Skip to comments.CNN poll: 58% now oppose abortion in most or all cases
Posted on 03/08/2014 10:49:21 AM PST by SeekAndFind
This news hit yesterday, just before the start of CPAC 2014, but it seems to have attracted a little more attention today — perhaps in part because the CPAC conference has a controversy of its own over the pro-life issue. A new CNN poll shows a wide majority of Americans think abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances, although it’s the circumstances that might be the issue:
About one in four Americans say that abortion should be legal in all circumstances, one in five say abortion should always be illegal, and slightly over half the public thinks abortion should be legal in some, but not all, circumstances, according to a national poll released Thursday.
A CNN/ORC International survey also indicates that a majority opposes taxpayer money being used to pay for abortions for women who can’t afford the procedure, with Americans split on whether women who receive government subsidies for health insurance should be able to get a plan that covers abortions. …
According to the poll, 27% say that abortion should be legal in all circumstances, 13% say it should be legal in most circumstances, 38% say that it should be legal in few circumstances, and 20% say abortion should always be illegal.
The intro gives the impression that pro-abortion forces are stronger, but the opposite is the case. What is telling here, though, isn’t so much the numbers in the majority but the composition of the minority. It’s easy to explain the absolutists on this side, who will offer bogus “clump of cells” science along with the “my [body] my choice” slogan with the ironically hypocritical attempt to silence the pro-life movement. However, those who want abortion as an option in most cases only number half as many as the absolutists, which means that the arguments about life beginning at conception may be having an impact.
On the other side, about three times as many people believe that abortion should be limited to “few circumstances.” The poll doesn’t specify, but these are presumably the usual exceptions: rape, incest, and a physical threat to the life of the mother. Since together rape and incest account for less than 1.5% of all abortions, and only 12% of those seeking abortions even refer to their own health as an issue as a non-exclusive reason (according to data at the abortion-friendly Guttmacher Institute), we’re talking about support for barring all but an an inordinately small percentage of the million-plus abortions a year in the US. An additional 20% would ban the rest.
That demonstrates powerful momentum for the pro-life movement. Ironically, though, this is the first CPAC in some time to not feature a panel on the pro-life movement:
Pro-lifers note there are important panels on the IRS scandal, immigration, Common Core, privacy, gun control, and criminal justice reformissues in which pro-lifers would be keenly interested. Pro-lifers generally pride themselves on being full spectrum conservatives; that is, supporters of the three-legged stool: economics, national security, and moral issues. So they would not complain about panels covering these issues.
But they note other panels on career counseling, methods of making friends, pot smoking, making posts go Upworthy, and even one on Vaccines vs. Leeches, and wonder if there is no room for a panel or two on life issuesissues that motivate a tremendous number of grassroots activists who also vote conservative.
Yesterday I spoke with my friend Lila Rose of Live Action Films about the lack of focus on the pro-life movement at CPAC. We discuss the basis of liberty as the natural rights of human life, which should interest both conservatives and libertarians. Although we didn’t have the poll results in hand at the time, we talked about the momentum seen by the pro-life movement over the last ten years, both legally and politically:
Slowly, but surely....
I wonder if they counted the Todd-Aiken-bashers on FR. :-/
The Left continues to divide us over the exceptions, which represent under 4% of the abortions performed. My belief is that we can all agree to criminalize the 96% and then discuss the other 4%.
Of course none of those people are supposed to exist in New York.
That's the problem. Unless you are pro-choice, you aren't allowed to even talk about abortion because you hate women.
According to the poll, 27% say that abortion should be legal in all circumstances, 13% say it should be legal in most circumstances, 38% say that it should be legal in few circumstances, and 20% say abortion should always be illegal.So you would be able to get 58% support for making abortion less easy to get, but only 20% support for banning it entirely.
Meanwhile, later it has:
Most Americans have never favored using public funds for abortions for women who cannot afford them. According to the survey, 56% remain opposed, with only 39% favoring public funding for abortions.
But that sentiment does not appear to extend to government subsidies for health insurance. The poll indicates the public is split right down the middle, with 49% saying that women who receive government subsidies for health insurance should be able to get a plan that covers abortion services and an identical 49% disagreeing.
The other 42% are murderers or murderer-sympathizers.
Abortion is murder and anyone performing, accepting, and supporting murder should be held accountable as well.
“few instances” usually includes life of the mother which is rarely an issue today but the murderers don’t let people know.
So we only have 20-30%? Why on earth is this a good thing??
If someone asks you a question about abortion, is that person more likely to be for or against abortion? Probably against it. The “for” people really don’t care about the statistics. So, many people will just give what they perceive to be the easy answer and say that they are against it. The voting results give you the answer about how people feel about abortion.
Aiken is a vain fool, Governor Palin and the tea party tried to get him to withdraw and not cost us a seat, but his vanity made him personally responsible for creating a democrat senator.
Palin was right.
Uh, hello Republican Party, Tea Party, Chris Christie et al!!!
Looks like a winning position with these numbers...
For goodness sake, take a stand and don’t run away!!!
We can almost leave this issue alone and trust the instincts and hearts of people seeing ultrasounds. If you fight to make it illegal, go ahead, but the more important war is the hearts and minds. And it is happening, year by year.
I do think more education is needed in the black community. A lot of people don’t know about Margaret Sanger. White people aren’t killing blacks in large numbers, blacks are killing their own unborn in large numbers, they need more info about the racism of planned parenthood.
Palin was right, and the results proved her out.
Conservatives didn’t betray you, so you don’t need to gratuitously attack them on threads, for an old election result which pro-life conservatives predicted.
If you remember, he was Michelle Bachmann and Huckabee’s choice, as the tea party and Palin chose others, and Bachmann totally went silent on the guy.
You go ahead and root for your pro-life(TM) candidates. For me, I’ll stick by those who are anti-abortion.
Yours might get elected, but they’ll do nothing while in office to stop the murder of babies. Mine might not get elected, but no one can call them liars, hypocrites, cowards, and abortion-enablers.
Wow, no wonder that egotist cost us a pro-life senate seat.
And, the results at the state level indicate a record number of pro-life laws being passed over the past two years, many of which are resulting in abortion clinics shutting down.
Indeed. And given the state of mind among many “conservatives”, it’s no wonder that, in spite of so many pro-life(TM) electoral victories, abortion is still outpacing all other forms of death.
Do you still live in Texas? Texans would not have elected Akin either. IT was not cowardice that cost we Missourians the curse of Claire. It was Todd Akin that allowed the liberal media to make him the caricature of their so called 'conservative war on women'.
IF Akin has not done that stupid interview he would be a sitting senator today. See, use to be, that to be conservative one accepts personal responsibility with humility. Oh, just for the record, I live in Missouri, and I voted for Akin.
Well, he clearly has a little cult following him, who consider his personal vanity more important than the abortion battle.
How many months or years do you plan on spamming threads with his failed senate race?
It quickly became obvious, in the Akin case, that the press have us conservatives wrapped around their little finger. We’re so afraid of being embarrassed by a mistatement by our candidate, that we’ll turn on him like a pack of rabid dogs. The press may point and laugh at him, but we tear him limb from limb.
We’re such cowards. The Akin case was a disgusting diplay - and it continues, to our shame.
They only pose the “exceptions” argument to Pro-Lifers.
So, we should reject it out of hand, with this response:
“Nobody has ever proposed a law to limit abortions to cases of rape and incest.”
“And, if they did, no liberal would support it.”
“This nonsense is promoted to make the Pro-Aborts seem reasonable, as though these are the only reasons they actually support abortion.”
“So, the answer is “NO, I don’t support an “exceptions” clause, because it is a lie and a farce!”
Some may learn from re-examining the case and their own behavior in it. (Should we count you among them?) If that fits your definition of “spamming”, feel free to excuse yourself from the discussion.
NO! This state is divided into about three equal parts. Libs, Republicans (conservatives) and those so called independents. Akin NEEDED the independents and he had them until he used the term 'legitimate rape'. Every so called independent woman and any man she could influence recoiled at his language.
Let us place the shame where it belongs. Akin who let the liberal media make him a caricature of their lies.
If you care about pro-life, then you need to reexamine your cult of personality and still trying to hijack threads on a egotist who lost an election while taking on much of the pro-life/conservative movement to serve his self.
Earlier you admitted that you didn’t care about the seat, you only cared about the personality you are devoted to, “ Mine might not get elected, but no one can call them liars, hypocrites, cowards, and abortion-enablers.”
I only recall making one post about Akin because after he won the primary, I wanted him to win the race, but he creeped me out.
I dont know anything about Akin, and a 12 year, good voting record sounds great, but I did catch most of his interview on the Hannity show, and he gave me the willies.
Im ready for a good conservative underdog fight, but Akin seemed creepy that day, fixated on winning the next office, self absorbed, vain, and rigid, egoistical in a quiet, mock Christian way, is he always like that?
77 posted on 8/26/2012 12:50:25 AM by ansel12
A search of FR with the terms “Todd Akin” and “embarrass” is quite telling.
This cult of embarrassment you embrace is symptomatic of the “playground-ridicule” childishness of conservatism today. The other kids laugh at you time and again, so you’ve learned to wait for them to approve a candidate before you’ll support him. You even join in with them, making fun of the “loser kid”, just so they won’t make fun of you. This cult of embarrassment is a weakling’s game.
It’s time to grow up and choose your own candidate. If you disagree with Akin’s principles, then by all means take a stand against him. But don’t be cowed by the other kids making fun of him. When you let them choose a candidate to represent you, know for a fact that it won’t be someone who’ll put a stop to abortion.
You want to win congressional seats. I want to save babies’ lives. In the case of Akin, our goals did not coincide.
What many saw as a mistatement by Akin, I saw - and siezed - as an excellent opening to discuss the root questions regarding abortion. But where I heard a profitable debate beginning, many heard mocking laughter - aimed at them.
Well, so be it. I’ll continue the debate Akin’s “mistatement” introduced. You...I dunno, go vote or something. /shrug/
Now you are just rambling and making stuff up, I have nothing to do with your being “embarrassed”, or your repeatedly using that word.
This is how I read the man, “I did catch most of his interview on the Hannity show, and he gave me the willies.
Im ready for a good conservative underdog fight, but Akin seemed creepy that day, fixated on winning the next office, self absorbed, vain, and rigid, egoistical in a quiet, mock Christian way”
Don’t start lying and making things up about post 27, it is right there.
You are displaying a cult like devotion and it is leading you to dishonesty.
Sorry I have no clue what you are trying to say now. Akin needed those so called independents to beat Claire, and his words turned them off. There is nothing mystical about it.
Yes, and that is great news.
I’m glad to hear you’re not embarrassed by Akin. Perhaps it was your tagline disclaiming him that caused the confusion? Or your continued disparagement of him in a discussion which you call “spamming”?
But no matter. I suppose I’ll carry on with this “cult of personality” which you ascribe to me. Best of luck with your candidate - whether he stands firm or merely mouths words of electability. :-)
Which tag line?
Your spamming about that old election is hijacking this prolife thread, your cult of personality for Akin probably won’t have much of a future in politics, unless he is one of those guys who is so vain that he becomes an enduring destructive force as a perennial candidate for offices he can’t win.