The Economist - USA (2019-07-20)

The EconomistJuly 20th 2019 United States 25

F

orapartment-huntersinSantaAna,

California,a cityaboutanhoursouthof

LosAngeles,a $625-per-monthsubletre-

centlylistedonCraigslist,a classified-ad-

vertisingwebsite,mightseemideal.The

apartment,whichissharedamongfour20-

and30-somethings,isspacious,tidyand

onlyminutesfroma park.Itcomeswith

conditions,however:“Noracists,noho-

mophobes, no Trump supporters!” Dis-

crimination of this sort is not uncommon

on Craigslist, which is based in San Fran-

cisco. Toni, an artist seeking a flatmate in

Ann Arbor, Michigan, advises potential ap-

plicants, “I won’t live with anyone bigoted,

racist, sexist, or Trump supporting.” An-

other Craigslist-poster in Missoula, Mon-

tana warns, “Trump supporters need not

apply”.

One might assume that such political

preferences would be held only among

staunch partisans. But a new paper by

Richard Shafranek, a political science phd

student at Northwestern University, sug-

gests they are relatively common. In his

study, published last month in the journal

Political Behaviour, Mr Shafranek surveyed

a group of students at a large midwestern

university. He asked them to answer a se-

ries of demographic questions followed by

questions about their politics, interests

and personal habits. Subjects in the study

were then presented with two fictitious

flatmates and asked to rate each on a scale

of one to seven based on the same set of de-

mographic and personal characteristics.

This was repeated for ten hypothetical

housemate pairs.

The results were striking. Among the

40-odd attributes included in Mr Shafra-

nek’s survey, partisan affiliation—specifi-

cally, whether a potential roommate was a

member of another party—had the biggest

effect, reducing ratings by 0.56 points (see

chart). This was true even after controlling

for traits normally associated with support

for the two political parties. Other undesir-

able characteristics proved less influential.

Subjects who described themselves as

“not at all clean and tidy”, for example,

were rated 0.46 points lower. Those who

said they preferred going to bed early were

downgraded 0.24 points. To ensure his re-

sults were robust, Mr Shafranek estimated

how a match with a potential roommate on

a given characteristic affected their rating.

Using this approach party political affili-

ation once again came out on top. A match

on cleanliness boosted scores by only half

as much. Jewish sports fans who listen to

hip-hop are the Platonic ideal of a flatmate.

Does this study say anything broader

about American politics? The temptation is

to conclude that Americans like living with

those who are politically like-minded. In

fact it is more that they dislike living with

those who think about politics differently.

In an illustration of a phenomenon politi-

cal scientists call “negative partisan-

ship”—the tendency for voters to be de-

fined more by their hatred of the other side

than love for their own—the desire not to

live with someone who votes for the other

party is much greater than the desire to live

with a fellow Democrat or Republican. In-

deed, according to Mr Shafranek’s esti-

mates, it is about seven times as large. 7

Newresearchsuggestspoliticsplaysa

bigroleinchoosinga flatmate

Strangebedfellows

Trumpsupporters

neednotapply

Whycan’twebefriends?

Source:“PoliticalConsiderationsinNonpoliticalDecisions:

A ConjointAnalysisofRoommateChoice”,byR.M.Shafranek

USuniversitystudents,effectonhousemate

rating(outofseven),byattribute

March-May2018,points

-0.2-0.4-0.6 0 0.2

Watchessports

Samepartyaffiliation

Jewish

Doesyoga

Listenstohip-hopmusic

Huntsandfishes

Visitsfarmersmarkets

Listenstocountrymusic

Goestobedat9pm

EvangelicalChristian

Notatallcleanandtidy

Differentpartyaffiliation

Negative Positive

T

he debateover women’s reproductive
rights revolves around abortion.
Planned Parenthood sacked its president,
Leana Wen, this week largely because of a
disagreement over how to respond to Re-
publican lawmakers’ efforts to make abor-
tion illegal. But while that culture war
rages, significant changes in access to con-
traception attract less attention. Power to
Decide, formerly the National Campaign to
Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy,
estimates that 19m American women live
in contraception deserts, meaning they do
not have reasonable access to health clinics
that provide a full range of birth-control
methods. These deserts may expand if the
Trump administration has its way.
Rates of unintended pregnancy are
highest among low-income women, ac-
cording to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-
choice think-tank. The federal govern-
ment’s Title X programme helps fund fam-
ily-planning clinics, such as Planned
Parenthood, that provide health services to
poorer and uninsured women. A rule is-
sued in March would cut funding for any
Title X centre that refers patients for an
abortion or lets them know that it is an op-
tion. Legal challenges to the measure are
still winding their way through the courts,
but on July 15th the administration said it
would begin to enforce the rule anyway.
The dollars at stake for these centres do
not go towards funding abortions. Rather
the cuts would hurt clinics’ ability to ad-
minister contraception or stiand cancer
screenings to women with few other op-
tions for care. The rule is also unpopular.
About three-quarters of Americans sur-
veyed by the Kaiser Family Foundation said
it is important that the federal government
provides funding for reproductive health
services for poorer women.
At the moment most forms of preven-
tive birth control must be prescribed by a
doctor or nurse, which can make obtaining
it harder. But a consortium of medical
groups including the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists has long
endorsed the idea of making oral contra-
ception available over the counter. Studies
have consistently shown that women can
use checklists to screen themselves for
possible health concerns associated with
taking hormonal birth-control pills. Mov-
ing birth control over the counter is one of
the few issues where Democrats and Re-
publicans agree, at least in principle. But

the parties’ different stances on crucial de-

tails, such as age limits and insurance cov-

erage, have so far frozen any progress.

Moving some forms of birth control

over the counter is not the only way to in-

crease access for women who live far from

a family-planning clinic. States have

passed laws that require insurers to dis-

pense larger amounts—a six-month sup-

ply, rather than three months, for example.

There is also a gaggle of newish “tele-

health” startups prescribing and mailing

birth-control pills directly to women, no

doctor’s visit necessary. Some of these apps

take insurance but they must navigate reg-

ulations that can vary in each state, making

coverage patchy for women in regions,

such as the Great Plains, that would most

benefit from the service. One of the newest

firms, Hers, has plastered subway cars in

New York City with glossy ads. Perhaps it

should do the same in Omaha. 7

NEW YORK
Abortion laws get more attention, but
access to contraception is shrinking

Contraception

The other kind of

pro-choice