CNN poll: 58% oppose abortion in most or all cases

posted at 6:31 pm on March 7, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

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 reform–issues 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 issues–issues 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:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Meow

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 8:39 AM

Of course a CNN poll is totally legitimate when it support your cause.

Grindstone on March 8, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Of course a CNN poll is totally legitimate particularly striking when it supports your cause any conservative position.

Grindstone on March 8, 2014 at 9:23 AM

FIFY

AJsDaddie on March 8, 2014 at 9:41 AM

thuja didn’t weigh in?

Schadenfreude on March 7, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Thuja and others.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 7, 2014 at 7:50 PM

I suppose being “moderately” pro-choice makes me an “other”.

I don’t ask pro-life Republicans/conservatives to sit down and shut-up.
But is it too much to ask that the rest of us not be maligned and ostracized when we step out of the closet?

Isn’t there room enough in the “tent” for all of us?

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Isn’t there room enough in the “tent” for all of us?

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 9:57 AM

I consider myself as pro-life as you’ll find. Plenty of room in my tent for ya. Many of my friends are pro-abortion to varying degrees. Force and coercion do not appeal to me as a way to have folks adopt my way of thinking. As with Conservatism itself, one must come to it on their own. Bring you own sleeping bag though. ; )

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 10:05 AM

*your, ; )

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 10:07 AM

I consider myself as pro-life as you’ll find. Plenty of room in my tent for ya.

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Why thank-you sir.
I think there are many Republicans that believe that limited government is consistent with being publicly pro-choice. But it seems our candidates are made to feel if they take a pro-choice position they won’t make it through a primary. Their choice then becomes either not run or get in the closet. (Does anyone really believe Romney truly rejected his pro-choice position?) I just think it’s time some of our candidates were allowed to “come out”.

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 10:28 AM

I think this poll way overstates opposition to abortion and that factor (if I’m right), combined with Democrat need to get big percentages of the female demographic in the fall, will make abortion a big issue. I hate that, because we have so many other issues that are compelling across all demographics: ObamaCare, spending, social safety ne reform, tax reform, rejuvenation of key alliances overseas (not to mention Americas commitment to leadership) and, most importantly, and Article 5 convention.

Leave abortion alone and it will take care of itself at the state level.

MTF on March 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM

I’m not convinced. The only polls that matter are the ones in the voting booth. People say they are pro life then vote for the ‘pro-choice’ candidate.

Wigglesworth on March 8, 2014 at 10:50 AM

There is right and there is wrong and there is that place somewhere in the middle where right vs. wrong is hardly clear. Our courts become the arbiter in such cases. I believe that they ruled in Roe vs. Wade. Halli Casser-Jayne, The Halli Casser-Jayne Show, Talk Radio for Fine Minds http://bit.ly/U4EEMd

The CJ Political Report on March 8, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Wiggles..
..like Catholics who trade babies lives for social justice and welfare.

Jamson64 on March 8, 2014 at 11:06 AM

But is it too much to ask that the rest of us not be maligned and ostracized when we step out of the closet?

Isn’t there room enough in the “tent” for all of us?

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 9:57 AM

.
Define “room enough in the “tent” for all of us”.
.
If you insist on altering or changing the anti-abortion “plank” in the party platform, then yeah … I’d have a problem with that.

listens2glenn on March 8, 2014 at 11:10 AM

CNN rallying their base. Expect LOTS more of this because, War On Women!!

Mimzey on March 8, 2014 at 11:53 AM

If you insist on altering or changing the anti-abortion “plank” in the party platform, then yeah … I’d have a problem with that.

listens2glenn on March 8, 2014 at 11:10 AM

No, that isn’t what I’m advocating at all.

I’d say I’m in the Mitch Daniels camp and agree it’s time to declare a “truce” on social issues.

What he was saying is we need to unify all kinds of people, and “freedom is going to need every friend it can get.”

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 11:57 AM

So, you want Christians to say, “It’s alright if you kill that baby as long as we win the next election”?

Ain’t happenin’.

kingsjester on March 8, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Thankfully, those old abolitionists for slavery were able to compromise with their consciences and agree that a pro-slavery position or a slavery-under-certain-circumstances position was fully compatible with an abolitionist belief. Plenty of room in that tent for everybody, right?

Listen, those of us who are abolitionist on abortion know full well that a ban on “late term” baby-killing will save some doomed babies, and a ban on abortions past the first trimester will save even more. An exception ONLY for rape or incest would save the most in a world where abortion is still legal.

We don’t fight against that, nor do we take absolutist positions that its must be all or none- although we get accused of that, I’ve never heard of any action by a pro-life group or individual that did anything but support restrictions.

But you squishy sorta-pro-sorta-not types will have to make the effort to understand that we abortion abolitionists will NOT take the intellectually & scientifically ridiculous position that a fetus at 20 weeks minus one day is legally discardable tissue and one at 20 weeks plus one day is a real baby with all the rights of a citizen. Nor can we logically agree that in the case of pregnancy from rape or incest, the only person who should get the death penalty is the baby.

Americans hate to be mean to anyone but that’s a pretty weak excuse to use when the issues are actually life and death.

We’ll take half a loaf, or only the heel if that’s all we can get, but be damned if we’ll go along to get along on this issue.

I would bet a good chunk of money that those here who are bleating that abortion abolitionists are jes’ RUINING evahthing for conservatism and the GOP by not being REASONABLE and shuttin’ up are themselves pro abortion and just too scared to openly state their views on a conservative forum.

Thuja, at least, is open about its horrifying beliefs.

Pless1foEngrish on March 8, 2014 at 12:38 PM

So, you want Christians to say, “It’s alright if you kill that baby as long as we win the next election”?

