Breaking News: Gallup poll shows more Americans pro-life than “pro-choice” for first time
UPDATE 3:10p: Professor Michael New has insight on this poll on NRO’s The Corner, including a caution to pro-lifers.
_______________
UPDATE 1:50p: I’ve had a chance to read the Gallup poll findings more in-depth and read this speculation by Gallup:
It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public’s understanding of what it means to be “pro-choice” slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.
_______________
UPDATE, 10:10a: Hot Air noted interesting points:
The percentage of Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) calling themselves “pro-life” rose by 10 points over the past year, from 60% to 70%, while there has been essentially no change in the views of Democrats and Democratic leaners…
A year ago, Gallup found more women calling themselves pro-choice than pro-life, by 50% to 43%, while men were more closely divided: 49% pro-choice, 46% pro-life. Now, because of heightened pro-life sentiment among both groups, women as well as men are more likely to be pro-life.
Men and women have been evenly divided on the issue in previous years; however, this is the first time in 9 years of Gallup Values surveys that significantly more men and women are pro-life than pro-choice.
Been hearing a lot of chatter for the GOP to shut up about abortion, as late as last night on Gretta when Cindy McCain thought Republicans should stop applying a “litmus test,” which is code for standing on the pro-life issue.
Hot Air commenters have theorized many reasons for this shift, including Palin’s stand for life, Obama’s stand against life, “Obama’s grandstanding on the Born Alive Act,” technology, or “[t]he long-term trend makes sense since only survivors of Roe v. Wade answer polls.” Your thoughts?
[HT for Hot Air post: moderator Carder]
_______________
Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs Survey, conducted May 7-10, found 51% of Americans self-identifying as “pro-life” vs. 42% “pro-choice.”
This is the first time such a shift has occurred since Gallup began addressing the issue in 1995.…
This lines up with my column this week theorizing radical anti-life Barack Obama is having an adverse effect on abortion support.
Just last year, 50% identified themselves as pro-choice and 44% pro-life. The highest pro-life number ever recorded before now was 46% in August 2001 and May 2002.
The survey also shows the public’s views on the legality of abortion, with 22% believing it should be legal in all circumstances, 23% illegal in all circumstances – quite a change from the past 4 years, which showed a strong attitude in favor of unrestricted abortion.
[HT: proofreader Laura Loo]
I went to see Bill Bennett and company last night. ‘Obama the First 100 days.” What a great time I had! We really do have some funny conservatives!!!!
The room was packed. I guess some would have called it “A right wing terrorist convention.” They said they were in Chicago the night before last.
I can’t wait to hear the “spin” the proaborts put on this one…..
Re: this poll is good news.
Perhaps the fact that people are getting more educated about not just what abortion really is, but also about the social/eugenics and political goals of Planned Parenthood (or rather KLAN Parenthood)… plus, it’s hard to argue with what we can now witness for ourselves in the form of photographs on moving vans and video of aborted babies and clinic workers lying to cover up child molestation and other crimes committed by clinic workers.
I think people are starting to get a clue.
I don’t know what it means. Are the terms defined? It might be that people who think abortion should be legal, safe and rare are calling that view “pro life.”
Maybe you’re winning the hearts and minds… I’m not yet convinced but I’ll keep an open mind.
No, Hal, no one, and I mean NO ONE thinks that keeping abortion “safe, legal, and rare” makes you prolife.
Prolifers know that abortion is NOT safe for any baby (and for many women as well), and that murder is also “rare”. Being “rare” is not good enough for murder, and it’s not good enough for abortion (which now occurs about 1.2 million times a year in this country… is THAT “rare”?)
Furthermore, the common dictionary (the bane of proaborts everywhere) tells us what the average citizen thinks a term means, and dictionaries tell us that “Mr. Average American” thinks that being prolife means that you oppose the legal status of abortion, period.
I am just suggesting Doyle that perhaps there has been some shift in the meaning of the terms. It happens. I don’t think you can deny that some people call themselves things like “personally pro life.”
If Fox covers this weekend’s ND commencement like they should, we could get a bounce of another couple of percentage points.
The people you want to reach are not Fox viewers.
Here we go kids, Welcome to the parsing game!
Today on our show, we feature a new poll that shows that the term “pro-life” has a new meaning.
When a majority of people called themselves pro-choice, it was clear that they supported access to legal abortion.
However now that a majority are calling themselves pro-life, clearly the term pro-life now means that the majority would not choose to have an abortion themselves.
Thats all from here, back to you, Jill.
