Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Majority of Americans Backed Supreme Court's Partial-Birth Abortion Ruling ^ | July 28, 2007 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 07/28/2007 5:12:24 PM PDT by monomaniac

Washington, DC ( -- A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that a majority of Americans backed the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year to uphold a national ban on partial-birth abortions. The poll is consistent with other surveys showing Americans strongly opposing the gruesome abortion procedure.

While abortion advocates frequently paint the high court's decision as out of step with the American public, the poll shows it is pro-abortion groups who don't represent most people.

The poll found that 55 percent of Americans agreed with the decision upholding the national partial-birth abortion ban.

The survey found that a majority of both men and women favored the decision.

The results of the survey show Americans back the partial-birth abortion ban but the results are outside the typical 60-80 percent found in most survey who oppose the three-day-long abortion procedure and want it banned.

A May Gallup survey used an inaccurate question referring to the procedure as a late-term one used in the last months of pregnancy. Still, it found that 72 percent of Americans said they supported the ruling while just 22 percent said they wanted the abortions to remain legal.

A poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, also done in May, found 66 percent think "government should make this procedure illegal" while just 28 percent favor keeping partial-birth abortions legal.

And an early May poll done by the Hart/Newhouse polling firm for the Wall St. Journal found similar results. Some 53 percent of those polled agreed with the ruling in the case while just 34 percent were opposed to it.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: abortion; partialbirthabortion; pba; pbaban; poll; prolife; scotus

1 posted on 07/28/2007 5:12:24 PM PDT by monomaniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

Good news. I know that the Dems are portraying that decision as some sort of sacrilege.

2 posted on 07/28/2007 5:16:41 PM PDT by SConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SConservative

Take that Chuckie Schmuckie Schumer

3 posted on 07/28/2007 5:18:16 PM PDT by marlon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

You mean the People don’t like the idea of sucking the brains out of newborns!!! Now that’s news, NOT! What’s news is that 4 Justices found no problem with sucking the brains out of newborns.

4 posted on 07/28/2007 5:23:00 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 ($5,000 for a piece of American Sovereignty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

National Review said it well:

“Four justices on the Supreme Court have accepted all the premises for a constitutional right to infanticide. They lack only the nerve to take their reasoning to its logical conclusion.”

5 posted on 07/28/2007 5:51:11 PM PDT by vetsvette (Bring Him Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

Senator Says Democrats Were ‘Duped’ by Supreme Court Justices

July 28, 2007

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), a member of the Judiciary Committee that held hearings on Justices Roberts and Alito, said Democratic senators were “duped” into voting for the two’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Schumer, in a speech to the American Constitution Society, said, “We were too easily impressed by the charm of nominee Roberts and the erudition of nominee Alito.” Schumer asked. “Their decency and intelligence should’ve tipped us off that they weren’t to be trusted.”

Schumer’s comments came just days after Sen. Arlen Specter (RINO-Penn) voiced concerns about Roberts and Alito. “It was our expectation that these appointees would shift to the left, like Souter, Stevens, and O’Connor did, once they were elevated to lifetime jobs on the Court,” Specter said. “They were all appointed by Republican presidents, but became solid bulwarks of liberal jurisprudence once they got on the Court.”

In a series of 5-4 rulings in the past year on topics such as abortion and racial integration, the court’s conservative majority, bolstered by Roberts and Alito, showed what Schumer called “undue respect for the views of ordinary people. We have counted on the courts to overturn laws issuing from the biases of the electorate and their representatives. With the edition of Roberts and Alito, though, the Court is neglecting its traditional role as the nation’s supreme governing authority.”

Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, spoke with Specter earlier this month, telling him that the court term that ended in June was notable for rulings that reversed some long-standing decisions. “The new ‘conservative bloc’ is undermining the authority of the judiciary.” Breyer complained. “If this trend is allowed to continue unchecked, the Court’s ability to rule this country will be seriously compromised. We can only hope that the Democratically controlled Senate will prevent any of Bush’s further nominees from being approved.”

Schumer opined that his “greatest regret” was not doing more to kill the Alito nomination. “Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed,” Schumer said. “I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and ‘borked’ him when we had the chance.”

Schumer concurred with Breyer’s assessment and vowed that the Senate will never confirm another Bush nominee. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito,” Schumer said. “Senator Barack Obama’s (D-Ill) pledge that his first Supreme Court nominee will be a gay, black homeless person is looking like the medicine we need to restore a proper balance of perspective to the Court. Regardless of which Democrat is elected president in 2008, I think we can look forward to more acceptable jurists being appointed to the courts.”


6 posted on 07/28/2007 10:00:24 PM PDT by John Semmens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson