The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Harvard / Harris Poll on Abortion
Interesting results about public attitudes, including the complicated gender gap.
From a survey taken June 28-29 by the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University and The Harris Poll:
[1.] Abortion rights are listed as the greatest concern by 14% of the respondents and as the second greatest by 11%, far behind inflation (total 62%) but at roughly the same level as energy prices, as crime, and as immigration.
[2.] Dobbs appears to have no visible net effect on the midterms, with 36% saying it makes them more likely to vote Democrat and 36% more likely to vote Republican.
[3.] Dobbs is opposed by a slim majority, 55%-45%; the question wording is, "Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe vs Wade, which allows each state to decide its own standards for abortion instead of a set right?" At the same time, when asked, "Do you think it is better for abortion standards to be set by judges of the supreme court, by a vote of congress or by the legislatures of each individual state?," only 25% go say "the supreme court," 31% say "Congress," and 44% say "state legislatures."
[4.] The results as to "Do you think your state should allow abortion…?" were
- Up to 9 months [10%]
- Up to 23 weeks [18%]
- Up to 15 weeks [23%]
- Up to six weeks [12%]
- Only in cases of rape and incest [37%]
The strong national majority thus appears to be both pretty far removed from Roe and Casey (which would have allowed abortions until about 23 weeks or later), which only get 28% support (including the up-to-9-months respondents), and from near-total bans, which only get 37% support. The 15-week mark people seem to be the swing voters.
[5.] There appears to be something of a gender gap on abortion, but it's complicated. Women oppose Dobbs by 61%-39% and men support it by 52%-48%, so that's a significant though not vast difference, a swing of about 13% (I expect the margin of error for each sex category is about 4%, based on a total respondent pool of 1308). But on the other hand, when asked,
Do you think your state should allow abortion
- Up to 9 months
- Up to 23 weeks
- Up to 15 weeks
- Up to six weeks
- Only in cases of rape and incest
women respondents preferred the three most restrictive options by 75%-25%, while men preferred them only by 69%-31%. (The published data doesn't break down each individual answer by sex, perhaps because at that level the margins of error would be too large.)
Naturally, this has all the limitations of polls generally, and in particular it doesn't tell us much about state-level data, or about how people would respond to particular abortion laws, such as ones that only have an exception for the life of the mother but not for maternal health or for rape or incest. And of course this doesn't tell us what the right answer is, either as to whether abortion should be banned as a substantive matter, or whether Casey should have been overturned as a constitutional matter (including as a matter of constitutional stare decisis). Still, I thought it was worth noting, especially since one of the main questions going forward is about what can be done through the political process, and how it can be done.
As a personal matter (and noting that these questions aren't within my core area of expertise), I generally think that Roe and Casey are hard to justify as a matter of constitutional law first principles (including the precedents as of the time Roe was decided); I'm not sure about the question whether they should still have been preserved as a matter of stare decisis; and I generally support abortion rights as a policy matter, which is one reason I'm particularly interested in seeing what paths there are towards state statutes and voter initiatives that protect abortion rights.
But I also think that there's a vast gulf (from the perspective of both the policy arguments for allowing abortion and against) between "abortions allowed up to 15 weeks" and "abortions generally banned, except as to life or physical health of the mother, and perhaps as to rape or incest"—far smaller than the gulf between "abortions allowed up to 15 weeks" and "abortions allowed up to 23 weeks." If this data suggests that 15 weeks would be a politically workable compromise in many (though likely not all) states, that strikes me as important information.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Reminder that issue polls are garbage, no exceptions.
Agreed, but I see an interesting result under [3.].
For the second question, if you combine the Supreme Court and Congress results, it's 56-44, only 1% off from the first question.
That's surprisingly consistent.
The problem is, you're asking people for their opinions about matters most people have not given much thought to, and likely don't actually have firm opinions about. So their answers are typically VERY subject to manipulation by reframing the question.
And that doesn't get into the people who deliberately lie to pollsters.
"Only in cases of rape and incest"
I really, REALLY have to ask, what clown designed this poll? What happened to "medical necessity", the most widely accepted reason for abortion? Limiting it to "rape and incest" seems almost deliberately designed to maximize support for abortion.
Wouldn't virtually all incest be rape? While I'm sure that there might be some consenual incest between consenting adults, most cases that come to light seem to involve minors below the age of consent.
Like the mysterious 10 year old recently in the news.
1. In most states (30, when I last checked), statutory rape is defined as sex with a child under 16; in another eight or so, the age is set at 17. So in many states a stepfather having sex with a 16-year-old stepdaughter wouldn't be statutory rape, but would be incest. (Some states might raise the age to 18 for some categories of adults, such as teachers and the like, and perhaps some such statutes include relatives; but my sense is that most don't treat incest as statutory rape if the minor is above the general age of consent.
2. In any event, "rape or incest" makes a lot of sense for a survey question; even though adult-child incest would very often be statutory rape, for many respondents the word "rape" might well lead them to think just of forcible rape, not statutory rape.
Yes, "rape or incest" makes more sense than just "rape", but leaving unmentioned medically necessary abortions was a VERY questionable choice, when they're the sort of abortion with the highest level of support.
Indeed.
The term is very hard to define. Chief Justice Burger, in his concurrence in Roe, assured the public that the Supreme Court was legalizing only medically necessary abortions, and was in no way legalizing abortion on demand.
His opinion controlled. All abortions allowed under Roe are classified as medically necessary. That’s why, for example, insurance is permitted to cover them. And more fundamentally, why doctors are permitted to do them. Doctors aren’t allowed to do medically unnecessary procedures, so if its permissable for doctors to do it, it’s medically necessary by definition. Thus exactly as Chief Justice Burger said, Roe permits only medically necessary abortions. That train left the station long ago.
So if one wants something stricter than that, one is going to have to come up with some sort of new terminology.
The federal government today is telling doctors they can do medically necessary abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act.
"Emergency medical conditions involving pregnant patients may include, but are not limited to, ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features."
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/emergency-medical-care-letter-to-health-care-providers.pdf
Note that Secretary Becerra is unwilling to use the word "women" to describe birthing people.
While "medically necessary " abortions have the highest level of public support (along with abortion in the case of rape or incest),
those "medically necessary " abortions comprise only a very small fraction of all abortions.
The 'mysterious 10 year old' could be fictional, they've uncovered no evidence of her existence beyond the Doctor's claim.
OTOH, on checking on her, that's not good proof; Seems the doc has a track record of failing to report under-age abortions, despite such reporting being legally mandatory. Maybe this is another pedophile rape victim she was hiding from the authorities.
...and apparently she is not alone.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2022/07/11/abortion-doctor-at-heart-of-shes10-viral-horror-story-was-accused-of-failing-to-report-underaged-abortions-against-state-law-in-2018-n1611899
Ah, that's the story I linked to...
See my comment above. Since doctors aren’t allowed to do medically unmecessary procedures, if a doctor can do it, it’s medically necessary. All abortions permitted by Roe are classified as medically necessary. As Chief Justice Burger pointed out in his concurrence in Roe assuring the public that Roe wasn’t legalizing abortion on demand, it’s not enough for a woman to demand an abortion, a doctor has to certify that it’s medically necessary. This is done in every case. Every abortion is a therapeutic abortion.
Tell that to plastic surgeons.
Hell, tell that to gender reassignment surgeons.
I think medical necessity is implied, and they left out "only in cases of medical necessity" to simplify the poll. I would be curious to know what the public thinks about "medical necessity only" compared to "and also in cases of rape or incest." There are politicians who want to remove the exception.
I suspect people don't have a common view of what constitutes "medically necessary."
Actually, I suspect people largely do, but it's radically different from the view held by abortionists.
I will wager you and I don't have the same understanding.
That is likely true, but it's beside the point that most people understand it his way.
I'm not at all certain most people view it as Brett does. I'm not even sure how he views it. I'm guessing he rejects all non-physical maladies. And of course he includes a life-threatening condition to the woman. But, at what point does a physical malady justify having a medically necessary abortion. I'm not even certain of my own viewpoint.
One of the greatest issues here is the UK's law on abortions. Abortion is technically illegal in the UK, unless "two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less risk to a woman's physical or mental health (or that of her children) than continuing with the pregnancy"
Since pregnancy is almost inevitably more risky to a woman's health than not being pregnant...(i.e. weight gain is difficult on the joints)..it legalized abortion on demand.
From various reporting, some of the new bans use problematic language that moves "medically necessary" from a pregnancy a doctor believes would create (future tense) a risk for the mother to "immediate medical need" where the mother has to currently be in a medical emergency due to her pregnancy in order for a doctor to act. So even if the doctor believed the pregnancy would bring the mother to a medical emergency in the future, they'd have to wait for the mother's health to go critical before acting.
Not necessarily go critical, just be more objectively provable than what amounts to a guess that it might happen someday. No doubt the drafters of those statutes have a hunch that abortion doctors will interpret ambiguous phrases loosely to justify what they intend to do anyway.
How can you draft a statute to limit it to a specific set of cases. Is enumeration the only way? But, what if you left something out you didn't foresee? The point is "medically necessary" in a poll or a statute is bound to have a wide range of viewpoints.
"Medically necessary" can be "overinterpreted". And I think that's the problem.
Let's say there's a relatively simple medical procedure which will stop weight gain of 10 - 30% (which has a number of adverse effects) as well as alleviate the need for a more expensive medical procedure several months later, as well as potentially avoiding hypertension (and other potential adverse effects). Many physicians would say that is "medically necessary."
How am I supposed to weigh loss of abortion rights against loss of 30% of my savings due to iatrogenic government causes?
Slavery was popular with the (Non Slave) Population of the Confederacy (and the "Slave States"(HT Sleepy Joe) of Delaware, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland.
The "deportation" of Jews was pretty popular in Germany.
Well, forcing a pregnant woman to carry to term a pregnancy she doesn't want comes awfully close to making her a chattel slave to the fetus, at least until after the pregnancy ends. So I'd go easy on those slavery analogies.
"Well, forcing a pregnant woman to carry to term a pregnancy she doesn't want comes awfully close to making her a chattel slave to the fetus"
Can the fetus sell the woman to another fetus? No? Then it doesn't come anywhere near chattel slavery.
Ok so you’ve found a single difference and no analogy is perfect. But when someone’s body is effectively seized and used against that persons will for another, that does give off the aroma of slavery.
Next do child support. Is that slavery?
"But when someone’s body is effectively seized and used against that persons will for another, that does give off the aroma of slavery."
Perhaps, but "chattel slavery" means something a bit more than just "slavery".
Words matter.
They do, and not allowing a woman to terminate her pregnancy essentially makes her the property of the fetus.
No it does not.
Matthew, the argument is that control is de facto ownership. If you have title to a vehicle but you can only use it within the limits that I set, I am, for all practical purposes, a de facto co-owner.
They do, and not allowing a woman to terminate her pregnancy essentially makes her the property of the fetus.
And you claim to be a lawyer?
OK, so you don't understand the argument. Fair enough. I'll use smaller words next time.
I think having to raise children clearly violates peonage laws too.
And child support...I mean...wow.
Ok, how is having to pay money not like having one’s body seized? I’m sure it will come to you if you think about it long enough.
How is the body "seized"? How is that different from being forced to work to pay for a child that you did not want?
We can actually put prices on it though.
The average cost in child support is approximately $92,000
The average pay to be a surrogate is approximately $50,000 - $80,000
Something to consider.
Because whatever annoyances and hardships may come from having to pay child support, you still maintain your bodily integrity. You're not having morning sickness, you're not rapidly gaining weight, you're not suffering the other side effects of pregnancy, and you don't have to go through the pain of childbirth (which by the way is not risk free; there are still women who die in childbirth).
Well, forcing a pregnant woman to carry to term a pregnancy she doesn't want comes awfully close to making her a chattel slave to the fetus
I was wondering how long it would take you to try and outdo the stupidity of your "the fetus is committing a civil trespass" argument. Better late than never, I suppose.
No you weren’t wondering since that would require thought.
The irony of that sad attempt at a jab coming from the same virtual mouth that uttered the stupid arguments in question.......
So who taught you three-syllable words?
Pretty sure everyone polled had already been born.
I would love to see state-specific polls.
I've remarked on that myself: Once you set aside medically necessary abortions, rape, and incest, public sentiment is variable enough that, seriously, the bans of elective abortions being enacted could easily be locally popular.
That might spoil the narrative.
I should have said:
That would spoil the narrative that there is widespread support for unrestricted abortion nation wide.
Which localities do you have in mind?
The educated ones or the ignorant ones?
The ones that rely on reason or the ones that prefer old-timely superstition?
The advanced, modern ones or the backward, can’t-keep-up ones?
The diverse, inclusive ones or the insular, bigoted ones?
The successful, cultured, productive ones or the shambling, rural, parasitic ones?
The liberal-libertarian mainstream ones or the disaffected, vestigial l conservative ones?
Other tidbits from the survey. Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have higher unfavorable ratings than Donald Trump. I would say "absence makes the heart grow fonder" but Hillary Clinton also polls slightly worse than Trump. Kamala Harris is tied with Trump at 50% unfavorable. None of the major political figures they asked about exceeded Trump's 42% favorable rating. Look forward to an ugly 2024 race.
Curiously, 42% of people had an opinion about Anthony Blinken. About 30% admitted not to knowing who he was.
Over at 538, Biden's popularity numbers have been trending down for months. I won't go so far as to say that he's less popular than any modern President ever was, but he's a contender for that honor.
I think GWB still has the honor of being the least and most popular president in the past 40 years.
As yet, anyway.
Not even close (check out the charts at the bottom).
The boxes by default show only the start of the President's term. You need to click the "8 years" box to see George W Bush's dismal ending. He was in the 25-30% range in many polls in his last year in office.
OTOH, we can confidently state that Biden won't continue losing popularity at his current rate for the next 6 years, because it's impossible to have more than 100% of the population disliking you. Where he'll level out, though, is anybody's guess.
I think it depends on whether the Democratic party establishment decide to tough it out, or conclude that they have to cut him loose somehow. Once they stop supporting him, the bottom might drop out.
Thank you and that explains why I thought Nixon was popular when he resigned (he wasn't and I should have known). I did not recall that Bush43 was that unpopular.
Most of the media work hard to make a Democratic president popular and a Republican president unpopular. So when a Democrat's poll numbers drop, it's worse than it appears. And when a Republican's numbers rise, it's better.
Fivethirtyeight has nice graphs that compare presidents. Biden is now below what Reagan (nasty recession) or Trump were as the midterms approached. Carter was about the same but ended up worse after the midterms (except for a temporary bump after the hostages were taken). Truman was the worst. I am flabbergasted that Nixon was never unpopular, even when he resigned.
On the other hand, in Biden's worst poll (Sienna/New York Times) with an approval rating of 33%, he leads Trump 44-41%. And, Democrats are doing relatively better in the generic poll and Silver has noticed a trend towards the Democrats since Dobbs was decided (but warns it's too early to know if this trend is real or will hold).
"I am flabbergasted that Nixon was never unpopular, even when he resigned."
As the story goes, Republican Congressional leaders dropped by and informed him that if he didn't resign, they'd support impeaching him. He then resigned to avoid that fate, sparing them the need to destroy him publicly.
"On the other hand, in Biden's worst poll (Sienna/New York Times) with an approval rating of 33%, he leads Trump 44-41%."
Something of an outlier relative to the other polls listed, though admittedly more recent. We'll see, I'm assuming that Biden will continue his decline, barring some dramatic event.
These poll numbers are completely meaningless at this stage because the election is still almost four months out, and in politics, almost anything can happen in four months. Gas prices are coming down, and if inflation is at a manageable level by election day, the Democrats may do better than you think.
Or maybe not. It's way too early to make predictions. Four months before the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in.
Gas prices are roughly where they were at the end of May. Brent crude futures are fairly level over the past few weeks. Russia/Ukraine (remember when that was in the news cycle?) is trending Russia, in the face of threats from the G7 to somehow cap prices, which Russia is happy to respond to by cutting output further. Not clear where a continued downtrend would come from. Magical wishful thinking?
Gas prices are coming down and whether they continue to come down for the next four months remains to be seen. My point, though, is that four months is a long time, and current conditions are not indicative of conditions in November.
I would love to see a poll question that asked about the reasoning in Roe, possibly recontextualized to a non-abortion issue, and asked if the respondent agreed with the reasoning. Might be too much to ask of the average respondent, though.
More than that, how many of those polled even understand what the legal effect of Dobbs is?
There has been a great deal of chatter on the internet to the effect that SCOTUS "banned" abortion. If even 20% of those polled believed that, it would skew the results.
I don't think many people believe this was really "returned to the states" to decide. In the next few years, there will begin a cycle where any party in power that can break a Senate filibuster will pass federal abortion laws. Given the success of GOP gerrymandering and voter suppression laws, this likely means a nation-wide ban will pass in the near future.
If only there was some sort of federal "super law" that limited what the federal government could do...
SCOTUS in no way banned abortion. That is indisputably true.
What Congress will do remains to be seen. Right now, it appears there are not enough numbers to do anything about abortion either way.
There are two similar questions and I'm not sure they give consistent results. (Pages 16 and 17.) One asks what are the most important issues. "Women's rights" is on it and responders will likely lump abortion in there. The other asks about responders' greatest concerns, and "abortion rights" was new there. They should ask about fetal rights too; have experienced pollsters pick a better term. I really want to know how many people are genuinely worked up about banning abortion now that it is an option.
In other news, 12% of voters blame neither Trump nor the protesters for the January 6 riots (4% of Democrats and 16% of Republicans). The term "insurrection" has 68% support among Democrats and 32% among Republicans. Half of voters support pardons for non-violent January 6 tourists. Most voters want either "those who occupied the Capitol" or "policital leaders found to have encouraged or incited the rioting" to be punished.
In other other news, my spelling is poor today. I blame an unidentified virus. Thanks to testing of contacts I can be confident it isn't COVID. One day I'll win that lottery, but not today.
I always wonder how the sample is selected for these online surveys. I assume they don't just throw it out there for anyone to answer, but how exactly do you randomize the process?
Do they just select random email addresses, say?
They do say they weight for, among other things, "propensity to be online," though I have to wonder how accurate that is.
While a lot of Americans have some sort of online access, this sort of poll would at least have some selection issues, especially for the elderly who may not use the internet but are reliable voters.
Most of the media work hard to make a Democratic president popular and a Republican president unpopular. So when a Democrat's poll numbers drop, it's worse than it appears. And when a Republican's numbers rise, it's better.
More than a few media operations exist solely to make bigoted, stale, superstitious, right-wing positions popular among a downscale, uneducated, gullible, intolerant audience.
The occasional white, male, movement conservative blog, too.
Harvard and Harris combined weren't able to write a question without a dangling modifier?
I double-checked the source to make sure that Volokh had quoted it correctly. Sure enough, the question is phrased "Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court’s decision to
overturn Roe vs Wade, which allows each state to decide
its own standards for abortion instead of a set right?"
So does the "which allows each state..." clause modify "the Supreme Court's decision", or does it modify "Roe vs. Wade"? We Volokh Conspiracy readers know, of course; but do random individuals responding to the poll know? How many of the respondents read the question as meaning that Roe v. Wade gave the states the power to regulate abortion, until it was overturned by the Supreme Court?
Do you think slavery of __ should be allowed?
* Anybody
* Black people
* Non-white people
* Poor people
* Convicted people
* Nobody
"Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe vs Wade, which allows each state to decide its own standards for abortion instead of a set right?"
What a horribly worded question. If I didn't know what Roe v. Wade said, that question would lead me to believe that Roe had allowed each State to set its own abortion standard.
The issue is a straight up referendum on the rights & personal autonomy of women. For all of human history the traditions & laws have reflected the male animal view of females as breeders & the Women's Auxiliary for Mankind. The women have been steadily pushing back against this misogyny. But the traditional view of Macho running things is "natural" to our animal. And has enormous power & momentum. And is still very much in force. The Catholic & Baptist fundamentalists have been the governments moral guide on this subject. And they are both proudly misogynistic. And have been leading the political anti-abortion & anti-gay fight. If a woman has the equal rights, autonomy, & liberty set forth in the preamble of the Constitution. Then nearly all anti-abortion laws should be unconstitutional except in very rare & constrained circumstances. Unless you believe & want to continue the understanding that men own their women & children. And that humanity is men with the women's auxiliary & breeders; then a woman's pregnancy has to belong to her, before anyone else.
The belief & narrative that every human baby is a gift & blessing is sweet & incredibly stupid. They are not. In many cases, an unwanted pregnancy is bad for the woman, bad for the family, & as a result, bad for the community. And most people can understand that. Life happens in overwhelming exuberance. Not all possible life comes to fruition, with lots of mechanisms to accomplish that. Like a woman deciding not to have a baby, for instance. The "human life begins at conception" and we must preserve & protect it at ALL costs because women are intentionally slaughtering their babies by the thousands, is just plain intentional ignorance. And really dangerous & destructive. Putting women's right to her body up for a popular vote is just disgusting & typically traditional male. We are allowing the courts to do the same thing to the rights of people who not the more common gender & sexuality. It looks to me like Samuel Alito, Clerence Thomas, & Amy Comey-Barrett all truly believe that women should be obedient & subservient, & keep the home.
"Do you think your state should allow abortion
Up to 9 months
Up to 23 weeks
Up to 15 weeks
Up to six weeks
Only in cases of rape and incest
women respondents preferred the three most restrictive options by 75%-25%,"
The most restrictive option wasn't listed, i.e. no exceptions...