Ain’t happenin’.

kingsjester on March 8, 2014 at 12:15 PM

I would like it if everyone in the party could accept that pro-choice Republicans really do exist and unlock the closet and let them out. Maybe also not deem Republican candidates wholly unqualified because they hold a pro-choice position.

Is that asking for the impossible?

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 12:50 PM

accept that pro-choice Republicans really do exist…Is that asking for the impossible?

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Do you honestly believe that if there were still pro-slavery Republicans in the party, that you yourself would be willing to let them out of the closet?

Would you consider a pro-slavery candidate to wholly unqualified, or not?

The issues are exactly the same; whether one sub-set of people is to be considered property of another.

The only difference is that this country resolved the issue on the matter of dark-skinned people quite a few years ago, but some of you are still struggling with whether the pre-born get the same rights as black people.

Pless1foEngrish on March 8, 2014 at 1:05 PM

So, you want Christians to say, “It’s alright if you kill that baby as long as we win the next election”?

Ain’t happenin’.

kingsjester on March 8, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Being a one issue voter is not intelligent. I am pro-life but will vote for a pro-choice candidate depending on their other beliefs and work to change his/her position on that one issue.

There are no ideal candidates.

Vince on March 8, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Do you honestly believe that if there were still pro-slavery Republicans in the party, that you yourself would be willing to let them out of the closet?
Pless1foEngrish on March 8, 2014 at 1:05 PM

Really? Surely you are smarter than that. Straw man, apples and oranges etc…

Vince on March 8, 2014 at 1:14 PM

Vince on March 8, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Deny that a human life is growing inside a human mother’s womb is not intelligent.

Refusing to sublimate your Christian faith in order to win an election is a matter of principle.

kingsjester on March 8, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Really? Surely you are smarter than that. Straw man, apples and oranges etc…

Vince on March 8, 2014 at 1:14 PM

Hardly a straw man.

Blacks were at one time considered property and an owner could legally dispose of them.

Unborn babies are at this time considered property of their mothers and the owner can legally dispose of them.

How do the two issues differ?

At one time, many people scoffed at the idea that white people and black were the same- apples and oranges, as some say. Humans and sub-humans.
They would have been appalled if you suggested white people should be owned as slaves, because there were fundamental differences between whites and blacks, and blacks were simply less human (even if they did actually look pretty human).

Your camp agrees with the slave-owners to the extent that you agree that another particular sub-set (unborn babies) are less human even though you’d probably be forced to accept that eventually any unborn grows into what you’d agree is a human.

Those in the past who killed blacks and Jews would find your arguments that certain groups are not completely human (or at the least lack full human rights) persuasive, I ‘m sure.

It should make you uncomfortable that your arguments on whether a mother owns the baby in her womb as property are so compatible with that of slave holders.

Pless1foEngrish on March 8, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Pless1foEngrish on March 8, 2014 at 1:05 PM

I’ll take that as a “yes”.

but some of you are still struggling with whether the pre-born get the same rights as black people.

Yes, we’re such an amoral bunch, aren’t we. This is where pro-lifers lose me every time. Many of us who are pro-choice aren’t struggling one bit with the moral question and believe that abortion is a terrible choice for any woman/family to make. We just don’t believe we should be attempting to legislate our morality to anyone else.

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 1:46 PM

If you think killing the unborn can be justified, than you not only lack critical thinking skills but yes, you are also lacking a moral center.

Spare us the sympathy for “terrible choice” made by women/families if you can’t manage to scrape any up for the babies who are are actually DYING.

Would you feel it was a “terrible choice” to kill a newborn? Toddler? Little ones can be an intolerable burden, even more so than a pregnancy. Are you willing to “legislate your morality” when it comes to a newborn?

I bet you are.

Tell me how its completely different.

Pless1foEngrish on March 8, 2014 at 2:01 PM

I also have to inquire about how it can be a “terrible choice” to terminate a pregnancy.

If there’s no baby being killed, as pro-aborts maintain, why is it difficult? Should be no more trouble than having a wart removed, aside from those mommy-hormones that get all stirred up.

If there IS a baby, how could one ever make a choice to kill it?

What is so terrible about it? If there’s no actual baby involved?

Pless1foEngrish on March 8, 2014 at 2:05 PM

The problem with the pro-death types is their weasel words eventually sound something like:

“Sure, but Auschwitz has it good points and you’ll lose me if you disagree…”

Which of course reveals them to be very much pro-death especially if someday needed to hide their irresponsibility.

viking01 on March 8, 2014 at 2:17 PM

I watched NBC this morning and they concentrated on the two states most “restrictive” laws:

Texas bans abortion after 12 weeks.
Arkansas may ban abortion after 6 weeks.

I think polling would show it’s the ones that argue “from conception” and who remove IUDs and Plan B who are the very slight minority. And the ones who lose elections consistently.

Marcus on March 8, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Texas bans abortion after 12 weeks.
Arkansas may ban abortion after 6 weeks.
I think polling would show it’s the ones that argue “from conception” and who remove IUDs and Plan B who are the very slight minority. And the ones who lose elections consistently.
Marcus on March 8, 2014 at 2:20 PM

In Texas, the new law that passed and Wendy Davis filibustered was 20 weeks.

anuts on March 8, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Yes, we’re such an amoral bunch, aren’t we. This is where pro-lifers lose me every time. Many of us who are pro-choice aren’t struggling one bit with the moral question and believe that abortion is a terrible choice for any woman/family to make. We just don’t believe we should be attempting to legislate our morality to anyone else.

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Like most socially liberal positions, your argument fails upon extension. Exactly when SHOULD we legislate morality? Do you believe partial-birth abortion should be outlawed? If so, then your whole “stay out of my womb” argument goes by the wayside.

If you ARE in favor of partial-birth abortion, then you’re atleast you’re consistent. Morally reprehensible, perhaps, but consistent.

AJsDaddie on March 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM

I get the impression lynncgb never struggles with moral questions.

It could explain why the neighbors have a fence.

viking01 on March 8, 2014 at 3:06 PM

We just don’t believe we should be attempting to legislate our morality to anyone else.

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 1:46 PM

I simply cannot think of any legislation that is without someone’s morality.

anuts on March 8, 2014 at 3:09 PM

We just don’t believe we should be attempting to legislate our morality to anyone else.

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 1:46 PM

You need to lose this old canard.

All laws legislate morality—although there does seem a recent increase in laws that inflict immorality. Nevertheless, law sets a standard of behavior.

INC on March 8, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Help me out. Where is the 58% oppose abortion figure in the poll. I can’t find it at this site or at the CNN site.

they lie on March 8, 2014 at 4:14 PM

There is right and there is wrong and there is that place somewhere in the middle where right vs. wrong is hardly clear. Our courts become the arbiter in such cases. I believe that they ruled in Roe vs. Wade. Halli Casser-Jayne, The Halli Casser-Jayne Show, Talk Radio for Fine Minds http://bit.ly/U4EEMd

The CJ Political Report on March 8, 2014 at 10:58 AM

No one is going to listen to your sophomoric moslem show.

Murphy9 on March 8, 2014 at 5:38 PM

Pless1foEngrish

An exception ONLY for rape or incest would save the most in a world where abortion is still legal. We don’t fight against that…

I’ve never understood how someone who believes that sacrosanct human life begins at conception can consent to those exceptions. How does that effectively differ from saying that a “particular sub-set (unborn babies) are less human” than those conceived in happier circumstances? How can you simultaneously acknowledge that such exceptions are logically indefensible and still lay claim to intellectual, scientific consistency, let alone the putatively absolutist moral high ground? When pro-life candidates aren’t even willing to affirm that they, personally, oppose abortion in the case of rape and incest too, how is that not a profound moral compromise with the realities of abortion politics? Did you even stop to consider the implications of cavalierly declaring that the baby isn’t “the only person who should get the death penalty?”

You may want to recalibrate your “squishy” conscience meter, because I’m not sure how an abolitionist who concedes the political fight on rape and incest fares better than the pro-choice voter who supports a pro-life candidate.

JM Hanes on March 8, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Sorry, had to go to the market.

If there’s no baby being killed, as pro-aborts maintain, why is it difficult?

Pless1foEngrish on March 8, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Anyone who is intellectually honest shouldn’t have a problem stating that life begins at conception and an abortion is the destruction of life. The point of viability outside the womb, is when there are two individuals that deserve protections and not just one.
Until that point is reached, I don’t believe the government has a place dictating very personal family decisions.
Roe v. Wade is and has always been about protecting the rights, privacy and safety of Americans. Not about the promotion of abortion.

Like most socially liberal positions, your argument fails upon extension. Exactly when SHOULD we legislate morality?

AJsDaddie on March 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM

When there are two separate human beings that need protections.
Pragmatically speaking, and as a results-oriented matter, the pro-life position won’t prevail. If Roe were overturned, each state would decide the issue and many states would allow abortion to remain legal, so pro-lifers would not attain the goal of outlawing the procedure.
Education and persuasion is the path forward.

I get the impression lynncgb never struggles with moral questions.

It could explain why the neighbors have a fence.

viking01 on March 8, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Better not go by your impressions then as they aren’t very reliable. I’m so upstanding and incorruptible that I deserve an entourage.

I simply cannot think of any legislation that is without someone’s morality.

anuts on March 8, 2014 at 3:09 PM

I understand. The underlying principles embedded in Roe; limited government, individual liberty, protecting freedom and autonomy is the better focus.

You need to lose this old canard.

INC on March 8, 2014 at 3:09 PM

View my position as you will. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind on the issue and I certainly don’t ask anyone to compromise their principles. I only ask pro-lifers to remember that pro-choice Republicans aren’t the enemy, and our voice does exist within the party. Would it be so awful if that voice was sometimes allowed to be heard?

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 7:21 PM

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Tough crowd I see. Not too many happy campers if you will. Lolz! Still room in my tent never the less. ; )

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Tough crowd I see.

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Yes, it always is. This ain’t my first rodeo.

Thanks Bmore.

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 7:50 PM

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 7:50 PM

; ) Had a good day, managed to take down some trees and no one died. ; ) Plus I finally figured out why the mill here doesn’t allow mention of the furry creature from StarWars. Bizarre! I can be so naive. Lolz! See ya later!

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Believe what you want to believe, but believe this for certain: As long as the Republican Party remains focused on the issue of abortion, it will lose elections. Right now there are bigger issues to fry as, for instance, President Obama tries to sell Israel down the river. Remaining stuck on social issues as the GOP’s lead is, forgive me, an abortion of the conservative voice.

Halli Casser-Jayne, The Halli Casser-Jayne Show, Talk Radio for Fine Minds http://bit.ly/U4EEMd

The CJ Political Report on March 8, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Better not go by your impressions then as they aren’t very reliable. I’m so upstanding and incorruptible that I deserve an entourage.

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 7:21 PM

I’ll keep the car doors locked anyway. Thanks.

viking01 on March 8, 2014 at 8:37 PM

I’ll keep the car doors locked anyway. Thanks.

viking01 on March 8, 2014 at 8:37 PM

That’s quite a remarkable understanding of the true threats that we all face.
Pro-choice Republicans that fail this moral litmus test should really be the least of your worries.

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 9:37 PM

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 9:37 PM

Keep off the grass….

viking01 on March 8, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Believe what you want to believe, but believe this for certain: As long as the Republican Party remains focused on the issue of abortion, it will lose elections.

The CJ Political Report on March 8, 2014 at 8:29 PM

More blather from the electability crowd? Alright. Check this out.

George W. Bush. John McCain. Mitt Romney. Of these three Republicans, only one was a proud pro-life champion. Guess which one became president.

Stoic Patriot on March 8, 2014 at 10:55 PM

View my position as you will. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind on the issue and I certainly don’t ask anyone to compromise their principles. I only ask pro-lifers to remember that pro-choice Republicans aren’t the enemy, and our voice does exist within the party. Would it be so awful if that voice was sometimes allowed to be heard?

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Seeing as how that voice is determined to make it legal to snuff out the lives of the innocent and helpless, then yes, you are the enemy.

Stoic Patriot on March 8, 2014 at 10:58 PM

viking01 on March 8, 2014 at 9:59 PM

I’m sorry, but just like pro-lifers, pro-choice Republicans are here to stay too, and I don’t see why either one of us should be forced to play by a gag rule.

you are the enemy.

Stoic Patriot on March 8, 2014 at 10:58 PM

If you insist, but I won’t play the same game. My only “enemies” are leftists.

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 11:35 PM

Help me out. Where is the 58% oppose abortion figure in the poll. I can’t find it at this site or at the CNN site.

they lie on March 8, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Here was the title: “58% oppose abortion in most or all cases.”

And here is where you will find that figure: “38% say that it should be legal in few circumstances, and 20% say abortion should always be illegal.”

Someone who thinks something should only be legal in few circumstances is someone who opposes it in most circumstances.

Cheshire_Kat on March 9, 2014 at 1:44 AM

Roe v. Wade is and has always been about protecting the rights, privacy and safety of Americans….

lynncgb on March 8, 2014 at 7:21 PM

The Real Reason to Criticize Roe

…Actually, Roe did not introduce legal abortion to the United States; it did something even worse. Prior to Roe, legal abortion existed, but so did a large, vigorous pro-life movement, and that movement was beginning to win the public debate on abortion. Roe deprived the pro-life movement of its legal victories and allowed abortion to become more available to poor and minority women. It subverted the democratic process and led to a partisan polarization that only grew worse with time. Perhaps worst of all, it nullified the pro-life movement’s constitutional arguments and enshrined in case law a constitutional interpretation that deprived the unborn of any constitutional rights….

In the spring of 1971, pro-lifers defeated abortion legalization bills in all twenty-five of the state legislatures that considered them. The next year, their record was almost as successful: Only one state liberalized its abortion law, and it did so only under court order. Pro-lifers were equally successful at the ballot box. When Michigan and North Dakota introduced voter initiatives to legalize abortion in 1972, pro-lifers defeated both measures by wide margins. By the end of 1972, pro-lifers thought that they were probably within only one year of repealing New York’s permissive abortion law, and the director of Planned Parenthood’s Western Region division worried that pro-lifers would soon make abortion illegal in California too. “In the West we view ’73 as a difficult year for abortion,” he confided to a colleague in the summer of 1972.

Roe stopped a victorious pro-life movement in its tracks and deprived it of its gains through the democratic process.

As an aside, this kind of reminds me of what’s been going on with marriage.

…But what really made Roe an egregious decision, in the view of pro-lifers, was that it deprived a class of people of their constitutional rights by declaring them non-persons, something they thought the Supreme Court had not done since Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857. Prior to Roe, pro-life lawyers had found a receptive audience in some state and federal courts for their argument that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ due process clauses protected fetal life, and that the legalization of abortion on demand was therefore unconstitutional. As the Fifth Amendment states, under the Constitution no person can “be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” If fetuses were human persons, then their lives were constitutionally protected.

INC on March 9, 2014 at 4:29 AM

Meet Norma McCorvey aka Jane Roe:

“After finding myself pregnant,” McCorvey told WorldNetDaily, “I considered abortion and, because of this, I was put in touch with two attorneys, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee. They had just recently graduated from law school and were interested in challenging the Texas abortion statute.”

Describing how she was viewed by the pro-abortion community, McCorvey said, “Plain and simple, I was used. I was a nobody to them. They only needed a pregnant woman to use for their case, and that is it. They cared, not about me, but only about legalizing abortion. Even after the case, I was never respected — probably because I was not an ivy-league educated, liberal feminist like they were.”

In a 1994 New York Times interview, McCorvey describes her meeting with the young attorneys, with whom she had a rocky relationship.

“Sarah (Weddington) sat right across the table from me at Columbo’s pizza parlor, and I didn’t know [then] that she had had an abortion herself,” she said. “When I told her then how desperately I needed one, she could have told me where to go for it. But she wouldn’t because she needed me to be pregnant for her case. I set Sarah Weddington up on a pedestal like a rose petal. But when it came to my turn, well, Sarah saw these cuts on my wrists, my swollen eyes from crying, the miserable person sitting across from her, and she knew she had a patsy. She knew I wouldn’t go outside of the realm of her and Linda. I was too scared. It was one of the most hideous times of my life.”

The relationship with Weddington was not unique as McCorvey began meeting other pro-abortion activists.

My experience with pro-abortion leaders is that they are snobs. They claim that they care about women and their rights but, in my experience, they care for nothing, not even themselves in a way,” she told WorldNetDaily….

For many years, McCorvey preferred to remain the anonymous “Roe,” but in 1980, she broke her silence and gave an interview to a Dallas television reporter. Through subsequent interviews, she revealed that she had lied about the rape — an important point in the fact pattern of the Roe v. Wade case.

INC on March 9, 2014 at 4:45 AM

Roe v. Wade was selective litigation by the Left based on a lie.

The lawyers needed a representative for all women seeking abortions—one who was young, poor, and white. They just didn’t want her to cross state lines to get a legal abortion, or the case would be considered moot and dismissed….

Weddington and Coffee told Norma that abortion just dealt with a piece of tissue, and that it was like passing a period rather than the termination of a distinct, living, and whole human organism….

Her lawyers drafted a one-page legal affidavit, which she signed but did not read. (Even today, she has not read it.) This was only the second time she would meet with her lawyers—and it turned out to be the last. She would not be called to testify and attended none of the trial….

INC on March 9, 2014 at 4:52 AM

George W. Bush. John McCain. Mitt Romney. Of these three Republicans, only one was a proud pro-life champion. Guess which one became president.

Stoic Patriot on March 8, 2014 at 10:55 PM

George W. Bush was President for 8 years. Was abortion illegal during those years? Abortion laws have actually tightened under Obama. Maybe he should get a third term.

Marcus on March 9, 2014 at 6:57 AM

George W. Bush was President for 8 years. Was abortion illegal during those years? Abortion laws have actually tightened under Obama. Maybe he should get a third term.

Marcus on March 9, 2014 at 6:57 AM

There is a difference between what has happened with state laws under Obama (where he doesn’t have veto power), and Federal laws where Obama does have a direct say in the process. Federal abortion law certainly has not tightened under Obama.

Obamacare is known to direct money towards Planned Parenthood, and through executive order Obama has rescinded the Mexico City policy, which means that the executive branch can direct money to international abortion providers. To the extent that Obama has tried to do anything vis-à-vis state laws, it is to get the Department of Justice to sue against them and have the judiciary overturn said laws.

Under George W. Bush though, Federal abortion laws tightened, and more abortions were made illegal because of his leadership. I suggest you check out the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, and its being upheld thanks to his SCOTUS picks in Gonzales v. Carhart.

Stoic Patriot on March 9, 2014 at 7:07 AM

Stoic Patriot on March 8, 2014 at 10:58 PM

No. That is over the top. You will never convince one person to come over to your way of thinking using that technique. You will only succeed at alienating not enlightening. She is not an enemy.

Bmore on March 9, 2014 at 10:53 AM

George W. Bush. John McCain. Mitt Romney. Of these three Republicans, only one was a proud pro-life champion. Guess which one became president…

And the GOP did not make abortion the center of George W. Bush’s campaign, while the issue was front and center for McCain and Romney. The GOP = Train wreck, unless the party gets real. I’m just sayin’

~ Halli Casser-Jayne, The Halli Casser-Jayne Show, Talk Radio for Fine Minds http://bit.ly/U4EEMd

The CJ Political Report on March 9, 2014 at 10:55 AM

No. That is over the top. You will never convince one person to come over to your way of thinking using that technique. You will only succeed at alienating not enlightening. She is not an enemy.

Bmore on March 9, 2014 at 10:53 AM

An enemy is someone who harms or threatens someone or something that one holds dear. Lynncgb is saying that we should look past a position that is absolutely unconscionable: maintaining the legality of slaughtering the unborn. Since the Roe v Wade decision, there have been more than 50 million unborn babies killed in the United States. Per the Guttmacher Institute’s own admission (the research arm of Planned Parenthood), 98% of those abortions will have been done on purely elective grounds, i.e., for convenience. There is a word for the act of killing another human being without just cause: murder.

Abortion is a gross human rights violation. It is imperative that it stop. No cause in the history of human rights, from abolition, to stopping ethnic cleansing, has ever made any progress by remaining mum and taking a non-judgmental tack. To the contrary, the power to influence and the power to persuade lies in the ability to delineate such issues in stark, moral language that shakes people out of their apathetic indifference and calls them to action. Demands for our silence and demands for us to embrace a “truce” is a demand for the deaths of the unborn. So long as the unborn are unjustly slain, we shall continue to condemn that evil. We will stop speaking out when they stop dying. Enough children die by chance. No child should die by choice.

Stoic Patriot on March 9, 2014 at 11:12 AM

George W. Bush. John McCain. Mitt Romney. Of these three Republicans, only one was a proud pro-life champion. Guess which one became president…

And the GOP did not make abortion the center of George W. Bush’s campaign, while the issue was front and center for McCain and Romney. The GOP = Train wreck, unless the party gets real. I’m just sayin’

~ Halli Casser-Jayne, The Halli Casser-Jayne Show, Talk Radio for Fine Minds http://bit.ly/U4EEMd

The CJ Political Report on March 9, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Let’s see… George W. Bush’s first campaign had 2 themes: compassionate conservatism (which he tied the unborn to) and restoring honor to the White House (which was a less-than-subtle attack on Clinton’s conduct).

George W. Bush’s second campaign also had 2 themes: the war on terror, and secondly, which actually showed up as the number one issue that people cared about in exit polling — moral values. The so-called “Values Voters” were the largest single voting bloc in the 2004 election, and went decisively for George W. Bush.

Now let’s consider John McCain’s run. He ran on his military background (and continuing to fight in Iraq), where he actually managed to neutralize what had previously been considered a losing issue. The other thing he ran on, which was more defined by the circumstances: the economy. He was the guy who said that the economy was strong just before the financial collapse. He made no effort to put social issues front-and-center in his campaign. The closest he ever came to bringing in abortion was the selection of Palin, where his numbers boomed from the high 30s to the low 50s (a combination of being a woman, being pro-life, and her story with Trig), briefly putting him in the lead, before the economy and the lack of connection for voters at the top of the ticket ultimately dragged him down.

But hey, McCain was at a disadvantage because of incumbency, right? Now let’s consider Romney. Did he put social issues at the front-and-center of his campaign? No. He campaigned on his experience as a businessman, stressing that he would cut taxes, reduce regulations, and grow American enterprise. As governor, he had supported Roe v Wade, and on the 2012 campaign trail said there wasn’t any abortion-related legislation that he would sign into law. His only mention of abortion in campaign ads stressed all of the exceptions where he thought abortion should be legal (about 18 seconds into the link I provided), and even then immediately pivoted back to the economy. Combine a lack of inspiration there with some boneheaded comments on the 47%, and he too went down in flames.

So sorry, the evidence doesn’t support your thesis.

Stoic Patriot on March 9, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Stoic Patriot on March 9, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Oh, I understand your position as it is very close to my own. My point is that we will never make progress by inflammatory rhetoric used against folks who are otherwise reliably with us on 100% of the time on all other issues. Folks must come to the conclusion you and I share on their own. To me the best way to achieve this is to enlighten not to scorn. Folks are most likely to come to a pro-life position when good solid arguments can be made on our views. Taking the condescending route is never going to work. I know it doesn’t for me. It tends to make folks tune us out . The old adage might well apply here. Attract more bees with honey. That’s all I am trying to say. Its fine and good to argue points. Cutting off folks by ending the conversation with You’re my enemy won’t work. Its that simple. ; )

Bmore on March 9, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Bmore on March 9, 2014 at 12:25 PM

I have no problem with advocating for and demonstrating the value of human life. I’m quite willing to encourage pro-choicers to defect and come over to our side. We’ve certainly seen plenty of former Planned Parenthood clinic workers do just that once they have awoken to the horrors they have participated in (see the Gosnell trial for instance). But until pro-choicers do convert though, they either advocate for the slaughter of the unborn, or engage in it directly, and so long as they do that, that makes them our enemy. We should not delude ourselves into thinking otherwise, nor allow saccharine calls for a truce lull us into complacency.

Stoic Patriot on March 9, 2014 at 1:11 PM

I have no problem with advocating for and demonstrating the value of human life. I’m quite willing to encourage pro-choicers to defect and come over to our side. We’ve certainly seen plenty of former Planned Parenthood clinic workers do just that once they have awoken to the horrors they have participated in (see the Gosnell trial for instance). But until pro-choicers do convert though, they either advocate for the slaughter of the unborn, or engage in it directly, and so long as they do that, that makes them our enemy. We should not delude ourselves into thinking otherwise, nor allow saccharine calls for a truce lull us into complacency.

Stoic Patriot on March 9, 2014 at 1:11 PM

One way is to never adopt their language. Pro-abortion is the true language for what they believe. ; ) Subtly can be a very good thing indeed. Honest dialog is paramount.

Bmore on March 9, 2014 at 1:58 PM

Abortion is the ultimate war on women. Not only does abortion kill a child, but it effects the mother and subsequent children.

As up to 75 percent of women who have an induced abortion will become pregnant again, the impact on her reproductive future and the health of subsequently born children is vital information to a woman considering abortion.

The link between having an induced abortion and subsequent pre-term birth has been recognized in over 120 peer-reviewed scientific studies, as well as being listed as an “immutable medical risk factor” by the Institute of Medicine. One major concern with pre-term birth is very low birth weight, which can have serious health consequences, including cerebral palsy, cognitive impairment, and chronic health issues. Preterm birth is also the leading cause of infant death, both globally and in the United States.

Studies have also shown that induced abortion is a risk factor for a woman developing placenta previa in future pregnancies — which can cause severe bleeding before or during delivery, and can be dangerous for both the mother and the baby.

It is scientifically undisputed that a woman’s first full-term pregnancy reduces her risk of breast cancer. Aborting a first pregnancy before 32 weeks eliminates that protective effect. It is also undisputed that the earlier a woman has a first full-term pregnancy, the lower her risk of breast cancer becomes.

The association between having an induced abortion and a subsequent increased risk of breast cancer has been examined in numerous studies. Of these studies, 33 showed a positive association between having an abortion and developing breast cancer, 19 of which were statistically significant. None of the studies showing a negative association were statistically significant.

The proven health risks of abortion are often met with hostility because they undermine the false narrative pushed by Big Abortion, namely that the debate surrounding abortion requires choosing sides between mothers and their unborn children. The truth is that abortion harms both mothers and children — even their children from future pregnancies.

INC on March 9, 2014 at 2:05 PM

I am surprised to see Ed, of all people, publishing happy-talk like this. His interpretation of the poll results are unrealistic. I would really like to know how Ed explains the real-world polling on this subject. Perhaps you can say that Albuquerque is a liberal area, but South Dakota and Mississippi???

wbcoleman on March 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM

One way is to never adopt their language. Pro-abortion is the true language for what they believe. ; ) Subtly can be a very good thing indeed. Honest dialog is paramount.

Bmore on March 9, 2014 at 1:58 PM

An excellent point!

Stoic Patriot on March 9, 2014 at 3:57 PM

@Stoic Patriot…

I stand firm. What has changed is who is controlling the conversation on the Right and the emphasis of that conversation. There is certainly nothing wrong with morality being a part of any conversation, but when you go all righteous on the issue of abortion you alienate a large segment of the voting population — who you need to win. So stand strong that you are right in your analysis, my stoic patriot friend, and I will stand strong in assuring you that, if you do, the R’s will lose another presidential election. And try this one on for size…you’re so busy force-feeding your ideals that you don’t have enough sense to realize that if you tread light, you get back in the WH, and then can be as self-righteous as you like. But hey, I’m just a dumb, immoral woman, as you clearly see all women who opt for making their own decisions about their own bodies, according to their own personal beliefs.

~ Halli Casser-Jayne, The Halli Casser-Jayne Show, Talk Radio for Fine Minds http://bit.ly/U4EEMd

The CJ Political Report on March 9, 2014 at 6:52 PM

@Stoic Patriot…
I stand firm. What has changed is who is controlling the conversation on the Right and the emphasis of that conversation.

I think we’re in agreement that control of the conversation has changed. The GOP establishment, acting through conservative media outlets (e.g., Fox News, WSJ, etc) is trying to bring the focus of political discourse onto exclusively economic issues.

They are embarking on a fool’s errand. First, they have lost the past 3 presidential elections that have centered around the economy (1992 with George HW Bush, 2008 with John McCain, and 2012 with Mitt Romney). Second, they are pursuing economic issues to the exception of other issues.

Political campaigns have to be able to adapt to any topic of discussion, and frequently turn on current events. If a consulate in Libya is attacked, the public’s focus turns to foreign policy. If the stock market tumbles 600 points, people want to know about the economy. And if the judiciary hands down a controversial decision on social issues, people want to talk about social issues.

GOP strategists have talked themselves into believing that they need to only talk about the economy, and that they must “control the message.” Unfortunately for them, it leaves the GOP utterly flat-footed and unable to respond to changing circumstances and events. It is one thing to have a campaign theme. It’s quite another to label certain issues as off-limits. Once you do, that’s exactly where your opponents will hit you.

There is certainly nothing wrong with morality being a part of any conversation, but when you go all righteous on the issue of abortion you alienate a large segment of the voting population — who you need to win.

Allow me to address this in two pieces. First, I’m glad that you’re willing to acknowledge that there’s nothing wrong with morality being a part of any conversation. However, on righteousness alienating people that the GOP needs, let me be blunt: you’re wrong.

Now, it’s not impossible for moral issues to blow up in the GOP’s face. If you start talking about how God is pro-rape, or that women possess some kind of magical ability to stop pregnancy following intercourse through sheer force of will, folks are going to dismiss you as a lunatic. However, righteousness attracts rather than alienates support on the net.

What you fail to understand about abortion supporters is two things: 1.) They’re already overwhelmingly loyal Democratic voters, and 2.) they’re disproportionately concentrated in blue states.

The model for GOP victory is a coalition of Southern and Midwestern states. To be competitive in swing states like Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Colorado, the GOP is heavily dependent on socially conservative evangelical turnout. That means you have to give them a reason to show up and support you on election day. That necessitates that the GOP take socially conservative positions, especially since many of those states also require a heavy proportion of blue-collar workers, who are typically populist, i.e., hold economic views that run counter to those espoused by the GOP’s major donors. What you’re talking about suppresses GOP turnout where they need it, and attracts relatively few voters to the GOP side due to the low concentration of socially liberal voters in these states.

Now, if traditionally blue states like California, New York, New Jersey, etc, start showing signs that they’d be willing to flip if presented with a tax-cutting, pro-business, pro-abortion Republican, your model might stand a chance. However, that would require a sea-change in the voting behavior of blue states, who have demonstrated continued contentment with the Democratic party. Until that happens, the votes simply aren’t there.

So stand strong that you are right in your analysis, my stoic patriot friend, and I will stand strong in assuring you that, if you do, the R’s will lose another presidential election. And try this one on for size…you’re so busy force-feeding your ideals that you don’t have enough sense to realize that if you tread light, you get back in the WH, and then can be as self-righteous as you like. But hey, I’m just a dumb, immoral woman, as you clearly see all women who opt for making their own decisions about their own bodies, according to their own personal beliefs.
The CJ Political Report on March 9, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Again, treading light has not shown itself to be a winning formula. As for your remark about being a dumb, immoral woman, allow me to dissect that. Your electoral model is dumb. It’s disconnected from reality as past elections have shown. It’s a working model for the Democratic party, because the Democratic party’s composition is fundamentally different from the GOP’s.

On the immorality charge, you talk about women “making their own decisions about their own bodies.” What you conveniently gloss over is the separate body, with DNA distinct from either parent that is their unborn child. You also ignore that by making decisions “according to their own personal beliefs,” rather than basing the determination of humanity on any objective criterion, you are allowing life and death determinations to be based on nothing more than arbitrary whim. When you ignore the personhood of unborn children and use that dismissal to justify the choice to mercilessly murders a baby, yes, that does make you immoral. Yes, that is evil.

Stoic Patriot on March 9, 2014 at 8:24 PM

I’ve never understood how someone who believes that sacrosanct human life begins at conception can consent to those exceptions. How does that effectively differ from saying that a “particular sub-set (unborn babies) are less human” than those conceived in happier circumstances? How can you simultaneously acknowledge that such exceptions are logically indefensible and still lay claim to intellectual, scientific consistency, let alone the putatively absolutist moral high ground? When pro-life candidates aren’t even willing to affirm that they, personally, oppose abortion in the case of rape and incest too, how is that not a profound moral compromise with the realities of abortion politics? Did you even stop to consider the implications of cavalierly declaring that the baby isn’t “the only person who should get the death penalty?”

You may want to recalibrate your “squishy” conscience meter, because I’m not sure how an abolitionist who concedes the political fight on rape and incest fares better than the pro-choice voter who supports a pro-life candidate.

You’re a fool.

