According to some polls, “pro-choice” beliefs are at an alltime low: http://news.yahoo.com/pro-choice-americans-record-low-poll-finds-162145636–abc-news-politics.html
So without getting into a debate on the ethics of abortion I’d like to ask why are pro-choice/pro-abortion views declining even as social liberalism on other issues (such as say gay marriage) is on the rise and if this means that we may see abortion law reform in the future.
Years and years of anti-choice propaganda and of abortion be legal have whittled away at support for choice. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see even more restrictions put in place on it, and perhaps a serious push to reverse Roe vrs Wade - the True Believers are getting more and more powerful in the Republicans, and the misogynists on the Right keep getting more powerful. I also doubt you’ll see much of a pushback before women start ending up in body bags, given how nonexistent the left is and how spineless the general public has become. I expect the “pro-lifers” will get the satisfaction of killing quite a few “sluts”.
Cecil Adams covers the whole “thousands of women will die from coathanger abortions” myth here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2510/before-em-roe-em-v-em-wade-em-did-10-000-women-a-year-die-from-illegal-abortions
At any rate the Religious Right is if anything in eclipse right now-the Tea Party is almost exclusively concerned with economics. And did you not even see the controversy over the Komen stopping funding to Planned Parenthood?
Anyone who says “the Tea Party is almost exclusively concerned with economics” hasn’t been listening to what they’re saying.
I’ve not talking about illegal abortions. I’m talking about things like pregnant women being denied any medical care whatsoever. That’s been a common result of our overseas antiabortion policies like the “Mexico City policy”; American-funded hospitals don’t dare care for pregnant women since if she miscarries we’ll cut all their funding. So they are just left to die, sacrificed so the hospital can continue to care for others. And our response is to not care or outright gloat over it; IIRC it was Randall Terry who responded in TIME magazine to this problem by saying “every woman who dies is a victory for morality”.
This is not true. Pro Choice beliefs (emphasis, mine) are unchanged and have been for quite some time. What has changed are not beliefs, but what one ascribes to the Pro Choice position. This Blog post cites not only the poll that the OP:
I also don’t think this is a No True Scotsman issue since we are talking about the same polling company presumably to the same group (or another equally representative group) with somewhat different wording. If anything, we’re talking about how self-identification is maybe not the best indicator of nuanced feelings or how you can manipulate the language in polls to alter the outcome.
But a position change in the American population? No, it doesn’t seem to be the case.
People are now saying they are pro-life but allowing for abortion in cases or rape, incest, or to protect the life (or sometimes just the health) of the mother. Which is, of course, a functionally pro-choice position.
I find this type of polling similar to the “are you a liberal or a conservative” questions. They measure the popularity of labels, not positions. Ask “do you support banning abortion in all cases?” and see what type of response you get.
I think this sums it up nicely. I saw this poll yesterday in the news, and after reading it saw it for what it was-- some sensationalist journalism. Buried at the end of the article was a note that the % of Americans who think abortion should be legal has remained pretty constant. That’s what really matters.
Propaganda only works when it finds a willing audience.
I think it’s fairly common for people to be pro-life personally, yet not have any problems with abortions being easily available to those that want them. In other words, they would never consider an abortion themselves, but believe that others should be free to make that choice if they want to. These people may self-identify as pro-life even though their political beliefs are what would traditionally be called pro-choice.
Hardly. Like any other form of lying people are more easily fooled by propaganda when they want to believe, but that doesn’t keep other people from being fooled too.
This. That’s why the term “pro-life” is so often misleading. “Pro-choice”/“anti-choice” captures the desired information better, because it’s about what you think others should be allowed to do (make a choice), rather than possibly just signify what you yourself would do.
I agree. I am pro choice, I am not anti-life. I’d like it if the terms were changed.
It’s also pretty common for people to claim to be pro-life, but when they or their girlfriends/wives/sisters/whoever get pregnant, then suddenly this ONE abortion is moral and OK. And then they’ll go back to picketing clinics that perform abortions.
I’m sure this has been linked to before, but here it is:
Since it is common, no doubt you can produce a credible cite showing that some significant percentage of abortion clinic protesters have had abortions that they think are moral.
on preview - I mean a real cite, not unsubstantiated anecdotes.
Regards,
Shodan
Abortion rights seem pretty safe to most of us “pro choicers.” Thus, it’s easy for someone who’s a bit ambivalent on the subject to answer a poll in a way that expresses some disapproval of abortion. It’s a free chance to express some complicated ideas in a sound bite. Who wouldn’t like that? Abortion isn’t going to be banned if I tell some pollster I’m “pro life,” so what the Hell.
I read a column (and I can’t find the cite, so take this with a grain of salt) that explained the phenomenon as sort of an unspoken (and unknowing) collusion among the populace to check what they perceive as a real or potential swing too far in either direction. So, when a pro-choice administration is elected, people get nervous and start to self identify as the counter position, to get themselves on the record. Collectively it becomes an anchor against “too much, too quick” swings, even when individual beliefs haven’t changed significantly.
Worded differently, if Romney wins, this theory would posit that we’d see a similar swing toward people self identifying as pro-choice, and we’d likely again see no significant change in people’s core beliefs. The American people don’t like “radical” change and like to send messages to that effect.
An interesting theory, I thought, FWIW. (Just in answer to the OP.)
Excuses, excuses. Why am I not surprised?
Anyway, some of y’all might want to take a look at that data again. In September 1994, 33% of Americans said abortion should always be legal; 13% said most; 39% said few; and 13% said none. Today those numbers are 25%, 13%, 39% and 20%, respectively. In that same time frame we’ve gone from a 56% - 33% PC lead to a 50% - 41% PL lead. Coincidence? Methinks not. The reason for the change, as I’ve pointed out a gajillion times, is rather simple. Abortion approval is positive with age, meaning older persons are more approving of abortion than are younger persons. Not only that but people born after about 1980 are more likely to say abortion should always be illegal than are their elders. Take those two facts together and you end with a situation where you get an increasingly anti-abortion electorate as older generations die off and are replaced by people more hostile to abortion on demand. Buuut how many times have I said this already?
Oh well.
/happy27yearoldprolifer
OMG, “oh well” indeed. That seems to be the general attitude out there. “I don’t like abortion, but oh well, what are you going to do? We can’t make it illegal.” If the poll asked how many people wanted to make abortion a criminal offense, the true “pro life” position, you’d get a much different picture.