Abortion

Growing Unhappiness With U.S. Abortion Laws

Support for abortion policies in the United States is at its lowest level since 2001.

|

Gallup

Support for abortion policies in the United States is at its lowest level since 2001, according to new polling data from Gallup. Only 34 percent of respondents said they're satisfied with "the nation's policies regarding the abortion issue" in Gallup's latest "Mood of the Nation" survey, conducted in early January 2015. 

In 2001 through 2008, satisfaction levels hovered between 40 and 48 percent, but this number has been lower in the past few years, slipping down to 39 percent in 2012 and 38 percent in 2013. (The poll was not conducted in 2009-2011.)

Of those dissatisfied with abortion laws, more were concerned that laws didn't restrict abortion enough than had a problem with abortion laws being too strict. Overall, 24 percent said they wanted stricter laws, while 12 percent wanted less strict laws. 

Since 2011, state passage of abortion restrictions has skyrocketed, with more restritions passed in 2011 though 2013 than in the entire previous decade. The majority of these laws have been what are known as "TRAP" (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws, which impose stricter regulations on abortion doctors and clinics than are imposed on other medical providers. Though these laws are often pushed as adding extra layers of protection for women, there's no evidence these layers are necessary. Instead, the laws have been remarkably good at shutting down abortion clinics entirely, with nearly half of Texas clinics forced to close since 2013 (and most of those remaining open in legal limbo), all but three clinics closing in Alabama, and all but one in Mississippi. 

Yet other states have recently seen high-profile pushes for abortion restrictions flop. In the 2014 midterm elections, personhood measures failed in Colorado and North Dakota, and a Tennessee amendment that passed is being contested. Federal courts recently ruled against all or parts of anti-abortion laws in North Carolina, Indiana, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, and the U.S. Supreme Court blocked part of a Texas TRAP law. And at the federal level, anti-abortion legislation (outside anti-federal funding measures) has repeatedly failed. It's easy to see why those opposed to abortion access might have been feeling frustrated this January. 

When broken down by party affiliation, the Gallup poll found increased dissatisfaction with abortion policies was largely coming from Republicans, whose disapproval jumped from an average of 50 percent between 2002-2008 to an average of 62 percent between 2012-2015. Of these dissatisfied conservative respondents, most wanted stricter laws (38 percent then, 43 percent now), a slightly growing percent wanted less strict laws (then 5 percent, 7 percent now), and a puzzling third group are dissatisfied but want the laws to remain the same (then 7 percent, now 12 percent). 

Among Democrats and independents, satisfaction levels varied less over time. During the Bush years, an average 46 percent of Democrats and 42 percent of independents were satisfied with abortion polices, compared to 47 percent and 40 percent in the past few years. The percentage of dissatisfied Democrats decreased, from 43 to 38 percent and the percentage of dissatisfied independents from 44 to 43 percent. Of dissatisfied Democrats, those who wanted less strict laws held steady at 15 percent and those who wanted stricter laws decreased, from 16 to 13 percent. Of independents, those who want stricter laws is up slightly (23 percent to 25 percent) and the number who want less strict laws is down slightly (from 11 percent to 9 percent). 

As dissatisfaction with abortion laws has been increasing, the number of abortions performed in the U.S. has been steadily dropping. In December, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a 13 percent drop in the total number of abortions between 2002 and 2011. 

NEXT: Brian Williams's Reputation Floating Face-First After Serial Humble-Bragging

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Gay marriage? check

    Abortion? check

    What’s left?

    1. Mexicans. We need Mexicans.

      1. Aborted Mexican fetuses having buttsex.

        1. Were said fetuses aborted through the use of super-powerful legalized marijuana?

          1. No, but the parents were unable to concent because they were on it when said fetii were created.

            1. You mean the WOMAN couldn’t consent, don’t you?!

              (narrows prog eyes)

        2. UN-VACCINATED mexican abortus having butsex while being forced to attend a failing public school…

          1. I think we have a winner.

          2. Impressive. Most impressive.

      2. “All across this great nation, the rights of gay Mexicans to have abortions while married is in grave danger…”

    2. American Sniper.

    3. DEMON WEED

  2. I say put Sheldon Richman on the abortion beat.

    1. Sorry, Brian Williams has already been there, done that.

  3. America, always thirsty never satisfied since 1973.

  4. I know we talk a lot of shit about millenials on here, myself included. But if this generation ended up being the one that broke the regulatory state, ended the war on drugs, pursued a less aggressive foreign policy, and ended abortion as an accepted practice it would be the most libertarian generation to come along in a long while — even if they did end up slightly expanding the welfare state

    1. Someone has been watching Obama reruns from 2008; I had hoped you were more hopelessly pessimistic than this, TIT. You might, might, get a fraction of one of those in the next generation, namely putting federal cannabis legalization and regulation on the same plane as alcohol, complete with massive rent-seeking. Harder drugs will be a slow, generational crawl.

      The others aren’t changing, as the regulatory state and attendant capture are the natural consequence of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs and abortion isn’t going anywhere on the federal level. If you want radical change, best look to colonies on the moon or in the middle of the ocean, because the post-FDR behemoth isn’t going anywhere.

      1. Oh, I’m an irredeemable pessimist on millenials, heh. I’m just saying that if I’m wrong and the millenials are a smidge more libertarian on those topics than what I think, I’ll have to eat my words (and I’ll be happy to do so).

    2. even if they did end up slightly expanding the welfare state

      Except it never ends up “slightly”. It always ends up massively. Oh, and, in addition to that welfare state expansion, throw in gun control, hate speech laws, affirmative consent on steroids, mass public surveillance, and souped up public accommodation laws.

    3. I’m doing my best.

    4. There’s nothing ‘libertarian ‘ about restricting abortion. That’s social conservative territory.

  5. All of the person-hood arguments about how life begins after the magic trip down the birth canal are just not very compelling. The science really has cut against the abortion on demand at any any point in the pregnancy supporters. Because of ultrasound and the advances in prenatal care, fewer and fewer people are able to conclude that life doesn’t begin until birth.

    I really loath the personhood arguments. They are nothing but a slippery slope towards it being okay to murder the sick or anyone we view as unfit. I think we should handle the beginning of life the same way we do the end of life. When someone is on life support, we don’t consider them dead until they have lost brain function. The essence of being a human is your DNA and your brain. Once the person’s brain stops working, we rightfully conclude our efforts to keep them alive are just animating a body since they are already dead. It should be the same with beginning of life. Before there is brain function, there is no human there. There is only something that may with luck become a human. Once there is brain function, then it is a human life and killing it should not be legal.

      1. Because nothing says “great argument” like throwing out a buzz word.

        Really Spencer? The adults are talking here. If all you can do is scream straw man, at least remember to scream Red Tony too.

        You are not even trolling properly.

        1. Your statement above is nothing if not a textbook example of a straw man. When people type such ignorance I feel it’s a learning opportunity for them. Therefore, I share resources so you can correct your mistake- or at least understand what it is.

          1. Since I never actually described the counter argument, my statement is a textbook example of something that is not a strawman. I merely said I objected to the concept and then gave my own. All I said about personhood arguments is that they are a slippery slope. If a fetus isn’t a “person” a lot of other people are not either. Indeed, see Peter Singer, who endorses full on infanticide up to the age of 3, as an example of someone who fell off that slope.

            If you don’t like my concept of when life begins or think that people like Singer are taking the idea of person hood to conclusions that aren’t justified, say so and explain why. But don’t waste my time yelling strawman. It is just short hand for “you made an argument I don’t like but can’t answer”. It is tiresome and pathetic.

            1. “All of the person-hood arguments about how life begins after the magic trip down the birth canal are just not very compelling.”

              Do you even read what you type?

              1. I must be dense cause I’m just not seeing how that is a strawman.

                1. he is mis-characterizing the arguments (or blatantly creating them)of opponents in order to showcase how is argument is superior. “I really loath the personhood arguments. They are nothing but a slippery slope towards it being okay to murder the sick or anyone we view as unfit.”

                  It isn’t even questionable- that is a straw man argument.

                2. I don’t see it either.

                  1. he created a false argument- putting words into the mouths of proponents of anything called a ” personhood argument”. Then he proceeded to explain why it was a bad argument and his was better. How can you not see that?

                    1. I don’t see where he put words into anyone’s mouth.

                      I do see where he defined what he loathes about personhood arguments and where he thinks that will lead.

                      I guess I don’t think that is the same thing.

                    2. Because youre not familiar with personhood arguments?

          2. straw man
            noun
            a person compared to a straw image; a sham.
            a sham argument set up to be defeated.

            Hmmm….

    1. Before there is brain function, there is no human there. There is only something that may with luck become a human. Once there is brain function, then it is a human life and killing it should not be legal.

      No offense, John, but define brain function. It’s not as binary as an on/off switch.

    2. John, take a deep breath and learn what “unalienable” means.

  6. One of the problems with the abortion debate is that often the left uses it as a way to argue women shouldn’t be responsible for their choices rather than to say people should be free to do what they want with their bodies. If women are given easy access to birth control and the morning after pill, I don’t see why society should have to construct some bullshit theory of person hood just so they can avoid being held responsible for their choice not to prevent the pregnancy.

    1. Because contraception is 100% effective, and having an abortion is somehow not “taking responsibility.”

      Why do people define “taking responsibility” in this bizarre way?

      1. Contraception combined with the morning after pill is 100% effective. Moreover, if you adopt my rule of brain activity, you will still have a least a couple of months to have an abortion even if all of that fails.

        So tell me Niki, why exactly should we allow you to kill something with brain function and that is viable outside the womb just because you couldn’t make up your mind or want to change your mind before then?

        1. “Moreover, if you adopt my rule of brain activity”…

          THOG FACE HURT WHEN THAT TRY

          1. gilmore that was the funniest thing ive ever seen on reason.

        2. Contraception combined with the morning after pill is 100% effective.

          No, it isn’t. Even a surgical abortion isn’t 100% effective.

          I agree that it shouldn’t take that long to make up your mind, however, none of those issues have anything to do with my response to your comment, which was all about contraception and “responsibility.”

          1. You misunderstand me. It is not that there isn’t a privacy freedom argument to be made. It is that the left doesn’t make it. The left makes this into a “don’t make women be responsible for their own actions” argument and uses it as a tool for further eroding personal responsibility in our culture.

            1. Uhhh. I’m going to throw a wrench in this. This statement presumes that men bear nearly no responsibility for child propagation. Women are not asexual breeders. However, it proves a juvenile argument for the “guilt” of a woman for the act of impregnation. There is something perverse about our culture going to some kind of conflict with a woman who becomes pregnant. Its the most natural thing in the world. Yet – pregnant women get attacked every damn day for making a baby. There are horrible men who never got a chance at seeing women as decent fair creatures. Religion -washing explained for them women suck at running their own finances and their lives and their bodies because had the misfortune of possessing a vagina instead of a penis. When they finally do something resembling authority (parenthood-paternalism) they must be punished, right? It’s crap. Just like its crap when this publication needlebites little fights they can’t finish. That makes intelligent women say, OW FUCKER! NOW YOU DIE! Because I see the majority of commenters here are not custodians of any vagina. As long as they make bullshit comments like “it’s your fault your pregnant” they will be paying for procedures to kill their own dumbass spawn.

        3. what about a swift kick to the girlfriends stomach every morning after sex?

          1. That would make you guilty of battery, in addition to being retarded.

            1. it’s not battery if she consents, is it?

              1. Or if it happens in the red room.

                As long as she doesn’t say the safe word first 😉

                1. I like that whatever I type here it looks like Jordan is very much in support of it.

        4. Contraception combined with the morning after pill is 100% effective.

          I don’t think that’s true. If neither is, in and of itself, 100% effective, their combination won’t be, either.

          1. I was told there’d be no math.

        5. Tell me john, why should we allow you to make the rules for women you don’t know? In situations you don’t know?

          1. Exactly. What Obadiah said.

        1. That was for Nikki.

        2. So you are not responsible for bad luck? So what if the contraception fails? You choose to have sex. You took the risk. Just because the risk didn’t pay off doesn’t make you not responsible for the result.

          1. And getting an abortion is taking responsibility…

            1. In the same way murdering your child is I suppose. How is it that it is a lump of cells with no rights one moment but a fully functioning human worthy of full legal protection the next? All it did was take a magic trip down the birth canal. Nothing about it changed and it didn’t get a single extra quality by doing so.

              Sorry, I am not inventing some bullshit make believe term like person hood so women can avoid responsibility for their actions. Once another person’s life is involved, your rights stop.

              1. How is it that it is a lump of cells with no rights one moment but a fully functioning human worthy of full legal protection the next?

                That is a problem even with your own definition of personhood.

                Sorry, I am not inventing some bullshit make believe term like person hood

                Say that all you like, but you already subscribe to the idea, based on your comment about brain activity.

                1. That is a problem even with your own definition of personhood.

                  No it is not. It becomes a person the moment it has brain activity, just like I am alive one moment and dead the next.

                  Say that all you like, but you already subscribe to the idea, based on your comment about brain activity.

                  Depends on how you define the term. My definition different because it is not an arbitrary line. It is based on an actual physical change and event. The trip down the birth canal doesn’t change you. Your brain coming on or going off line does. Moreover, saying that thinking is the essence of man and thus what makes us human is not a slippery slope to anywhere except saying people who are brain dead are dead, which we do anyway.

                  1. Your brain coming on or going off line does.

                    Again, though, that isn’t as binary a process as you imply.

              2. It becomes a person the moment it has brain activity, just like I am alive one moment and dead the next

                But wait. What if something happens and you no longer have any brain activity that would qualify you to be a sentient human being, but still have enough to breath, digest food that you are fed, etc. Are you still human then?

                1. Irreversible brain death? You’re now a corpse and your organs may be extracted.

                2. But wait. What if something happens and you no longer have any brain activity that would qualify you to be a sentient human being, but still have enough to breath, digest food that you are fed, etc. Are you still human then?

                  I couldn’t do those things without some form of brain activity, at least from the stem.

                  You bring up a good point. Is someone with some activity in the stem but nothing else “brain dead”. I think they might be. If so, then perhaps it take more than just some fetal brain activity to constitute a life. I am not sure. Clearly at some point though, there is more than just stem activity going on.

                  1. some form of brain activity

                    The word you’re missing is “organized.”

                    1. Exactly. Good point.

                      But, organized is a range, isn’t it?

                3. What if something happens and you no longer have any brain activity that would qualify you to be a sentient human being, but still have enough to breath, digest food that you are fed, etc. Are you still human then?

                  Yeah, this is brain stem activity and you’re looking to draw up law based on corner cases.

                  What if I grew a lump of yeast around an mechanical EEG emitter? Is that a living human?

                  The idea is that we have a readily measured and extrapolated rule of thumb that is widely held and used and is considered objective when transferring rights one way but not the other.

                  1. What if I grew a lump of yeast around an mechanical EEG emitter? Is that a living human?

                    Wrong genome.

                    1. Wrong genome.

                      I wasn’t aware that we required a fetus to present a full set of chromosomes before we did/did not abort it.

                      More to my point; we aren’t going to/shouldn’t develop the cornerstone and bedrock of abortion policy around the one corner case where Phineas Gage managed to blast a tamping rod through his head and walk away and asking about situation X where, suppose, two people with share one brainwave between them is irrelevant.

                      Digestion and respiration, with or without human DNA, do not a human make.

                    2. I wasn’t aware that we required a fetus to present a full set of chromosomes before we did/did not abort it.

                      If it’s a human fetus, it has a human genome. If I puke up a hamburger, it’s rather a stretch to call it human.

                    3. Important to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient, lest you go off on another tangent.

                  2. Mad casual,

                    I am not following your point.

                    1. Jordan is committing crimes against language.

                      Responsibility is not whimsically slaughtering a fetus resulting from your volitional sex acts.

                      I love how responsibility for men means 18+ years of economic duty, but for women it means a choice.

                      responsibility != choice

                      Whenever you divorce responsibility and autonomy you get disastrous results. Modern reproductive law is a case study in separating aggregate responsibility and autonomy and giving each party one of them.

                      2 parties sharing responsibility and autonomy in aggregate is not the same thing as each party having one aspect. Those paradigms are entirely different animals.

                      Idiots thinking giving each party one aspect is equality. It’s not.

                      They try to conceal this by using the word responsibility in relation to both genders but the usage and meaning are incompatible. A woman is exercising responsibility by choosing an abortion which is lawfully elective, a man is exercising responsibility by giving money which is lawfully mandatory.

                  3. you’re looking to draw up law based on corner cases

                    I am not looking to draw up any new laws. I posed this question to narrow the definition of what it means to be human and when legal protections are afforded to that human.

                    I don’t know that I know the answer.

              3. John asks:
                “How is it that it is a lump of cells with no rights one moment but a fully functioning human worthy of full legal protection the next”

                How is it that a woman is a lump of cells with no rights, when she’s been a fully functioning human worthy of legal protection since she became viable in the womb?

                1. Because that lump of cells turned into a human being with competing rights the moment it stared to think.

                  You are just begging the question. No one’s rights extend to the right to murder someone else. So the whole question is when does life begin. The mother’s rights are known and thus not a part of the debate. The entire debate centers around when the fetus becomes a human being.

                  1. John, one more time. Learn what unalienable means.

                    Then learn the concept of competing or conflicting rights. When fundamental rights are in conflict, that can ONLY be resolved by the judiciary — to draw the line between the two.

                    Unlike yourself, they are constitutionally and morally obligated to draw a line that best defends BOTH rights. It’s the very core of equal rights.

                    For example, the well-known line that “your right to swing your fist end at the tip of my nose.” As we learned in high school, that’s from a Supreme Court ruling … on a principle you seem to be totally unaware of.

                    Likewise, the right of free speech does not include yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. (and others)

                    No rights are absolute, regardless of how often you refuse to accept that.

                    So the whole question is when does life begin.

                    Bullshit. And then you go off the rails entirely.

                    The mother’s rights are known and thus not a part of the debate.

                    John says the woman’s rights are known … so they can be ignored! Everyone’s rights are known, so you deny us all?

                    The entire debate centers around when the fetus becomes a human being.

                    The fetus is a human being at, or shortly after, conception, so quit the word games.

                    The entire debate centers on equal rights … where you’ve humiliated yourself here.

                    1. The debate should be that the no taxpayer money should be involved in the murdering of babies-that includes funding Planned Parenthood.

                    2. Umm, there are no taxpayer dollars paying for abortions. You’re being shamelessly manipulated.

                      Listen CLOSELY when you next hear their bullshit.

                    3. Shorter Michael Hihn: Ethical issues are above my pay grade. I’ll wait for a judge to do my thinking for me.

                      Probably a good idea in your case, but sometimes the adults like to think about these kinds of things for themselves.

                    4. Probably a good idea in your case, but sometimes the adults like to think about these kinds of things for themselves

                      (lol) That includes seeking out all sides of an issue, instead of locking one’s self in an echo chamber.

                      What kind of thinking adult doesn’t know that equal and unalienable rights are a fundamental founding principle? Or is a sucker for bullshit?

                      I’ll wait for a judge to do my thinking for me.

                      That is certainly your right, which I have been defending for nearly 50 years.

              4. I’ll make you a deal, John. Next time you father a child with a woman who doesn’t want your kid, go directly Rick Santorum and ask him to put the woman in a cage for you until she is forced to give birth. Then let Reason know how it goes. That’s the only occasion you’re getting the kind of choice you want in public policy where a social conservative was directly involved in ensuring the outcome. Okay?

                1. Zilamod, I’m stealing your woman in a cage analogy for my personal use. VERY apropos. Thanks.

      2. And more over Niki, sometimes bad breaks happen. If your contraception fails, that sucks for you. It is however an inherent risk of having sex. Getting in a wreck is an inherent risk of driving. If I catch a bad break and get into one, is the world supposed to save me from the harm?

        Since when does something being the result of bad luck mean you don’t have to live with the consequences of your actions? Does life now have to be fair?

        1. If I catch a bad break and get into one, is the world supposed to save me from the harm?

          No, but I bet you’ll seek medical attention if you need it.

          Take responsibility, and let that broken leg heal on its own!

          1. Getting an abortion at some point isn’t medical assistance. Its killing someone. Do I have the right to shoot the guy who hit me?

            1. Do I have the right to shoot the guy who hit me?

              Only if you are a cop.

              1. only Especially if you are a cop.

            2. Take responsibility, and let that broken leg heal on its own!

              I think the sensible solution would be to wait two months for it to get gangrenous, have it amputated, and then sue the man that did this to you.

              After all your body, your decision.

            3. Getting an abortion at some point isn’t medical assistance. Its killing somebody

              Yes, and that point is viability, even by mechanical means (incubators).

              Here’s the dirty truth. If pro-lifers were pro-LIFE instead of pro-POWER, they’d have banned abortionists from being in the fucking when the fetus is viable, and required a live birth.

              That could have been done the day after Roe V Wade. How many babies’ lives would THAT have saved??? And why does it seem that I’m the only one who gives a shit about THOSE lives?

            4. Do I have the right to shoot the guy who hit me?

              Another silly question! And it depends how many times he hit you.

              Now, think REAL hard and tell us how him hitting you violated one of those unalienable rights you reject.

              Your right to life? If so, shoot him.
              Your right to liberty? Only if he’s also holding you captive, usually by force.

              YOU demand the power to violate my liberties, if it would save the life of some guy in Indonesia. The founders were NOT that stupid.

              And you can’t seem to fathom the notion of two equal and fundamental rights being in conflict. Learn what unalienable means.

              1. its “inalienable”. Not “unalienable”.

        2. Getting in a wreck is an inherent risk of driving. If I catch a bad break and get into one, is the world supposed to save me from the harm?

          Getting sick is an inherent risk of being alive, but you want the world to save you from the harm by vaccinating themselves…

          1. No. I want you to take responsibility and not get me sick. If I get myself sick because I am too stupid to get the vaccination, that is my fault. If you get me sick because you are too stupid, that is your fault.

            1. ROTFLMAO… Your intellectual dishonesty is showing…

              1. See.More|2.9.15 @ 6:30PM|#
                ROTFLMAO… Your intellectual dishonesty is showing.

                Stop laughing and THINK. If a child infects an entire classroom. then that child’s parents are morally culpable (if you even know what that means)

                Or are you refusing any and all responsibility for the consequences of your own decisions? Sorry, this country already has more than enough moochers.

        3. Does life now have to be fair?

          No, STILL, but I’m not surprised that you sneer at the notion … and REPEATEDLY deny what helps so much in making fairness possible. The unalienable rights that you people dismiss so shamefully.

  7. I fully support abortion up to the fifty sixth trimester.

    1. Won’t you consiter 59th and make it a round year value postnatal?

      1. O-care extends it to the 104th trimester.

  8. No fewer than 600 comments. I’m calling it now.

    1. I don’t think so. Abortion is just so turn of the century.

      1. No way. ENB threads always attract insane KULTUR WAR retards who want to have the same argument over and over again. She’s the pied piper of Retardville. (Said with affection, ENB.)

        1. ENB and Shikha really bring out the TEAM RED butthurt.

          1. I have no idea when a fetus should be considered a human, so these threads really aren’t that interesting to me other than as trainwrecks. Which means I LOVE THEM.

            1. Go ask Alice.

          2. What is partisan about when life begins? Come on Jordan you are not normally this stupid.

            What is next, talk about how everyone who objects to abortion is just a religious fanatic doing so for religious reasons?

            1. Well duh, that’s a given John.

            2. What is next, talk about how everyone who objects to abortion is just a religious fanatic doing so for religious reasons?

              You’d already made a fool of yourself with that accusation.

    2. Fuck you, Warty commentating IS murder.

      1. Every time you comment on Reason, a child and a puppy are murdered.

        1. So each comment summons the cops?

          1. Somewhere, yes. Sort of like an angel getting its wings, somewhere a cop shoots his first puppy and burns a baby to death with a flash bang.

          2. Nice one, Uncivil.

    3. 600 comments is Sheldon Richman whining that people were mean to him after he said Chis Kyle was the same as Adam Lanza because they were poisoned with “nationalism”.

      It takes a special kind of retarded post to get much above 200 comments and Richman was up to the challenge. I don’t think this one will be.

      1. So it’s not a *special* kind of retarded post?

      2. Can we PLEASE stop violating the University of Michigan’s thought – I mean SPEECH – policy?

  9. Does Planned Parenthood offer gift certificates for abortions?

    1. No. They are a strictly for profit organization. They don’t give away anything.

    2. No Planned Parenthood uses abortion revenues to subsidize their role in providing often the only medical care for poor, black women. Medicaid. In many or most inner cities there are no doctors at all — no private insured patients to overcharge and cover their Medicaid losses. In other words, the abortions pay the overhead.

  10. “what are known as “TRAP” (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws”

    That’s totally an impartial term not trying to prejudice the debate!

    1. Somehow, I saw that as ‘TARP’ in the article.

      1. Totally Awesome to Rip People (apart)

      2. TARP was it’s own kind of abortion.

    2. And here I was thinking the TRAP was her NOT having the abortion…

  11. Tell us again how abortion rates began declining starting in the 1980s, and how this shows it’s unnecessary to pass laws against abortion!

  12. “Support for abortion policies in the United States is at its lowest level since 2001”

    “Because god knows no one cared about Abortion in the 1990s.”

    /are you kidding? Do I have to?

    Oh, opinion-polls: when will people stop taking you seriously?

    1. “Oh, opinion-polls: when will people stop taking you seriously?”

      I think that they’ll be taken seriously as long as their findings reinforce a reader’s preformed opinion(s).

  13. So, what the poll says is “US abortion laws have gotten more strict, but still somewhat less strict than the median voter would like.”

    1. ding ding ding

  14. This article completely leaves out a vital polling question that should have been included in the tabulated results:

    Which type of pizza is appropriate when wanting to use dead foeti as a topping, deep-dish or thin-crust?

    1. I mean, what trimester are we talking? I don’t know if thin crust has the structural integrity to support anything outside of twelve weeks…

    2. Thin crust for the black foeti, deep dish for the retarded ones.

      1. If you slice thinly enough it’s just like mushrooms and onions.

        1. Wouldn’t that be more like pepperoni?

    3. Are these artisanal foeti or just your run-of-the-mill dumpster babies?

    4. Deep dish pizza is an abortion.

      1. You misspelled “abomination”.

  15. Can we just cap elective abortions at 20 weeks and move on?

    1. That sounds pretty reasonable to me. But some woman might be inconvenienced by that. So such a rule is by definition evil.

      1. Or Baby Jeebus might weep since apparently life begins at conception.

        1. Life doesn’t really begin until after you are divorced for the first time.

    2. I’m in. Sentience develops somewhere between 20-24 weeks. Before 20 weeks, there is essentially zero chance that you are killing a sentient being.

      1. Here is the compromise. We say life begins with brain activity but not before. That means no abortions after brain activity is detected absent a determination that continuing the pregnancy is a threat to the mother made with some due process, not just an abortionist signing off on it.

        The flip side is life begins then and not before. That means no bans on stem cell research, over the counter morning after pills and no restrictions on abortions before then, other than maybe parental consent laws since minors can’t consent to medical care.

        I don’t understand why anyone but a fanatic on either side couldn’t find that acceptable.

        1. “I don’t understand why anyone but a fanatic on either side couldn’t find that acceptable.”

          I would be happy to accept this as an improvement on the status quo, but wouldn’t stop trying to educate people to a broader view that living human beings have human rights from the moment of conception.

          Prolifers can only go so far as public opinion allows – we can’t rush to the federal courts to enact our preferred policies, as much as we’d like to do this.

          So if the public wants to stop at brain-waves, then that’s where it will stop. It would certainly be better than the regime we have now.

          1. I would be happy to accept this as an improvement on the status quo, but wouldn’t stop trying to educate people to a broader view that living human beings have human rights from the moment of conception.

            Why is that? What is your definition of human that makes that so and why is your definition correct? If your definition is a “full set of DNA” then your conclusion follows. But I am not seeing why a full set of DNA is the answer. Why is that our essence and not our thoughts? We declare living people who are brain dead, “dead” all of the time. And frankly with good reason. If life ends with brain death, how does it begin before some kind of brain function?

            1. The problem is that, AFAIK, nobody with scientific knowledge denies that the human zygote/embroyo/fetus is alive even before it gets brainwaves.

              For those of us who have brainwaves, then yes, the brain stopping would tend to indicate death.

              By way of comparison: You or I would be dead if our heads were cut off. That doesn’t mean we weren’t alive at an early stage of development before we had heads at all.

              1. The problem is that, AFAIK, nobody with scientific knowledge denies that the human zygote/embroyo/fetus is alive even before it gets brainwaves.

                Why stop there?

                Technically speaking, both eggs and sperm are “alive.” So, it should be a crime to flush eggs during menses and to spill any sperm that fails to fertilize an egg.

                Alive != Human . . .

            2. Eddie is a papist so he’s against pulling the plug on people that are brain dead too. At least the church was when I was a yute.

              1. I didn’t know that anyone said “papist” unironically any more, outside Ulster.

                1. I was just trying to score points with the cool cosmotarian kids.

                  1. What are you, some sort of Hindoo Mohammedan China-man or something?

                2. I like saying “Papist” because it sounds funny. “Jacobite” too.

            3. If life ends with brain death, how does it begin before some kind of brain function?

              I think the problem is that you, John, are rendering your argument down to one or two criteria whereas a Pro-Lifer has several criteria.

              Let’s say you go into a coma. With most cases- especially medically induced comas- the brain loses most activity. You are no longer aware or sentient. Should you lose your “personhood rights” at that point? Even if there is a significant likelihood that you will recover with full brain functions?

              A person who has had irreversible brain death is one thing, but a person with an interruption in brain activity still has the potential for that brain activity to return. So they should probably be protected like any other person, right?

              This is why pro-lifers extend protection up to conception or implantation. Just as a parent has a responsibility to their newborn to avoid harming it and provide for it to adulthood, they have the same responsibility when the child is unborn and still developing “brain functions”. It is not the existence of brain functions, but the potential for them that is important.

              1. With most cases- especially medically induced comas- the brain loses most activity.

                But not all. And they are still capable of having more. Doctors have just chosen to stop it.

                Even if there is a significant likelihood that you will recover with full brain functions?

                Of course not. Understand however, I had life to begin with. If I haven’t existed in the first place, the fact that the conditions are right for me to exist, doesn’t make me alive at this moment. Otherwise, a sperm or an unfertilized egg is a life.

                And a person with intermitant brain activity is alive. But so is a fetus with intermittent brain activity by my definition.

                As far as why I focus on this one aspect of life? That is because it is the lone essential one. If I lose my ability to speak, or walk or feed myself or do any other activity, I am still a human. It is only when my brain stops to function that I stop being one.

          2. “It would certainly be better than the regime we have now.” Roe v Wade ends at six months now. How is moving to 5 months any significant policy improvement?

        2. I think viability outside the womb is a good place.

          1. And if John’s definition of “brain activity” is what I think it is, it roughly coincides with viability.

        3. I think that we could probably get 80% or more of the population to agree with this compromise.

          The problem is the remaining 20% comprising the far left/right are the ones that vote during the primaries. That, and gerrymandered districts give so many members of congress little incentive to compromise.

      2. SForza, that’s also when the woman gained her rights. And 24 months s roughly the current standard. 20 months is a fundraising and power-seeking game.

        1. That is one long goddam pregnancy!

          1. That is one long goddam pregnancy

            Weeks! I meant weeks!!

            Good catch. Thanks.

    3. I am against abortion in general but can get behind this as a compromise. There are a lot more important things to be arguing about.

      1. And as I say above, both sides need to live with it and shut up. That means no more bitching about stem cell research and no attempts to restrict it before 20 weeks.

        1. The pro-choice side knows that whatever compromise they strike will be ignored. The exact same people will start working on 15-week ban, then a 10-week ban and then a 6-week ban.

          No matter what gun laws are passed, the grabbers will always have a new set of talking points ready, because the point it to ban private ownership of guns, not “reasonable” regulation of them.

          1. That is true. And the pro life people know that the pro abortion people will use any means available to end any restriction, no matter how reasonable or popular.

            You are right, neither side will shut up. That however doesn’t make it impossible for the rest of us to come up with a reasonable compromise.

            1. I know that. I’m just saying that both issues are outside the bounds of reasonable compromise because the sides aren’t really capable of arguing in good faith (except for the pro-2nd amendment people.)

              1. That reads as more hostile than I meant it. Don’t post distracted, people.

              2. Quote: (except for the pro-2nd amendment people.)

                You just belied your upstream comment. In this analogy, Pro-2A groups are the equivalent to NOW. Groups like the NRA, just like their lefty counterparts, refuse to argue in good faith for fear of the slippery slope and the perceived (real or not) underlying motives of their adversaries.

                1. But the abortion debate is about competing rights. The gun control debate is about the right to bear arms vs. the “right” to tell people they cannot arm themselves. Only the 2nd Ad. side is truthful about their aims, unlike the other three.

      2. There is nothing more important than the Abortion Issue-it has destroyed morality in the USA & the world over.

    4. This works for me.

  16. I seemed to have left a deep dish around here somewhere….

    1. A deep dish of what?

      1. You had to ask, Restoras, you just had to ask….

      2. Aborted fetuses. Do try to keep up.

        1. Not the remains of clitoral circumcision? I am disappoint.

  17. Could we convert aborted fetuses and embryos into dog food or fertilizer?

    1. yes. or use them for medical studies. What about the placenta? it’s fully formed at 18 weeks. Surely that would work well as fertilizer.

      1. It also makes a great special-occasion dish,

        But there’s more mass in the fetuses, and there’s a whole lot of them being dug out. Why can’t we make use of that resource? Could they be converted to oil that I can use to run my car?

        1. for every fetus is there not, at least, some placenta?

          I think it’s got to be a mixture of both- like 2 stroke engine.

          1. Yes, but some are aborted before placental development. And of course, the placenta increases in mass throughout the pregnancy.

            I would propose a tax incentive to take that fetus to within a day of term, just to maximize the amount of extractable oil. Or fertilizer. Or dog food.

            1. People DO respond to incentives…

            2. Or chicharron.

              1. chicharron- the crunchiest of incentives.

      2. Surely that would work well as fertilizer.

        Scientologists say they make great snack food. Like chicharron.

    2. I’d go with stem cells personally, but I think that each individual should be able to choose what to do with their aborted fetus for themselves. Abandoned fetuses would, of course, be subject to homesteading.

    3. Comes in Soylent Pink and Blue.

  18. I am pleased to offer something completely off topic: “New Conoy Township signs read: This is not a gun free zone.”

    http://lancasteronline.com/new…..f9de5.html

    1. “I personally don’t think it will deter someone. People don’t read those signs,” he said.

      But, but, but look at all the school shooting those “Gun Free Zone” signs have prevented!

  19. Abortion is terrible, and the results of prohibition are worse.

  20. Abortion is bad because women who happen to have a penis through no fault of their own can’t get them and that just not fair.

    1. The thread should’ve ended with your comment and the spambot just had to ruin it with her buddy’s mom’s online fetus selling business or whatever it is.

  21. my buddy’s mom makes $86 an hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for 5 months but last month her check was $15207 just working on the computer for a few hours. site here…………….
    ????? http://www.netcash50.com

  22. The theocons are winning by default. Too many idiots running around, never challenged, claiming it’s a state matter.

    The pro-choicers are no better with their nonsense about “woman’s reproductive health” or her “body” Why not stick with unalienable rights instead of inventing new ones?

    The fetal child’s unalienable Right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s unalienable Right to Liberty. Or for the religious, if liberty is a God-given right, then why did God change His mind, when and where? Are there any other instances when we lose a God-given right, or is it merely suspended, and if suspended for how long?

    1. yeah anyone who disagrees with you is just a “Theocon”. Jesus tap dancing Christ numb nuts, what the hell is the matter with you? Did your mommy not love you a enough?

      1. yeah anyone who disagrees with you is just a “Theocon”.

        Get a grip. And a course in elementary logic.

        Did your mommy not love you a enough?

        You people always have a trash mouth … as you run in fear of unalienable rights.

        1. Yes we do. Life is especially hard on here for people who make dumb statements. Sorry but running around screaming theocon and begging the question by talking about a “woman’s right to choose” doesn’t cut it on here. You have to do better than that or people are going to abuse you.

          1. Well as long as a woman chooses thin crust, of course she has the right to choose.

          2. John, if you had considered the logic, as I suggested, you may not have made a blithering fool of yourself again.

            Life is especially hard on here for people who make dumb statements.

            (lol) Like a woman’s rights are known so you want to ignore them? Dumbest statement on the page.

            running around screaming theocon

            (lol) STILL bullshit. And now shameful. THINK!

            Then you go bat-shit crazy!

            begging the question by talking about a “woman’s right to choose” doesn’t cut it on here.

            I never mentioned a “woman’s right to chose.” Shame on you. You STILL run away from unalienable rights..

            You have to do better than that or people are going to abuse you.

            People? You’re not the only liar and bully????

            Shame on me, defending natural rights on a libertarian website … as I’ve done for 50 years (not always on websites!).

    2. The right to life does not confer any obligations upon others to give you the things necessary to sustain life; including a womb.

  23. The fetal child’s unalienable Right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s unalienable Right to Liberty.

    So you’re saying that it’s OK to retroactively abort adult women? Can we start with my ex-wife?

    1. So you’re saying that it’s OK to retroactively abort adult women?

      Funny.
      Makes no sense at all, but I suspect that some here may think you’re serious. 🙁

      1. Well you are certainly not serious. At least Old Man with Candy is funny.

        1. John, you’re STILL afraid to deal with and accept our founding concept of unalienable rights. No surprise here.

          1. I don’t think he’s afraid at all. If anything, it seems you might be afraid to deal with logically reasoned conclusions that don’t fit your preconceived feelings.

            1. Restoras|2.9.15 @ 3:33PM|#
              I don’t think he’s afraid at all.

              ANOTHER ONE! You’re afraid too!

              If anything, it seems you might be afraid to deal with logically reasoned conclusions that don’t fit your preconceived feelings.

              Umm, the founding concept of unalienable rights is merely my “feelings.” And the folks denying those rights even exist are … making logically reasoned conclusions??? Was THAT your version of logical?

          2. The questions here really are: When does one get old enough to have these rights, and who gets to decide?

            1. Homple|2.9.15 @ 3:36PM|#
              The questions here really are: When does one get old enough to have these rights, and who gets to decide?

              Umm, WRONG. The fetal child has unalienable rights at conception … but so does the woman! (gasp)

              When fundamental rights are in conflict, only the judiciary can resolve where to draw the line that best defends BOTH rights. Don’t they teach that in high school any more?

              But you’ll keep repeating memorized soundbites …. and denying the entire concept of equal and unalienable rights. You people are all alike on that.

              1. So the judiciary (i.e. the government–the unelected part, no less– that is so popular hereabouts) is the final arbiter, eh?

                1. So the judiciary (i.e. the government–the unelected part, no less– that is so popular hereabouts) is the final arbiter, eh?

                  That’s WHY they’re unelected. You liberals keep assuming this is a democracy.

                  When you reach high school, you’ll learn that the JURISDICTION of the court is determined by Congress. Checks and balances, eh? All three branches!! Seriously.

                  For example, Ron Paul sponsored an attempt to forbid any hearings challenging DOMA. Homosexuals would have been the first class of Americans denied the right to protect their rights … since Emancipation.

                  Are you one of the uneducated who thinks all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states?

                  1. First class of Americans denied the rights to protect their rights?. Could you explain what you mean by this.

                    So who decides which group of Americans gets singled out for special protection by the courts, and by which criteria?

                    I do ask many

                    1. …questions because so many commenters here have all the answers.

                    2. First class of Americans denied the rights to protect their rights?. Could you explain what you mean by this.

                      You know what DOMA means. And your aware that ANY law can be challenged as a violation of constitutional rights … challenged by anybody … except homosexuals, if Ron Paul had achieved his perverse goal.

                      So who decides which group of Americans gets singled out for special protection by the courts, and by which criteria?

                      I’d need an example of that. And how would it deny somebody else’s natural rights?

                      I do ask many

                      Good!

                    3. Here is an example: it was decided that blacks and hispanics are to be given preferential treatment under affirmative action rules, but asians do not merit such treatment. So how do asians, or for that matter, red haired fat men, not qualify for the same sort of treatment?

                    4. Well, that’s certainly wrong, but has no bearing on the issue.

                      I’ll suggest that’s why we should be trying to keep the issues on solid ground, like equal an unalienable rights. Among others.

                  2. Michael Hihn asks, “Are you one of the uneducated who thinks all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states?”

                    I do have a wistful regard for the 10th Amendment.

                    I finally realized that I have no idea what you’re talking about. I assume you do, but I can’t figure it out and hereby give up trying.

                    1. OOOPS

                      Michael Hihn asks, “Are you one of the uneducated who thinks all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states?”

                      I do have a wistful regard for the 10th Amendment.

                      Which is trumped by the 9th Amendment. Have you never heard that ours is a government of delegated powers?

                      I finally realized that I have no idea what you’re talking about.

                      Long overdue. Thanks. Here’s the amendment you never hear from the bullshit federalists.

                      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

                      See, the Tenth Amendment deals with unenumerated POWERS. The 9th deals with unenumerated RIGHTS. Rights trump power! It EXPLICITLY forbids ALL levels of government from denying or disparaging what Jefferson called unalienable rights endowed by a Creator.

                      So when you hear bigots like Ron Paul make the argument you fell for … Ron Paul is saying that states have powers which have never been delegated by the people! Yep..

                      That’s the identical States Rights invented by the KKK, used for years by George Wallace and HIS bigots — a shameful excuse to deny federal protection of our constitution to the hated class.

                      Ron Paul is a liberty hustler, the same way that Al Sharpton is a race hustler. They deal in generating hysteria.

              2. But you’ll keep repeating memorized soundbites

                Considering that you’ve literally copied and pasted the exact same shit in every abortion thread since the chain email at your retirement village somehow landed you inextricably in the Reason comments section, that’s pretty rich.

                1. JM again posts a phony quote, deleting the part that exposes his bullshit

                  THIS is what I said.

                  But you’ll keep repeating memorized soundbites …. and denying the entire concept of equal and unalienable rights. You people are all alike on that.

                  See. You STILL keep proving my points.
                  And you STILL deny equal and unalienable rights. (sigh)

                  And we again see the trash mouth, which is also so predictable from you people.

      2. So you’re saying jail them instead of aborting them?

        Your argument makes zero sense.

        1. Is your candy a hallucinogen??

      3. Well, you cannot force your belief that his ex-wife is a person with a right to live on him. What are you, some kind of theocon?

        1. Mickey Rate, Wipe the drool from your chin. Then study reading. And thinking. NOBODY in this thread has come close to anything as wacky as that.

          1. He was mocking you. Maybe one day the courts will arbitrate your right to recognize sarcasm.

            1. Sarcasm does not consist of making a totally stupid claim about a wife having some right to live off her ex-husband. Read the thread, Sluggo.

              Callng me a theocrat, THAT was sarcasm, even though I haven’t accused anyone of that.

              But you’ve added another example of NO issue content, just personal attacks. Ever the thug.

  24. People-especially women are beginning to realize that abortion is the most heinous crime against women there could ever be.

    1. How? Forced abortions on women?
      The anti-abortionists are the ones rejecting the entire concept of equal and unalienable rights.

  25. Strikes me that the pro-lifers, the anti abortionists, the we know best set gets an unwarranted amount of undeserved attention. As I see the thing, the tail is wagging the dog.

  26. What could be moving this poll so much over such a short period?

    1. What could be moving this poll so much over such a short period?

      Likely a combination of factors. Pro-choicers keep promoting that nonsense about “reproductive health,” instead of staying with established constitutional issues, natural rights and the 9th Amendment.

      The theocons — by which I mean the leaders, have been spouting that bullshit about Planned Parenthood, during that period, with NO pushback,

      When they say “Planned Parenthood is the country’s largest abortionist. It’s time we defund them.” … they never SAY PP is spending taxpayer dollars on abortion .. but that’s what many of their followers HEAR. Which is how political propaganda works.

      When I sit with my deeply Christian friends and show them the facts, they are often surprised, then slip into “all politics is corrupt” meme.

      The truth is that defunding Planned Parenthood will not prevent a single abortion — will actually INCREASE abortions — and will punish a provider of a constitutionally protected medical procedure .. performed entirely with private dollar … and destroy the ONLY source of healthcare for millions of poor, black women.” Then they bitch because those women vote Democrat!

      So far, I’ve only seen ONE church group accept the responsibility of financing a replacement clinic in their inner city. Not very Christian of the rest.

  27. Finally a thread that Hihn doesn’t corpse fuck and is shown to be a complete lunitic.

    1. Umm, read the thread, Sluggo
      (lol)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.