Babies are dying TODAY, but abortion politics is separate from the bloody reality of actual abortions. The law and the media and the culture are against us. Even people nominally on “our” side fight us.
We concede NOTHING about the sacredness of each life at conception, but pragmatically we cannot just dig in our heels and refuse to save SOME of the babies because we cannot save all. In this case, purity of purpose will consign some babies to death that might be saved.

It is a miserable tragedy, make no mistake- but if we can reduce the slaughter by any amount, we have reduced it.

Did you ever see the movie Schindler’s List? Should Schindler have let all the Jews march to the death camps because he could only save a relative handful?

No. He lied and cheated and connived to save whom he could.
As do we. As do we.

I doubt if you’ll ever find an anti-abortion activist who actually believes that there are permissible circumstances to killing a unborn child- not rape, not incest, certainly. What you will find is abolitionists who are willing to make temporary partnership with people who are squeamish about abortion but have not made the effort to think it through yet, because THOSE people can help save some of the babies, even if not all will be saved.
Sometimes an abolitionist- politician or activist- will have to make soothing noises to help nudge along those who kinda don’t like the idea that babies are being killed but still don’t want to be big meanies to pregnant ladies. Sometimes the soothing noises are outright lies, because its better to save some babies than none.

The fight to abolish abortion is one that won’t be won in 5 years or 10 or maybe 50- certainly those who opposed slavery waited decades upon decades and many died before they could ever see their brothers freed from slavery.

Perhaps you would have advised them it was not morally consistent to first legislate to ban importation from Africa,or pass a law that would make illegal slave-catching in free states or in fact worked to keep some states “free” even while others remained slave states?

Sorry if it offends you that abolitionists will do what is necessary to eventually carry the day for the unborn. I’m sure you pro-aborts would much prefer we marginalize ourselves, but each year we get more politically canny, we influence more who were once in favor of abortion to understand the sacredness of human life, and we win more legislative battles.

And now- for those of you who class it an automatic fail to quote Scripture…

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth as my witnesses against you right now: I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

Pless1foEngrish on March 9, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Choicers hate babies.

Not only do babies not get baked a wedding cake, but people can kill them because of their status.

Axeman on March 9, 2014 at 10:29 PM

@Stoic Patriot…

Simply: How’s it working out for the GOP lately?

The CJ Political Report on March 10, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Technology has put the decision in health professionals hands.

To save a baby, or to kill one.

cozmo on March 7, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Actually, the oath taken by doctors requires them to attempt to save BOTH. I like how people erroneously accept the false argument that they must save one or the other. That’s a false argument, and one not even supported by the Hippocratic Oath that governs the medical profession.

dominigan on March 10, 2014 at 11:23 AM

@Stoic Patriot…

Simply: How’s it working out for the GOP lately?

The CJ Political Report on March 10, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Exactly my point. The GOP went with a full-throated social conservative in 2000 and 2004, and won. They then nominated two candidates who adopted a “don’t talk about social issues” approach in 2008 and 2012.

Ted Cruz made a very similar point when he mockingly used the phrase “President Dole, President McCain, and President Romney.”

Stoic Patriot on March 10, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Stoic Patriot

George W. Bush. John McCain. Mitt Romney. Of these three Republicans, only one was a proud pro-life champion. Guess which one became president.

GWB walked a very artfully crafted line during his 2000 presidential run. Virtually the only specific pro-life commitment he made during that campaign was saying that if a bill banning partial birth abortion landed on his desk, he would sign it. The crowd went wild, but that’s the lowest hanging fruit on the pro-life tree — even diehard Democrats were willing to sign onto that legislation. The revelation that his wife and daughters didn’t entirely share his views on abortion — which softened his image as a potential absolutist — was certainly no accident. His later stance on stem cells was forthrightly pro-life, but it was, at best, only tangentially related to real abortion divide and his policy change only affected federal funding of research (and was often explicitly defended on that basis). GWB may have been pro-life, but it would be hard to call him pro-active.

JM Hanes on March 10, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Pless1foEngrish

Sorry if it offends you that abolitionists will do what is necessary to eventually carry the day for the unborn.

It doesn’t offend me in the least, although I would hardly include the indiscriminate lashing out you’re doing here in the roster of necessary, or remotely effective, stratagems. I would never suggest, as many do, that we just agree to disagree, because I understand that if you believe abortion is murder, then there is no middle ground to be had. You are morally compelled to oppose it. I also understand why an incremental approach to legislation is the only politically tenable way forward.

My comments concerned the fact that pro-life proponents almost never even admit that they, personally, oppose abortion in the case of rape or incest, let alone take a stand or make a forthright case against it. It’s not just candidates for office who avoid the subject. I’ve almost never heard anyone make that argument in discussion forums, where everything else is on the table and the stakes are about as low as they get. You may be willing to do so, but in my experience, it rarely comes up, because the stated pro-life proposition almost always includes the rape/incest qualifier. Is there some secret handshake that I just don’t know about?

In my opinion, it would be helpful if Godwin’s Law extended to slavery and holocaust based attacks, which are almost as popular as casting Obama’s detractors as racists. In any case, the problem with such comparisons is that discussions quickly devolve into quarreling over the analogy instead of debating the actual issues in contention. It’s pretty ironic to hear you defending a pragmatic, step-by-step approach to advancing your cause in the body politic, when you’ve come to the party with a flamethrower.

JM Hanes on March 10, 2014 at 8:21 PM

@Stoic Patriot

Simply: How’s it working out for the GOP lately?

The CJ Political Report on March 10, 2014 at 11:03 AM

.
How’s what … “working out for the GOP lately”?
.
Are they actually, proactively ‘doing something’ I’m unaware of ?

listens2glenn on March 10, 2014 at 10:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2