I don’t think it’s that crazy to ask what the provided definition of pro-life was. My in-laws are very conservative and call themselves pro-life but have admitted that they don’t think abortion should be illegal. Josephine here did the same, didn’t she?
Just gotta love that cartoon!!!
I know it’s a repeat, but well worth it!!
Not that I agree that people who don’t think abortion should be illegal are technically pro-life — but there are undeniably people who claim to be pro-life and would not be pro-life according to people here.
Also, I’ve personally talked to people who say they are pro-life, mostly because they are religious, yet still support the “legal, safe, and rare, and I wouldn’t get one” side of things. They aren’t so much pro-life as they are people who enjoy calling themselves pro-life in an attempt to reconcile their pro-choice beliefs with their religion. They really are trying to redefine the term.
Those silly pro-lifers, they don’t know what they mean, they are really pro-choice and just don’t know it. They don’t really mean they want abortion to be illegal. Why I once knew a guy who said….
blah, blah, blah
No one really likes abortion except for a select few whose humanity appears to be hidden somewhere very far. I think that the majority of Americans care not for the battle of pro-life and pro-choice now; they’re weary of it. The majority of Americans probably believe that both of us should be worried about things such as healthcare, stopping unplanned pregnancies (before they start), and reducing teenage pregnancies (not through abortion but through fewer teenagers getting pregnant in the first place).
You cannot be, I’ve firmly decided, pro-life and against actively campaigning against other violations committed against children, without supporting more access to healthcare for prenatal women (and postnatal), adoption, and helping to lower the rate of unplanned pregnancies.
This isn’t, in any matter, a victory for “getting people to join our team.” This isn’t about us; this is about the poor, abused, and mistreated members of society whose faces people care not to remember. This is about children’s rights and gaining people who are willing to stand by even the smallest of children in the end.
That being said, I think that the majority of Americans find that abortion ought to be legal in certain circumstances- and we should campaign to change that, too. :).
peronally pro-life + for legal abortion= pro-choice
What i don’t understand is how people can flip flop so much on an issue like this…
Jasper-
Which is why Hal was curious as to whether or not the poll defined the terms.
I consider myself pro-life, however many of you here would not because I do not believe a ban of abortion is the way to treat this issue.
Abortion is only a symptom. Poverty, lack of education, and the like are the real problem which drive abortion forward.
Vannah,
you seem really sincere and I think you mean well.
However, teen pregnancy is probably as low as is humanly possible. It certainly is as low as it has ever been in history.
If you understand math, here is a link that will explain the data written by someone proficient with data analysis.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/01/teen-birth-rates-up-but-nothing-to.php
It is accessible to a lay person, unless you don’t understand math at all.
The real problem is unmarried teens who are pregnant and the men who abandon their families rather than support them.
Throughout all of history, fathers in societies all over the world protected their daughters sexually till they married, by force if necessary. Any man had to commit to support his wife and children BEFORE he was granted access.
It wasn’t perfect but was better than what we have now.
Men were pressured by other men in the community to support their families.
It is fair and reasonable for men to support their families.
hippie-
I would argue that that pressure still exists, its just that the individuals are now able to ignore it and run. The pressure isn’t there any more if they leave. Rather than give in to the pressure, they run away from it.
Dan,
If you are willing to keep abortion legal and let babies die as the other problems of the world are S-O-L-V-E-D (which is NOT going to happen in a finite way), then you are deluding yourself in thinking you are pro-life. You are only pro-life in an “Up-with-People” (I feel good about myself) sort of way. You are young. you will understand as you get older.
Dan,
Abortion was supposed to take care of the societal problems of child abuse and poverty. How is that working out for us?
Abortion is the CAUSE of our callous disregard for life, beginning at conception.
“The people you want to reach are not Fox viewers.”
Posted by: Hal at May 15, 2009 10:57 AM
You do know that all conservatives are not “pro-life”. I’d say the conservatives have a better chance of converting though – which makes FOX the perfect vehicle by which to do so.
“Men were pressured by other men in the community to support their families.”
Interesting observation. I know from experience that brothers can be great role models for each other, and also tend to help keep each other in line. There’s a bond there that is difficult to match compared to a relationship between two unrelated males. Perhaps the change we see today in families, where there are fewer siblings, and often a missing father figure, has affected the pressure men feel to support their families today and is a factor in the increase in men who advocate abortion.
“Dan,
Abortion was supposed to take care of the societal problems of child abuse and poverty. How is that working out for us?
Abortion is the CAUSE of our callous disregard for life, beginning at conception.”
Well, crime rate has gone down (quite possibly because there are more abortions in lower income families, which typically have higher crime rates and are disproportionately black).
And I disagree. The Death Penalty started it. It was the original way of saying death solves all our problems.
“If you are willing to keep abortion legal and let babies die as the other problems of the world are S-O-L-V-E-D (which is NOT going to happen in a finite way), then you are deluding yourself in thinking you are pro-life.”
The problems will likely never be “solved,” but you certainly need to go after the problem before the symptom. Lessen the problem, symptoms fall, and it is at that point you treat the symptom (banning abortion) because the underlying issues is as “healthy” as it will get.
Hippie (and Doyle), it’s not just us who note the definition of “pro life” is slippery. See the last sentence of this portion of an article from WND (the link to the entire article is there if you wish to follow it)
Pro-life: What does it really mean?
Posted: December 05, 2007
1:00 am Eastern
By Mark Crutcher
© 2009
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=44896
Today, there seems to be a lot of debate about what it means when someone says they are pro-life. This is especially true for politicians. For clarity’s sake, let’s define the term. The pro-life position is that a new human life is created at the moment of fertilization and is, thus, entitled to the same legal protections as any other human being.
Given that definition, some abortion positions are pretty cut and dried. For example, someone who supports a universal human life amendment to the Constitution is pro-life, while someone who supports the Roe vs. Wade decision is not.
Then there is the person who says that they are personally opposed to abortion and would never participate in one, but pro-choice when it comes to legality. As amazing as it may seem, I have actually heard pro-lifers describe people who say this as pro-life.
Posted by: Hal at May 15, 2009 10:54 AM
Hal – I agree with you. There are some folks who call themselves pro-life, and they are to an extent. They might use terms like “pro-life with a heart”, because they make exceptions other pro-lifers might not make. Other pro-lifers may say they’re not pro-life. The issue is worth discussing.
Morally, it’s black and white. Semantically, and what’s in each person’s heart – it’s very muddy, even for pro-choicers.
I consider polls and charts trend indicators and not substantive facts unless they relate real purchases like the stock market.
Then there is the person who says that they are personally opposed to abortion and would never participate in one, but pro-choice when it comes to legality. As amazing as it may seem, I have actually heard pro-lifers describe people who say this as pro-life.
this is not a prolife position. If you favour abortion under any circumstance you are supporting abortion in one way or another. Period.
this is not a prolife position. If you favour abortion under any circumstance you are supporting abortion in one way or another. Period.
Posted by: angel at May 15, 2009 1:24 PM
That may be true, but people say it. Thus, the poll results are in doubt. The poll wasn’t of people’s true positions on abortion, but the label they want to put on themselves. More and more people (perhaps) are pro choice but calling themselves pro life.
You can say they’re wrong, but you can’t say it doesn’t influence the polls.
This is very good news, and I do believe the momentum is on the pro life side.
I think Sarah Palin perhaps deserves some credit, her son Trig highlights the tragic fact that 90% of downs babies are aborted and she chose life. I remember lots of familes attending her rallies with their own children who also had downs.
I also think Barry’s radical pro abort beliefs are creating a backlash. I do believe even “pro choice” people want restrictions on abortion and do not support late term ones and believe in providing medical care to babies who survive botched abortions. Even Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer voted in favor of that.
More and more people (perhaps) are pro choice but calling themselves pro life.
Posted by: Hal at May 15, 2009 1:28 PM
——
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that, which says people are being self- deceptive. Out of ignorance? No. Because kids understand what pregnancy is all about, so that doesn’t wash.
Excellent article by John Kass, Chicago Tribune on the ND story.
Thoughtful voice all but lost in Obama-Notre Dame drama
John Kass
May 15, 2009
“President Barack Obama arrives at Notre Dame on Sunday already triumphant, the champion of the pro-abortion rights lobby ready to be honored by America’s pre-eminent Roman Catholic university.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kassmay15,0,2768742.column
Dan,
“The problems will likely never be “solved,” but you certainly need to go after the problem before the symptom. Lessen the problem, symptoms fall, and it is at that point you treat the symptom (banning abortion) because the underlying issues is as “healthy” as it will get.”
You don’t present a logical reason to not go after both problems with equal resolve.
Do we keep murder legal until we work on reducing drug addiction?
Murder is a symptom of the drug addiction problem in this country after all..
How do you measure/define what is a “healthy” amount of drug addiction before making murder illegal?
How do you measure/define what a “healthy” amount of poverty before banning abortion?
That may be true, but people say it. Thus, the poll results are in doubt. The poll wasn’t of people’s true positions on abortion, but the label they want to put on themselves. More and more people (perhaps) are pro choice but calling themselves pro life.
You can say they’re wrong, but you can’t say it doesn’t influence the polls.
Posted by: Hal at May 15, 2009 1:28 PM
There are also those who fool with telephone and other polls.
But barring those, or weaving it with the idea of taking back the term, there’s this explanation, Hal. If I were on the receiving end of a telephone poll like that, I’d say of course I’m pro-life.
I subscribe to all types of behaviors that support life – curbing pollution and emissions, national healthcare, gun safety, anti-violence, education, food purity, etc. And, I am pro protecting a woman’s right to control her life and body, because without that right to privacy, it really isn’t much of a life.
Yep, I’m a staunch pro-lifer.
Sorry guys, but this poll is just an outlier. Two recent polls with twice as many participants show the opposite result.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Quinnipiac University Poll. April 21-27, 2009. N=2,041 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.2.
“Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?”
Always Legal: 15%
Usually Legal: 37%
Usually Illegal: 27%
Always Illegal: 14%
Unsure: 7%
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. April 23-26, 2009. N=2,019 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.
“With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?”
Pro-choice: 49%
Pro-life: 45%
Unsure about terms: 1%
Mixed/Both/Neither: 3%
Unsure: 1%
And while we’re on the subject of polls:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/14/poll-shows-majority-back-notre-dames-obama-invite/
An overwhelming majority of Catholic voters say the University of Notre Dame should not revoke its invitation for President Obama to speak at the school’s commencement ceremonies this weekend.
In a new survey released by Quinnipiac University, 60 percent of Catholic voters are against rescinding the invitation while 34 percent are for it. Among voters as a whole, 56 percent don’t think the Catholic school should take back the invite while 31 percent do.
…
The poll also surveyed Catholic voters’ views on abortion compared to the population as a whole. Among the findings, according to Quinipiac:
-15 percent of all voters, including 13 percent of Catholics and 10 percent of observant Catholics, say abortion should be legal in all cases
-37 percent of all voters, including 37 percent of Catholics and 19 percent of observant Catholics, say abortion should be legal in most cases
-27 percent of all voters, including 28 percent of Catholics and 40 percent of observant Catholics, say abortion should be illegal in most cases
-14 percent of all voters, including 16 percent of Catholics and 26 percent of observant Catholics, say abortion should be illegal in all cases
More and more people (perhaps) are pro choice but calling themselves pro life.
You can say they’re wrong, but you can’t say it doesn’t influence the polls.
Posted by: Hal at May 15, 2009 1:28 PM
More proof if this is true that even the most ardent pro aborts know abortion is killing an innocent life. There is no getting around that.
Many pro aborts deny by saying “it’s not a baby yet” or other things to justify their opinion but deep down they KNOW abortion kills a baby.
And the GOP is dying because they don’t recognize this.
Posted by: reality at May 15, 2009 2:05 PM
Please stop boring us with your polls. They didn’t ask me and they didn’t ask four ND grads that I know.
-14 percent of all voters, including 16 percent of Catholics and 26 percent of observant Catholics, say abortion should be illegal in all cases
What does this even mean? “Observant” Catholics as opposed to Catholics? If they do feel this way they aren’t Catholic. You’d think you could get that by now silly.
And the GOP is dying because they don’t recognize this.
Posted by: Kristen at May 15, 2009 2:10 PM
They aren’t dying. It wasnt that long ago they controlled all three branches of government. The Democrats came back. So will the GOP.
Especially when people start to see the results of Barry’s socialist policies. A majority think government spending is way out of control.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/15/fox-news-poll-americans-want-government-spending/
Yep, I’m a staunch pro-lifer.
Posted by: 100% prochoice at May 15, 2009 1:52 PM
Except for innocent defenseless children.
If they get in someone’s way, too bad for them.
“President Barack Obama arrives at Notre Dame on Sunday already triumphant, the champion of the pro-abortion rights lobby ready to be honored by America’s pre-eminent Roman Catholic university.”
Thanks, Father Jenkins. :(
I think most people favor some kind of restriction on abortion. I don’t believe Joe Public has the extreme views that Obama, Pelosi and others have.
Most feel that it’s obviously wrong if someone is using abortion as birth control or back-up birth control.
Honestly, I can’t help but think that the majority of people know so very little about early fetal development. Whenever I’ve had discussions with the public about an 8wk unborn baby, most have no idea of the extent of the development.
The proaborts have done a good job of misinforming women about fetal development. And of course, some women just want to stick their head in the sand; ignorance is bliss (for a time).
That may be true, but people say it. Thus, the poll results are in doubt. The poll wasn’t of people’s true positions on abortion, but the label they want to put on themselves. More and more people (perhaps) are pro choice but calling themselves pro life.
You can say they’re wrong, but you can’t say it doesn’t influence the polls.
Posted by: Hal at May 15, 2009 1:28 PM
There are also those who fool with telephone and other polls.
But barring those, or weaving it with the idea of taking back the term, there’s this explanation, Hal. If I were on the receiving end of a telephone poll like that, I’d say of course I’m pro-life.
I subscribe to all types of behaviors that support abortion – curbing pollution and emissions, national healthcare, gun safety, anti-violence, education, food purity, etc. And, I am pro protecting a woman’s right to control her life and body, and killing her kids because without inflicting violence in the name of privacy, it really isn’t much of a life.
Yep, I’m a staunch pro-lifer.
They aren’t dying. It wasnt that long ago they controlled all three branches of government. The Democrats came back. So will the GOP.
Especially when people start to see the results of Barry’s socialist policies. A majority think government spending is way out of control.
Posted by: Joanne at May 15, 2009 2:22 PM
If the likes of Michael Steele keep doing what they have been they will be dead and very soon. It’s more than just economics. I could not vote for a pro-choice GOP candidate, no matter how close he was to my economic view. I would instead vote for a pro-life democrat with an opposite economic view from my own if given the choice. (Pardon the pun.)
I think the key result of this poll is to be found here:
“Gallup also found public preferences for the extreme views on abortion about even — as they are today — in 2005 and 2002, as well as during much of the first decade of polling on this question from 1975 to 1985. Still, the dominant position on this question remains the middle option, as it has continuously since 1975: 53% currently say abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.”
In other words, there is no change.
If the likes of Michael Steele keep doing what they have been they will be dead and very soon. It’s more than just economics. I could not vote for a pro-choice GOP candidate, no matter how close he was to my economic view. I would instead vote for a pro-life democrat with an opposite economic view from my own if given the choice. (Pardon the pun.)
Posted by: Kristen at May 15, 2009 3:02 PM
Sorry Kristen guess I misunderstood your first post. I totally agree that the GOP is in big trouble if they continue to be “democrat lite.” I think one of the main reasons for their recent defeats has been abandoning conservative principles.
The Republicans will start winning again when they return to the party of limited government, low taxes and pro life. After all the two biggest electoral landslides where by President Reagan and he sure was a conservative.
Posted by: Joanne at May 15, 2009 3:42 PM
I totally agree. I really can’t understand Michael Steele. What is he thinking? Even my Rep. (Judy Biggert) is a Democrat hiding in Republican clothing. I really can’t stand the woman.
Really I think the only person that can go up against Obama in 2012 is Newt. He’s so good and he will call out Obama on all his “facts.” McCain either didn’t know when Obama was shoveling s&*# or was too polite to say anything. Newt will have no problem telling him he’s wrong and why.
Jeez, Reality. Your polls are BORING and do not support our views. Therefore they are completely irrelevant.
Also, the opinions of Kristen and four of her friends far outweigh the results generated from a survey of thousands.
DUH!
Supporting limited government includes being pro-choice. By being “pro-life” you are for expanding government into medical decisions. Read Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater if you really want to understand conservative principles.
Really I think the only person that can go up against Obama in 2012 is Newt. He’s so good and he will call out Obama on all his “facts.” McCain either didn’t know when Obama was shoveling s&*# or was too polite to say anything. Newt will have no problem telling him he’s wrong and why.
Posted by: Kristen at May 15, 2009 3:55 PM
Newt is a strong conservative but his past personal life may come back to haunt him.
What about Jim DeMint or Tom Coburn? They are two solid conservatives. And Bobby Jindal. I think the Republicans need new leadership.
Supporting limited government includes being pro-choice. By being “pro-life” you are for expanding government into medical decisions. Read Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater if you really want to understand conservative principles.
Posted by: Kate at May 15, 2009 4:46 PM
Does the government have the right to make laws against bank robbery, rape and drug smuggling? I think everyone will agree they do. So therefore they have the same right to make laws protecting the unborn. It’s not about making “medical decisions” its protecting innocent babies.
Also, the opinions of Kristen and four of her friends far outweigh the results generated from a survey of thousands.
DUH!
Posted by: prolife forevea! at May 15, 2009 4:34 PM
Oh please! I’m simply stating the obvious. That the “Catholics” in these polls are not really Catholics at all. Because ALL orthodox Catholics believe the Church teachings regarding the protection of innocent life. Get it? We’ve only said this a thousand times before.
Joanne –
I used to be in Bobby Jindal’s camp but not so much anymore. He’s too “soft” and I think will let things go so he doesn’t seem confrontational. You might be right about Newt’s personal life but it’s well known so I think the worst damage has been done.
Supporting limited government includes being pro-choice. By being “pro-life” you are for expanding government into medical decisions. Read Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater if you really want to understand conservative principles.
Posted by: Kate at May 15, 2009 4:46 PM
Like the universal “health care” that will input the life expectancy of an older person into a formula and cross check to make sure the bypass surgery is “worth it?” Because that’s what they do. You know if you’re 60 and need a bypass they might just say you’re too old so sorry, you’re out of luck.
And that stage 2b lymphoma for the 55 year old. Chemo? No dice, but we’ll pay for the assisted suicide!
I think Palin or Huckabee would make a great president.
In general, the party I identify most with is the libertarians. But I do think that there is justification in the government disallowing abortion, because it is murder.
Just like there is justification in the government disallowing “private” child abuse, spousal abuse, honor killings, and rape.
I think if Obama sets up universal health care, it will take a libertarian to undo it. Republicans say they won’t make government bigger, but they aren’t willing to do what it takes to make it smaller.
And if universal health care passes, the libertarians will start looking pro-life. Because they will say that seniors should be able to get medical care, that parents should be allowed to give birth to disabled children rather than aborting them, that people who have problems maintaining pregnancy should be allowed to use drugs that could save the lives of their unborn children even if they already have a child or two–or ten, that medical care should be available for women who conceive more than two children at once and don’t want to kill any.
Universal health care under Obama will not be pro-life. And the best that Republicans could offer once it’s in place is making it more pro-life, to be made pro-death again each time liberals rise to power again.
Supporting limited government includes being pro-choice. By being “pro-life” you are for expanding government into medical decisions. Read Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater if you really want to understand conservative principles.
Posted by: Kate at May 15, 2009 4:46 PM
Abortion is not a medical decision. Abortion is a risk factor for death and disease. Pregnancy is a normal condition that correlates to better health whereas abortion correlates to poorer health.
Two large population studies that included the populations of California and Finland found that women who have ever given birth have better overall health than women who have ever had an abortion. The greatest difference is between women who have had abortion/s but no children, and women who have given birth but never had an abortion.
These studies were not statistical samples. They included the entire population; millions of people.
One thing that somehow I haven’t seen mentioned with these two surveys:
Everyone is focusing on the forty-to-fifty percent who are more pro-life, or the forty-to-fifty percent who are more pro-choice.
But 20 or 30 percent think it should be mostly legal, and 20 or 30 percent think it should be mostly illegal, while just over 20 percent think it should be always illegal, and around the same amount think it should be always legal.
That’s right– the law does not represent the “vast majority” of Americans who formerly thought that abortion should be legal in most circumstances.
It represents less than a quarter of Americans who think it should always be illegal. In the ninth month. For gender selection. For mommy’s figure. By tearing, by poison, by dismemberment, by the collapsing of skulls.
The law doesn’t represent Americans who are squeamish about killing babies but even more squeamish about telling women not to kill their babies, those who think that if it’s still early on, yeah, maybe it’s better to let the baby get sucked through a tube with a sharp edge into a bloody tangle of tissue.
The law represents those who say there should never be any restrictions on anyone aborting at any time, who can look at a picture of a child killed at 24 weeks and say “That’s not a baby, that’s a fetus,” people who think that the most merciful thing a large family can do is to kill one of its children. People who are okay with accepting money from the Ku Klux Klan to abort black children. People who think that sex offenders, legally troubled malpractitioners, and disgustingly dirty and bloody facilities are a small price to pay so long as a woman can kill her sons and daughters in privacy–never mind what she thinks afterwards.
Because the truth is that most Americans have always thought that there should be limits on abortions, but that is not the case. You could make the case that the law represented common opinion if abortions were okay for three or six months, if it said that it was okay for disabled children and children whose fathers were criminals but not just because Daddy wants a son but not more than two kids, if the law said that abortion required a demonstrable reason (economic or “health”) however flimsy. But unlimited abortion on demand throughout pregnancy has never been what the American people wanted.