Most Americans say abortion should be legal

Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the US Supreme Court, the Democrats are campaigning strongly in support of the right to abortion. How is this likely to go down in the 2024 elections?

Every May, Gallup conducts a poll of Americans on their views about the legality of abortion. The most recent poll was in May 2023. The following article, from June 2023, reports on the poll results:

Broader Support for Abortion Rights Continues Post-Dobbs (gallup.com)

Here are some highlights:

• 69% of respondents said abortion should generally be legal in the first three months of pregnancy.
• 37% said it should be legal in the 2nd three months.
• 22% said it should be legal in the last three months.
• All of these figures are at near-record highs (comparing to data since 1975).
• 52% of Americans agreed that abortion is morally acceptable.
• 61% agreed that overturning of Roe v. Wade was a "bad thing", while 38% said it was a "good thing".

Drilling into the data on those who said abortion should be generally legal:

• 34% of respondents said abortion should be legal under any circumtances.
• 51% said abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. Of those, 36% said it should be legal in most circumstances, while 13% said it should be legal in only a few circumstances.
• 13% said it should be illegal in all circumstances.

In other words, 47% of Americans surveyed said abortion should be legal in all (34%) or most (13%) circumstances, while 49% said it should be legal in only a few (36%) circumstances or illegal in all (13%) circumstances.

Among the respondents, 47% self-identified as "pro-choice", while 45% self-identified as "pro-life".

The political trends are interesting:

• Since 2021, support for full legality (i.e. legal under any circumstances) has increased by 10 percentage points among registered Democrats. It has increased by 4% among Independents and has decreased 7% among Republicans.
• Views on the issue have become more and more polarised over time. In 1975, support for the legality of abortion under under any circumstances was approximately equal among Democrats and Republicans. Today, there is a 52 percentage point gap (60% of Democrats support, compared to 8% of Republicans).
• Republican support for fully legal abortion is the lowest ever recorded by Gallup for that group.
• 84% of Democrats identify as pro-choice, compared to 21% of Republicans.

There are also gender differences:

• The view that abortion should be legal under any circumstances has increased among women each year since 2019, and is now at 40%.
• Among men, 27% now favour absolute legality - an increase of 2% since 2019.
• 55% of women identify as pro-choice, compared to 47% of men.

And differences according to education level:

• Among respondents with postgraduate qualifications, 64% said abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, while 31% said it should be legal in only a few circumstances (24%) or illegal in all circumstances (7%).
• Among respondents with no college education, 35% said abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, 44% said it should be legal in only a few circumstances, and 18% said it should be illegal in all circumstances.

And religion makes a very stark difference:

• Among those who said they attend religious services weekly, 45% said abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances, 31% said it should never be legal, and 21% said it should be legal in all or most circumstances.
• Among those who seldom or never attend services, 61% said abortion should be available in all or most circumstances, while 29% said it should be available in only a few circumstnaces and 7% said it should always be illegal.

To summarise: expanding support for abortion rights is generally occurring among Democrats and women. (These are not independent measures, since women are more likely to be Democrats.) Slightly more Republicans and Independents than a year ago say that overturning Roe is a good thing, while Democrats' views on that haven't changed.

---
Meanwhile Donald Trump has said he is proud of the role he played in the overturning of Roe v. Wade (i.e. by appointing three conservative Justices to the Supreme Court).

Access to legal abortion is restricted to various degrees, depending on the State. A number of state's laws have effectively made abortion illegal, while other states have made access extremely difficult. To explore the details, state by state, see here:

Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe | Guttmacher Institute

 

I voted the same way, for the same reason.

I did dither for a while, because even though it could be legal to allow an abortion for no reason other than the woman's choice 1 day before birth, that would not necessarily mean it would be possible to arrange such an abortion for that reason at that time in practice.

Lots of rights have practical limits, however. For instance, freedom of religion is not unlimited; nor is freedom of speech.

I'm not sure if it was defined by the pollsters. Perhaps it was left up to the person being polled to put their own interpretation on it. Or maybe I missed something in reading about this poll.

 

I think I need a dose of 'what the fuck!' and 'not this bullshit again!'..

In every single abortion debate, this always comes up and it is irritating as hell. Every single time, there's always one (and in this case, two).. Each and every single goddamn time!

So a reminder about late term abortions and the whole 'aborting a day before it's due or during childbirth, etc'..

This does not actually happen, even where abortion is available and legal "in all circumstances".

Late term abortion providers will not abort past 32 to 34 weeks - that is their max. And that 34 weeks is pushing it and it is usually provided because it is a non-viable pregnancy or there is a direct threat to the mother's health and may only be provided in very specific circumstances.

It might make this less ridiculous (not to mention less irritating) if people actually approached this debate from a standpoint based on reality instead of fantasy.

Pray tell, what is "practical" about forcing someone to remain pregnant without their consent?

Practical for whom, exactly?

The pollsters unfortunately have an expectation that people deal with reality and not fantasy when it comes to this subject matter and perhaps that is to the detriment of the poll results. Because people still keep getting hung up on fantasy instead of reality.

Here's what happens when a woman gets past the 33 weeks and a termination is required due to her health or the baby is about to die. They induce labour or perform a c-section. No, they don't perform an abortion - as one would normally perform an abortion at the start of the 3rd trimester. It becomes a live birth if the pregnancy has to end for whatever reason. If the child is dies or does not survive the birth, then it's a stillborn delivery.

The issue with this debate is that women do not often find out that the pregnancy is non-viable until the start of the 3rd trimester or they discover in later scans that the foetus has severe abnormalities. The woman then has to undergo a series of tests, much of which can take several weeks to perform and get the results for, which can then push her pregnancy into the 33 week margin. Then there are women who have been unable to access an abortion up to the 3rd trimester due to the costs involved, access to abortion services in her area, or, she did not know she was pregnant until much later on in the pregnancy.

 

Only if you assign personhood to the unborn.

Are you?

How does that work, exactly?

And I am not asking this to be narky (okay, perhaps just a tiny bit!)..

If you assign rights to the foetus, then the mother's rights over her own body does go out the window. This means, as one example, anything she does that could harm or damage her unborn child would be deemed illegal and she could find herself charged. It would mean urgent medical care or medication she needs to take to stay alive, would be denied. It would mean what she consumed, be it food, drink, drugs, alcohol, would be policed. Stating personhood for a foetus or stating that "there is more than one person's rights involved" could result in women being forced to undergo medical procedures they do not want or consent to and could be forced to give birth via c-sections or in hospitals without their consent.

Fetal personhood laws could also have major implications for pregnant people. If a fetus is legally considered a person, then child endangerment laws can apply. A state could potentially say pregnant people can only eat certain foods, or punish a pregnant person who is seen drinking, or compel someone to have a cesarean section they are refusing, says Kluchin. If a pregnant woman must undergo chemotherapy for cancer treatment, adds Ziegler, she could in theory be told to delay care until she gives birth so she does not harm the fetus, as the New Yorker reports has “routinely” occurred with pregnant women in Poland. (Many U.S. abortion laws have narrow exceptions for when the mother’s life is in danger.)

Establishing fetal personhood could put people who self-induce abortions at risk for criminal prosecution, says Jolynn Dellinger, a senior lecturing fellow at Duke Law School. It could also impact people who miscarry. Leslie J. Reagan, a professor of history at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, says prior to Roe, if someone went to the hospital or called a doctor about a miscarriage, they were often questioned on whether they had induced an abortion. Reagan’s research found that beginning in the early 1900s and running up until Roe in the 1970s, doctors and nurses sometimes functioned as the arm of the police, even threatening to deny care to patients if they did not provide information. “They were all suspects,” says Reagan. “[Doctors] couldn’t tell if it was a natural miscarriage or whether they had induced it, and they came to assume that anyone who came in bleeding, miscarrying, had induced it—and began to ask questions.”
[https://time.com/6191886/fetal-personhood-laws-roe-abortion/]​

Here's the thing about giving or granting "personhood" to a foetus. It isn't alive yet in the sense that it is not outside of the womb. Granting it personhood results in competing interests with the mother. And that does not work.

If you think any of the above would not happen, then you would be wrong.

Women's bodies are already policed, particularly when they are pregnant. Women are being arrested and forced to give birth in hospitals and via c-sections without their consent and it has been going on for years.

Do you think this is acceptable?

 

Bells:

That's essentially what I said. While abortion might be "legal", it might not be allowed, in practice.

Like I said, there are practical considerations that are involved, quite apart from the legalities.

It's a matter of interpreting the question the pollsters actually asked. Bear in mind that most people don't know the ins and outs of late term abortion practices. They don't get an informative lecture about abortion practices before they are polled.

I have never advocated for anybody to be forced to remain pregnant without their consent. Quite the opposite, actually. I'm strongly pro-choice.

It seems like you're trying hard to read things into what I said that aren't there. I'm not your opposition on this issue.

I don't think the pollsters have any expectations, other than that people will consider the questions they ask and answer them. The same questions on this have been used by this particular pollster since at least 1975. It is up to the people who are being asked to try their best to make sense of what they are being asked and to say what they think.

More detailed surveys that drill down into why people hold these opinions can and have been done. This one just asks the basic question, to get a gauge of general public sentiment on the issue.

That's useful information about how things work in practice. Thanks for providing it.

Yes. And so... ?

 

I don't know what led you to that conclusion.

Who said anything about exceptions to a woman's autonomy over her own body?

 

Because Dave, in every single debate about this issue, the same ridiculous fantasy comes up and there comes a point in time where we have to say enough is enough.

"Cuss fit"? I'm sorry, have I made you clutch your pearls?

It is a moot point. Perhaps you should ask the other men in this discussion who have harped back to it, why they are doing so. That would be the go, right? Instead of being offended that I *gasp* 'cussed'.

Well, let's see.

If you deny a woman the right to an abortion, what is the end result?

I'll give you an example. Say you are in a building and you wish to leave said building and I have locked the doors and am preventing you from leaving. Am I holding you there without your consent? Am I forcing you to remain in the building without your consent? What is the end result of my locking the doors and not allowing you to leave the building, Bill?

Actually, what you said is that you 'dithered' on the point when discussing the legality of it when responding to Seattle's comments about whether it meant it would be legal for a woman to abort her baby the day before it's due to be delivered.

But think about your response. Instead of correcting a ridiculous notion, you advised that was why you voted as you did.

In every sense, women aren't aborting a day before it's due.

That argument is always used to muddy the waters and sets a false narrative.

Do better!

Indeed. Pollsters should recognise that some people simply prefer to deal with conspiracies that have no basis in reality or fact.

What is the end result?

Because the issue is that they want abortion banned outright. And on one side we have the pro-life crowd going on and on about women aborting the day before they are due and on the other side, we have the camp that is trying to deal with the realities of abortion. One side wants to force women to remain pregnant and are using a false narrative as justification, the other sees this as horrific, as it would literally result in women being forced to remain pregnant (and currently women are being forced).

My advice? When faced with said false narrative, don't 'dither' based on the 'practicalities'. Actually address the false narrative that is being used to force women to remain pregnant.

And people still vote based on the belief that women are going to abort up to the day before they are due (this thread is a prime example).

Do you see why I find this so frustrating?

Dude! Come on now!