Originally published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 11/22/09
A CBS News poll of adults taken in early October asked: “Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. Or, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. Or, Abortion should not be permitted.” Forty-one percent indicated generally available, 35 percent stricter limits, 20 percent indicated it should not be permitted and 4 percent were unsure. On Nov. 7, the Congress voted 55 percent to 45 percent to impose stricter limits on abortion through the Stupak Amendment that restricts the use of public monies in either the “public option,” insurance exchanges or in use of insurance credits. Adding together those who indicated stricter limits and those who oppose abortion entirely, you account for 55 percent of the adults polled.
PollingReport.com has compiled the results of 349 polls of Americans on the subject of abortion covering more than 30 years.
Examining these polls, I’m struck how consistent the results are, how little change there is across the years. For instance, Gallup asked a similar question in April 1975, “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” Twenty-one percent indicated legal under any circumstances, 54 percent legal only under certain circumstances, 22 percent illegal in all circumstances, and 3 percent were unsure. Gallup last asked this question in July ‘09, the findings were virtually the same, 21 percent, 57 percent, 18 percent, and 4 percent.
Time/CNN polled in April 1989, asking: “Do you favor or oppose the Supreme Court ruling that women have the right to have an abortion during the first three months of their pregnancy?” Fifty-four percent favored, 39 percent opposed, and 7 percent were unsure. The same question was asked in January 2003 (the most recent for this question) and the results were nearly identical: 55 percent, 40 percent and 5 percent.
Anyone who follows public opinion on the abortion issue knows that public opinion has remained stable since the 1973 Roe v Wade. So, why does the controversy still rage so hotly? It lies in understanding what the poll results really say.
While public opinion doesn’t seem to change, abortion law, availability and access have. Perhaps the first legal restriction was passed in 1976 in Missouri, a parental notification law, which now at least 35 states have. A spousal notification law was passed in Pennsylvania, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it in 1992. Twenty-four states have a mandatory waiting or counseling period before a woman can get an abortion. In 1976, the Hyde Amendment banned appropriated funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to be used for abortion services. The effect of these and other measures is to restrict the access or availability of abortion to women, despite the overall public support for the Roe decision. Harris Polls, taken 14 times since 1973 and last taken in 2009, consistently show a majority favoring the Roe decision. The Supreme Court has at least four times upheld Roe in subsequent rulings.
The movement has been to restrict abortion either through direct laws such as parental notification laws, waiting periods or restricting access through funding restrictions. Compared to the mid 1970s, the availability of abortion is much less than what it used to be. Yet, support for more restrictions remains constant. When those who support more restrictions combine with those who oppose abortion, we can expect more and more restrictions.
I wish pollsters would ask a question about abortion similar to one they have asked over the years about gun control: “In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now?: Asking about keeping laws, availability or access as it is now, would be very telling about where the future of abortion availability will head. With gun laws, 78 percent favored stricter laws in 1990, and as gun laws got stricter, public opinion shifted to keeping things as they are, from 17 percent in 1990 to 43 percent in October 2009 (Gallup Poll).
Unlike American’s opinion on gun control, which seems to respond to changes in those laws, American’s opinion on abortion seems “inelastic” with respect to the availability or access to abortion services. A coalition of those who favor stricter laws or narrowed availability and those who oppose abortion in any circumstances, suggests women’s ability to exercise their constitutional right will continue to be narrowed. Perhaps pro-choice groups could learn something from pro-gun groups about defending a constitutional right in face of political majorities to restrict it.
Showing posts with label Roe v Wade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roe v Wade. Show all posts
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Monday, January 28, 2008
Changing the terms of our ongoing abortion debate
published January 20, 2008 in the Terre Haute Tribune Star
The terms of the abortion debate may be about to change. Pro-life activists disillusioned with the incremental approach to restricting access to abortion are launching the “person-hood initiative.” Buoyed by the US Supreme Court’s upholding of the federal partial birth abortion ban, activists are hoping to pass state constitutional amendments, beginning in Colorado, where the language of the amendment passed Colorado State Supreme Court scrutiny. According to US News and World Report, the initiative defines a fertilized egg as a “person” who enjoys "inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law."
This is a change in the language of pro-life activists. Prior attempts to change the law focused on defining life at the moment of conception. Those attempts failed. The activists pushing for the person-hood initiative are hoping to get one passed, it be challenged to the US Supreme Court, and Roe v. Wade be overturned.
Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, US public opinion has changed very little, although altering the wording of questions can change the results. Nevertheless, for nearly 35 years a majority of Americans have supported the right to choose. Of course, there are “extremists” on both sides of the debate; most people are muddled, trying to seek some kind of middle way. One could argue that the incremental approach to restricting access to abortion, no federal funds for abortions, mandatory waiting periods, and parental consent/notification laws, really do reflect the mainstream of public opinion. That is exactly the problem the “person-hood” initiative activists see, that the US may find a “comfortable” acceptance of abortion with restrictions.
Activists on both sides of the abortion debate have been talking past each other from the beginning. Pro-life supporters have always been talking about “life.” And pro-choice supporters, though not using the language, have been talking about personhood. For an excellent discussion and analysis of the different world-views of pro-life and pro-choice activists, see Kristen Luker’s The Politics of Motherhood.
I, for one, would welcome a change in the terms of the debate because, with a debate on person-hood, both sides would be talking about the same thing instead of past one another. Activists are not likely going to be changed by such a debate, but this change in the terms of the debate might change minds among the majority who are in the middle on abortion.
What is a person? Try this exercise. What is the difference between a human being and a person? List the characteristics of “human being” and of “person.” I have been doing this exercise for more than 20 years with my students. If you are like them, you’ll have a list of terms under “human being” like: species, biological designation, animal, generic, potential, and general. Under “person” you might have terms like: unique, personality, emotions, individual, independent, and named. For over 20 years, I have been doing this little exercise and the lists have been like that.
Next, examine the characteristics in each list and pick which one you prefer. Which do you prefer to be characterized as? A “human being” or a “person?” My students, with rare exception, all pick “person.” How do we get from human being to person? Ahh, this is where many students experience an “ahh, ha” moment, because personhood requires recognition by others, which is exactly what the person-hood initiative recognizes. But the question can be asked, is a fertilized egg the same as an adult, socialized, human being? Life is a biological definition while person is a social one. And by current understandings, one would be very hard pressed to argue that a fertilized egg, even a fetus, meets the criterion for “person-hood” as we currently use the term.
This discussion, if it begins, will push us to confront the very question, “what is a person?” This discussion will bring to light the underlying values of our society much more so than the last 35 years of debate over choice have done. When you pick “person” over “human being,” that reflects a difference in values. If, as I suspect, we value “unique” over “common” in the United States, then it is not likely that we will be granting fertilized eggs or even fetuses “person-hood.”
The terms of the abortion debate may be about to change. Pro-life activists disillusioned with the incremental approach to restricting access to abortion are launching the “person-hood initiative.” Buoyed by the US Supreme Court’s upholding of the federal partial birth abortion ban, activists are hoping to pass state constitutional amendments, beginning in Colorado, where the language of the amendment passed Colorado State Supreme Court scrutiny. According to US News and World Report, the initiative defines a fertilized egg as a “person” who enjoys "inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law."
This is a change in the language of pro-life activists. Prior attempts to change the law focused on defining life at the moment of conception. Those attempts failed. The activists pushing for the person-hood initiative are hoping to get one passed, it be challenged to the US Supreme Court, and Roe v. Wade be overturned.
Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, US public opinion has changed very little, although altering the wording of questions can change the results. Nevertheless, for nearly 35 years a majority of Americans have supported the right to choose. Of course, there are “extremists” on both sides of the debate; most people are muddled, trying to seek some kind of middle way. One could argue that the incremental approach to restricting access to abortion, no federal funds for abortions, mandatory waiting periods, and parental consent/notification laws, really do reflect the mainstream of public opinion. That is exactly the problem the “person-hood” initiative activists see, that the US may find a “comfortable” acceptance of abortion with restrictions.
Activists on both sides of the abortion debate have been talking past each other from the beginning. Pro-life supporters have always been talking about “life.” And pro-choice supporters, though not using the language, have been talking about personhood. For an excellent discussion and analysis of the different world-views of pro-life and pro-choice activists, see Kristen Luker’s The Politics of Motherhood.
I, for one, would welcome a change in the terms of the debate because, with a debate on person-hood, both sides would be talking about the same thing instead of past one another. Activists are not likely going to be changed by such a debate, but this change in the terms of the debate might change minds among the majority who are in the middle on abortion.
What is a person? Try this exercise. What is the difference between a human being and a person? List the characteristics of “human being” and of “person.” I have been doing this exercise for more than 20 years with my students. If you are like them, you’ll have a list of terms under “human being” like: species, biological designation, animal, generic, potential, and general. Under “person” you might have terms like: unique, personality, emotions, individual, independent, and named. For over 20 years, I have been doing this little exercise and the lists have been like that.
Next, examine the characteristics in each list and pick which one you prefer. Which do you prefer to be characterized as? A “human being” or a “person?” My students, with rare exception, all pick “person.” How do we get from human being to person? Ahh, this is where many students experience an “ahh, ha” moment, because personhood requires recognition by others, which is exactly what the person-hood initiative recognizes. But the question can be asked, is a fertilized egg the same as an adult, socialized, human being? Life is a biological definition while person is a social one. And by current understandings, one would be very hard pressed to argue that a fertilized egg, even a fetus, meets the criterion for “person-hood” as we currently use the term.
This discussion, if it begins, will push us to confront the very question, “what is a person?” This discussion will bring to light the underlying values of our society much more so than the last 35 years of debate over choice have done. When you pick “person” over “human being,” that reflects a difference in values. If, as I suspect, we value “unique” over “common” in the United States, then it is not likely that we will be granting fertilized eggs or even fetuses “person-hood.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
