Abortion Poll Surprises

Heard this mentioned on Laura Ingraham tonight and decided to source it out and see how it holds up: The surprises cut both ways.

via Spero News:

Majority of Americans favor reversal of Roe v Wade
According to the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a new poll shows that educating voters on Roe v Wade brings about a substantial change in their opinions about abortion.

What first surprised me was this: without providing any information, only 39% of those polled in Red States supported overturning Roe. Huh? Fifty percent (in Red States) were against overturning Roe with ten percent don't know, or refused to answer. In that sense, the poll most likely shows that many who are Pro-Life aren't strict ideologues on the issue. They likely have a more nuanced position. See, here's the rub.

Based on the poll, even Red State responders support abortion when it actually threatens the life or health of the Mother, the fetus is the result of rape or incest, or is seriously mentally or physically deformed. Big but here.

As it stands, Roe permits unrestricted abortion. Abortions based upon the criteria listed below are currently legal. But even Blue States polled showed a majority of those polled did not support legalized abortion under these circumstances. The only exception being the last: mental health of the Mother. In that case, the Blue State number was only 43% opposed. If the demographics of the poll are sound, when you include both Red and Blue States, the majority of people believe abortion should be illegal under the following circumstances - which Roe allows for.

The woman does not like the gender of the fetus

The woman thinks a child would interfere with her education or career plans

The fetus has a physical abnormality that could be repaired, such as a cleft palate

The woman feels she cannot afford to raise a child

The woman has all the children she wants

The woman feels she is not yet ready to raise a child

The woman is not married

The pregnancy could cause depression or pose other mental health problems

An article with pdf of poll and analysis at The Judicial Confirmation network. Also a pdf of poll here

Comments

[nowingker]

There is nothing surprising here at all. Abortion polls are always dependent on how the question is asked.

Do you think the government should be able to force a woman to have a child she doens't want?

Overwhelming majority answers no.

Do you approve of abortion on demand, allowing women to have abortions due to the sex of the child or because a baby would be inconvenient?

Majority answers no.

Views on abortion in America have changed little in 30 years.

If Roe is overturned abortion will be made illegal in Red States and legal in Blue States with a few exceptions here and there.

[southdakotaboy]

Most people in this country want abortion to be an option but not a get out of jail free card. With all the birth control education that is being taught in our schools and that is freely avalible to the general population it is very hard to justify it as a methode of birth control. That being said, it is important that we do not go back to the bad old days of back alley abortions.
I would add to this list the idea of genetic reasons. It is important that we outlaw abortion on the grounds of wanting to genetically control the population. This would be aimed more at the government then average citizens, but would include them also.

[nowingker]

I agree with the caveat that the SAME people who want to outlaw abortion are also against emergency contraception, sex education that includes information about contraception, government funding for contraceptives for poor women and giving oral contraceptives to teenage girls.

My biggest beef with the 'pro life' crowd is that I don't think they are 'pro life' at all but anti sex. They seek to make abortion illegal to punish women who have sex, the theory being that if 'you play you pay'.

If the pro life groups really cared about preventing abortion they would be on board with sex education and free contraceptives for everyone. Instead, they want to teach that sex outside of marriage is bad and restrict access to information and contraceptives.

[templar knight]

nowingker, has anybody ever told you that you are full of shit? Well, just in case, you're full of shit. And so is your theory. I have little doubt that some Christians might think that way, but the vast majority don't. Boy, you need to get out of Massachusetts once in a while. And I don't mean just to go to New York.

[Zifnab]

"If Roe is overturned abortion will be made illegal in Red States and legal in Blue States with a few exceptions here and there."

The really messy part will occur when you start asking whether Red Staters can visit a Blue State for an abortion. I imagine that in Red/Blue border states you'll see clinics lining up on one side of the state line, Red Staters trying to pass laws that limit a pregnant woman's right to travel, people calling for extradition against out-of-state doctors for murder or for in-state women for attempted murder. It will be an absolute legal nightmare.

"With all the birth control education that is being taught in our schools and that is freely avalible to the general population it is very hard to justify it as a methode of birth control."

That's the kicker, though, isn't it? The Bush Administration and the Right have been very fierce in promoting "Abstience ONLY Education", because telling kids anything about condoms other than "they'll break and fail" will only encourge the little tikes to start humping like rabbits. I learned about contraception from my parents. I learned about 80 different STDs I was absolutely sure to catch if I took my pants off near a girl from my school's sex education class. They spent twenty minutes on a herpes slide-show and about thirty seconds on the pill - long enough to say, "it doesn't always work".

Handing out birth control in schools or hospitals is equally frowned upon and discouraged at every opportunity. Just look at how the brewhaha over Plan B has spilled over. Women getting turned away from multiple hospitals because no doctor will over the emergency pill. Viagra gets picked up by Medicare, but contraception does not. Teachers have been fired for showing how to use condoms in class. The entire system is a complete joke. But feel free to "blame the victim" on this. Yeah, its just cause those stupid girls didn't have smarter sex.

[nowingker]

Its just another example of winger lies and denial of reality.

The Bush gov. has given millions to abstinance only education that exaggerate the rate of condom failure and tell kids abortion causes breast cancer and have been proven in study after study to be ineffective.

The Bush gov. delayed approval of Plan B, despite overwhelming evidence it is safe and went against the FDA's own advisory panel recommendations, ya know, because Plan B will cause promiscuity among 12 year olds.

The Bush gov. is widely criticized for refusing to fund third world anti poverty programs that involve anything to do with contraceptives or abortion.

There is a new movement under way to 'protect' the rights of hospitals and pharmacists from dispensing Plan B and even regular birth control pills to women, including rape victims.

But, yeah, I'm the one whose full of shit about the pro life movement being anti sex. Typical, typical, typical.

[DANEgerus]

[ Not to come off like a 'I support abortion butt-head', I do tolerate the concept of 1st trimester abortion. ]

But...

So a woman and her child go off a bridge into a river... wouldn't your gut reaction to the rescue be negative if the woman survived and the child didn't?

The sum total of all the circumstances in America last year where an abortion saved the mother's life? Zero. Why? Have you heard of a C-section? Wouldn't that contribute just as much to elimination of that risk to the mother's life?

Why do we spend billions a year on saving premature births?

Because on a gut level we all understand that a child is a person at some point prior to actual delivery.

So the whole 'exception for the health of the mother' is just a dodge so that a doctor can grant dispensation for a late term abortion and terminate the child in the 3rd trimester.

A child that could be delivered safely, and survive, at zero risk to the mother.

But even if it was... when you dive into the water to rescue the car's occupants... don't you save the baby first?

[southdakotaboy]

First of abstinance is the safest form of birth control, if your not having sex you can't catch sexually transmited diseases. Now I don't know where you went to school, but even out here in South Dakota in the heart of Red Fly Over country we have sex ed classes in school and you get some rather graphic content.
Now as far as Red States passing laws that forbid women from traveling, I can't help thinking Zifnab that you are being just abit hysterical. I know that there are laws about this for minors and that is because they are minors deemed unable to make these kind of decisions without their parents. It would be impossible for any state to stop adults from moving to another state.

[seekeronos]

Here is my work around:

Schools should teach general morality (for a public/secular private school, this is without respect to any particular religion, but rather, genernal principles of interpersonal conduct for the good of fostering a positive sense of community).

As such, teaching abstinence in a secular setting may seem to be in the realm of being "fuddy-duddy", but teaching it as a superior and obviously the most safe form of preventing unwanted pregancy and transmision of STDs seems wise.

But, on the other hand, while teaching abstinence as the primary, the secondary should also include instruction in the availability of conctraceptives/STD barriers for kids who are more than likely to start exploring their sexuality as the hormones get flowing. Rather than becoming distribution points for the contraceptives, I'd be more comfortable with the schools providing coupons or vouchers for contraceptives at the local pharmacy, rather than having the schools incur a financial burden (and thus, opening up that additional level of fiscal and political scrutiny thru the school boards, along with the requisite "holy war" amongst conservative and liberal and religious and irreligious parents) by distributing the stuff themselves.

Although I'd just as soon see classes (if not entire schools) segregated by sex (i.e. boys classes and girls classes) after 6th grade... this would help defeat the hormone gap as it would create much less of a distraction of budding sex issues in the classroom. And throw in mandatory dress codes (modified business casual) or outright school uniforms to reduce that "prostitot" problem of parents not knowing how to teach their kids to dress properly.

[nowingker]

Yeah, abstinance is the safest form of birth control, its bad to drink too much and recreational drugs are dangerous and risky. "Just say no" doesn't work. It's stupid. EVERYONE knows if you don't have sex no one gets pregnant, if you never take a drink you can never become an alcoholic and if you don't do drugs you wont' become an addict or get arrested. It isn't effective, millions still do all these things.

Out in the real world, teenagers are going to have sex, drink and many will try recreational drugs. How about we give them some tools to deal with these decisions, resisting peer pressure as well as information to keep them safe and minimize the harm???

[salvage]

Women only need one reason to have an abortion; they want to.

No one else's business.

[seekeronos]

"Women only need one reason to have an abortion; they want to."

Uh-huh.

And how about its corollary:

"I need only one reason to slay stupid people; because I want to".

But why is it cool for a woman to murder her unborn child on a whim, and for me not to cave in some idiot's skull with a baseball bat for taking my parking spot?

Oh wait. The law forbids murder. Duh.

Too bad that little fetus doesn't have any say about it, before he is surgically ripped from limb to limb and cruelly suctioned out of his mother's womb with a vaccuum... "just because Momma didn't feel like being saddled down with a rugrat".

I could possibly excuse it in the case of rape and incest, where it is forced upon her by circumstances beyond her control; but simply as a matter of "personal convenience"?

That is the woman's fault for being too easily convinced to lay down, the man's fault for not keeping his member under control, and society's fault for allowing such a climate of sexual permissiveness to prosper and wink at sin; it is not the child's fault, nor is murdering a child for the indiscretions of the parents just.

It is sin.

[Zifnab]

"The sum total of all the circumstances in America last year where an abortion saved the mother's life? Zero. Why? Have you heard of a C-section? Wouldn't that contribute just as much to elimination of that risk to the mother's life?"

No. Not if the child is not ready to be born. If the woman suffers a serious infection in the second trimester, then you can't save her and the child. She either continues the pregnancy until the child is born and deals with the infection then or she aborts the baby and treats the problem. A C-section would be just as lethal for the child at this stage as a partial birth abortion.

And what of a child with a congenital heart defect? Or a child born a quadraplegic? Or serious brain damage? How is a single mother working on a $25k/year salary supposed to support a child who requires hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses in the first few years of life alone? Who foots that bill? Or do we just bring the child into the world and leave it to take care of itself?

If you knew a mother was going to dump her child in a dumpster the day after it was born, would you support the pregnancy?

"Why do we spend billions a year on saving premature births?"

You should ask then-Governor Bush who helped pass laws that could take babies off of life support.

"Under Texas law, Children's has the right to withdraw life support if medical experts deem it medically inappropriate."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/25/baby.emilio/index.html

If every woman in America had free healthcare for herself and her child, mandatory time off from work to care for it in the first few months, and the garantee of a roof over the new family's head, you are absolutely right. There would be no excuse for abortions-of-convience. However, if laws on the books dictate that a child can be effectively executed by the state when it becomes too expensive to keep alive, why does this choice become the providence of state legislators but not mothers? If a mother can be turned out of the hospital and on to the street or the child kicked from the nursery to the foster system because the mother can't raise it, who are you benefiting by outlawing abortion?

The truth is that unwanted pregnancies don't magically turn into loved children. If a mother doesn't want to give birth, its that much more unlikely that the child will be raised in a healthy household. You are, in effect, raising a class of people who are that much more likely to become criminals, to steal and rape and kill to get what they want, because they have no other way to provide for themselves. Ultimately, you raise a class of people who will spend most of their lives in jail or on death row. What a disgusting way to run a society.

[seekeronos]

"Out in the real world, teenagers are going to have sex, drink and many will try recreational drugs. How about we give them some tools to deal with these decisions, resisting peer pressure as well as information to keep them safe and minimize the harm???"

Is "nowingKer" a new sockpuppet, or is there some other compelling reason you've added the "k", nowinger?

Anyway, you're right. Kids (teens) will certainly experiment with sex, drugs, drink, and rock-n-roll. Having been one myself some untold centuries ago, I know this. As do several acquaintenances of mine from those years gone by, who did make mistakes, and now have children as a result of those mistakes, who are nearing their late teens even now.

However, I don't think you correctly read my post, or perhaps I did not adequately represent my thoughts.

In short: Teach abstinence (sex) and temperance (alcohol/drugs) as the higher choice, and then teach the consequences of sexual activity and drug abuse. And finally, in the interests of preventing unwanted pregnancies and spread of STDs, provide coupons or vouchers for contraceptives at local pharmacies.

I am certain that some pharmacies/drugstores/C-store chains would love the tax-write off for the sale or redemption of vouchers for contraceptives, and would be willing to participate in such a program with local Jr/Sr high shcools.

I'll go a step further, and suggest that the schools have a sex ed class that the parent can sit in on with their kids, so as to give the parents a chance to learn and explain to thier kids about "the birds and the bees", with qualified instructors playing an advisory role.

After all, why should my kids have to learn about it from a lesbian gym teacher with bananas and condom-rolling practice, when they should learn first from Mom and Dad?

[seekeronos]

"No. Not if the child is not ready to be born. If the woman suffers a serious infection in the second trimester, then you can't save her and the child. She either continues the pregnancy until the child is born and deals with the infection then or she aborts the baby and treats the problem. A C-section would be just as lethal for the child at this stage as a partial birth abortion."

There have been children extracted by C-section, or induced pregnancies, as young as 24 weeks who have lived to grow into children on a par with what would be normal limits of growth for thier age had they been carried fully to term.

Science and medical care in the USA are able to save a great deal many more lives of both mothers and infants than ever before.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...And what of a child with a congenital heart defect? Or a child born a quadraplegic? Or serious brain damage? How is a single mother working on a $25k/year salary supposed to support a child who requires hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses in the first few years of life alone? Who foots that bill? Or do we just bring the child into the world and leave it to take care of itself?

If you knew a mother was going to dump her child in a dumpster the day after it was born, would you support the pregnancy?"

Honestly, this is an extremely hard question, and for me, one that would call for very heavy consideration in terms of the interests of both mother and child.

The tests for me are:

1). How much say does (will) the state have in making this determination? Will the state enforce an abortion if certain medical or financial criteria/means tests are/are not met?

2). Does the mother want her child to live?

3). Is it realistic or merciful to bring this child into a probably short life of pain and misery (especially if there is no cure or hope of a feasbile "quality of life" improvement available) ?

4). Are there paths toward funding medical expenses in place that could meet an obvious shortfall in an indigent mother/family's ability to raise a disabled child ? Again, tread lightly here: many calls were made both in this country as well as in Nazi Germany in the early part of the 20th century for state-selected eugenics to "reduce the burden of healthcare on the state".

[nowingker]

Seek, for a religious nut job sometimes you make a lot of sense. I also agree w/you about uniforms and same sex education for kids at least in high school. Plenty of studies show that both sexes do better academically when separated. I am for uniforms because it promotes a certain equality and prevents distractions about clothing, girls especially spending all their time on their outfits instead of doing homework. Its very sad that parents appear unable to dress their children appropriately, however I can't condone giving this job to the government on that basis.

Anybody feel like defending Alberto "I now know I met with the president" Gonzales today????

Or did John Ashcroft morph into a liberal, terror living quasi Democrat overnight?
Just askin.

[nowingker]

On the abortion issue, I simply can't equate a first trimester fetus with a woman.

If the fetus cannot exist outside the mother's womb, then it isn't a separate 'life' deserving of the same protections as the mother.

This idea that the fertilized egg is the same as a baby and the mother and is a "life" just like an 8 month old fetus or the mother and deserves the same protections as the mother is insane and ridiculous on so many levels it isn't worth debating. In my opinion.

Abortions prior to fetal viability are the mother's purview. If you want an abortion after fetal viability you need a damn good reason such as fetal abnormality or mental defect in the mother.

[Zifnab]

'1). How much say does (will) the state have in making this determination? Will the state enforce an abortion if certain medical or financial criteria/means tests are/are not met?'

Preferably none. The Pro-Choice movement is about choice for the mother, not the state. The state should be a facilitator, not a mandator. It should provide the option of care up to the level it deems sufficent and then allow the mother to decide with the state sponsored care plus the care whether she herself can provide would be enough to raise the child.

'4). Are there paths toward funding medical expenses in place that could meet an obvious shortfall in an indigent mother/family's ability to raise a disabled child ? Again, tread lightly here: many calls were made both in this country as well as in Nazi Germany in the early part of the 20th century for state-selected eugenics to "reduce the burden of healthcare on the state".'

Godwin!
Seriously, though, while eugenics is a grizzly idea we need to come to terms with the fact that no one lives forever and death is an issue we need to address with eyes wide open. Germany got off on the wrong track when they decided to stop facilitating your decisions and start making them for you. This is the same mistake that Republicans are intent on making. Nazi eugenics was about the state deciding who dies. Republican Shavio-ism is about the state deciding who lives. Democratic universal healthcare and pro-choice position is about offering the family the most fexibility in making the best possible decision on their own.

[BARRASSO]

Abortion should be legal because a fetus is an intruding squater, you have the right to kill an intruder into your home, you have the right to kill an intruder into your body. If you used birth control those sperm were acting against your wishes therefore you can forcibly eject them.

All of my adult friends who have children had them conceived while using birth control of various types, another argument for it.

I don't get christians who object so much, god if he existed wouldn't be as stupid as you all assume, if that fetus had a soul he would give it another go on the earthly plane. God would give them a do-over it's in the bible Mulligans 3-16

[seekeronos]

Oh my.

A fetus is an "intruding squatter"?

And when was the last time a fetus tried crawling up into YOUR uterus, Barasso?

And sperm for that matter.... the woman's body usually does an effective job of killing sperm even without spermicidal chemicals, if those wittle spermies can't find that egg inside of about 48 hours.

As for the disposition of a murdered baby's soul... I cannot offer any sound scriptural answer at the moment, but I believe that such souls are returned to God. The best I could say is the case of 2 Samuel 12, where the prophet Nathan told King David that the baby conceived by his adulterous union with Bathsheba (the wife of Uriah the Hittite) would die as a result of David's sins. Yet Nathan also prophesied that David would see his dead son in the resurrection.

Still doesn't excuse the murder of the body though.

Concerning the state and its role in the matter, I think a laissez-faire approach is best. Take Roe v. Wade away, and let each state decide for itself.

Concerning health care, as far as I can tell, it seems to work well enough, unless you want to take an already existing health care service like the VA and expand it to the general un/under-insured public. But for those of us whose employers participate in competetive health care plans, let us be.

Any public health care program should be means-tested, and have certain limits of service to avoid seriously wrecking the existing health-care industry.

[southdakotaboy]

Zifnab brings up the idea of eugenics and I touched on it briefly earlier. That is what should really scare people about this whole abortion debate. We have scientists who are rapidly making headway in mapping the complete human genome. Once they have figured that out people are going to start wanting to do several different things first they will want to tailor make their babies and their second choice if they can't have the first will be to get rid of any abnormal babies. That should scare the living crap out of the gay community.
I know that is a rather harsh statement but we all know that if there was a test to determine if the baby was going to be gay there would be a large jump in the numbers of abortions and a corresponding drop in the population of the gay community.

[templar knight]

Damn, I hate having to comment along with idiot liberal teenagers. Are any of you liberals over 17 years old? Crap.

[Zifnab]

"That should scare the living crap out of the gay community.
I know that is a rather harsh statement but we all know that if there was a test to determine if the baby was going to be gay there would be a large jump in the numbers of abortions and a corresponding drop in the population of the gay community."

There's a flaw in that arguement. The people who are most violently against homosexuality are also the people most violently against abortion. A hippie-liberal-recreational-abortionist with child who found out her kid was gay would be far less likely to want to abort it than a baptist preacher's daughter. However, the preacher's daughter would be far less likely to actually seek an abortion.

So, assuming pro-life won out over anti-gay, in the worst cause senario you would just see a disproportionate number of gay babies spilling out of the Christian community. In the best cause, absolutely nothing would change.

[Phoenix]

"However, the preacher's daughter would be far less likely to actually seek an abortion."

Don't bet on this, Zif. The chances are huge that the preacher's daughter would get an abortion. Look at what's at stake.

SDB brings up a good point. I'll take it on a personal point of view because I don't challenge anyone on this issue. If I found that the fetus I was carrying was mentally retarded and physically impaired to the extent he needed 24 hour care, the very first thought in my mind would be: Who will care for him when I'm gone? It would kill me to think of him stuck in a ward of a mental hospital for the rest of his life. That's not life.

Anyway, none of the what-if's matter because women will continue to get abortions no matter what.

[BARRASSO]

Well if gay children were aborted by straight parents, I would think that gay parents would select for gay children to make up for it.

[southdakotaboy]

Well Zifnab considering the large majority of people in the US are apathetic about the whole abortion issue your either or arguement kind of falls flat. Yes the two would tend to balance out , but that vast middle part would more than likely shift towards abortion hence the sharp but not total decline in the gay population.
Barrasso you idea also just doesn't hold water because while heterosexual couples can have babies "easily" a homosexual couple faces a much harder time of it. They either have to find a surrogate mother or be artifically inseminated. Both of these cost a large amount of money to be added on top of the normal costs of having a baby.
Once you take both of those into account you will see that the best the gay community could hope for would be to hold at its current rate. Most likely the numbers would go down steadily.

[southdakotaboy]

Still Zifnab the numbers of gay births would go way down because the statistical odds of having a gay birth will not change. The overall numbers of parents will still go down and the population of homosexuals will decline sharply.

[DAS]

Its time that church and state are separate. The government has no role in deciding who can or can not have an abortion. A male can get a female pregnant, then simply walk away. He does not have to go through the physical changes of a pregnancy or psychological trauma of an abortion. He can just walk away. It will never be in his medical records. Where as a woman has to acknowledge it for life. He can just walk away. I think it would be a sad day in the USA, should the Supreme Court reverse Roe vs. Wade. And talking about that court, when are we going to demand 50% males to women? Its crazy to think that an unbalanced court- with only one woman representative- has the power to take away the womans rights regarding her own body???????????? If a woman could rape a man, and get him pregnant against his wishes, then things would be quite different!

[seekeronos]

Now all this becomes moot, ya know... if it turns out that gayness is simply a sin condition that exists in each person - some folks stumble into it, others are "recruited", and still others actively identify with it from an early age.

Or, if it is completely environment and/or experience driven, and not genetic at all.

And I still say let the states have the final say within their jurisdictions about abortion. This does not belong on the federal agenda.

[innobaby]

i think the government is not thinking well because how could they allow 12 yrs girls to do an abortion without their parent's concern this thing it could kill a lot of teenagers .why do they have sex at the first place because they are not ready to face the challenge of being a mother and they should use the condoms and a woman should be responsible for her mistakes not to make abortion because even her parents didnt abort her so why cant they give an innocent child a chance to live because they are gift from god and other people are struggling to get children