Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans Now "Pro Life"
A few weeks ago I posted about a surprising Pew Poll that reported a dramatic shift toward the pro life position on abortion in the last year. Now the respected Gallup Poll has reported similar findings and discovered that for the first time, a majority of people identify themselves as "pro life." From the poll:
A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.Deeper in the poll, we find that 53% believe abortion should be legal in "some" circumstances, while 23% say it should never be legal and 22% believe it always should be legal. The "some" circumstances would, of course, include for the life of the mother, as well as rape and incest, so I am not sure how to evaluate that.
The new results, obtained from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.
As I looked through the poll, it seems the conservative views have moved more towards pro life--up 5 points from 66 to 71% in the last year--as well as "moderates"--up a whopping 7 percent, from 38-45% toward the pro life view.
Why has this happened at a time when the newly elected government would appear to fall into the abortion should be legal in all circumstances camp? For one thing, abortion did not drive the election. But more to the point, the extreme (to use Gallup's term) views on abortion of those now in charge may be the reason for the shift that clearly seems to have taken place. People understand that abortion is an important moral issue, and they push against those who see it as akin to an appendectomy. However, I also think that if the government were conservative and trying to eliminate all abortion rights, you might see the same dramatic shift in attitudes from the other direction.
The important question is what this means, if anything: With two respected polls showing a distinct move in the pro life direction, I think the government will try to keep the matter as a low priority concern among voters. If I am right, look for the Freedom of Choice Act--which would eliminate all state and federal restrictions on abortion--to remain moribund, at least until after the 2010 midterm elections. On the state level, where most pro life battles are fought, pro life political activists may have an opportunity in many states to further their cause--but they should also be careful not to overplay their hand.
Labels: Abortion. Pro Life versus Pro Choice. Majority Pro Life.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 7:26 AM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
The problem is that many pro-choice advocates use the "hard cases" of abortion - rape, incest, the mother's life - as the things they are pushing for.
The reality is that most abortions have nothing to do with the "hard cases."
I've checked out several web sources for the reasons for abortion. I'm not too thrilled with the numbers given for 2007 and 2008 - the numbers seem to fluxuate too much for me and I don't want to quote them. However, after checking the numbers on different sites, I'm pretty comfortable with the numbers obtained from 2005. Here then, as of 2005, are the numbers for abortions in the United States:
0.3% of abortions were due to rape.
0.3% of abortions were due to incest.
0.2% of abortions were performed to preserve the physical life of the mother (i.e. the birth would kill her).
1.0% of abortions were for the physical health of the mother (i.e. the birth *might* kill her but *would* put her life and health at risk).
0.5% of abortions were due to fetal health.
98% of abortions were due to "personal choice."
-- 32% were "too young, immature, or not ready for the responsibility of a baby."
-- 30% were economic.
-- 16% were "to avoid adjusting life"
-- 12-13% were because the mother was single or in a poor relationship.
-- 4-8% of mothers said they had enough children already.
-- <0.1% were for sex selection.
Source: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
There's another category in there, "mental health of the mother," but according to the chart the numbers depended on the definition. Here's what the article said about mental health:
'Quantifying cases involving the "mental health" of the mother is difficult due to the highly subjective use of this term (as demonstrated by the wide range in percentage of abortions reported for this reason). It is likely that the number of cases involving clinical mental illness falls towards the low end of the range given above.'
And this is the last paragraph of my source article:
'These official state statistics suggest that the commonly cited AGI figures for the "hard cases" are high, perhaps by a factor of three. In any case, however, there appears to be consensus that the hard cases--rape, incest, life/health of mother or baby--are a very small fraction of cases. They are arguably a poor premise for formulating general public policy regarding abortion. At the other extreme, AGI's surveys of 1987 and 2004 ... suggest that a significant fraction of abortions are obtained by mothers who have the means to care for a child but do not want their lives inconvenienced. This is an example of the consequences of the current extreme policy in the United States regarding abortion.'
As I said, I don't have more stable numbers for 2007 and 2008, since (unfortunately) most of the websites that I've found are still current and are political in one direction or another.
However, I did a comparison of 2004 numbers to 1987 numbers (I like this article because it has several different charts of different states and during different years for a good comparison, hence the reason I picked it to quote from) and the numbers don't seem to be all that different. The majority of abortions (90% in 1987) are still for "personal choice" reasons and the "hard cases" are still the minority.
We're basing our public policy off of the "hard cases," when the reality is that women are aborting because they don't want to give up their personal freedoms for a baby.
Women are being told that they're never going to succeed if they have children - pregnant mothers are told they'll fail at college, that they won't succeed at business, that they'll always be behind men unless they're totally unburdened.
Likewise, women are being told that we have to be sexually promiscuous in order to be treated like equals. Men have sex whenever they want, the slogan goes, and so should women, without the burdens of a relationship, so that you can always get out if things go badly.
It's a bad setup. Everywhere you go, there are websites talking about sexual liberation, but that "liberation" means giving in to base desires at all times and then avoiding the consequences by taking an easy way out and aborting.
In reality, we women are never going to be equals as long as men look at us and say, "I can have what I want from her when I want it, and if I don't like her, I can get rid of her." But if morality and a woman's pride require a man to look at her as a potential wife, instead of a thing to be used and thrown away, then we don't have these issues half-again as much as we do now.
It's a crass, conspicuous consumption world we live in, and everyone is a disposable tissue.
Bush appointed Chief Roberts who said Roe v. Wade is settled law, especially in light of Casey. Sounds like a pro choice stance to me.
SPECTER: "You went on to say then, 'It's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision, so it has added precedental value.'"
ROBERTS: "I think the initial question for the judge confronting an issue in this area, you don't go straight to the Roe decision. You begin with Casey, which modified the Roe framework and reaffirmed its central holding."
For several years Bush had control of Repub Congress and Judiciary and did nothing significant to overturn abortion.
Bush did little for the Abortion opponents he swindled at the polls by promising to restore "Family Values", in fact I say he set the movement back even further by doing nothing while the window was open in effect by ignoring people who helped bring him into power, check back in 2016.
Wesley, for us pro-life advocates, these numbers aren't suprising at all. Maybe seeing them in Gallup and saying they are pro-life is new, but there's a series of polls going back several years showing that a majority of Americans take one of the three pro-life positions-abortion for no reasons at all, abortions for life of the mother and abortion for rape, incest and the life of the mother. I can't tell you how many times we've had pro-life people tell us they are pro-choice because they support abortion for rape, incest or the life of the mother. I have to tell them that they are pro-life when they oppose 95 percent of all abortions.
This poll shows how stupid the Republicans are and how flawed their instincts are on life issues. Colin Powell and McCain political operatives-who failed miserably and tried to destroy Sarah Palin-there only good asset in the campaign, are storming the country saying that republicans ought to move away from abortion. How do they guys keep getting campaign work? You don't expand your party by telling your most loyal constituency to get lost. This poll is just more egg on the face of these dumb republicans. They've been telling people to moderate and haven't noticed in the last two elections that the more they move away, the more those who care about these things stayed home because there wasn't anything for them. They are too dumb to realize that McCain had his jaw handed to him in FL and CA but social conservatives were winning victories there. Being involved in local republican politics, it's a joke how embarrassed some of these people are by pro-lifers. What's more embarrassing is that they don't realize that if it wasn't for Sarah Palin, who was one of us, they'd have lost by ten more points. If they want pro-lifers to vote for them, they ought to try talking with us. Obama did the talk last campaign. He was lying about his record, but talking to just a few pro-lifers helped him beat McCain soundly. This poll shows he was a lot smarter than the McCainiacs and Colin Powell.
The problem with the non-pro life, right-to-die, pro-assisted suicide bunch is that what they want "for themselves" they want for everyone else too. Oh, don't let me get started; a dear friend who was a great lady but had this version of liberalism as a mental disorder (born into it; her father was a doctor who believed that "no child that isn't wanted should have to be born")just died ("I'm 94 years old; give me some morphine and get it over with"); I remember her attitude toward my mother, a few years older than she who wanted to LIVE. Can't these people all go live somewhere else? Oh, I forgot -- she was going to move to Canada because of the Iraq war. Why don't they all just freaking GO.
I respect what the US is trying to do in Iraq so she wouldn't get much of a welcome from this Canadian. I respect what they are trying to do in protecting us from the suicide vests that were housed in the Mosques and Schools of Iraq. 3500 vests in some of those buildings, ready to be deployed around the world on Saddam's whims.
Back on topic. You are so right about that "I want it, so everyone must be subject to my wants," rhetoric Ian.
I am a pro life person who feels that abortion might need to take place for health issues but never as it is offered today. The other thing that really disturbs me is how the time scale for abortion has been extended to the point where a kids in their first diapers might be executed over the next ten years. The original abortion issue was about having slightly developed fetuses aborted. We are now ready to strangle the worthless pieces of humanity after they leave the womb. Dear God. Please send your Son back before our society becomes more cold and calculating then it has already become.
I would like to hear more of what you think when you say that pro life people "should be careful not to overplay their hand".
I think that wise advice is sorely needed at this point and I would like to hear yours, Wesley.
Hi Julie: Thanks. I tend to give that kind of specific advise in private, and only if asked. But speaking generally, I would suggest that pro lifers continue to pursue policies that help people confront the realities of what is being done--as they see it--and to find areas with which to work with people who disagree about abortion, as has occurred with assisted suicide. One of the great banes of the movement are the stereotypes about it. Those can only be broken by working with people who don't tend to hang out with pro lifers on issues where common ground can be found.
Wesley: I've been saying that pro-lifers and animal rights people should unite on issues where they agree for quite a while.
So Obama says now at Notre Dame that we should reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. At a Catholic university he says, it can be deduced, that birth control should be used more. There's also a problem with "intended" pregnancies -- they are stll part of the "choice" syndrome.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home