Are We a Pro-life Nation?
A new Gallup poll released this week found that a majority of Americans identify themselves as "pro-life." Specifically, 51% of Americans identify themselves as pro-life and 42% as pro-choice. This is the first time since Gallup began asking this question in 1995 that a majority of people have identified themselves as pro-life. While more people are identifying themselves as pro-life, the poll also found that 53% said that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances.
New articles trumpeted the poll as "shocking" and "stunning." I think for many people, what is most surprising about these new poll numbers is the timing of this rise in pro-life sentiment. After the election of Barack Obama as President and after the significant Democratic majority in Congress, some might expect these numbers to be very different. So why is the country becoming more pro-life?
Well, Gallup posits that President Obama's support of a woman's right to choose through his repeal of the global gag rule and his support of the Freedom of Choice Act, has somehow resulted in a Republican backlash. Gallup's theory appears to be that President Obama's strong support for a woman's right to choose has galvanized Republicans to become more adamantly pro-life.
I don't necessarily buy that. First of all, the number of Americans who identify themselves as Republican is at a historic low of 20 percent so the idea that suddenly there is a majority of Americans organizing around the choice issue as a backlash seems tenuous at best. Also, what many people fail to realize is just how pro-life this country really is in terms of the numbers and that it has been for some time. There are more pro-life than pro-choice votes in Congress and there have been for several years. Moreover, President Obama has not pushed a radically pro-choice agenda, such that there would be a backlash. While he did repeal the global gag rule, which prohibited the US Agency for International Development (USAID) from providing funds to foreign health centers that used its own non-US granted funds for abortion services or counseling, he decided not to push forth the Freedom of Choice Act (which would have codified Roe v. Wade), despite promising Planned Parenthood that he would do so once in office. There are many in the choice movement who had hoped the President would commit to the Freedom of Choice Act, but he now says the Freedom of Choice Act is not one of his highest legislative priorities. Furthermore, just because there is a Democratic President does not by any means signify that the choice debate is over. On the contrary, between 1995 and 2008, states enacted 528 anti-choice legislative measures, and Bill Clinton was President during those first five years.
What the new Gallup poll most likely means is that President Obama will be under real pressure to appoint a solidly pro-choice justice to the Supreme Court but not one that is so liberal that it will lead to an all out war in the confirmation process. It also means that he will likely appoint a just-left-of-center appointee, rather than a truly left leaning activist judge or politician, as he tries to avoid further polarizing the country over the choice issue. So what this new Gallup poll really means is that we will see President Obama gravitate more to the center on his selection of a nominee than some would have thought. With the country deeply split over one of the key hot button social issues, just-left-of-center will be the key.
We saw indications of Obama's focus on the center with his expected appointment this week of his first candidate to an appeals court seat, where he choose David F. Hamilton, a highly regarded federal trial court judge from Indiana, for the appeals court in Chicago. This choice of a well known moderate signals the Obama administration's plans to avoid the type of searing partisan fights that characterized previous judicial confirmations.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If you believe in the death penalty - you are not "pro-life"
If you are against abortion but ALSO against condoms - you are not "pro-life" you are just "anti-sex"
Being personally "pro life" does not mean that those persons object others making their own decission. Contrary to the conservatives who want to legislate morality as they see it which does not include torture or the death penalty.
ALL AMERICANS ARE PRO LIfE. some like me think that a woman should chose what she does with here body. the looney right has framed the argument to say pro life and pro abortion just like they frame the argument if u dont like the war then u are against the troops.
just like instead of taking about cheney breaking the law they talk about nancey peloci.
the repubs will fram the words and the media runs with it!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think it is about time we took control of the discursive framing of "pro-life" and "pro-choice". We have let a particular group that favors criminalization of the surgical procedure hijack the frame within which we understand the choices available to us.
Pro-life does not mean pro-crimin
For some of us, pro-life means we are in favor of a policy that endeavors to bring about the reduction in abortions performed in our society, in the same way we endeavor to pursue policies that reduce the number of children growing up in poverty, or the way we endeavor to pursue policies that encourage people to save for retirement. In other words, you cannot achieve all social goals with a single, blunt hammer called "criminalization".
The abortion issue is one of the toughest I've ever had to face as a voter. I am pro-choice, but very reluctantly; I fully understand the other side. However, if you claim to be so pro-life it cannot end with the abortion question. You cannot claim to be pro-life if you support these immoral ,obscene wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To pretend to be pro-life and yet be able to rationalize yourself into condoing the slaughter of so many in these trumped up wars for oil is beyond all hypocrisy .
I'm pro-reality. People who base their decisions on obesience to an invisible sky-mind are not.
One poll does not policy make.
Especially not one Gallup poll.
I don't buy it for a minute. Anyone can phrase a question so that they get the response they want.
I agree. I'm pro-life AND pro-choice. The "pro-life" people need to stop using that term and use "anti-abortion" instead.
Exactly. Say it often and say it LOUD!!
Actually I think we need to frame them instead of anti-abortion as anti-choice!
Anti-abortion still has a positive connotation. If you frame it as though they want to take something away from other citizens (choice), then you frame them in a negative light.
"While more people are identifying themselves as pro-life, the poll also found that 53% said that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances".
That's still a majority.
But I wonder what more accurate results would be obtained if we asked the question backwards. "Under what circumstances should abortion be illegal?"
Anyway, it seems to me that on the heels of a very far right admin-----and "partial-birth" abortion arising as one of their more graphically persuasive (if specious) arguments----this is the natural fall out. Legal abortions, but with some restrictions.
I think most people, including myself consider themselves to be pro-life and pro-choice. That may be inconsistent to some, but I want abortion to be a last resort, I want society to care about the baby, not only before it is born but after, and I want the government should get out of making medical, moral and philosophical decisions for others.
The Terry Schiavo case underscored the need for government to stay our of personal choices. This is a slippery slope, because mandating a moral choice for people raises the inevitable question, based on whose morality?
God gave man free will - and it is not up to the government to impose their will instead. I know the religious right is wrong. The Bible tells me so!
I'm pro-life, but I don't think we need to have my position forced on anyone so I support pro-choice. Now, if I can talk you into not having an abortion..
President Obama needs to pick a moderate candidate for the Supreme Court. He said in one of his books that it would be best for the country to do so. I believe he is right and to do anything else would get allow some to use his own words against him.
I agree with NYC-CatLover here, in that I don't think that this is any more than the same old line of "I wouldn't like to have an abortion, but those who want to should be able to."
That isn't compatible with the detailed results of the poll.
Look at the responses to the other questions.
http://www
Just read that, and the numbers seem to indicate people calling themselves pro-life, but willing to admit that there are times and circumstances when banning abortion just won't work. In other words, "I wouldn't normally choose to have one, but it should be around."
I agree with Ms. Menin when she says, "many people fail to realize is just how pro-life this country really is in terms of the numbers and that it has been for some time."
The truth is that the pro-choice movement has found it useful to portray pro-lifers as a evangelical conservatives who most likely oppose birth control, women's rights, and teaching evolution- but that has always been just the sort of caricature that the president was referring to in his address at Notre Dame yesterday.
The Consistent Life Ethic is composed largely of progressives who oppose war, abortion, and capital punishment. Feminists for Life is just what it sounds like. PLAGAL is a gay pro-life group. I belong to atheist pro-life groups.
The extremes (people who who either support abortion on demand or oppose abortion under any circumstances) have always been relatively small but voluble. By focusing only on the extreme pro-lifers, the pro-choice movement has been able to paint a picture of the pro-life movement which made it appear to be a conservative attempt to legislate from the Bible- but it has never been a portrayal which made any sense if you looked at polling data concerning the nation level of support for the pro-life position.
When you include people who make exceptions for the 'hard cases' (life of the mother, rape, birth defects), pro-lifers have been pretty consistently over 40% in the polls for many years.
I agree with you, but it seems like the terms "pro choice" and "pro life" insinuate either extreme. If somebody asks if you're pro choice and you say yes, people just assume that you don't care about unborn babies and support abortion in any and all circumstances, same as people take "pro life" to mean that you oppose it in all circumstances. That's why nobody can have an intelligent conversation on the matter.
That's interesting. I don't assume "pro-choice" and "pro-life" denote the extremes, but I may be unusual. It 'd be interesting to do a study of how the public defines the terms. I wonder if that's been done.
Most people whom I know socially identify as "pro-choice". As far as I can tell, they all oppose any restrictions on first trimester abortions, but there seems to be no uniform position on the 2nd or 3rd trimesters.
"Pro-life" groups argue over how to define the movement. (Some want no exceptions for 'hard cases'. Some are against stem cell research, euthanasia, and physician assisted suicide.) But for political rather than ideological purposes, the consensus is that anyone who wants abortion to be illegal either with no exceptions or only 'hard case' exceptions is "pro-life".
There's some ambiguity in what counts as a 'hard case'. Everyone takes for granted 'life of the mother'. Everyone accepts rape as one of the 'hard cases' (even if they don't want an exception for it). Serious birth defects is considered a 'hard case', but people disagree about what is "serious".
The least clear issue seems to be whether "health of the mother" (as opposed to life of the mother) should count. Every "pro-lifer" I've met has disdain for the Doe interpretation (which included psychological, emotional, and "familial" factors). Still, I've never heard a discussion of when (if ever) health counts as a 'hard case'.
That's what I've gleaned about the terminology.
I think there's a new definition of the label "pro-life" these days. It's the old line, "Well I am personally pro-life, but... I think everybody should make the decision for themselves (or some other term that means they don't agree with making abortion illegal)" Meghan McCain has used this line, and it's catching on. It's a way to sit on the fence and try to please both sides, without actually meaning anything (and if you believe any of the people who say this would never choose abortion themselves, under any circumstances, I have a bridge to sell you)
Are you suggesting that the difference in the Gallup poll #'s is because after 14 years, people suddenly decided to equivocate? It's a cute idea- but it doesn't work. The Gallup poll didn't only ask if you're pro-life or pr-choice. That was just the headline because the 51% gave pro-life a bare majority.
If you break it down to 4 categories, the result is...
Always legal=22%
Legal under most circumstances=15%
Illegal under most circumstances=37%
Always illegal=23%
You have misquoted the poll results.
If you break it down to 4 categories, the result is...
Legal under any circumstances (always) = 22%
Legal under most circumstances (most) = 15%
Legal under few circumstances (few) = 37%
Illegal in all circumstances (no) = 23%
It can be fairly said that 74% of Americans support abortion depending on the circumstances.
Did'nt ask me.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
