Public Opinion About Abortion Is Complex and Sometimes Confused
Americans cannot be neatly divided into two sides, and they do not necessarily understand the implications of Roe v. Wade.

A Fox News poll completed last week, the day before Politico published a draft majority opinion indicating that the Supreme Court will soon overturn Roe v. Wade, found that just 27 percent of respondents favored that outcome. Yet 54 percent thought their own states should ban abortion after 15 weeks of gestation—the very policy at issue in the case before the Court.
A sizable number of the respondents evidently did not realize that a 15-week ban is inconsistent with Roe, and similar anomalies in other surveys suggest such confusion is common. At the same time, polling data indicate that Americans' opinions about abortion are more diverse and nuanced than Roe's supporters frequently imply.
That 1973 decision said states were not allowed to regulate abortion based on "the potentiality of human life" until the third trimester, which at the time was roughly equivalent to "viability," the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that retained Roe's "central holding," forbade any regulation that places "a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."
The dividing line for "viability" nowadays is generally said to be around 23 or 24 weeks. That means a 15-week ban is clearly out of the question under the Court's abortion precedents.
So is an 18-week cutoff, which 41 percent of the respondents in a 2021 Gallup poll favored, although only 32 percent said Roe should be overturned. A 2021 Marquette University Law School poll likewise found a gap between the share of respondents who said the Court should ditch Roe (21 percent) and the share who thought it should uphold a 15-week ban (37 percent).
An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted last month found that 54 percent of respondents supported Roe, which was similar to the 57 percent who opposed a 15-week ban. But that survey presented a different puzzle: The share of respondents who opposed a 15-week ban was essentially the same as the share who opposed a six-week ban (58 percent).
According to federal data, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks would affect less than 5 percent of abortions. By contrast, opponents of the Texas law that prohibits abortion when fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which typically happens around six weeks, estimated that it would cover "at least 85%" of abortions.
You would therefore expect substantially more opposition to the second policy, contrary to what the poll found. While results like these cast doubt on the basis for the abortion opinions measured by polls, other findings tend to conceal their diversity.
In the Gallup poll, for example, 32 percent of respondents said abortion should be "legal under any circumstances," while 48 percent said abortion should be "legal only under certain circumstances." Although supporters of abortion rights often combine those two numbers, the latter view covers a wide range of policies, from liberal laws that allow abortions in nearly all cases to strict laws with a few narrow exceptions.
The plurality apparently includes many people who lean toward the latter position. Although only 19 percent of respondents said abortion should be "illegal in all circumstances," 47 percent described themselves as "pro-life."
In a March 2022 Pew Research Center poll, 25 percent of respondents said abortion should be "legal in all cases," 36 percent said it should be "legal in most cases," 27 percent said it should be "illegal in most cases," and 10 percent said it should be "illegal in all cases." While you can read those results as evidence of a "pro-choice" majority, they are consistent with majority support for something like a 15-week ban, which would leave abortion "legal in most cases."
Pew also has found that opinions about abortion vary widely across states, which is correlated with the regulations that legislators enact. If the Supreme Court rules as expected, those policy differences will be more dramatic than ever.
© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I must say this doesn't help me have any more of an opinion on the matter than I previously had. but interesting polling data nevertheless.
Though it does seem clear that after 25 or 26 weeks the argument can be made it would be murder.
Unless you happen to be delivered by Gov Northam, then you get to have a discussion ...
I doesn't have to be (not even sure it is).. Fetal Ejection...
Or fetal retention.
The whole point of the debate is to remove the "OR" from all the people.
So it's to be wall to wall abortion 24/7 eh?
Only the dead have heard the end of abortion.
And yet even they will vote in the state elections to come - - - - - - - - - - -
The Disinformation Board has already been talked to death.
I wish. Crickets on that one. I mean it's only a major First Amendment issue. Why would anyone discuss it?
Among the highly educated and rational hillbillies and televangelists of West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi and the FLDS-dominated regions of Texas and other snake-juggling backwaters the New Monkey Trial is God's Crusade and Allah's Jihad against atheistic biology. After the next election we'll see how many Christian National Socialists have a say in sending goons to batter females, Jews, unfrocked blacks or hepcats.
I see your senility continues to advance.
The whole question of "viability" or when a heart can survive outside the womb is moot. A heart beat, even after birth, can't survive on its own for the first eighteen years of its life without the consent supervision and care of a responsible adult. Hell, there are many adults now that still can't survive without their parents. The Trump kids are a good example of this, although The Donald is not the best example of a responsible adult.
So you do not have acright to live until you have to buy car insurance on your own at age 26?
Why stop there? Even functioning adults can't survive without the watchful care of the government, so your viability should be up to the government, right?
^The Pro-Life argument right there whether they see it or not.
And Hunter?
A heart beat, even after birth, can't survive on its own for the first eighteen years of its life without the consent supervision and care of a responsible adult.
Completely untrue. I'd certainly cede the point up to about 2-3 yrs. and might give you conditionally true up to about 8-10. But at about 12-13, the heart beat is pretty fully self-sustaining and somewhat whimsically-chosen line at 18 is to generally prevent other human predators from taking actions that would stop the heart prematurely rather than the heart from stopping itself. For the majority of human history, human hearts have been nearly, if not entirely, self-sustaining well before 18 yrs. after birth and a big part of the progress in the last couple centuries has been lowering that number as a tangent or side effect and/or through no positive action of responsible adults. That is, if I build a bridge to cross a ravine or a drainage tunnel to handle runoff, I'm not actively providing shelter for anyone who lives under/in it but their living under it provides them with the shelter they need to keep their heart beating without me caring or assuming any responsibility.
My dad started working full time at 13.
Yeah, I learned to drive four-on-the-floor on the job at 13, but the job was seasonal/part time. The kids driving the tractors were well younger than 13.
Tobacco and hog parlors for me at 12. I still hate the smell of pork when it is cooking.
That"s not what "independent" means and you know it. Have an honest discussion like Soldier does. He isn't afraid to deal with the real arguments and he's still pro-life. What do you fear?
Oh good, I was sitting here working and thinking to myself “god I hope the next time I check Reason there’s another abortion article.” Thanks Jacob, I sure am glad the Biden administration is so benign and boring that they aren’t enacting any fascist/totalitarian things like an Environmental Justice Special Victims Unit or a Disinformation Board!
Of course, being Sullum didn't write an abortion article. As usual, he wrote an article about how we are too damn stupid to think on our own and should bow to "the experts".
This 'complex and confusing' issue is as hard as "do you think we should kill babies or not"?
This may be one of the few articles presenting facts, rather than the writer's opinion as fact. Sullum manages to present information, and states that there is nuance, which is a far cry from 60% of the shite that has been printed here lately. That said, the myopic centering on abortion as the only important issue says much about the Reason staff and their level of support for individual rights and representative government.
Agreed. If Reason had printed a couple articles, or even a dozen, like this one, they would've appeared far more reasonable (*drink*) on the topic.
It isn’t confusing. Murdering babies for the sake of convenience is, well, murder. Not complicated at all. There’s a discussion to be had about issues of medical necessity, but that’s a different conversation.
Environmental Justice SVU! LOL!
Get a load of the blinkered looter imagining a difference between the two halves of the looter Kleptocracy! And in fact there is, just as in Germany Christian National Socialism showed its colors with Jew-bullying laws, so the American version of that exact same thing has revealed a discernible difference pitting itself against individuals, the uncorrupted original Libertarian Party and today's clueless Dems. Oh, remember the 1929, 1973 and 1987 crashes and inflation?
"Public Opinion About Abortion Is Complex and Sometimes Confused"
Given the clarity of legal cases and reasoning, and the dispassionate, clear, just the facts reporting in the media, this is a crushing indictment of Public Opinion.
Look at the photo. It shows nine women and one non-bullying male. Similar photos from all over These States, Ireland, Argentina, Colombia all show similar ratios. At
British Union of FascistsTrump rallies photos are spiked with a sprinkling of Bund Deutscher Mädel harridans and Long Dong hirelings wearing "Blacks for Trump" t-shirts. Let's see how this pans out in upcoming Senate elections.We certainly will "see how it pans out".
"Public Opinion About Abortion Is Complex and Sometimes Confused"
What would you expect of a decision emanating from a penumbra?
But, but.. There is no 'right' to stub your toe in the Constitution.
This is pathetic. The ostensibly libertarian Sullum is making the case that we the people should not decide the abortion question for ourselves.
I guess we cannot have that....people deciding moral questions for themselves.
Lord of Shitniutude will be along presently to 'splain why people should not decide this question for themselves, state by state.
"I guess we cannot have that....people deciding moral questions for themselves."
Yes, more abortion control (statist womb management) means fewer choices are left to individuals, moral and otherwise! (Chalk it up to Government Almighty's politicians having fingered out that they can "ride the coat-tails of our self-righteousness" and of our "punishment boners" right into office, and into vast powers over the peons! Our stupid self-righteousness and our evil ("punishment boner lust") is being MILKED by the power pigs, and it juts keeps right on going!
Hell, today we can't even blow upon a cheap plastic flute w/o permission! HERE is a result of our "democracy"!
To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!
Elsewhere on this board Slocum argues - not sure he realizes it - against a constitutional right to privacy.
And these are the "libertarians"?
Fuck you. You’re a hypocrite. All your tyrannical KungFlu bullshit, but now it’s a ‘privacy issue’.
Well Said +1000000000000
It's a basic problem with public opinion polling: People don't actually HAVE opinions on a lot of these issues, let alone considered opinions. But you get asked about some big issue, you don't SAY you have no opinion. You quickly try to figure out what opinion is expected of you, and spit it out. And the pollsters know that!
These virtual opinions appear only when measured, and then disappear again, and what's measured is strictly a consequence of how you measure it, the wording very strongly influences the result.
I really think it's pollster malpractice to report these sorts of results as though they were measuring opinions people actually hold.
Opinions are like assholes; everyone has one and it probably stinks.
You’re making SQRLSY hungry with that kind of talk.
Whoa! First, the Lizard People use mind control to FORCE people to NOT vote for Trump, in spite of their TRUE desires to vote for Trump! Thereby STEALING my erections! NOW, to top it all off, the Lizard People use mind control to FORCE people to LIE to the pollsters! And give WRONG opinions! Where are we headed here?!?! Probably to the Planet of the Lizard People, where they will eat our brains, rape our women, and yank our human souls out of our sperm and egg smells!
Actually, I see many of your points. Leading questions... "Tweedle Dee's opinion is much like yours... Tweedle Dee believes that the wicked people should be punished, and their properties should go to YOU! Now, Tweedle Dumb HATES you, and wants to punish YOU!
"So who will you vote for, Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dumb?"
And... "Which do you think better captures the mysterious aspects of the force of gravity; Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or Quantum Loop Gravity?" ... Few of us will have the humility to admit we don't know enough to even HAVE an opinion!
The question is WHAT will you vote for? Christian National Socialism? Christian Communism of the Libertarian proposals to reduce the initiation of force? Spoiler votes, not looter policies, repeal bad laws.
Roe is bad law simply because it is federal versus state. If Roe was a constitutional amendment this would have been voted on by the states. Instead it was judicial activism. Even if it had been passed by the congress and senate and signed into law by a president it would be better.
We have the worse of all the situations. The decision is just a majority opinion from nine black robed justices. Power needs to be decentralized and returned closer to the actual citizens instead of resting in the hands of a few select elitists.
From my experience there are far more people whom wand some limits but not an entire ban on abortion. We only hear from the radical Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion activists. There is a reasonable middle ground and that middle ground may be different in urban versus rural or from state to state.
Decisions of this nature should represent the people as locally as feasible, not dictated from above.
Uomo, US constitutional rights may not be abridged by the states.
.
PS We have a reasonable middle ground with Roe.
Abortion is not a constitutional right. Alito explained this well in the draft ruling. Roe may be a good middle ground but that doesn't make it good law.
Reminds me of the old, "Smoking is not a Constitutional Right"..
I wonder how many other PERSONAL choices *aren't* spelled out...
I'm not sure if I have the 'right' to eat lunch at 3PM instead of noon? Can the Gov-Guns please tell me? /s
When you eat lunch doesn’t typically involve committing infanticide.
What "infant"???
+1
"Roe is bad law simply because it is federal versus state."
Not really. The federal government isn't claiming any powers, it is merely protecting the rights of citizens to make moral/religious and medical decisions for themselves.
I support the individual being empowered to make decisions over the State (whether it is a federal or state State).
+1000000000000
"I support the individual being empowered to make decisions over the State..."
That is the whole point, isn't it? What is an individual? When do they get rights?
Without all the B.S. propaganda confusing/indoctrinating everyone; there isn't many other questions that get any simpler.
Per Webster....
Individual - existing as a distinct entity : separate...
Perhaps what is so interesting is that while the public has such nuanced views, the politicians want such draconian measures. I think the SCOTUS would be happy to allow the nuanced approach. I also think the concern is that giving the power to regulate abortion to the states will not result in those nuanced views winning out but rather draconian ones winning out.
Given that there are already proposals in several states to chase down citizens seeking abortions elsewhere, I think you nailed that draconian state laws prediction.
And those proposals will fail when challenged in court because they will CLEARLY impede interstate commerce.
See how this works Joe?
I have noted in comments on a number of recent Reason articles an impatience with the topic of abortions. This goes towards confirming my suspicions that misogyny is common among those claiming libertarian beliefs. That abortion is not an important topic as it only affects women and not real people. I think that abortion should be an important libertarian topic. It is pretty had to talk about freedom when you can't even exercise freedom over your own body.
Eat a bullet.
Moderation4ever committed vote fraud as a poll worker in Madison, Wisconsin.
Retribution is nigh.
He did? I assume you know that because he bragged about it here?
As always, you prove that your ability to make assumptions leads to you looking foolish. People suggesting that a poorly decided federal law being overturned is less important than crushing inflation brought on by incompetent fiscal policy, or the ongoing proxy war in Ukraine, or the two new federal oversight bureaus, is not misogyny. As for your contention that 'It is pretty had to talk about freedom when you can't even exercise freedom over your own body,' this is a predictably risible reaction. Federal and state laws are not written personally for and about you. The lies you accept about not being able to use contraception, the morning after pill, OTC or prescription abortion pills, or simply traveling to a clinic of your choice, are impressive. More than impressive, intellectually immature, and willfully ignorant.
What do you think of the Louisiana law that bans anything that interferes with the implantation of a zygote? It is my understanding that the law is specifically designed to ban the morning after pill. Other state legislators have stated they want to ban contraception. Do you agree with that position?
I would disagree with that position. Of course, it's only being considered because blue states are trying to pass abortion-on-demand at any stage of the pregnancy, for any reason at all, which is also a position only supported by 20% of the population. Do you agree with that position?
deafening silence ensues...
Yes, actually, I do.
What force requires some states to ban contraception because some states enact liberal abortion laws?
Who is proposing the banning of contraception?
Yes, actually, I do.
Which makes you part of the minority. Most people around the world support at least some restrictions on the practice. China and North Korea are the only nations that allow what you desire--not exactly the most ideal countries to be emulating.
What force requires some states to ban contraception because some states enact liberal abortion laws?
No force is at play. It's simply a response to your side's demand for a procedure that most people are not supportive of once the fetus reaches are certain stage of development. Like it or not, most people are not going to support an abortion at 36 weeks just because the woman suddenly doesn't feel like carrying it to term, for example.
Superstition. Read up on the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints Mormons with their child--molesting empire in Texas. The whole idea is that the presumptuous assumption of The Blinding Light "shall not be questioned" any more than looter spending or successful election riggers in Congress. Think "burning at the stake" or "stoning in the public square" and tell me if the burnee that first comes to mind is male of female. To mystical bigots free exercise means coercing other people with torture and death, 13th Amendment be damned!
How did you get out of your restraints?
"which is also a position only supported by 20% of the population. Do you agree with that position?"
Actually it is supported by less than half that many (roughly 9%). And I, personally, do not agree with that position.
I was going off of the recent Pew numbers.
It's telling that, even after 50 years of Roe being established, the best support the maximalists can get for abortion on demand, for any reason, is no more than 20 percent.
Turns out that even with all the leftist propaganda, most people don’t want to let babies get murdered.
What "baby"???
The baby that in most states is counted as a murdered person if a pregnant woman is killed and both she and the fetus die.
That "baby".
Oh that imaginative creature that no-one can actually make a *real* "baby" until generally way past 21-weeks?
[WE] psychopaths managed to hype up murder charges (entirely without an ounce of intent on the defendants side) with mythical creatures we can't even make *REAL*; So don't question our ability to topple *REAL* people's individual rights with it.
It's always been a small group who want unrestrained abortion rights. Even smaller than those who want abortion made illegal, which is also a tiny percentage. I wish we could just shut that 25% of the country in the Thunderdome and let them fight to the death while reasonable people created a moderate and reasonable compromise law. Because the only way this is going away as an issue is if we collectively tell the zealots on the two fringes to go ... jump in a lake.
"Do you agree with that position?" No; If abortion is what they say it is.... Fetal Ejection should be every Woman's PERSONAL choice at any stage for any reason at all.
How in the world does such a simple solution get ignored so much?
But if push comes to shove (no other options allowed); I'd support the Individual Liberty of a Full Grown Persons body ownership over someone's survival dependency on it. Certainly that shouldn't be so hard to relate to re-enacting slavery.
Something about give me Liberty or give me Death fighting for it....
I find it odd that 200-years ago thousand lost their life's in this fight alone.
I wonder if teenage pregnant suicide jumps after/if the Pro-Life Power-Mad [WE] gang gets their way over pregnant people's Liberty of their own (body) if they'll take any responsibility for it.
I wonder if teenage pregnant suicide jumps after/if the Pro-Life Power-Mad [WE] gang gets their way over pregnant people's Liberty of their own (body) if they'll take any responsibility for it.
Well, that's a new one--typically the abortion maximalists resort to the old "coat-hangar in a back alley" saw. Considering your side dropped the "rare" from the "safe, legal, and rare" mantra some time ago, it's pretty clear nothing you say can really be taken at face value.
Welcome to the cancel culture 101.
You're still posting here, aren't you?
Raving is a better word for it.
Heaven forbid people have any right to their bodies... /s
Pro-Life authoritarians trying to cancel the Roe precedence to dictate pregnant women before viability also lives in a world of there own tyrannical denial.
This "right to their bodies" is pretty interesting. An amazing right that apparently only applied to women, and only to pregnant women in particular, and only if they want an abortion.
If you want ANY other medical procedure, it is at minimum regulated, restricted or forbidden by the government. If you want to donate a kidney to your neighbor you can only do it if they agree. You can actually only donate to a immediate family member or to the organ bank and then THEY decide who will get it.
And this is ultimately the basis for Alito's opinion. The court has found no "right to their bodies" in the constitution. It either has broader application (as I wish it did) OR Roe v Wade was a BS ruling.
The Gov-Gun fire is already burning with personal-life dictation; throw another log on the fire?
Sounds like a winner... /s
"Do you agree with that position?" No; If abortion is what they say it is.... Fetal Ejection should be every Woman's PERSONAL choice at any stage for any reason at all.
How in the world does such a simple solution get ignored so much?
Because it's not "simple," you dingus. China and North Korea are the only nations that allow what you are advocating for. These are not liberty-loving nations. And the reason it's not simple is because there's never been a determination as to when a fetus becomes an individual deserving of protections from harm. The media has always framed it as an all or nothing issue, and they do that because most of them are abortion maximalists to begin with.
See above.
What, that stupid argument?
Eliza leapt from ice-floe to ice-floe crossing state lines with bounty-catchers hot on her heels with deadly initiation of force to please Hank Fatuous the born-again Herbert Hoover sound-money economist. Dred, after all, proved that individual rights weren't important and settled the issue once and for all so "we" could worry about Yourup going to war to kill people over colonial dumping-grounds. Woops... then along came the 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments!
This takeaway from you makes it hard to take you seriously on any topic.
Your liberty stops when it starts to harm others. Does the woman have the liberty to abort or does the fetus have the right to life? Aren't libertarians concerned about both life and liberty?
Perhaps I am just a misogynist...
If you give zygotes legal personhood, you will of necessity deprive women of it, because many ordinary activities cause miscarriages. At the very least you’re allowing the state to investigate all miscarriages as possible homicides. These laws are quite vague and give enormous leeway to the prosecutors to proceed against women they just don’t like. Further, the Texas Fugitive Uterus Act allows anyone who wants $10K to sue a woman and force her to appear in court and mount a defense. Even if the case is dismissed, the Texas law exempts plaintiffs from the ‘loser pays’ law so that the woman will always be responsible for her own lawyer. How is this not a serious infringement on her freedom?
Having lived in the pre-Roe v Wade world, I assure you that no such thing ever happened to the best of my knowledge, and I see no reason to believe it would happen now, either.
The laws were different pre - Roe, and there was no large organization of people devoted to restricting sex laws.
You believe there are more people in organizations devoted to restricting sex laws now than say in 1955?
I do. It wasn't even a major public discussion in 1955. The pro-lofe organization was "decent society" and the pro-choice organizations were like Fight Club.
Actually, I think there may be confusion on terminology. I read Karen's comment as people who want to impose restrictive sex laws are more prevalent now than pre-Roe.
So, the basis of my question was that there was significantly more restrictive sex laws and people advocating for such in the 1950s than there are now.
If I misunderstood Karen's statement, then my response to her is not correct.
There was. The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice began the work of Progressive Police Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt, who considered sacred all enactments by superstitious bigots before women could vote and did whatever it takes to close saloons and ban baseball on Sundays. Later he would pen the pronatalist "race suicide" letters and inspire later generations to burn books. This was the example to German nationalsocialist bonfire builders and Alabama ku-kluxers putting Beatles albums to the torch. Positive Christianity is not a pretty thing.
How many pregnant women have been charged with homicide in Europe, where Abortion is mostly illegal after about 12-15 weeks?
The pro choicers are fully aware that most of the country will likely grant fetus agency at certain point of the pregnancy. So they're left with stating that "it's just clamp of cells" or insist on others choosing from false choices, where women undergoing an abortion is effectively no different than gangs murdering a family execution style.
We put at risk animals on the endangered species list because we recognize the value in protecting lives in vulnerable situation. But if I step on a endangered toad, I shouldn't spend the rest of the life in prison. Protecting the fetus is no different. It's a lifeform that's not quite sentient, so we prevent society from knowingly harming it. Most women do not engage in risky behavior intending to cause miscarriages.
Some states want to make abortion murder, which is a step too far. But at the end of the day, most Americans recognize the fetus as a living thing. It no longer become an issue of autonomy, much as I can't say "it's my body, I do whatever I want" if I contracted covid. We can protect the fetus is ways that vary from how we protect adults from crime and other danger.
"We" = government goons with guns.
So federally protected infanticide needs to be a thing because of a possible issue with a Texas law?
Yeah…… ok……..
The question of your misogyny is for you to answer. But consider this these as you think about the later. When does a human life begin? Does the mere potential for human life equal life itself? The fact that people accept hormonal birth control and day after suggests that mere fertilization is not enough to confer personhood. The wide acceptance of early medical abortions suggest again that personhood is not yet applied. Later stage abortions are less accepted on whole but I think more accepted on a case by case basis (medical reasons).
Now back to the question of misogyny, doesn't the libertarian think that the best decisions are made closest to the issue. Aren't the woman and those she looks to for support in the best situation to decide if a termination is necessary? Why do we think a group of old white men can make a better decision?
Did you really just use the "old white men" canard? Man, since the leak of the potential ruling, it has been fascinating to me just how bad at messaging and framing the pro-choice side of the aisle is.
Especially considering that two of the justices on the anti side are a black man and a white woman.
The Supreme Court will not decide abortion they will hand it over to state legislatures filled with old white men. What will be the make-up of the legislatures telling women what to do? Will the number of women legislatures voting to prohibit abort be representative of the state's population?
So, your argument is that immutable characteristics and lived experiences of people relating to legislation are needed before those people can be an elected representative on those particular policy issues? So, to regulate welfare does one need to be on welfare, or old enough or indignant enough to be able to legislate on welfare? To regulate how shopping centers are constructed, does a person need to be a contractor to qualify as a representative? To legislate about healthcare, does one need to be a healthcare provider or associated with the medical field?
And also, is it your position there are only old white men in state legislatures?
It's not 1994, the "old white men" pejorative went out of fashion years ago.
Actually, what you are pissed about is that the "Old White Men" are bowing out of deciding. Logic much?
What "others"??? --- I wonder how many more pronouns we can use for mythical creatures.
That abortion is not an important topic as it only affects women and not real people.
Imagine claiming to be anti-misogynist while assuming the broader misanthropy of "Men don't think about reproduction or the rights thereof (or only incorrectly if they do), only women do."
But then how would Moderation get to signal his righteous virtue if he took your advice?
Feeling a little rusty there, White Knight?
Reagan said it.
"Seems that most people who are pro abortion have already been born."
At this point, the abortion issue is only interesting as it sheds light on societal behaviors and attitudes.
And one of the most fascinating things to me about the abortion issues is that it is a subject that has been paramount for 50 years in this country, subject of countless debates and protests, subject of every SCOTUS nomination, yet is a subject that is still so tremendously misunderstood by the population in general.
It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS nomination hearings change if\when abortion is removed from consideration in its present form.
Right! That's something I'm really interested to see. I also wonder if it still comes up, but more in the sense of would you agree to "reinstate" the right to an abortion if given the chance, or whether they feel overruling Roe was a correct decision.
I'd love for it to be gone from the selection process, but I bet we still get a lot of questions on it, at least in the near future.
The confusion is common because of the way the issue is discussed in the legacy media.
Isnt that a text-book case of disinformation? we should get 'the board' on this right away!
The media always frames it as "abortion on demand or nothing (sort of how their allies believe any society that isn't marching towards socialism is marching towards fascism)," even though the vast majority (80%) support at least some kind of restriction on the practice.
And it's not really an accident that most of the abortion maximalists that you see are white women and/or mental cases.
🙂
Can't we talk about something less divisive, like deep dish "pizza" or the Civil War?
I'm glad you at least had the decency to put sneer quotes around "pizza". Just because you omit the pasta and put lasagna into a bready pie crust doesn't make it pizza.
New York-style is what you get when you abort a pizza in the first trimester, but some people enjoy standing in line for a smaller ration of crust, cheese, and sauce.
I prefer to waiting until after the third trimester. I like the stuffed crust.
* Wait*
If I didn't live almost 1000 miles away, I would invite all you skeptics to Bachino's or even Giordano's. It would change your mind (a d possibly your life.
See, this is an argument I can enjoy having.
First, when you say deep dish, are you referring to Chicago pizza? Because to me, as someone who grew up there, Chicago pizza is stuffed pizza. A crust, a messload of cheese (and fillings, if you aren't a purist), another crust, and raw sauce on top that cooks in the 45 minutes it takes to bake and comes out just right.
Deep dish is just crust in a deep pan with toppings and cheese on it. A compromise between the magical splendor of a stuffed pizza and New York pizza.
New York pizza is excellent for what it is, but the sheer mass of cheese that comes in a Chicago pizza makes it the winner, hands-down.
Unless you don't like cheese, in which case you are clearly insane and should be locked up for your own safety (and fed cheese until you recognize its divinity).
How do you grow up in Chicago and remain so pig ignorant about pizza?
Deep-dish predates stuffed crust. Of all the forgotten lore about the pizza God who bequeathed deep-dish unto us, it's clear from the various churches that it was not stuffed crust. What you're missing or have confused with either stuffed crust or deep dish is Sicilian or Pan pizza.
No, Sicilian is not that, and pan pizza describes a great many kinds. Stuff baked dry, or nearly so, into a dough is rustic pizza, pizza rustica, an authentic Italian style very distinct from New York (Neapolitan) or Chicago (deep dish — although today's New York style originally came from Chicago) styles. Pizza rustica has either no red sauce or so little that it's dry by the time it's done.
Not stuffed crust. How dare you, sir! Stuffed pizza. Crust on the top and bottom with sinful (the good kind) amounts of cheese inside. The best-known stuffed pizza is Giordano's, but my personal favorite is Bachino's on Lincoln where it crosses Webster and Larrabee. Theirs has smoky notes that take stuffed pizza to unimagined heights.
Sicilian is it's own thing (basically thin crust toppings on a thick, foccacia-like crust) and is its own kind of delicious. Pan pizza is a plot by the Devil to subvert people into depravity and sin (pizza-wise).
Deep dish is like Lou Malnati's or Geno's East. Definitely good, but lacking in the cheese department when compared to stuffed. It's still good and, if you love sausage pizza, Lou Malnati's is apparently amazing.
I think your stuffed pizza is pizza rustica. Not the same as Chicago or deep dish style, which is a pizza that got a casserole ladled on top of it.
That mass of cheese belongs in a fondue pot, or layered into lasagne or pastitsio, or a cheesecake. If you need a fork, or maybe a spoon, to eat it, it's not pizza. And it's not even the amount of cheese that's most problematic in Chicago style pizza, it's the amount of sauce that makes it un-pizza.
If you want to see one of the funniest rants about Chicago pizza, check out Jon Stewart from back in the Daily Show days. I completely disagree, but it cracked me up.
Now, as to the assertion that there is too much cheese, those words literally make no sense together. Eating a block of cheese with a pocket knife isn't too much cheese.
If there is too much sauce, you should definitely do stuffed as opposed to deep dish. With deep dish the entire crust needs to be filled up, so they use more sauce. With stuffed they enclose the cheese (with a little sauce and any fillings) between two layers of crust and put the raw sauce on top. It slowly cooks and reduces, so it is a perfect consistency and the ideal ratio of sauce to cheese. It is easily eaten with a knife and fork, no spoon necessary.
If you want to see what I mean, check out the stuffed part of the menu.
https://www.bacinosoflincolnpark.com/order
Also, I don't know how they justify claiming it's "heart healthy pizza". It's a heart attack between layers of dough, but what a way to go!
Deep dish? Can't they have their pizza as an appetizer and then the casserole, fondue, or whatever you call it?
Nobody has deep dish sandwiches, so why should pizza get that treatment?
You're right. I've never heard of a deep dish sandwich. But if any of you are developing such a wonderful technology, I volunteer for the product testing.
When interpreting polling data, don't be too quick to judge people's preferences as "inconsistent". If you think the status quo under Roe is better than the likely outcome if Roe is overturned, you should support it, regardless of whether your ideal policy is consistent with the ruling. There's nothing inconsistent about supporting Roe in this circumstance.
The political fact is that the Nixon Supreme Court used the Libertarian Party platform to decide the Austin, Texas Roe v Wade case: 1972 LP platform: “We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days.”
Public opinion about abortion is not confused at all.
About 81% of the public want abortion restricted or made illegal.
About 71% of the public want abortion kept legal or unrestricted at all.
The 'confusion' comes from the media.
There is clearly overlap on those numbers
The breakdown is this--
19% want unrestricted abortion.
46% want abortion with some restriction
29% want abortion illegal except for cases of rape, incest or actual health of the mother
6% want total illegality in all cases
The confusion comes from the media trying to claim everyone who will allow for abortion, no matter how restricted, as part of the 'pro-choice' side See, if you accept 'no abortion except in cases of rape, incest or health of the mother' as wanting abortion legal, but with restriction, then you get the amazing statistic that 94% of the country wants to keep abortion legal.
Combine this with the media telling everyone that they're in informational bubbles and you get people who have a majority opinion--that abortion should be restricted, even heavily restricted-- thinking that they're incredibly isolated, that national opinion is far in the other direction.
The result would look like confusion that could be milked to so MORE confusion.
But eventually, it breaks down and Roe gets overturned. And people notice that the protests are small, just like the 'rallies' for the ruling junta's puppet were small and are small.
The house of cards is tumbling.
Those numbers are slightly different from the historical, multi-poll aggregate. In general, it breaks down to:
~15% want abortion to be illegal in all cases - anti-abortion
~20% want abortion to be legal with strict restrictions (this includes the "rape, incest, and life of the mother cohort) - pro-life)
~56% want abortion to be legal with some restrictions (this includes those that want bans at halfway or more through the second trimester, as some polls ask about 20 weeks) - pro-choice
~9% want abortion to be legal through live birth - pro-choice absolutists and/or pro-abortionists
Those numbers are approximate because different polling organizations ask the questions different ways (so it isn't an exact match between Pew, Gallup, Marist, Monmouth, etc.), but in general "pro-legal" is at 85% and "pro-illegal" is at 15%. Illegal in the first trimester is at 35%, illegal after 20 weeks/halfway is 65%, and illegal after the second trimester is 91%.
I've seen the polling data since the draft leaked and I believe that the massive growth in the "legal through live birth" (as high as 32% in one poll) and "legal through the second trimester" position is a response to the draconian measures states like Missouri are discussing. I don't believe it will stay that high and will return to historical levels, as they have been incredibly stable throughout polling (some have been doing it since Roe was decided).
Most Americans believe legal abortion is morally acceptable. A minority think it is mostly morally unacceptable and an even smaller minority think it is completely unacceptable, morally.
Only one position is attempting to force others to live by a moral position they don't hold. Coercive governmental force is only advicates by the anti-abortionists. As a libertarian I can't get past that, never mind the weakness of the anti-abortion position.
Legal abortion cannot be codified by the federal government. The federal government may not tell a state how to conduct its business unless the US Constitution prescribes or prohibits something.
And the right to bodily autonomy and personal medical decision-making should be protected from state action. I think there's a strong argument to be made that they are covered by the Ninth Amendment, although I am not a lawyer and someone who is said that it could be covered by the Fourth.
Either way, if you can't find a way to assert a convincing argument for a fertilized egg being a person (or a comprehensive standard like viability for a later point), claiming there are competing rights is an unsupported belief not a factual claim.
The federal government has a vital interest in protecting the rights of citizens. Roe did that, preventing states from infringing on a woman's right to bodily autonomy. It left the decsiom on the hands of the individual instead of the State, which is a good thing.
"the right to bodily autonomy and personal medical decision-making should be protected from state action."
.
A laudable goal that I agree with. However, "should" is very different from "is". The constitution, with the isolated exception of abortion under some circumstances, has never been interpreted to to do that.
.
If we want the constitution to provide that protection, an amendment is required. If the constitution can just have new rights "found" at will, it can have old rights "un found" at will also. At that point why have a constitution that means whatever we want it to at the moment?
One of the cpmmenters here whomis a lawyer said that they thought privacy was covered by the Fourth Amendment (I couldn't tell you why they thought that), but I think the Ninth Amendment could easily cover it.
Some of the lawyers here were also discussing whether bodily autonomy and/or medical decisions casws from before Roe would establish those rights independent of abortion law.
I didnt see anywhere in any of that the vastly enabling effects of child prostitution.
The case in question is from Mississippi where Republicans control the state legislature. There are in that legislature, to my knowledge, no black Republicans, there are less than 15% female Republicans, and the average age of the legislature is over 50 years. So yes I think old white men works.
Can you name a demographically mixed legislature where a bi partisan abortion restriction passed?
Ah, yes, all about Democracy and Freedom unless of course the people who got elected are not the ones you would prefer.
.
Were not all of those representatives elected? Does not mean that they were selected by the people of Mississippi? Do you believe that you get to decide if the people of Mississippi chose the right demographics for their legislature?
.
What an arrogant piece of Schiff you are.
I think the mission at the heart of the Republican party is to force-breed white people and lock up or kill brown people. The demographic trends are at the forefront of their every move.
That is pretty interesting since most abortions are for black women and Planned Parenthood was founded to reduce the growth of the minority population.
.
A much better case could be made that the Democratic party has ending the Black population by ending sexual reproduction (Eugenics) as a primary mission.