Although there have been a series of recent polls suggesting declining support for abortion choice -- see our previous coverage here -- another new poll from CNN comes to an apparently contradictory conclusion:
The 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?The 68 percent level of support for upholding Roe v Wade is the highest of any poll I can find in the
30% Yes, overturn
68% No, not overturn
I've seen some complaints from conservative websites that CNN's poll wording is misleading -- first because they insert the modifier "completely" before before the phrase "overturn its Roe v Wade decision", and secondly because the poll specifies that the decision applies only to the first three months of pregnancy. I'm glad that people are getting in the habit of scrutinizing question wording and undoubtedly it makes some difference. In 2005, for example, Pew Research -- which was using virtually identical question wording -- found that removing the word "completely" decreased support for Roe from 62 percent to 57 percent.
Nevertheless, CNN's question wording is fairly common, having been used by Pew, AP and NBC/WSJ in the past (although not by CNN itself, which used different wording when the last surveyed this question in 2007), and support for Roe has never been quite as high as 68 percent.
The reason this poll may be important is because the meanings of the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are at least somewhat fungible; years of Democrats saying things like "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don't think I have a right to impose my few on the rest of society" (as Vice President Biden has may serve to blur the lines a little bit. Likewise, questions about whether abortion should be legal in all/some/no circumstances may elicit different responses depending on exactly what those circumstances are perceived to be. The Republican have, somewhat smartly, shifted the debate in recent years to so-called 'partial-birth' (late-term) abortions, which overwhelming majorities of Americans oppose. If Americans think of the 'some' category as being represented by partial birth abortions -- as opposed to, say, abortions in the case of rape or incest -- this may alter their responses to pollsters accordingly.
In spite of this poll, I don't think Democrats ought to take for granted that public opinion is etched in stone on the abortion choice issue. That increasing numbers of young people, for instance, are apparently taking a pro-life, but pro-gay marriage position suggests that terms on which this issue was debated among Baby Boomers may not resonate in the same ways with Gen Y'ers, whose opinions may be more malleable.
The more obvious and salient fact, however, as we are about to begin the debate over President Obama's Supreme Court pick, is that support for Roe v Wade has always been higher than support for either the "pro-choice" or the legal abortion positions in the abstract, and remains that way today. Republicans are probably in error if they think they can gain ground with the public by vigorously opposing Obama's Supreme Court pick for this reason.
60 comments
Nice post, hopefully this will get as much airtime as the "pro-choice" Rasmussen poll received.
That increasing numbers of young people, for instance, are apparently taking a pro-life, but pro-gay marriage position suggests that terms on which this issue was debated among Baby Boomers may not resonate in the same ways with Gen Y'ers, whose opinions may be more malleable.text
I'm sure that there are many young people who are in favor of gay marriage and who describe themselves as "pro-life".
However, I doubt if many in this group actually support overturning Roe vs. Wade (with the objective of making a total ban on abortions possible at least locally - that's the only rationale for overturning it).
What the polls seem to be saying is that more people are rejecting the "pro-life" canard. You can be personally against abortion without wishing to impose an inflexible ban on it for the entire population.
It's worth noting that the approval for congressional Republicans has been holding steady at about 10-15% (www.pollingreport.com). The Republican-loving media continues to assume that the Republicans are the default, and any trend that decreases satisfaction with the Democrats necessarily increases support for the Republicans. But we may have reached the point where this is no longer the case.
I think it’s pretty easy to see why the Pew, Gallup and now this CNN poll diverge so widely. I don’t know how Pew asked its questions, but according to one of the commenters here, Gallup asked her if she was a registered voter, then asked one single additional question—“Are you pro-life?” She was not allowed to ask questions to clarify what was being asked of her.
Now CNN comes along with a question that pretty much goes right to the root of the debate—“Do you want to see Roe v Wade kept or overturned?”, a question impossible to misunderstand or misinterpret.
At the very least Gallup, and possibly Pew as well, should be excoriated for their sloppy polling, especially on an issue that is so inflammatory.
Harold said…
“What the polls seem to be saying is that more people are rejecting the "pro-life" canard. You can be personally against abortion without wishing to impose an inflexible ban on it for the entire population.”
You are right on the money. Bullshit polling questions always lead to bullshit poll results.
“The Republican-loving media continues to assume that the Republicans are the default, and any trend that decreases satisfaction with the Democrats necessarily increases support for the Republicans. But we may have reached the point where this is no longer the case.”
Couldn’t have said it better. The MSM has been treating the GOP like the Billy Mumy character on that old Twilight Zone episode where he has extraordinary powers and everyone is afraid of being turned into a Jack-in-the-box (or worse) if he gets pissed. For instance, it is laughably easy to contradict almost everything Dick Cheney stated as fact in his AEI screed/tantrum last week, yet most of the media remain terrified of taking him on.
Readers may be interested to learn atht just *5%* of Canadians oppose abortion under any circumstances. Canadian women have access to the procedure under any circumstan-ces. There is a much smaller protestant "religious right" element in this country. Militant Catholicism is also found less and less here. Religious faith plays a smaller part in matters of public policy here.
I think that is even subject to misinterpretation because there will be some people who oppose Roe v. Wade because of the appearance of increasing federalism while supporting abortion rights at the same time.
The question that we should be asking is, "Do you believe that government should have the final decision-making authority on how and when its citizens should have children?"
One of the things that unifies so many seemingly inconsistent positions of so-called religious conservatives is this specific issue. In virtually every circumstance, religious conservatives have been seeking greater government control ranging from when, what and how we should pray (the National Prayer Day brouhaha), who we can marry (the gay-marriage debate, which is the modern evolution of the interracial-marriage debate of forty years ago) and when and how we can have children. Pat Robertson himself notably supported abortion in the People's Republic of China because he felt it was necessary to secure the political power of the ruling Party as well as maintaining the racial purity of the Han Chinese (the infamous Wolf Blitzer interview in 2001).
For religious conservatives, the so-called pro-life position has never truly been the issue, as has been borne out on so many other related subjects. Rigid, inflexible and absolute government control is and will be their primary goal, just as Republican political theorist George Grant very plainly spelled out back in 1987 when he said, "It is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less. Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ."
Lord Calvert:
This is news to me. Do you remember a little more of how Robertson could possibly justify supporting abortion in China? Anyway, the arguments you paraphrase him as having given are totally ridiculous. But how could he have maintained any credibility whatsoever after making such a bizarre statement? Was it somehow under-reported?
About the federalism argument:
I haven't polled it, but I'm guessing that a pretty small percentage of Americans really care about legal arguments on federalism, unless they're concerned about the actual outcome of a Supreme Court decision or other federal action. I'd be willing to throw out the figure of less than 1%. Do you disagree?
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/18/us/pat-robertson-remarks-on-china-abortions.html
Back in the early 90's I took part in a series of community debates between myself (an activist in a local pro-choice group) and a local evangelical (Orthodox Presbyterian) minister. Both of our groups had recieved many requests from community groups to speak, and we found it easier to jointly organize these debates. The pastor and I debated at sororities, elder housing community rooms, neighborhood centers, high school civics classes, women's clubs, the Rotary and so forth. I think maybe 20 or so debates in all, with a wide range of community groups.
The pastor and I became friendly (today the term would be frenemy, I think) and he often complimented me on my most effective tactic. I would ask members of the audience to raise their hand if they would call themselves pro-life. Then I asked them a question. I would ask:
"Let's say we agree that abortion is morally wrong, okay? But not everything that's morally wrong is illegal. Making something illegal means you want to use the justice system to punish the behavior. So, what should the legal penalty be for abortion? If a 13 year old girl is raped by her father, and has an abortion, how long should she go to jail? If a woman has to choose between having an abortion or having the chemotherapy to treat her cervical cancer, and chooses abortion, how long does she go to jail? We live in a death penalty state. If a college girl gets drunk, gets pregnant and has an abortion of convenience, and you say abortion is murder, should she be executed by lethal injection or the electric chair? How long do we imprison her friend, who introduced her to the abortionist and thereby became an accomplice to murder?"
In all the times we debated, no one gave an answer.
Taking a moral stance against abortion is a very, very different thing from making a law against it. Is anyone aware of any polls asking what the penalty should be?
This is a great article. All polls on sensitive issues should be examined in this way.
However, I wish the professionalism of the writing were matched by equal professionalism in punctuation. In American English, commas and periods go before closing quotations.
@Nate: typo -- "I have a right to impose my few on the rest. . . ."Should be view, not few.
I have felt all along that Rasmussen was using one of his typical tactics to give a rightward slant to his polling on this subject.
I could very well describe myself as pro-life because I do not want there to be any abortions. But that does not mean for one moment that I want abortion to be illegal. I look forward to a day when abortion is safe, fully available, and completely unused since every child will be conceived by two parents who are waiting to love and raise it together. But until that time comes women must retain control over their own bodies including the legal right to terminate early term pregnancies by choice.
I think the recent polling on this subject shows that most Americans, and most members of Gen Y, feel exactly as I do. No one wants abortion, but a vast majority don’t want it to be illegal either.
@Nate:
Another typo: "(as Vice President Biden has" needs a closing parenthesis after "has".
WV: tolkonom : Does Middle-earth have tolkonomics?
Welcome back Nate!
Lord Calvert, the quote from your last paragraph scares me to death.
Nosimpleway, the people that want to make abortion illegal almost always say it is the doctors who should go to jail, not the women who get the abortions.
On a personal level, all but the most fervent end up supporting it when it is someone they know's choice. Both Papa Bush and Quayle said that their daughters should have a choice. That was absolutely something they said without saying. Many anti-abortion people (not all) just want to take away the choices of other women, not the ones in their family.
>the meanings of the terms
>"pro-choice" and "pro-life"
>are at least somewhat fungible;
>years of Democrats saying things
>like "I am personally opposed to
>abortion, but I don't think I have
>a right to impose my few on the
>rest of society"
That's not to mention Meghan McCain's "I personally am pro-life, but I'm not going to judge someone that's pro-choice. It is not my place to judge other people and what they do with their body."
You really can't figure out from this statement what she thinks the law should say. She could mean she personally opposes abortion but doesn't want to see it outlawed, or she could mean she wants to see abortion outlawed but respects those who disagree. It's hard to tell.
A lot of people just don't get that pro-life and pro-choice are public policy positions, not philosophical positions. They aren't about whether you personally approve of abortion (though they may be influenced by that question). They are about whether you think abortion should be legal or not--nothing more, nothing less. Saying "I'm personally pro-life but I don't believe in outlawing abortion" is nonsensical at its core. Yet other people might not see it that way, preferring to interpret a term like "pro-life" the way they want.
This exact same topic was discussed on a different forum recently, and I had an interesting back-and-forth with a poster who said he was "pro-life but understands that other people may feel differently and should the the right to get an abortion."
I told this person that he is the very definition of pro-choice, and he was adamant that he is NOT pro-choice. He was pro-life.
Basically, I think that the recent poll results have shown that the PR effort by the right in which "pro-choice" = "pro-abortion" is working. It's not the attitudes towards abortion that have changed, it's the attitudes towards the words surrounding the debate that have changed.
Nosimplehiway -
I have asked people the same thing a few times.
I was just curious. It's an obvious question. If you say you want it to be illegal, what kind of penalties should there be? Anyone should be able to answer that. There were local laws against abortion on the books in some jurisdictions before Roe vs Wade. That's what the case was about.
One guy once told me that he favored the death penalty for both the woman and the doctor in any case of abortion for any reason whatsoever. Actually, he tried to say that it should be treated "like other cases of homicide" or some such thing, but a few more questions got it out of him. At least he was ultimately honest.
Other than that, all I ever heard was silence.
My belief is that a small subset of "pro-life" protesters are who would love to see the death penalty imposed on women and doctors for every abortion, regardless of the circumstances.
Once upon a time, Republicans were actually less likely to support anti-abortion laws (Senator Prescott Bush of CT was "pro-choice", at least some of the time). The issue was pumped up because "liberals" had taken a clear ethical lead during the civil rights era. The right was scrambling to associate itself with "moral" issues.
Full disclosure - I consider myself "pro-life", and I personally advise against terminating a healthy pregnancy, if someone makes it my business by asking me. However, I completely oppose making abortion illegal.
Along these lines is the very recent (5/20) Gallup poll on moral issues.
36% say (per this polling) that (the undefined term) abortion is morally acceptable. Yet the support for overturning Roe v. Wade is not reflected in these numbers. The public seems quite capable of distinguishing between morality and legislation.
For decades of the Religious Right has been forcing their "values" on the public in the workplace, government, and media. Everyone has seen first-hand that these "Christians" are no less hateful or dishonest than their secular counterparts. They want power in the same way that every other special-interest group does, and "morality" is simply their "marketing angle".
Nate writes that "support for Roe v Wade has always been higher than support for either the 'pro-choice' or the legal abortion positions in the abstract."
This is a curious fact, given the legitimate(?) view that the Court wrongly decided Roe (abortion should not be constitutionally protected), but that abortion should nevertheless be legal (decided by state legislatures).
The reverse seems logically impossible. It doesn't make sense to support the Roe decision but oppose the legality of abortion. And yet a significant number of Americans apparently hold that position.
Presumably the explanation is a surveyed public that (1) doesn't understand Roe or (2) lacks a common definition of "pro-choice".
Off topic, but still relevant to this discussion.
Since the GOOPers are (trying to) drive the discussion surrounding Roe v Wade basically as a political 'talking point' for the electoral benefit of the GOOPers, what happens to this 'discussion' if/when the GOOPers split?
From MSNBC:
Split threatens to rupture Republican ranks
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30916186/
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
DermottTrellis, thanks for posting that New York Times link. It's an almost Through the Looking Glass level of weirdness that Pat Robertson defended _forced_ abortions in China to any degree, and it's amazing that he recaptured any amount of credibility after such a statement. I am strongly pro-choice, but my position is based on the principle that it is barbaric to force a woman either to carry a fetus to term _or abort it_. I daresay, a huge majority of pro-choicers would consider forced abortions repugnant and completely intolerable.
William,
According to Jewish Kosher law, pork, fish without scales, and various other foods are prohibited.
Ask a very observant Jew if they support the eating of pork sausage, and they'll most likely say "No."
Ask that same very observant Jew if they support a law or judicial opinion making the eating of pork by ANYONE, whether observant Jew or not, illegal, and they'll most likely say "No."
Logically impossible?
No.
Did they change their opinion between questions?
No.
They recognize that we live in a diverse geopolitical region of the world, and their personal viewpoint may not be the same viewpoint of others.
As to your statement "given the legitimate(?) view that the Court wrongly decided Roe (abortion should not be constitutionally protected)", that is YOUR opinion, not the court's. On what basis do you aver that Roe was 'wrongly decided'?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Jen, yes, pro-lifers say they only want to punish doctors, but that doesn't make sense, and would not, I believe, last were abortion to become illegal. After all, what if a woman takes Plan B pills or there is developed a technique that allows women to perform abortions on themselves?
As for the wording, think it's valid - after all, it's what pro-lifers say they want, the overturning of Rove v. Wade in its entirety so that the government may restrict abortion at all stages of pregnancy.
Mike in Maryland doesn't distinguish between a law and a judicial opinion. He's confident that, for example, a law banning pork and a court ruling banning pork would be equally unpopular.
They seem to me quite different. Most states have laws, for example, banning or restricting the sale of unpasteurized milk. It's difficult to imagine a judge implementing such a ban.
I've wondered if constitutional reasoning could be a source of common ground in the (unchanging, as FiveThirtyEight.com and others have long noted) abortion debate. Perhaps both pro-choice and pro-life groups could agree that abortions aren't protected by the Constitution, even as they disagree on whether or not abortion should be legal.
Could a politician, or a political party, make hay by opposing Roe, but supporting the legality of some or most abortions? Apparently even here we lack the potential for consensus.
demskycat,
Immediately prior to Roe, an abortion activist perfected a safe non-surgical procedure that requires four inexpensive common items and doesn’t require anesthesia, pointy implements, specialized medical knowledge, or a confirmation of pregnancy. It was and is still a way for women to have control of their own bodies.
Menstrual Extraction is commonly used today in poor countries (inexpensive equipment, no medical professionals required) and in countries where abortion is illegal (it‘s defined as a hygiene practice and it would be arguable whether an incidental abortion occurred or not).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_extraction
William:
As a strong proponent of abortion rights, I nevertheless do see how people can argue that the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade decision - which I think was wise and logical - was unsound. Any time a court makes a judgment based on a balancing test, it is reasonable for people to disagree about the soundness of how they weighted A, B, C, X, Y, and Z.
But here I bring in Obama's point about empathy, as well as the time-honored principle of stare decisis: It is not wise to overrule an arguable decision on Constitutional grounds, if such an overruling would create chaos and widespread suffering to no benefit to the people. So, for example, I think there's a much clearer case that many of the actions by FDR and succeeding Presidents and Congresses should have required a Constitutional amendment to extend Federal power beyond mere _interstate_ commerce. However, I would strongly oppose Supreme Court decisions that would reopen that area of law, which should remain settled in lieu of causing chaos.
William said...Mike in Maryland doesn't distinguish between a law and a judicial opinion. He's confident that, for example, a law banning pork and a court ruling banning pork would be equally unpopular.
Desegregation was an unpopular judicial opinion. Maybe racists and normal people can just come together and agree that segregation is constitutional even as they disagree on whether to make it illegal. That is where your logic goes.
I am sorry, as a woman I have the unequivocal right to determine what goes into and goes out of my vajayjay. It really shouldn't matter whether I live in California or Alabama.
Demsky I am not saying that only punishing the doctors is rational, just that is what a few legal abortion foes have said because they do not want to appear anti woman. Anti-science, however, is totally okay.
The Warren and to some extent Burger Courts regarded the Bill of Rights and post-Civil War amendments something like traditional rabbinic opinion has regarded the Torah - as something to build a fence around, so that those rights cannot be denied via loopholes or inadvertently. That's why decisions like Miranda, Gideon v. Wainwright, Escobedo, Griswold, and Roe were handed down. It's legitimate to hold a less expansive viewpoint about protection of rights, but no-one will get me to share it. And what's sad about the current Court is that at the same time it has severely damaged 4th Amendment rights, it has also enshrined the abuse of eminent domain to confiscate small businesses and transfer them to big corporations. We need more substantive due process civil libertarians on the Court.
William is doing an incrementalism argument.
"Can't we all agree that abortion rights are not Constitutionally protected, but still agree that some or most abortions are legal?"
No, William, I will not agree to that.
Once you and the anti-women's rights crowd get people to agree with you on the issue of Constitutional protection, then you'll start to argue that "Since those are not Constitutionally-protected rights, we'll take a nip here and a nip there, and no one can protest, as what we're doing is not prohibited by the Constitution."
And then the next year, you'll take a nip here and a nip there. And another nip in another place. Within a few years, there will be nothing left, as it's been nipped and nipped and nipped into non-existence.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
@demskycat, (and everybody),
This point should be understood unequivocally: Plan B does NOT induce abortions. It prevents release of the egg if this has not happened already, preventing fertilization after an act of unprotected intercourse. If fertilization has already taken place, then Plan B is ineffective--this is why its effectiveness drops from ~90% if taken within 24 hours, to ~70% if taken at 72 hours, to pretty much useless thereafter.
Conservatives lied about this all the time in trying to keep it from being sold without prescription to 18+ women. (Which lend some force to the argument that anti-abortion conservatives are in it to deny women reproductive freedom). In the end, even the Bush administration's FDA had to admit that Plan B is safe, effective, and not likely to cause an abortion; they then allowed the OTC sales of the product.
Sorry, that's a little off topic--but this misconception is actually somewhat widespread and can be hurtful.
William…
You seem to be making a value judgment between the validity of laws and laws as interpreted by the courts. Your distinction, alas, has no substance, since all laws are subject to review based on their constitutionality.
The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, Roe v Wade, and the laws enacted by the community in which I live regarding when and where I can park my car are all equally valid, and the responsibility of citizens to honor each is not a matter for debate.
I’ll bet that everyone who characterizes Roe v Wade as “judicial activitism” was perfectly content with the outcome in Bush v Gore.
Great point Pragamatus, Bush v Gore was against a basic tenet of the Supreme Court (that they will not make a "political" decision) and thus that decision is much more dangerous to the core principals of the country than anything in Roe.
William is not even understanding basic civics, courts don't make laws they interpret them, thus if you want the law, or even the Constitution, changed you can do it if you just elect enough of the "right" people. It's the system William, and it is not out to "get you" as your Republican handlers want you to think simply so that they can manipulate your fear.
Petronicus said...
This point should be understood unequivocally: Plan B does NOT induce abortions. It prevents release of the egg if this has not happened already, preventing fertilization after an act of unprotected intercourse. If fertilization has already taken place, then Plan B is ineffective--this is why its effectiveness drops from ~90% if taken within 24 hours, to ~70% if taken at 72 hours, to pretty much useless thereafter.
Only partially correct. You are correct in that it does not induce an abortion, but you left out a lot of other information.
From the FDA website explaining the decision to allow Plan B (updated December 14, 2006) (http://www.fda.gov/CDER/DRUG/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm):
4. How does Plan B work?
Plan B works like a birth control pill to prevent pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb), which usually occurs beginning 7 days after release of an egg from the ovary. Plan B will not do anything to a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus. The pregnancy will continue.
IOW, it can, but does not always:
1. prevent the release of an egg; OR
2. prevent an egg from being fertilized; OR
3. prevent an egg that has been released and that has been fertilized from implanting on the wall of the uterus.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
As a pro-life person who believes abortion should be illegal in MOST circumstances, let me answer the questions of some people above:
So, what should the legal penalty be for abortion?I consider the fetus to be the equivalent of a human life. So, the legal penalty for abortion should be the same as the legal penalty for homicide in whichever state it takes place. That might mean a few years, 25 to life, or even the death penalty. That said, I believe the abortionist should bear the brunt of the penalty.
If a 13 year old girl is raped by her father, and has an abortion, how long should she go to jail?See above.
If a woman has to choose between having an abortion or having the chemotherapy to treat her cervical cancer, and chooses abortion, how long does she go to jail?This is where the abortion debate gets interesting. While I believe all humans have the right to life, I also believe all humans have the right to self-defense. If a person is going to kill you, whether intentionally or unintentionally, you should have the legal right to use lethal force to stop that person if it is the only option. She would not go to jail, but she would probably have to defend herself in court.
We live in a death penalty state. If a college girl gets drunk, gets pregnant and has an abortion of convenience, and you say abortion is murder, should she be executed by lethal injection or the electric chair?Lethal injection, of course. The electric chair is just barbaric.
How long do we imprison her friend, who introduced her to the abortionist and thereby became an accomplice to murder?I have no idea how the laws about accessory to murder work, but I assume those would be applicable.
Even though it wasn't really asked, in case it comes up, I do oppose abortions in the event of rape or incest. The right of the human child to life supersedes the right of the mother to be in charge of "what goes in and out of her vajayjay" regardless of the circumstances of the child's creation.
The key to this debate is that true pro-lifers consider the fetus to be a human being with all of the rights we have. The poll question that SHOULD be asked is whether one believes the child's rights or the mother's rights come first. The policy will follow once that question is settled.
I find it ironic that the fundie arsehats that want the government to ban abortion are the same people saying government needs to get out of peoples lives.
theonlysaneone:
Why do you think that the doctor should be punished more harshly than the woman who hired him? Do we punish hired killers or the ones who hired them more harshly under the law? Isn't it common for hired killers to plead to a lesser charge in exchange for testifying against the person who, by hiring them, conspired to commit murder?
Also, on the 13-year-old girl, I suppose you have no compunctions about charging her as if she were an adult. Why? And would your opinion change if she were 9 years old, as was the case recently in Brazil?
Notice that I'm not arguing with your position that those guilty of aborting a fetus should be judged guilty of homicide and punished accordingly. (By the way, if you're going to keep all laws the same except for the proviso that a fetus is considered a "person" under the law, homicide is not a capital crime in any U.S. state. Murder and homicide are treated differently under the law in every state.) That's your position - surely not mine, but it's a clear position. I merely ask you to clarify a couple of significant details, if you so choose.
The problem with theonlysaneone's post is that it is talking in abstracts. Talking about penalties for legal actions should they become illegal seems very difficult to me.
I find it very odd though, and theonlysaneone's post brings this to light, that 'pro-life' on abortion tends to also mean 'pro-death' on the death penalty. As a Catholic I find that a very very hard circle to square.
However I do agree that if Roe v Wade was overturned (which isn't likely to happen in my view), its those administering the abortion that should be punished in most cases.
"Anonymous said...
I find it ironic that the fundie arsehats that want the government to ban abortion are the same people saying government needs to get out of peoples lives."
Ain't that the truth? The crazed righties want small government, except for when they want to interfere in others lives and stop personal choice on such topics as abortion and marriage.
Also, you can add hypocrisy on the Constitution to the list. They want the second Amendment read broadly (essentially ignoring the militia language)while at the same time wanting the Equal Protection clause read narrowly to stop gay marriage, and ignoring the right to privacy, essentially in a random walk.
Thank you very much, the only saneone, for replying. If you don't mind, and I'm sorry if this turns into a deluge from others, but... mind if I ask a few other questions I've often wondered about? (And some get fairly legal. If you're not a lawyer as I'm not, take you best shot at it.)
1. Oral contraceptives work in a way that can cause a fertilized egg from implanting. This is why pharamcists are covered by a conscience clause about dispensing them (a good thing IMHO). Should OCs be illegal? If a woman uses OCs legally what is it? Attempted murder? Reckless endangerment?
2. I am confused on what Pro-Life folks want. Most say in public "overturn Roe v. Wade", which would simply throw it back to the states, sometimes on a state's rights argument. But, then the Republican platform calls for a Human Life Amendment which would extend the 14th Amendment to include fetuses/ unborn babies, thereby banning abortion in all states and territories, even strongly pro-choice ones like New York and California. Which is it? Or is it some combo of the two? And if the first, how should we handle women who cross state lines.
3. If it is the extension of the 14th Amendment, might that not cause an avalanche of frivolous, but legally provocative lawsuits like... can a pregnant woman enter a porno theater? Or should pregnancies and frozen IVF embryos be counted for the census? Or can a pregnant woman legally be held in prison, thereby imprisoning two people, one innocent? Can someone at 17 years and 3 months old vote? Or draw social security nine months earlier? And what counts for citizenship purposes, whether you were born or conceived on US soil? (Yes, yes, mostly silly, but tell me you can't see the courts being clogged with this stuff.)
4. I'm wondering.. what piece of pro-choice rhetoric most annoys you? That is, what seems the most silly, dismissive or just dumb? For me, it's the "unborn baby" tag, especially applied to situations like a frozen IVF embryo or a severely bad (eg anencephlalic) pregnancy. What are your pet peeves in the political rhetoric?
5. The Republican party says it's pro-life. In fact, it trumpets the fact every chance it gets. But after a few decades of an overwhelmingly "pro-life" party platform, how much has actually changed since 1973? When liberals (Dems and some Reps alike) finally decided to deal with civil rights somewhere around 1948, it didn't take decades and decades and decades to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. And, as expected, the Democrats payed for it with the loss of the South in Presidential elections. There seems to be a tangible lack of action on abortion on the part of federal Republicans, except for nibbling at the edges. From the outside, it looks like you're being taken for a ride. Do you ever feel the same way?
Sorry again for so many questions, but it's a rare privilege in our nation's bifurcated public square to get the opportunity to ask any of these questions, and I'm really curious.
Why is Obama calling for common ground when anti-abortionists have denied women access to contraceptives in Mississippi by harassing those who dispense them, are against funding birth control that would give women control over their own bodies, and are for overthrowing a constitutional right that protects all medical decisions? If these are constitutional rights, we must take Federal action to protect them from the actions of a few, just like we did with the rights of blacks. Why doesn't Obama care about the rights of women enough to carry out his campaign promises?
What I love about the term 'activist judge' is that it only applies to judges you disagree with. What evidence is there that say Justice Scalia does not base legal findings on his own political views? Or that say Chief Justice Earl Warren (a Republican, nominated by a Republican President just in case anyone thinks I am making a party political point) viewed the bench as an opportunity to make law? I think its something the right comes up with to assure that a 'far left' justice doesn't get nominated to the bench.
My point being that surely it would take a level of activism to overturn Roe v Wade. And there isn't anything terribly wrong with that. The court is not tied into legal precedent. The Founding Fathers wanted the court to interpret, not just to follow the letter of, the law. The envisioned 'activist' judges.
Watson, why is Pres. Obama calling for common ground? Because abortion is the Great Wedge Issue. If he can neutralize the issue and abortion falls back to the level of background static in the public discourse, then young Evangelicals and Catholics who may otherwise support the Democratic party (on issues like the environment, poverty, healthcare and aid to developing nations) can consider voting Democratic without feeling like they're "murdering babies".
In the ICU room that is the GOP's current environment, talk radio, business, pro-life voters, gun nuts, tin-foil hat wearing anti-government types, Southern-strategy crypto-racists and military voters are the Republican party's life support system, roughly in that order. Remove one of the more publicly palatable parts of that coalition, and the other factions are emboldened, making the GOP look wackier and narrower by the day.
The Dems have already made successful overtures to casual gun owners by softening (or nearly abandoning) their anti-gun stance. And, listen to the arguments for healthcare, very little of the soppy old stories about Little Timmy needing a heart operation. No, healthcare is now framed as a cost that small business and major industry alike can't bear. If Obama can neutralize pro-life voters, say get support from half of them, the Dems get that much stronger.
As an Obama supporter who believes that abortion is wrong, I will take a crack at these:
So, what should the legal penalty be for abortion? I think it should be up to the state. However, if I have to choose, I would say it has to be somewhat prohibitive, maybe a felony with a slightly higher penalty for the one performing it, if it can be proven it isn't the "doctor's" first time. I don't understand how you can be pro-life and want the death penalty for someone who committed abortion, but that's just me.
If a 13 year old girl is raped by her father, and has an abortion, how long should she go to jail? Dad should go to jail, daughter to counseling with probation.
If a woman has to choose between having an abortion or having the chemotherapy to treat her cervical cancer, and chooses abortion, how long does she go to jail? Abortion OK in this scenario as the health of the mother is at stake. Obviously then I am pro-choice...
We live in a death penalty state. If a college girl gets drunk, gets pregnant and has an abortion of convenience, and you say abortion is murder, should she be executed by lethal injection or the electric chair? I don't believe in the death penalty so I would hope that the governor would pardon her. I also don't equate it to murder though I believe it is very wrong! I know you can drive a truck through the holes in that logic, but that is what I believe.
How long do we imprison her friend, who introduced her to the abortionist and thereby became an accomplice to murder?First time, probation. After that, some prohibitive prison time.
Personally, I don't think judges should determine whether abortion is legal. I think every state should have a referendum every X number of years. Same with Death Penalty and Gay Marriage, even though I am very against the Death Penalty and very for Gay Marriage.
I am not particularly fond of "conscience clauses." At the very best, they are a slippery slope.
For example, a virulent racist may well believe that mixed-race marriage, or even sexual contact, is an act of evil. Nevertheless, this does not allow them to (say) refuse to rent a hotel room to a mixed-race couple.
I'd like it if you paused and thought for a moment about how toothless the legislation protecting against racial discrimination would have been if it had "conscience clauses." Remember that racism (and slavery) was justified through theological arguments, as often as not,
"The 68 percent level of support for upholding Roe v Wade is the highest of any poll"
That is a bad assumption.
Read the question again:
"Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?"
The key word, that you are ignoring is 'completely'.
"I’ll bet that everyone who characterizes Roe v Wade as “judicial activitism” was perfectly content with the outcome in Bush v Gore."
Then you would lose that bet.
Roe v. Wade was a poor legal decision.
1. Oral contraceptives work in a way that can cause a fertilized egg from implanting. This is why pharamcists are covered by a conscience clause about dispensing them (a good thing IMHO). Should OCs be illegal? If a woman uses OCs legally what is it? Attempted murder? Reckless endangerment?
It would technically be the same as an abortion, but I honestly can't see a jury ever giving a woman a murder sentence for using birth control pills (and I probably wouldn't myself). A good policy would probably be to ban those pills and make it a crime to import them or use them.
However, in the absence of those pills, some enterprising pharmaceutical company would likely invent an alternative pill that could prevent fertilization or release of the egg but would be safe for a fertilized embryo.
2. I am confused on what Pro-Life folks want. Most say in public "overturn Roe v. Wade", which would simply throw it back to the states, sometimes on a state's rights argument. But, then the Republican platform calls for a Human Life Amendment which would extend the 14th Amendment to include fetuses/ unborn babies, thereby banning abortion in all states and territories, even strongly pro-choice ones like New York and California. Which is it? Or is it some combo of the two? And if the first, how should we handle women who cross state lines.
I would be happiest with a Human Life amendment, but overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing states to pass laws against abortion would be a huge step in the right direction. In that case, I don't think much could be done about people crossing state lines to have abortions.
3. If it is the extension of the 14th Amendment, might that not cause an avalanche of frivolous, but legally provocative lawsuits like... can a pregnant woman enter a porno theater? Or should pregnancies and frozen IVF embryos be counted for the census? Or can a pregnant woman legally be held in prison, thereby imprisoning two people, one innocent? Can someone at 17 years and 3 months old vote? Or draw social security nine months earlier? And what counts for citizenship purposes, whether you were born or conceived on US soil? (Yes, yes, mostly silly, but tell me you can't see the courts being clogged with this stuff.)
It would probably cause some stupid lawsuits, but then again, so do a lot of major laws and even higher court decisions. They would be up to the court to decide. Common sense would probably dictate most of these decisions.
I'm not saying fetuses should be treated as full human beings who can be offended, be counted in the census, held in prison, and everything else we do. I just want our laws to be written with respect for the fetus as the human life it is.
4. I'm wondering.. what piece of pro-choice rhetoric most annoys you? That is, what seems the most silly, dismissive or just dumb? For me, it's the "unborn baby" tag, especially applied to situations like a frozen IVF embryo or a severely bad (eg anencephlalic) pregnancy. What are your pet peeves in the political rhetoric?
I would say the bodily integrity argument is the most annoying one. We tell people what to do with their bodies all the time. When a law is passed against, say, shoplifting, people are being told they are not allowed to use their body to steal from the store.
It's even more annoying when this argument is used to silence pro-life men. I've been told several times that, since I'm not a woman and I'll never be pregnant, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on abortion.
5. The Republican party says it's pro-life. In fact, it trumpets the fact every chance it gets. But after a few decades of an overwhelmingly "pro-life" party platform, how much has actually changed since 1973? When liberals (Dems and some Reps alike) finally decided to deal with civil rights somewhere around 1948, it didn't take decades and decades and decades to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. And, as expected, the Democrats payed for it with the loss of the South in Presidential elections. There seems to be a tangible lack of action on abortion on the part of federal Republicans, except for nibbling at the edges. From the outside, it looks like you're being taken for a ride. Do you ever feel the same way?
Sometimes it does feel that way. I think the biggest sticking point is Roe v. Wade (imagine if Brown v. Board had turned out the other way. The civil rights fight would STILL be going on). The only thing Republicans really can do at this point is to appoint justices to the Supreme and Appellate courts that will uphold the rights of the fetus and hope that a case comes along one day that can overturn Roe v. Wade. George W. Bush's two Supreme Court picks were good.
Sorry again for so many questions, but it's a rare privilege in our nation's bifurcated public square to get the opportunity to ask any of these questions, and I'm really curious.
I'm happy to answer them. Your questions have made me think through issues that previously hadn't occurred to me.
I find it very odd though, and theonlysaneone's post brings this to light, that 'pro-life' on abortion tends to also mean 'pro-death' on the death penalty. As a Catholic I find that a very very hard circle to square.The difference is that the death penalty is a legal punishment for a crime. An unborn fetus is the only human being who can be assured to have not committed any type of crime whatsoever.
@beavis
I agree. Most constitutional scholars believe Roe v. Wade was a poor decision, but that doesn't mean they want to see abortion outlawed. Indeed, at least two of the justices who upheld Roe (O'Connor and Ginsberg) found fault with it. Believing abortion should be legal is not the same as agreeing with the legal reasoning in Roe.
theonlysaneone
Bodily integrity and bodily autonomy don’t mean “you can’t use your body to shoplift”. Bodily autonomy is the difference between being put in prison because you shoplifted, and being put in prison when you didn’t shoplift, i.e., for no good reason. It’s the difference between lawful imprisonment and unlawful imprisonment. You violate the law, you are imprisoned -versus- you do nothing wrong, you are imprisoned.
Think about a law-abiding person, say your mother, and consider these topics of bodily integrity and autonomy: rape, slavery, unlawful arrest, unlawful imprisonment, habeus corpus, forced organ removal, eugenic sterilization, sterilization of the mentally challenged, informed consent for medical care, uninformed medical experimentation, forced medical experimentation on prisoners, freedom from assault and battery, peeping toms, hidden cameras in bathrooms, feeding drugs to an unwitting person, police officer demanding a strip search of your wife/daughter/mother on a busy street corner, inappropriate touching of children, kidnapping, mandatory circumcision, female genital mutilation (clitoridectomy, infibulation, etc.), forced abortion in China, forced pregnancy, coerced childbirth.
See, there’s not a single shoplifting prohibition in the list!
As a grad student, I have been conducting a survey and I can appreciate how the proper use of language is important. I have agonized over and edited my survey to be certain that the questions elicit an honest response without leading the respondents to somewhere of my choosing. It's harder than you might think. It's also what annoys me about Meet the Press with David Gregory. His questions are loaded with presumptions. This goes for answers, too. Leon Paneta, in response to Nancy Pelosi's assertion that the CIA did not give congress clear information about enhanced interrogation techniques, said "Let me be clear. it is not the policy of the CIA to mislead the congress...etc." Note that this is neither clear nor is it a denial. Hard to imagine that an agency full of people practiced in the art of deception could be misleading, I know.
I wonder if there will ever be a day when Roe v. Wade will not be such an inflammatory topic? Conservatives seem content in trying to define a fetus as a person by picking legal holes in cases involving, say, murdered pregnant women. As though they could sneak precedent in through the back door. But who am I to talk? I think there should be law against cloning and I think the Octo-mom debacle borders on a criminal offense. I also find it offensive when those who purport to be pro-life also are against birth control. One can indeed be pro-choice AND pro-life. Just not the other way around, it would seem.
Davy:
In various European countries and Japan, abortion is pretty uncontroversial. I think that's because there's a way smaller percentage of fundamentalist Christians in those countries. So if the U.S. becomes less fundamentalist, there will be less controversy about abortion and various other so-called "social issues" like gay marriage, teaching evolution and not the Biblical creation story in science classes, etc.
This stuff is all really interesting, but everyone is missing the point. Overturning Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal, it simply means that someone will have to specifically enact a law that says it is either legal or illegal.
Right R v. W means that the Supreme Court took the law making process under its robes and found the right to abortion (privacy, whatever) in the constitution. I have read the constitution and find it hard to see, but that is just me.
If everyone feels that abortion should be (pick one) legal/illegal, then have your state or federal law making bodies introduce the legislation and vote on it. I like that approach much better than the Supreme Court using some sort of divining rod to determine this.
theonlysaneone said
The difference is that the death penalty is a legal punishment for a crime. An unborn fetus is the only human being who can be assured to have not committed any type of crime whatsoever.
----------------------------
But as a Catholic I find that position utterly confusing. If life is sacred, and only God can decide if it continues or not, then the circumstances are not relevant. You cannot take a life. If your view is different from that then call it what it is 'anti abortion' not 'pro life'.
Support for Roe is higher than the pro-choice self-ID. Nate, the reason why is important, and I think you give it less thought than usual.
Here is one hypothesis: People don't understand what overturning Roe will do. They think it will outlaw all abortion, everywhere. In that case 65% support for Roe makes more sense. Putting this data together with data on which restricts the public supports, it is a pretty clear picture.
Voters would outlaw abortions of convenience (about 85-90% of abortions) and leave abortion legal in the rare cases of rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother.
That doesn't sound anything like Roe or Casey. But journalists have never been good about nuance on Court decisions.
Are there any surveys that ask "should all non-partial birth abortions be legal or should states be free to restrict some abortions?" That is a more realistic description of the Roe era and any possible post-Roe era.
And the "All Grown Up Award" goes to...
Just want to point something out folks. We just had a multi-day, wide-ranging discussion on abortion of all things, on the internet.
No one, not one person, yelled at anyone. No one resorted to name calling. No one got shrill. It was respectful dialogue all around. I've seen less cordial online discussions about whether a Sith Lord is technically a Jedi.
Let me just say: "Yay, us!" :-)
Abortion might have been illegal pre Roe V Wade but it did in fact go on. The wealthy went 'on vacation', perhaps to Europe to resolve their perceived problem and the poor were left to the doctor prepared to risk their careers or more than likely, the back room abortionist with minimal training and provisions for problems and even basic surgical sanitation.
The reality is that because we refuse to teach effective birth control and because adoption remains a difficult and imperfect process we have one of the highest illegitimate birth rates among developed countries.
For me personally abortion is not an option. I would not presume to judge or limit the decisions of others as I am not walking in their shoes.
The continued inflammatory remarks by the pro-life community and the stance of my church on birth control and abortion (I was raised Catholic) has more than anything turned me off to their rhetoric.
Is a meaningful dialogue still possible? Yes, but among rational people prepared to address the root cause of abortions, unwanted pregnancies, not just the commitment to banning abortions without changing said root cause.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment