it.


Tech Talk

P.S. Yeah, I know that 400 is a small sample and that EVs are continually improving, so today’s (and tomorrow’s) EVs are better than yesterday’s.

I still think it’s a red flag.

While on the subject …

“Purchase intent” surveys tend to be biased high.

If people aren’t really shelling out any buckos, they’re more likely to say that they’ll buy something … especially if the price of the product isn’t included in the question.

So, the purchase intent results reported above are very likely overstated.

When is a 2-quarter GDP drop not a recession?

July 26, 2022

Team Biden’s PR stunt reimagining what a recession is, in Biden-speak, pure malarkey.

Team Biden’s crack team of political-economists is apparently trying to front-run this weeks GDP release by moving the goal posts.

Not by a couple of feet … or to the stadium parking lot … but to another stadium.

They’re saying “A recession is not fairly defined by a 2-quarter drop in GDP.  It needs to be evaluated holistically, after all related data is available and analyzed. And, that takes time. Maybe a year or so after the GDP decline.”

That’s partially true.

The NBER — the “official” recession sanctioning body — does consider multiple factors (i.e. more than simply a 2-quarter drop in GDP)  when declaring that a recession has occurred.

But, here’s an acid test question that cuts to the crux of the matter:

Out of the past 10 times the U.S. economy has experienced two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, how many times was a recession officially declared (holistically after-the fact) by the NBER?

Answer: All 10 times !

Source: AEI 

Said differently, post-WWII – a 2-quarter drop in GDP has been a perfect indicator of a recession.

In that time period, the NBER has always “holistically” confirmed  a recession after a 2-quarter drop in GDP

Nonetheless, Team Biden would advise:

Don’t generalize from your personal experience …and certainly don’t rely on the data … trust us Team Biden economists when we say that everything is fine & dandy.

These guys have no conscience.


P.S. The pundit consensus seems to be that Team Biden’s front-running “reimagination” is an attempt to defuse the impact of of a bad GDP number.

Obviously, they already know what the “top secret” number is.

Wouldn’t surprise me if the reported number is an infinitesimal increase in GDP.

That would give Biden a chance to boldly proclaim: “See, I told you that we’re not in a recession. The economy is strong.”

Naw, they’re not that smart…


Marketing 101: “Reasonable reach”

July 25, 2022

It’s only possible to incentivize buyers to buy something that they can reasonably afford.

Last week, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg spoke a Climate Control truth out loud:


Recognizing the uh-oh of his comment, he tried to soften it by saying:  “We could have no pain at all by making EVs cheaper for everyone.” Source

Wrong, Mayor Pete.

Making an EV cheaper?

Right now, for example, Ford’s base model Lightning F-150 pickup costs $39,974, a mere $10,000 more than its gas-powered version. Source

Of course, government can make that $10,000 go away with the stroke of a pen.


Simple: subsidies to car buyers and manufacturers.

But, Mayor Pete, there are two pieces to the puzzle … the $10,000 price differential is one problem … the $39,974 (or, $29,974 after possible government subsidies) is a bigger one given that


You see, Mayor Pete, about half the country doesn’t have the scratch to buy more than a week’s food and gas.

A shiny new car isn’t on their radar, whether it’s $39,974 or $29,974 … or $65,000 for crowd-swooning Tesla.


It’s out of their “reasonable reach”.

And, by the way, the “reach” is getting more difficult these days …

As the headline teased:

Last November, 32% of Americans said they were ill-equipped to cover a $400 emergency expense.

But this year, that number has risen to 49%, according to a YouGov survey for the Economic Security Project conducted online in May .

It’s clear that more Americans are having trouble covering unplanned expenses than in the past.

It’s easy to see why fewer Americans have cash reserves in the bank now compared to last November.

Living costs have been soaring over the past six months due to inflation, and wages aren’t rising at a steady enough pace to keep up.

That’s forced many people to dip into their savings rather than reserve that money for other purposes. Source

Simply put: An EV isn’t within the reasonable reach for most Americans … and the reach is getting longer as savings erode and inflation shreds buying power.

Or, as the original Grandma Homa used to say more colorfully:

“If you don’t have a pot to piss in, don’t go shopping for Cadillacs.”


P.S. to Mayor Pete

According to the WSJ:

Most nonrich consumers will likely opt for gasoline-powered cars for decades to come. 

So, the auto industry is gambling on big electric vehicles – loaded with exciting, high-tech gadgets – aimed at the rich.

For example, Nissan is giving up its pioneering electric Leaf in favor of a big electric SUV aimed at affluent shoppers. 

Ford is placing bets on the Mustang Mach-E; GM on the Hummer EV, 

Some $526 billion is currently being invested to create dozens of mostly high-end electric vehicles aimed at the 17% of buyers who constitute the luxury market.

Regulators everywhere are structuring their electric-vehicle industries based on subsidies from less-affluent people who continue to buy gas-powered cars.


Part 3: Putting the “E” in EVs

July 20, 2022

How much electricity is currently generated? How is it generated? So what?

In Parts 1 & Part 2, we concluded:

    • The U.S. currently consumes about 4 trillion kWh of electricity per year
    • About 1.5 trillion kWh (about 40% of the total) is consumed in residential use … about 1/2 of that is used by HVAC & hot water heaters
    • A scant amount of electricity is currently being consumed for “transportation” … and, practically all of that is used by public transit systems.
    • If all vehicles currently on the road were to be replaced by EVs, recharging their batteries would consume an additional 1 trillion kWh of electricity.

All of which raises a couple of  central questions: Does the U.S. have the electricity generation capacity to service a full national fleet of EVs?

Short answer: no.

So, where will the additional electricity come from?

Today, we’ll set the context by looking at our current supply of electricity…


According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)….

Total U.S. electricity generation in 2021 was about 4.12 trillion kWh.

There are four fuel “sources” for electricity generation: natural gas (38%), coal (22%), renewables (20%) and nuclear (19%).

in the past 10 years, total electricity generation has stayed virtually constant at around 4 trillion kWh … but the mix of fuel sources has changed.


Coal and nuclear power have declined in the overall mix of fuel sources … coal by a lot, nuclear by a little … natural gas and renewables have increased and are, together, account for about 60% of fuel for electricity.


Digging deeper in the  category of renewable fuel sources….


  • From 2011 to 2021, electricity fueled by renewables increased by over 60% to 826 billion kWh … which is accounts for 20% of the electricity generated.
  • About 2/3s of the increase is attributable to wind power … which provides about half of the renewable fuel used to generate electricity … and about 9% of the total fuel that goes into electricity generation.
  • Almost 1/3rd of the increase is attributable to solar power … which provides about 3% of the total fuel that goes into electricity generation.



  • Electricity generation has stayed practically constant for more than 10 years at around 4 trillion kWh
  • Some area of the country have experienced brown outs (rationed supply of electricity), primarily during periods of hot weather … suggesting that, during daytime hours, the electricity generation capacity is at capacity.

It is commonly assumed  that there is available nighttime capacity.

  • Over the past 10 years, coal usage as an electricity fuel has been cut in half … replace by natural gas (2/3rds) and renewables (1/3rd).
  • But, 20% of electrical generation (899 B kWh) is still being fueled by coal
  • Nuclear power — about 20% of the fuel mix — has been slowly declining as old plants are being retired … and no new plants being built.


Bottom line: To meet Biden’s aggressive climate control objectives, electrical generation will need to be increased by almost half … 1 Trillion kWh for EVs and 899 Billion kWh to totally phase out coal.

Part 2: Putting the “E” in EVs…

July 19, 2022

So, how much electricity will EVs eventually require?

In Part 1, we looked at current demand for electricity and concluded:

  • The U.S. currently consumes about 4 trillion kWh of electricity per year
  • About 1.5 trillion kWh (about 40% of the total) is consumed in residential use
  • A scant amount of electricity is currently being consumed for “transportation” … and, practically all of that is used by public transit systems.

Of course, EV demand for electricity will increase.

By how much?


Let’s look at our prior ballpark estimate:

A full “incredible transition” to EVs would increase consumer / residential electricity demand in the U.S. by over 40% (640 billion kWh / 1.5 trillion kWh = 43%)

Data, sources & calculations

  • in 2019, “there were almost 229 million Americans who have driving licenses
  • The 229 million collectively drove over 3.2 trillion miles.” Source
  • From what I can ascertain,  on average, a Tesla gets about 5 miles per kWh of stored charge. (e.g. a T3, 50 kwh battery gets 250 miles of range).
  • So, 3.2 trillion miles of driving requires 640 billion kWh of additional electricity.

What do other sources day?


The Energy Institute at the University of Texas analyzed the likely additional energy required by state for a full transition to EVs.


The UT-EI conclusion: On average across states, 30.9% more electricity will be needed to electrify EVs … with wide variability across states.

All States’ Data

The 30.9% translates to over 1.25 trillion kWh of added electricity required … almost equal to all of our current residential consumption of electricity.


In August 2021, the NY Times asserted (without attribution or analysis):

If every American switched over to an electric passenger vehicle, analysts have estimated, the United States could end up using roughly 25% more electricity than it does today.

Working the NYT’s estimate …

Their 25% — apparently based on total U.S. electricity consumption —  implies that we’ll need an additional 1 trillion kWh of electricity

The 1 trillion kWh of electricity is roughly equal to  66% of our current residential electrical consumption, (1 trillion / 1.5 trillion = 66%)


The Brattle Group is a research consultancy that “combines state-of-the-art analytical techniques and practical industry experience to answer complex economic, financial, and regulatory questions”.

Brattle analysts did a detailed “assessment of the investments needed across the electric power sector to support the deployment of 20 million EVs in the U.S. by 2030.

Brattle’s conclusion: 20 million EVs will add 60–95 TWh of annual demand and 10–20 GW of peak load to the system.

Taking the low end of Brattle’s range (60 TWH per 20 million vehicles) and scaling that number up to all 239 million vehicles currently on the roads …  717 billion kWh of additional electricity will be needed for a full “incredible transition” to EVs … with a high estimate of 1.135 trillion kWh of electricity required (equal to about about 75% of current residential electricity consumption).

239 million vehicles / 20 million = 11.95

11.95 x 60 TWH = 717 TWh

One Terawatt Hour is equal to 1 billion  Kilowatt Hours. Reference

So, 717 TWh = 717 billion kWh


So, how much electricity will EVs eventually require?

  • UT Energy Institute: 1.25 trillion kWh
  • Brattle Group (high): 1.135 trillion kWh
  • New York Times: 1 trillion kWh
  • Brattle Group (low): 717 billion kWh
  • HomaFiles estimate: 640 billion kWh

Our back-of-the envelop estimate was on the low side.

Looks like 1 trillion kWh is a reasonable (and easy to remember) estimate of the electricity load that an “a full “incredible transition” will add to the system … a 25% to 30% upper to our current levels.


Next up: So, where’s that electricity going to come from?

Putting the “E” in EVs…

July 18, 2022

Starting point: How much energy do we consume now?

A couple of weeks ago, I posted some ballpark estimates of how much additional electricity would be consumed in the U.S. if Biden’s “incredible transition” materialized and all of us were driving shiny new EVs.

My conclusion: A full “incredible transition” to EVs would increase consumer / residential electricity demand in the U.S. by at least 50% (640 billion kWh / 1.34 trillion kWh)

For details see: Update: What if Oprah gave all of us EVs?

At the time I asked for ideas re: sources of (1) “hard” numbers re: electricity generated and consumed, (2) analyses of how much EVs will add to electricity consumption and (3) “real” plans to bolster U.S. energy production and distribution (i.e. “the grid”).

A couple of you pointed me to some info sources … THANKS!

So, let’s work the numbers, starting with electricity consumption


According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)….

Total U.S. electricity consumption in 2021 was about 3.93 trillion kWh.

Of that total, the 3.8 trillion kWh is classified by the EIA as “retail sales”.

Of that total, “residential retail sales” account for almost 1.5 trillion kWh about 40% of total “retail sales of electricity”.

For reference: We previously ballparked total residential electrical consumption at about 1.34 trillion kWh (10,715 kWh per household x 125 million U.S. Households)



Drilling down further

Between 1/3 and 1/2 of residential electricity consumption is driven by home HVAC systems (air conditioners and furnaces) … hot water heaters (14%) and washers & dryers (13%) push the cumulative total to almost 75% or residential use. Source




Rounding up a bit for simplicity:

  • The U.S. currently consumes about 4 trillion kWh of electricity per year
  • About 1.5 trillion kWh (about 40% of the total) is consumed in residential use
  • The majority of residential use attributable to HVAC systems and hot water heaters.

Important: Note that only a scant amount of electricity is currently being consumed for “transportation” … and, practically all of that is used by public transit systems.

Said differently, the electricity consumed by EVs is currently rounding error.

But, that will change…


Next up: How much electricity will Es consume?

The $100 Trillion World Economy

July 14, 2022

A great contextual chart by the Visual Capitalist


  • The aggregate World GDP number: $100 trillion
  • The U.S. has been the world’s largest economy since 1871
  • But, China is projected to surpass the U.S. by 2030
  • Russia — the small circle at the 6 o’clock position on the chart — is the 11th largest economy @ $1.8 trillion … less than 1/10th the size of the U.S. economy … smaller than Canada, Italy and both California and Texas.

click here to enlarge
This infographic visualizes the 100 trillion global economy by country GDP==============

The Top 10

imageclick here to view the ‘all countries’ list

How much did Sen. Stabenow save driving her EV from Detroit to DC ?

July 13, 2022

The Detroit News pegs the savings at less than $10.

A couple of weeks ago, Michigan’s Sen. Debbie Stabenow took a  trip from Lansing, MI to Washington, D.C., in her Chevrolet Bolt EUV to tout the benefits of driving electric.

Stabenow crowed: “I went by every single gas station, it didn’t matter how high it was.”

English translation: Get an EV and stop whining,peasants.”

So, how much did she save?


To answer the question, the Detroit News ran  the senator’s trip through two popular charging apps, A Better Route Planner (ABRP) and Chargeway.

According to ABRP, Stabenow’s Bolt EUV used almost 200 kWh of energy on the 600 mile trip.

So, ABRP estimates that Stabenow paid (and probably expensed) about $80 for electricity.

Note: Charging station operator Electrify America’s charging rates across Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are a uniform 43 cents per kWh.

In comparison, a comparably equipped, gas-powered Trailblazer SUV gets 33 mpg on the highway.

At $5 per gallon, that works out to about $90 in gas bill (600 mile / 33 mpg x $5 per gallon).

So, Stabenow saved about $10.


The News, apparently doing some rounding, pegged the savings at $8.

The News also pointed out that the Bolt is priced about $5,000 higher than the Trailblazer ($28,195 to $22,995).

And, channeling an analysis by Chargeway, The News concludes that Stabenow’s EV added more than three hours to the a gas-fueled 9 hour, 30-minute Lansing-to-D.C. road trip (13 hours, 9 minutes total) … attributable to charging time (added distance to charging stations, wait time, actual charging time) and slower speeds.

Note: Chargeway assumes an average speed of 60 mph on the Bolt EUV’s Lansing-to-D.C. trip while ABRP assumes 65 mph

But for EVefficiency, ABRP urges drivers to travel at, for example, 55 mph in the long leg between Toledo and Pittsburgh. Ohio and Pennsylvania have a 70 mph speed limit.


Paraphrasing the News’ conclusion

Get an EV if:

  • You’ve got the $$$ to buy one
  • You plan to use it for commuting, not road trips
  • Your employer Or somebody else) provides free-to-you charging
  • You can charge it overnight in your garage or driveway (at economical electricity rates)

Otherwise, you may want to hold off for awhile…

The Hill: ”R.I.P. Green New Deal”

July 11, 2022

The 3 reasons that AOC’s Green New Deal is staggering

Interesting opinion piece in left-leaning The Hill

Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the  Institute for Policy Innovation which professes itself to be “a non-profit, non-partisan public policy think tank.”

Merrill opines:

“We had such high hopes (that the Green New Deal) would save our planet; save our economy; and, most of all, save our party from the coming November red tsunami.”

Note: Doesn’t sound non-partisan to me.

But he concedes that: “There is very little chance of resurrecting the Green New Deal (now or after the November elections.”

He asks rhetorically: “Where did things go off track?”

Speaking some quiet truth out loud, Merrill soberly cites 2 strategic miscalculations that climate controllers have made:

  1. Pushing for higher gas prices
  2. Relying on unelected bureaucrats & courts

Taking those one at a time…


High gas prices

One of the necessary ingredients for the Green New Deal was high gasoline prices.

We need those high prices to push millions of reluctant Americans to embrace electric vehicles.

When we surveyed the pubic over the years, many people (44 percent in a 2018 survey) said they would be willing to pay somewhat higher gasoline prices to fight climate change.

So, we thought the recent jump in gasoline prices would be, if not welcomed, at least tolerated.

But we were dead wrong.

It turns out that high gasoline prices hit low-income families the hardest — the very people we progressives claim we want to help.

More importantly, those high prices have enraged most voters.


Unelected Bureaucrats & Courts

We thought that we could still depend on federal agencies and the Supreme Court to impose what couldn’t pass Congress.

We knew it would be difficult getting the Green New Deal through Congress, even with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

Especially since we included so many items that aren’t actually related to the environment, like higher wages and social justice and equity demands.

For years it seemed the Supreme Court was willing to interpret the law favorably for us. That era appears to be over.

As Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “The Court does not purport to pass on the wisdom of the EPA’s course. It acknowledges only that agency officials have sought to resolve a major policy question without clear legislative authorization to do so.”


The “so what?”

Merrill says:

If we want sweeping environmental reforms, we will have to turn to our democratically elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures to pass them.

That means if we’re to make progress on our environmental agenda, we will have to sit down with the other side and see where we can find common ground.

That’s a tall order.

But if we really think the environment is important, maybe we should try to do it the way the framers of the Constitution envisioned and rely on the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch to make our laws.


My take:

None of the above is surprising “new news”.

But, I credit Merrill with speaking the truth out loud … that sky high gas prices and circumventing legislative processes were (are?) part of the plan … all along.

Sometimes, you reap what you sow…

Shocker: Americans losing confidence in “institutions”…

July 7, 2022

So says the most recent Gallup poll.

According to Gallup: Americans are less confident in major U.S. institutions than they were decades ago … or even a year ago.

In the 1980s,”high confidence in institutions” hovered around 45% … that dropped to 40% in the 1990s … then dropped again to about 35% in the period 2007 to 27% in 2022.


Gallup observes that:

The largest declines in confidence (from 2021 to 2022) are 11 percentage points for the Supreme Court — as reported in late June before the court issued controversial rulings on gun laws and abortion, and …

15 points for the presidency, matching the 15-point drop in President Joe Biden’s job approval rating since the last confidence survey in June 2021.

Congress dropped 5 percentage points (from its prior 12% level) and to a new low of 7%


The highest confidence ratings go due small business and the military (despite the Afghanistan debacle which is apparently laid at the feet of the Biden administration).

Note: Big business is down 4 percentage points to 14%

Next highest confidence levels go to police and the medical system.

  • Republicans give the police a 67% confidence rating; Dems give the police a low 28% confidence rating.
  • The criminal justice system is down 6 percentage points to 14%

Public schools are down 4 percentage points to 28%.

Newspapers and TV news are down to 16% and 11% respectively.

Dems give newspapers a 35% confidence rating and TV news a 20% rating; Republicans give those news outlets 19% and 13% ratings, respectively.


Anybody surprised?

Numbers: Some context for the abortion debate.

July 5, 2022

Birth rates & abortions … how many, where, who and how likely to be restrcted.


U.S. Births

According to the CDC:

> The number of births has declined by an average of 2% per year since 2014.

> In 2020, 3,613,647 births were registered in the United States, down 4% from 2019



Birth Rates

> The general fertility rate (GFR) for the United States in 2020 was 56.0 births per 1,000 females aged 15–44

The general fertility rate in 2020 was  down 4% from 2019 … a record low rate for the nation


> Birth rates continued to increase for females in age groups 35 to 39 and 40 to 44a record high.

> Birth rate among teenagers continued its steep decline: In 2020 the birth rate for females aged 15–19 was 15.4 births per 1,000 …down 8% from 2019 ….and another record low

With those numbers as context, let’s look at the abortion numbers…



According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute:

> The number of reported abortions in the U.S. has declined over 40% since the 1980s


In 2020…

  • 930,160 abortions were performed in the U.S..
  • The abortion rate was 14.4 per 1,000 women (in child-bearing age groups)
  • The ratio of abortions to pregnancies was 20.6% … about 1 in every 5 pregnancies


Abortions impacted by Dobbs

According to CDC data (for 2019):

68% of all abortions were performed in blue states and 32% in red states … call it 2 out of 3 in blue states.

Blue states currently have the most liberal abortion rights which will, at a minimum, be retained … or, most likely, will be expanded.

Note: The vast majority of pro-choice protests seem to be happening blue states or, in some cases, in red states by by out-of-state blue staters

Less than 300,000 abortions per year (297,651 to be precise) are in blue states and, thus,  at  risk of being banned after Dobbs.


Blue state “bans”

The number of full bans on abortion is likely to be far less than 300,000.


Every abortion ban enacted or proposed includes an exception to protect the life or health of the mother.

According to the CDC, 92% of abortions take place in the first trimester … 43% in the first 6 weeks.

Many (most? all?) blue states are likely to permit abortion in the first 6 weeks or the first trimester.

That cuts the number of abortions at risk of being banned down to about 150,000,at most … and, more likely, down to well under 100,000


Other “ban” mitigating actions

According to Guttmacher, 54% of all abortions already are “medication abortions” (i.e. pills) that are FDA approved for use within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.


My hunch: Those pills will likely flow across state lines, e.g. via difficult-to-stop online pharmacy sales.


And finally, many companies have already declared that they will pay travel expenses for employees traveling to abortion-permitting states.

While obviously an added hassle for abortion seekers, it does provide access.


And, for the record

14 weeks is the cut-off for “abortion on request” for practically all Europen0an countries.

Maher noted that the majority of the U.S. still has more abortion freedoms than a lot of countries in Europe, where they set a shorter time-frame on abortion limits


Those are the numbers from the CDC and the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.

Draw your own conclusions…

Happy 4th of July

July 4, 2022

Kick back … enjoy your friends & families … be thankful for our freedoms.


%d bloggers like this: