Abortion

Less Than One-Third of Americans Want to See Roe v. Wade Overturned

A majority of both Republicans and Democrats think the Supreme Court should leave Roe alone.

|

Pew Research Center

President-elect Donald Trump has promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, the seminal 1973 case affirming a right to legal abortion across America. If it happens, it won't be a popular move. According to a new poll from the Pew Research Center, less than one-third of Americans think that Roe should be overturned.

In the Pew poll, conducted November 30 through December 5, 2016, just 28 percent of respondents said they hoped the historic ruling would be history, while 69 percent—including a majority of Republicans—said the Supreme Court should leave Roe alone. Among Democrats or Democratic-leaning respondents, 84 percent said they did not want to see Roe overturned, while 53 percent of Republican respondents agreed.

Among respondents who described themselves as "moderate" or "liberal" Republicans, only 27 percent supported overturning Roe, ccompared to 57 percent of those who described themselves as "conservative" Republicans.

"Public opinion about the 1973 case has held relatively steady in recent decades, though the share saying the decision should not be overturned is up slightly from four years ago," Pew notes. In January 2013, 63 percent said that Roe should not be overturned. In 2003, it was 62 percent and, in 1992, just 60 percent.

Republican opinion remains little-changed since 1992, when 52 percent of GOP respondents told Pew they support Roe v. Wade. At that time, just 66 percent of Democrats said the same.

Men were slightly more likely to support overturning Roe than were women (30 percent, versus 26 percent). And contra claims that America is getting less pro-choice, those age 50 or older were more likely than their younger counterparts to say Roe should go (33 percent, versus 24 percent).

Education was also associated with a divide on Roe, with 35 percent of respondents who had a high-school education or less saying it should be overturned but just 23 percent of those with a college degree and 12 percent of those with a post-graduate degree saying so. And while Catholic and Protestant support for overturning Roe was roughly equal—34 percent and 35 percent, respectively—nearly half of white, evangelical Protestants said they think Roe should be overturned.

Advertisement

NEXT: Drug War Is Over (If You Want It!): Hollyweed Edition

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. This is just what this place needed to jump start activity after the staff’s vacation’s ended. An abortion thread.

    1. On this note, I still think it is entirely contradictory to believe that abortion is immoral/murder and to simultaneously claim that it is not the role of government to intervene. Those two things don’t compute the way most people think about this subject. Not speaking, of course, of the goofy libertarians who try to make their support for abortion fall under the NAP. It’s one of those things where people refuse to carry their thoughts to their logical endpoints because they don’t want to be perceived the wrong (combined with some sympathy for the women, I’d guess).

      1. Along those lines, I don’t understand the logic of opposing abortion with exceptions for rape or incest. Either it’s a life to be protected or it isn’t. Its parentage shouldn’t factor in for those who profess to believe it is. (A medical danger to the life of the expectant mother is a different can of worms which I shan’t open here outside of this parenthesis.)

        1. Well, how much of a danger to the mother’s life does it have to be? Is there a percentage threshold? If the mother is more than 50% likely to die, then abortion is okay?

          /can opener

          1. It’s called a triage decision. Emergency and disaster doctors have to make that call on a regular basis. You have multiple people who need care and there’s only so much available at any given time. You have to decide who gets it first. You have to select the ones most likely to live if they are given the care.

            There’s the case where continuing the pregnancy will kill both the mother and baby. They have to pick one … the one most likely to survive. Unless, of course, the mother refuses the care and puts the baby first, even if its chance for survival is much lower than her own.

            1. Umm, it’s a matter of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. All unalienable rights are precisely equal, per the simple definition of unalienable. The includes BOTH the woman’s Liberty and the fetal child’s right to Life/ That’s constitutionally.

              Religiously, the fetal child has God-given rights as birth … and so did the woman. God-given rights can be temporary? Who says so?

              “Chemical” abortion (originally herbs) was common for all of human history. But neither God/Moses nor Christ said a word about it.

              1. That is the way I would justify an exception based on rape, though abortion is in other ways unique and not analogous to the classic duty to rescue scenario…and this of course assumes the baby, at whatever stage of the pregnancy, is a/has a right to life.

                I do not think there is a rational justification for incest, except a pretty harsh and eugenics-like pragmaticism justifying the protection of the gene pool. I don’t believe any exception for consensual incest could be justified on legal/moral grounds.

                1. Wrong reply…see below.

          2. The danger to the mother exception is obvious, it’s self defense. Any time the mother is in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury she would be allowed to use lethal force to prevent it.

            The rape exception is a little more complicated, however, it can also be justified under current legal principles. In most cases, a person does not have a duty to rescue another person who is in danger of being hurt or killed. Because the baby’s life actually requires the mother to carry it, deliver it, etc, the baby is dependent upon the mother to “rescue” it, and the duty of the mother just doesn’t naturally exist. However, an exception to the duty to rescue rule is that a person must act reasonably to rescue a person from harm where the risk of harm was created by that person. In the case of a pregnancy which results from consensual sex, the mother, through volitional acts, created the risk that the baby would be dependent upon her to avoid harm (death because of failure to carry to term). That act imposes a duty on the mother to rescue the baby. In the case of rape, the mother did not act voluntarily, the risk was imposed on the baby by another, therefore the mother has no duty to rescue.

            1. That is the way I would justify an exception based on rape, though abortion is in other ways unique and not analogous to the classic duty to rescue scenario…and this of course assumes the baby, at whatever stage of the pregnancy, is a/has a right to life.

              I do not think there is a rational justification for incest, except a pretty harsh and eugenics-like pragmaticism justifying the protection of the gene pool. I don’t believe any exception for consensual incest could be justified on legal/moral grounds.

        2. Regarding rape or incest exceptions, on purely logical and ethical ground, I oppose them, but people in general don’t think rationally about such subjects. I’ll allow those exceptions because I’d rather get 9/10ths of what I want than nothing.

          1. on purely logical and ethical ground, I oppose them,

            You’re wrong on both counts/

            but people in general don’t think rationally about such subjects

            True. Many are totally illogical, like your opposition. People who think rationally know the meaning of unalienable. So they know the the woman’s right to Liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child’s right to Life.

            Some of the anti-rational are Christians. God-given rights are only temporary, or can be suspended. There is no basis for their assertion, they invented it. For example, they say a fetus has God-given tights at conception. But so did the woman, who they somehow “forgot.”.

            So they are tricked, in effect, into denying the WILL of God … in the NAME of God.

            but people in general don’t think rationally about such subjects

            Indeed! The example I gave is probably the nuttiest.

        3. There is such a thing as making do with what you can get. Failure to make an exception for rape or incest is political poison. The vast majority of ‘Pro-Life’ activists understand that. Opposing parental notification laws and defending partial birth abortion are both political poison. Apparently, the vast majority of ‘Pro-Choice’ activists DON’T understand that. Which is why I fully expect Abortion to become illegal in many States during my lifetime.

          P.S. I favor legal abortion.

          1. So if a brother and sister in their 30s make a baby abortion would be ok but not for an unrelated couple?

            1. IceTrey|1.3.17 @ 4:34PM|#
              So if a brother and sister in their 30s make a baby abortion would be ok but not for an unrelated couple?

              Ummm, how does that relate — in even the slightest way — with what Schofield posted?

        4. The rape exception is justified by property rights. e.g. If X forces Y onto your property to steal from you for 9 months, do you have the right to shoot Y?

          On the other hand, if you invite Y onto your property, knowing that he might have to stay for 9 months, do you have the right to shoot him if you don’t want him there?

          1. The answer to this is no in both cases. Though it’s possible under the castle doctrine you might have the right to under scenario a (you would need more facts to see if that applies), the general rule is to use lethal force you need to be in fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death. I’d say the property rights analogy has a lot of problems. I prefer the duty to rescue analogy as I outlined above.

        5. Either it’s a life to be protected or it isn’t.

          It is protected. At viability.
          The rights to Life and Liberty are precisely equal — by definition — of unalienable

          Its parentage shouldn’t factor in for those who profess to believe it is.

          Many of them (not all) simply reject your disdain for individual liberty.

          Extreme pro-lifers reject the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty. Extreme pro-choicers reject the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life. And they both seek the power of the states to impose ONLY their anti-liberty position.

      2. On this note, I still think it is entirely contradictory to believe that abortion is immoral/murder and to simultaneously claim that it is not the role of government to intervene.

        Trump tried that logic already – he got ridiculed for it. Doublethink is the only acceptable position.

        1. Even more outrageous was the response to his saying that if it’s illegal, women who go get one should be prosecuted for it. The response from the anti-abortionists, including one I knew, was, “Of course we conservatives aren’t for that. The conservative position is that the woman who gets one is a victim of the abortionist too.” You just know hardly any of the people espousing that position actually believe it.

          The team-think, the group-think…is just ridiculous, yet ridiculously pervasive. It’s one of the factors leading me to believe that today’s most widespread -isms aren’t actually thought-out beliefs, but group-sustained clusters of expression?compact majorities & minorities, as Szasz called them, I think getting that terminology from someone else. They arise by historic accident, very path-dependent. There are some factors leading me to believe otherwise, so the truth of how they come about is probably somewhat mixed.

          1. You just know hardly any of the people espousing that position actually believe it.

            Really? Because the biggest aborto-nag in these comments think that.

            1. Because the biggest aborto-nag in these comments think that.

              Both extremes do. But they disagree on which rights should be violated by the state.

      3. On this note, I still think it is entirely contradictory to believe that abortion is immoral/murder and to simultaneously claim that it is not the role of government to interve

        Idolatry is immoral.

        Should the state criminalize it?

        1. Divorce is immoral also… Government Almighty should PUNISH all divorced people!

          (Either you are in favor of broken marriages & divorces, or you favor punishing divorced people, there can be NO middle ground, whereby Government Almighty just sticks its dick back in it’s pants, and minds its own business. Either you’re for us, or you’re against us).

          1. Dafuq? There is nothing immoral about idolatry or divorce. Y’all seriously need some better examples, such as cheating or betraying someone’s trust.

            1. We should all agree on what constitutes immoral actions before having this conversation.

              How about: “Fraud, Theft, and Initiating Violence.”

              Maybe we can start some kind of philosophy on this basis. What do you think?

              1. It all depends on who your victim is… A full-grown human, a baby human, a zygote human, a zygote chimp, and adult dog, a zygote dog, a rat, a grasshopper, a bacterium… Or a carrot! I can NOT live, without eating SOMETHING that used to be alive! … I see no real hope of even getting a general consensus on whose “rights” deserve protection, and whose do not. It’s not math, it’s all about “feelings”… Feelings matter, for sure! But there’s very little hope of putting any kind of end to this debate, short of putting an end to intelligent life… And that latter “solution”, is the LAST thing I want to see!

              2. You don’t think cheating on your partner is immoral?

                [crosses Holger da Dane off list of potential dating partners]

                1. I think it depends on the kind of relationship you and your partner has agreed upon?

                  If the relationship contains some kind of verbal or written contract that mentions monogamy, then cheating is obviously fraud. Hence immoral.

            2. Depends on your religion. Many religions hold idolatry to be a sin and therefore immoral. Several also believe divorce to be a sin as well, unless given the ok by a religious person specifically authorized by the religious hierarchy to do so.

        2. Idolatry doesn’t have a victim. The ‘immorality’ here is considered murder by many who still argue it isn’t the government’s role to intervene.

          1. He think he’s saying that feeling something is immoral and thinking the government should stay out of it is not a contradiction, or, at least, not the contradiction that feeling something is murder and thinking the government should stay out of it represents.

            1. My initial comment conflated the two positions. Viewing abortion as immoral doesn’t necessarily mean someone views it as murder. Though I did mean the latter.

              1. It’s cool, brah.

          2. If you steal an acorn from my property, it is theft, but (Usually) Government Almighty has the good judgment to not prosecute. It would be a waste of time and resources, over something utterly trivial.

            If you steal a mature oak tree from my property, and saw it up for your lumber, that can be worth thousands of dollars; even tens of thousands, for a really large, mature tree. Government Almighty WILL prosecute for this, and rightly so. It’s called “good judgment”, even though both cases are clearly theft.

            This is a clear and fair analogy to “murdering” a zygote v/s an already-born human.

            1. You are trying to refute the notion that abortion is murder. Not addressing the issue that many view it as such, and would not make your distinction, and still oppose it. Notice that I did not make the argument you are refuting.

              Your analogy is pretty crummy and you are employing language that isn’t accurate in order to minimize the situation regardless.

              1. Zygote v/s fully developed human. Both murder.

                Acorn v/s fully developed tree. Both theft.

                Using good judgment to discern between worth prosecuting, and not worth prosecuting. Prosecuting does cost time, money, pain, impact to society and individuals and families, you know. Using prosecution to allow voters to feel self-righteous is especially odious.

                What is wrong with my language or my analogy, really?

                1. Killing a zygote is not murder, because a zygote is not a person. C’mon, we have been over this. Why should a zygote be considered a person? I have seen no good argument for this.

                  1. Why should you be considered a person? Has anyone made a good argument for that proposition, other than human individuals are assumed to have rights, if we can call you human?

                  2. The difficulty in calling a zygote not a person is deciding when the developing zygote/fetus becomes a person. I’m also very comfortable saying a zygote isn’t a person, but it’s a new born baby clearly is, and drawing a non-completely-arbitrary line is borderline impossible.

                    As the comment below from Mickey Rat gets at, I prefer to avoid this entire discussion and say “there’s no such thing as intrinsic value.” Humans don’t have a general right to life because they’re human (an intrinsic notion), but because of the qualities people have and their value to the people around them and society as a whole.

                    1. Intrinsic rights seem fairly important to the concept of individual liberty, as one already born doesn’t gain or lose rights based on their usefulness to others. Otherwise it sounds like we are moving toward collectivism.

                    2. Individual liberty is pretty easy to justify: personal freedom -> creativity -> betterment of life -> improved overall personal fulfillment, and improved society. Usefulness to others is just one component, and far from the only thing that matters.

                      It’s actually incredibly easy to lay out a specific argument as to why certain rights are good or other behaviors are bad. Like, is it so hard to make an intellectual argument for why murder is bad that we must resort to axiomatically declaring “Right to life”? I don’t think so. This also comes with the benefit of less often, if ever, having to draw arbitrary lines like when a zygote becomes a baby.

                    3. As I’ve previously remarked on these pages, a much-not-discussed aspect of this is the whole “empowerment of the sexes” thing. Some women get abused by scummy men and false promises? Some say the woman made the choice when she chose to sleep with some dude… Or when she was raped? How about that one? Or, she was flat-out LIED to? “Love ya, Babe, Love-ya-Love-ya, LOVE ya. NOW can I get in yer pants?”

                      Dude get in her pants… Gets her pregnant. As soon as she is pregnant, the abuse begins! And THEN she finds out that he has 5 other girlfriends! Abortion is “veto power” against scumbucket men, is what it is. I for one do not want to take the side of scumbucket men, against women, in this case, when it means that that many more genes and social influences of scumbucket men will be passed on, against the wishes of women who “learned better”, but too late… And yes, some women practice “entrapment” on the other side, as well; the abuse is a 2-way street?

                    4. Anyway, w/regards to the sexes abusing each other, I have “been to the mountain top” to see the Guru in the cave, and have learned MUCH wisdom, which I will now pass on to you? Hooray!

                      Q: What is the difference between a woman who just can NOT find a man who treats her well, and so, she is constantly shuttling between abusive men? And a man who abuses women, by, for example yanking on the gazongas too hard?

                      A: The first is a “jerks juggler”, and the second is a “jugs jerker”!

                    5. Can you say,
                      “Jugs-jerking jerks-jugglers juggle jugs-jerking jerks”?

                    6. “when the developing zygote/fetus becomes a person”

                      That’s simple, when the water breaks.

                    7. Do you mind expanding on this? ‘Cause I don’t see a rigorous way to arrive at that conclusion.

                    8. Pretty simple; The U.S. Constitution never granted life rights to any person not ‘born’ (that is the exact word used within it). Perhaps at the time they didn’t take into consideration the process of abortion but frankly; life rights have a boundary. One cannot go randomly shooting up a city without loosing their ‘life rights’ and on the same level of sense; one who exists in a ‘born’ persons body looses their ‘life rights’.

                    9. Same for the woman. OOOPS

                    10. People oppose murder because they don’t want to be murdered.

                      They are less concerned about being aborted.

                    11. To many libertarians are totally ignorant of the “equal rights” involved. A woman’s unalienable right to Liberty is precisely equal to a fetal child’s unalienable right to Life. Both sides can scream in rage, but that can’t change the clear definition of “unalienable.” It’s a case of conflicting rights, as we learned in high school. NO fundamental right can be absolute, simply because such rights can conflict with each other. And when fundamental rights are in conflict, ONLY the judiciary is empowered to resolve the conflict — as the check and balance against the legislature which created the conflict.

                      Only the Judiciary may establish the boundary, draw the line, that BEST defends BOTH rights. That standard is now viability, a fetus capable of living on its own outside the womb, including mechanical assistance.

                      But both extremes want it ALL their way. Extreme pro-lifers deny the woman’s GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS … in the name of God!. The other extreme demands abortion of a fetal child capable of living on it own. They’re both wrong. .

                      It’s the pro-lifers, being manipulated for political gain, who failed. If the fetal child is viable, a live birth should be required. The woman’s Liberty includes the right to expel the fetus, yes, up to birth. But there is no SEPARATE right to kill a viable fetus.

                      Does a fetus have full rights at conception? Sure. So did the woman!

            2. This is a clear and fair analogy to “murdering” a zygote v/s an already-born human.

              It’s a bullshit analogy that suppresses the issue. The woman and fetal child BOTH have equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights and BOTH must be defended. Each extreme wants state power to violate a different right, which the state has no legitimate power to do.

        3. Murder is immoral. Should the state criminalize it?

          1. I got a new slogan for you:

            “You will not de-fetus!”

            1. “You rape ’em, we scrape ’em.”

              “No fetus can beat us.”

              “Bring your own coat hanger”.

          2. Should the state exist?

            1. Should the state exist?

              Only if its people freely decide to form one.
              Like our founding. It’s akin to the right of association.

          3. Should the state exist?

          4. Murder is immoral. Should the state criminalize it?

            Cute, but abortion is not necessarily murder, since both the woman and the fetal child have precisely equal rights. Yes, the rights of Life and Liberty are precisely equal. Find a dictionary. Learn the meaning of “unalienable.” Then make a wild assumption that Jefferson and our Founders were literate.

        4. Murder is immoral and the use of force to intervene is justified.

          Idolatry is immoral and the use of force to intervene is not justified.

          1. Bull shit. TOTAL bullshit. Get a dictionary, See what “unalienable” means. Life and Liberty are both unalienable, thus precisely equal … to each other … and to all the other fundamental rights.

            And all it takes is a simple dictionary.

  2. I would like to see the methodology of this survey, or the exact question asked. I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe a majority of Republicans don’t want it overturned. Overturning RvW has been their bread and butter for decades, and especially now that they lost the SSM debate, they need something to cling to.

    1. Or maybe the media just blows the whole issue out of proportion in favor of calling the side they disagree with anti-choice/anti-woman blablabla whatever the talking point de jour is because they’re total fucking lying sacks of shit?

      I’m going to go with the media are lying sacks of shit.

  3. Is Roe v. Wade even law of the land anymore?

    I thought Planned Parenthood v. Casey was the controlling case.

    1. PP v. Casey overturned Roe’s limiting factor of the third trimester in favor of fetal viability. Roe’s basic claim that a woman’s 14th Amendment right to due process and privacy is violated by an abortion ban still remains case law.

      1. Roe’s basic claim that a woman’s 14th Amendment right to due process and privacy is violated by an abortion ban still remains case law.

        Only a partial truth. Both Roe and Casey also cite the 9th Amendment which says, in effect 0mthat NO level of government has ANY defined powers in abortion, or any other abuse of fundamental rights. The 9th states, explicitly, that we have fundamental rights beyond those “enumerated” in the Constitution. In effect, bringing Jefferson’s unalienable rights into the Constitution.

        Also like the Declaration, those unalienable rights are never listed. We know Life and Liberty, which are both at play in abortion, there are others never defined. all unalienable, thus precisely co-equal, And anyone who claims to know what those rights are is blowing smoke.

        Both extremes on abortion lie about this, because they each want it entirely their own way. So they refuse to accept that Life and Liberty are precisely equal, which is what unalienable MEANS. One denies the rights of the fetal child. The other denies the rights of the woman. Like too many “hot” issues, this debate is fueled by two extremes who are both wrong. And go berserk when confronted with the simple definition of “unalienable!”

  4. Thankfully, the constitution is (technically) not subject to “mob rule”.

    1. Do nine people in black robes count as a “mob”?

      1. Only if they are intent on causing trouble.

      2. Only if they ride demonic mounts.

      3. Seeing that they are confirmed by senators elected by the mob and not by the states as originally designed, yes.

      4. Do nine people in black robes count as a “mob”?

        Read the Constitution. They have delegated power as one of three co-equal branches. The pissers and moaners are nobodies.

  5. It should o without saying, but repeal of Roe v wade would not outlaw abortion and there is very good reason to believe it should be repealed regardless of your views on abortion.

    1. here is very good reason to believe it should be repealed regardless of your views on abortion.

      Only to the brainwashed, totally clueless how badly they’ve been manipulated. The woman’s right to Liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child’s right to Life — by definition — the definition of unalienable.

      So they get suckered into violating God-given rights … in the name of God.
      Go figure.

  6. Should public opinion even matter? Legal scholars right and left agree that Roe was an atrocious decision from a Constitutional standpoint and that it was pure outcome-oriented reasoning.

    Abortion should have always been a matter for the states to legalize. If the pro-choicers had started to work that route in the 1970s there would be more consensus on the issue now. Instead Roe energized two generations of pro-life activists who felt disenfranchised by an activist SCOTUS legislating from the bench.

    1. But shadows of clouds!

    2. Very good point. This is an area where I stray from the libertarians or at least the tilt at this site. In R v W the topic was abortion and limited States rights. What about weed then? States rights or Federal Law? It just shouldn’t be a topic by topic philosophical discussion.

      1. Leave them both to the states, but there’s little philosophical connection between abortion and weed. Weed’s legalization doesn’t even extrapolate to all food and drugs.

    3. Legal scholars right and left agree that Roe was an atrocious decision from a Constitutional standpoint and that it was pure outcome-oriented reasoning.

      Nope
      * All unalienable rights are co-equal, by definition
      * Life and Liberty are both unalienable.
      * The 9th Amendment forbids ANY level of government to “deny or disparage” such rights.
      * Abortion is an example of conflicting or competing rights.
      * In the vernacular, we have “no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.”
      * And … “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose,” where the nose tip is the boundary between two competing rights.
      * That boundary can ONLY be determined by the Judiciary, because only the Legislative can create the conflict, and the Legislative is checked by the Judiciary. (balance of power)
      * The court is obliged to establish a boundary that best defends BOTH rights.
      * Casey replaced trimesters with viability, but to defend the same standard. Capable of living outside the womb
      * Medical advances made trimesters obsolete. Viability is never obsolete, because it includes mechanical means, like an incubator, If someone invents a machine that supports a fetus at two weeks, then two weeks becomes the new application of the original standard.
      * Yes, the fetus had full rights at conception. But so did the woman.

  7. Legal scholars right and left agree that Roe was an atrocious decision from a Constitutional standpoint and that it was pure outcome-oriented reasoning.

    The same can be said for Brown vs Board of Education. They should have decided Plessy vs Ferguson was wrongly decided but the SCOTUS is loathe to admit they could ever be wrong

    1. the SCOTUS is loathe to admit they could ever be wrong

      Constitutionally, that’s irelevant.

  8. The purpose of overturning Roe is to create a vulnerable class of people to exploit for labor and sex. The push for this will become harder as people realize that the rounding up of illegals isn’t going to happen, nor will they have access to muslims ‘safe spaces’ in Syria. Also, Roberts has been salivating over this. In fact he supported Obamacare for the sole purpose of plausible deniability – “See I’m a principled guy, not a political ideologue.” This will be Trumpelstiltskin’s last chance to score, so you can expect him to push hard on this issue.

    1. The purpose of overturning Roe is to create a vulnerable class of people to exploit for labor and sex.

      Is this supposed to be an orphan labor joke?

      1. You’re laughing too?
        Or crying.

  9. “Nearly half of white, evangelical Protestants said they think Roe should be overturned.”

    If we’re going to make it about race, let’s do so across the board.

    Abortion Legal/Illegal

    White non-Hispanic: 57%/40%
    Black non-Hispanic: 57%/40%
    Hispanic: 48%/50%

    http://www.pewforum.org/2016/0…..bortion-2/

    Pew isn’t breaking Black non-Hispanic out by religious affiliation, but if we think that support for historically black Protestant churches is higher than the proportion of non-Hispanic whites who are evangelicals, we might expect to see that the support for overturning Roe vs. Wade is even higher among Black evangelicals.

    If you really want to go after a group for their race and religion, maybe you should concentrate on Hispanics, a majority of which support making abortion illegal regardless of their religious affiliation. But then that brings us to the question, “Why go after people for their race and religion?” That’s so Obama era! That’s so 2012!

    Despising people, especially, for being white, blue collar, Christian, middle class, etc. makes Donald Trump President. Haven’t you heard?

    1. So then why are you still so butthurt about it?

      1. What are you talking about?

        1. Despising people, especially, for being white, blue collar, Christian, middle class, etc. makes Donald Trump President. Haven’t you heard?

          1. I’ll banter with you, HR.

          2. You’re saying that isn’t true?

            I celebrated Hillary’s loss.

            You’re lashing out at figments of your imagination.

            I’m a libertarian. I want to see libertarians win.

            Pointing out the negative impacts of identity politics to the libertarian cause is a function of that.

            Yeah, I’m glad Hillary lost, and I’ve repeatedly defended Trump’s appointees and statements when warranted. But I want to see the country go libertarian in the future–since I’m a libertarian–and identity politics isn’t conducive to that end.

    2. Pew isn’t breaking Black non-Hispanic out by religious affiliation

      Irrelevant because the overall totals would not change.

  10. So… how are my sweet and clever little anarcho-frankentrumpkensteins doing today?

  11. I’d love to see a question regarding whether or not people think abortion laws should be left up to the states. I would imagine you’d see a different number, since many people probably think overturning Roe would automatically ban abortion throughout the whole country. It is a state issue, like marriage. I just don’t think marriage and abortion are among the fundamental basic human rights that the Constitution was written to protect.

    1. Freedom to do with your body as you wish is not a constitutionally protected right?

      1. What the heck do you think ‘Liberty’ is?

      2. Freedom to do with your body as you wish is not a constitutionally protected right?

        Read the Ninth Amendment to see that somebody is conning you.

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

        So what are those rights, never stated in the Constitution, that no level of government can deny or disparage?

  12. If he spends any political capital at all on abortion, he’s an idiot who’ll deserve the loss he’ll take in 4yrs.

    he’s going to nominate a SC justice in the next few weeks… so i guess we’ll see whether there’s any substance to that soon.

    side note = media matters? really? what does it mean when Vox is a significantly-less-hysterical source compared to the one you actually choose?

    i think its funny that the left try and carefully dance around the issue of ‘how plausible is it to overturn 40+ year old SC law”? because they do sort of themselves rely on the idea that its totally possible for their own political goals. (citizen’s united, et al) but here they have to confess, ‘eh, ok, not really that likely. but lets pretend’

    1. how plausible is it to overturn 40+ year old SC law

      Hysterical considering they are trying to get the 2nd Amendment thrown out on a daily basis.

  13. First there’s the phrasing of the question: “Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?” Thus members of the squishy middle are advised that they’re being asked to endorse an “extreme” position – *complete* overturn – rather than some moderate “compromise” like allowing abortion for cases of rape or incest.

    This is key because when there are surveys about specific abortion policies, there tend to be majorities to ban most of the actually-existing abortions in this country – abortions of convenience. Majorities can be found in support of rape-and-incest abortions, so pollsters like to phrase their questions to put these people in the “pro abortion” camp. It helps that respondents are vague on the details of Roe v. Wade and don’t always know how extreme it is.

    The problem is, the abortion status quo allows abortions for convenience, despite public opinion, and this is where most of the abortions are done.

    To repeat what I’ve said before: If the pollsters ever discover that a majority of the people want a majority of the abortions happening now to be legal, that result would be trumpeted from the rooftops. Since this *isn’t* being proclaimed from the rooftops, that means that most of the people want to ban most of the abortions occurring today.

    And of course the table of results says “Don’t know responses not shown.” Didn’t the NYT get criticism for this sort of shenanigans?

    1. Of course if they ever did try to ban abortions other than for medical cause, it’d be like the situation w medical marijuana. From what I’ve heard, it’s like that now in most countries that do that w.r.t. abortions.

    2. First there’s the phrasing of the question: “Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?”

      Umm, COMPLETELY overturning Roe v Wade would restore the legal and constitutional standards that existed at the time. The problem if there is one, is a binary question — up or down.

      But the issue for the extreme right IS of course a total on on abortion. A major loser. They claim its murder! That’s what the poll measured. Polls suck at nuance.

      The best “competing” question would be late-term abortions — also overwhelming opposed. The relevant truth is that the debate is being framed entirely by extremists on both sides who have NO broad support That’s because both the fetus and the woman have unalienable rights — and each extreme wants it ALL their way, and to hell with unalienable rights.

  14. Why is this interesting, from a Libertarian perspective? Which of our other fundamental rights, in addition to the right to life, do we wish to subject to majority approval?

    1. Popular sovereignty, dude, haven’t you read the Lincoln-Douglas Debates?

      1. Ugh. I was endowed by my creator with unalienable rights, not 51% of the idiots who bother to show up to vote.

        1. Well, that was mighty kind of Geppetto. Did he put them into a little chamber carved into your chest?

        2. Except, this is a clash of rights. A decision has to be made, and I do not see much difference between nine people in black robes, a state legislature or a plebiscite voting to crap on someones perceived rights.

          All you are doing to appealing to SCOTUS’s authority to take it out of your hands.

          1. What clash of rights? The SC has ruled a fetus is not a person and has no rights.

            1. What clash of rights? The SC has ruled a fetus is not a person and has no rights.

              Baloney. And that’s twice here.
              If that was true then abortion could never be illegal. No you know what viability means? And who are you to say the woman has no riights? The fetal child;’s right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s right to liberty — by definition — because both are unalienable, which means cannot be denied or taken away for ANY purpose.

              The court did its job, which was to establish a boundary between two conflicting rights, that best defends BOTH rights equally, since neither can be absolute.

              Bluntly, the remaining problem traces to the pro-life movement placing politics above babies lives. Oh yes they do. Late term abortion could have been TOTALLY banned the day after Roe v Wade. Simply require a live birth if the fetus is viable. Simple enough? Why didn’t they do it? Politics. Shameful.

  15. Fusionist beat me to it… more shitty reason reporting…

    graphic showed the question was “would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not”

    article says :” while 69 percent?including a majority of Republicans?said the Supreme Court should leave Roe alone.”

    that is simply false, if the graphic question is correct.

    69% said the supreme court “SHOULD NOT COMPLETELY OVERTURN” it

    that is in no way the same thing as saying 69% said they should “leave it alone”

    ffs, Reason

    1. Thank you, Officer Friendly, I missed the part where Reason tried to spin this as “leaving Roe alone.”

      What a crappy summary of a crappy poll.

      1. I’m there for you, man!

        1. I’d like to see you arresting some abortionists.

          The public is, shall we say, vague on the details of Roe, and of its diabolical progeny. Pollsters asking questions about Roe are simply doing garbage-in-garbage-out.

      2. Hey, ENB, honesty is not her strong suit on this subject.

  16. and of course to follow up “completely overturn” completely OVERLOOKS that most people are fine with abortion “on demand” in first trimester and vast majority are opposed to late term abortions for “health” of the mother, when it’s explained “health” includes “depression” and other mental health issues

    that’s where the real divide is.

    NARAL and other loons think there should be no effective limitation in the third trimester…

    vast majority of public disagrees

    similarly, the vast majority disagrees that the morning after pill, or an abortion after a couple of weeks, should be restricted

    1. That’s because the majority of people believe:
      – A fertilized egg is not a human
      – A fetus that can live outside the womb is a human.
      It’s really just that easy.

      1. That’s because the majority of people believe:
        – Stupid shit thay has no basis in reality.

        1. With all the technology of today; The record for growing a fetus into a person outside the mother is 21-weeks. That is a recorded reality.

      2. That’s because the majority of people believe:
        – A fertilized egg is not a human
        – A fetus that can live outside the womb is a human.
        It’s really just that easy

        TOTALLY irrelevant. It’s about balancing the rights of the woman and the fetal child, which are precisely equal by definition (of unalienable)

  17. Ask your typical Protestant why they believe a zygote is a human. You will get these responses:
    – Because the Bible says so. Well no, it really leans the other way.
    – Because my preacher says so. Well I thought the idea of Protestantism is that you can think for yourself.
    – Because it has the potential to be so. Well so does a sperm and egg. Should they all be preserved?
    – Because God has made it. God made death row inmates too but many Christians are ok with the death penalty.
    – Because you are thwarting God’s will. Wow, now you can read the mind of God.

    1. Nice strawman in a Protestant costume you got there.

      1. I have found that Catholics are usually tin men.

      2. If you got something better, let’s hear it.

    2. I’ve never received one of those answers for why abortion should be banned. You’re lying.

      1. I grew up the children’s choir director’s middle son in a 4x-a-week Southern Baptist church in the rural Arkansas Ozarks, and none of his “protestants be like” stereotyping rings true to me at all.

        Goes back to the whole ‘Turing Test in Politics’ thing.

    3. God made murderers & executioners too.

    4. Human individuals are assumed to be rights bearing entities. Are you throwing that idea out? Then should you have rights that are protected by law? If it is just some humans havw rights, when and how do they aquire rights? Make sure you are consistent about which humans do not have rights and why.

    5. I’d love to hear how the Bible leans that a “zygote” is not human. The only honest response on the topic from either side is that the Bible is unclear on the topic but seems to lean that some of the writers felt a human connection prior to birth.

      Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

      Psalm 139: 13-15 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.

      On abortion, I’m agnostic. But you might want to stay away from comments on the Bible.

      What I’m not agnostic on is government funding for abortions and that racist, ethnic cleansing organization: Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger ended up getting a lot of what she wanted. Planned Parenthood places clinics in heavily African-American communities for a reason. They want fewer of us.

      1. With the murder rate in Chicago it seems you want less of you. BTW, Planned does a lot more that abortions.

    6. Absolutely correct from what I’ve seen. Pro-Life is all about playing ‘God’ and prosecuting other people for their own religious beliefs by using the federal government.

  18. FACTS

    1. Roe v. Wade supreme court hearing announced ‘fetal viability’ as the beginning of life. Which is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus.
    2. At 21-weeks or less; a fetus CANNOT be turned into a human. There is 0% probability of saving a life and as such does NOT institute a person needing saved.
    3. Roe v. Wade allowed the STATE legislative system to defend that now-child within the woman after the ‘fetal viability’ stage.
    4. The Pro-Life movement was initiated by the Catholic Church. (IE. religion)

    Lobbying that organs, cells or anything else that has 0% probability of saving life is chaos to say the least and can only be justified with religious over-tones/beliefs. The U.S. Government is not meant to resemble “sharia law”, so keep your religion out of politics..

    When all the smoke clears and religious theories are cut-out. The logical answer is that the power to sacrifice one life existing “inside” another personal and private body is far too personal to be handed over to legislative governments (Bureaucrats).

    Let us, as a whole, not take judgment on gods territory of the unborn and accept that each to their own-will on private personal matters. We are not gods; leave godly territory to gods own judgement.

  19. Roe is bad law, even the old crow on the court says so.

    Overturn it to get rid of the “emanations and penumbras” BS precedent, and then allow it on 9th amedment grounds….

    1. Enemy of the State
      Overturn it to get rid of the “emanations and penumbras” BS precedent, and then allow it on 9th amendment grounds

      Where do I begin?
      “Emanations and penumbras” IS the 9th amendment! That;s what it referred to.for a right of privacy, which only a total ignoramus would deny.

      The 9th amendment has ALREADY led to where we are now, since it was cited in both Roe v Wade and Casey. The 9th guarantees the (equal) rights of BIOTH the woman and the fetus cannot be denied or abridged by ANY level of government,

  20. What does the Bible say about abortion?

    See this page in: Bulgarian, Dutch Baby. Illustration copyrighted. God speaks very clearly in the Bible on the value of unborn children. God’s Word says that He personally made each one of us, and has a plan for each life:

    Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart. ?Jeremiah 1:5

    For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb? Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be. ?Psalm 139:13, 16

    Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart. ?Jeremiah 1:5

    1. What does the Bible say about abortion?

      Not a single word. Abortion was quite common at the time. Mostly by herbs. There were virtually no bans on abortion until it became surgical procedure — late 19th century. And they were mostly protecting the woman. Surgery was dangerous, Natural means were still much safer.

      None of your quotes have anything to do with aborion. And how does the woman lose her ALSO God-given rights? For how long. And has God endowed us with any other rights which are also temporary? On what authority?

  21. I don’t much care one way or the other about the result of Roe v. Wade, but the process was the sort of “legislation from the bench” that should NOT be tolerated and SHOULD be overruled.

    And while we’re at it, can we tie rights to responsibilities? I have a right to bear arms. I have a responsibility for my decisions regarding how I exercise that right. If I shoot up the town, I belong in jail. I have a First Amendment right to free speech. But if I use that right to defame someone, I may be punished. Rights and responsibilities go together.

    So if the decision to have or not have an abortion is a right, the concomitant responsibility is to the consequences of making that choice. So if a woman decides to make a man a “father” against his will, the very least she should be responsible for is the entire cost of raising the child that she, unilaterally, decided to have. By the same token, if she decides to murder his child, is he not due some damages? If it’s NOT murder to have an abortion, then can we at least agree that when a third party “kills” the fetus, that is not murder either? And so the man who forces an abortion may be guilty of criminal battery against the woman – but not homicide of the fetus.

    A little consistency. Is that too much to ask?

    1. but the process was the sort of “legislation from the bench” that should NOT be tolerated and SHOULD be overruled

      They did their job. Abortion is a conflict of equal rights. The woman’s right to Liberty is equal to the fetal child’s right to Life, by definition, the definition of unalienable.

      Judicial Review has been the norm for over 200 years, ruling on violations of Constitutional and/or fundamental rights. The 9th Amendment forbids ALL levels of government to deny or disparage those rights. And SCOTUS is the check and balance against legislative abuses.

      Abortion bans violated the woman’s right to Liberty. But overturning them created a conflict of rights between the woman and fetal child. The Court ruled that viability of the fetus,as the boundary, was the best defense of BOTH rights. There is NO legitimate power to deny either the woman’s or the fetal child’s rights. You argue for total rejection of the woman’s rights ? on what authority? Likewise pro-choice extremists are equally wrong to deny the fetal child. Neither of you have a constitutional leg to stand on.

      If it’s NOT murder to have an abortion, then can we at least agree that when a third party “kills” the fetus, that is not murder either?

      Obviously not. The third party’s Liberty has NO conflict with the fetal child’s Life. And it’s only murder if you deny the woman’s rights. On what authority?

  22. Popularity is not the basis on which legal rulings should be made. Libertarians of all people should not only understand this at an abstract level, but also at a practical one considering that nearly every libertarian position is politically unpopular. If you can’t actually make a persuasive argument for your position, don’t try to substitute 5 paragraphs of ad populum bullshit to make a deadline.

  23. that nearly every libertarian position is politically unpopular

    Only those of our wacko anti-gummint faction.

    Pro-liberty libs have been posing solutions for decades, balanced to appeal both left and right. See, it’s about increasing human liberty … not debating how many angels can dance on pinheads.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.