Green Room

Rasmussen: Just 36% now identify as pro-life, 54% as pro-choice

posted at 4:28 pm on January 28, 2013 by

An obligatory follow-up to last week’s great debate over abortion polling. I would have put this on the main page if not for the fact that Ras’s cross-tabs are reg-walled, which means all we have to go on here is the topline data.

But the trend in that data is interesting. In January 2012, 49 percent called themselves pro-choice versus 43 percent who identified as pro-life. Eleven months later, as of a week after the presidential election, that six-point gap had more than doubled: Now it was 54 percent pro-choice and 38 percent pro-life. Today it’s 54 percent pro-choice and just 36 percent pro-life. Maybe that slight further dip among pro-lifers is just statistical noise vis-a-vis the last poll, but even if so, it goes to show that the Akin/Mourdock fiascos really did take a bite from the pro-life cause and may not be done biting yet.

Recently in the Green Room:

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

I believe it’s due to the economy and the fact that people are now beginning to accept the fact it will not get better for many years. In a bad economy bringing a child into the world becomes a lot scarier. It’s easier for some to be pro-life when they think children have the possibility of a good future.

Rocks on January 28, 2013 at 4:35 PM

If the Kermit Gosnell story got 1/3 the coverage of Akin (instead of zero), those numbers would probably look inverted.

crrr6 on January 28, 2013 at 4:36 PM

I believe it’s due to the economy and the fact that people are now beginning to accept the fact it will not get better for many years. In a bad economy bringing a child into the world becomes a lot scarier. It’s easier for some to be pro-life when they think children have the possibility of a good future.

Rocks on January 28, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Oh please. First off, are you suggesting that the economy as it exists today is a predictor of what it’s going to be 16, 18, 20 or more years from now when newborn children enter the workforce? Has that ever been the case? Second, since when do we decide who lives and who dies based upon what the economy is going to be like for them down the road?

Shump on January 28, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Downward Spiral.

All is lost.

portlandon on January 28, 2013 at 4:42 PM

these numbers will be even worse if a prohibition was ever imposed. Early pre natal life, will continue for the foreseeable future, to be in the hands of the mothers to cherish or dispose.
politically, however, the prolifers have become a liability for the gop! its obvious that with such low support, there is no reason for prolifism to be so closely associated with the republican brand.

nathor on January 28, 2013 at 4:49 PM

As little trust I put in pro/anti abortion polls, I have to believe the majority is either outright pro or just doesn’t want to hear any arguments anymore. A decades-long, mostly-fruitless debate that has thrown sulfuric acid on countless relationships is finally making people just plug their ears.

MelonCollie on January 28, 2013 at 4:51 PM

And what percentage either refused to answer the phone after seeing to caller-id or hung up after hearing the words “Gallup” and “poll”?

Richard Blaine on January 28, 2013 at 4:51 PM

It’s almost like there’s a culture of death or something flourishing around us.

Kensington on January 28, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Rasmussen clearly oversampled Democrats…/

But seriously, I don’t buy that number. Would the Akin stuff have mattered that much to people that some decide hey, killin’ babies is cool now? I just don’t get the rationale for changing one’s mind based on that.

changer1701 on January 28, 2013 at 4:52 PM

I suspect there was a big shift among black church goers abandoning their position in association with the re-election of the One.

forest on January 28, 2013 at 4:53 PM

As little trust I put in pro/anti abortion polls, I have to believe the majority is either outright pro or just doesn’t want to hear any arguments anymore. A decades-long, mostly-fruitless debate that has thrown sulfuric acid on countless relationships is finally making people just plug their ears.

MelonCollie on January 28, 2013 at 4:51 PM

the majority is pro choice. some might agree with the prolife principle, but wont stomach imposing it on anyone.

nathor on January 28, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Oh please. First off, are you suggesting that the economy as it exists today is a predictor of what it’s going to be 16, 18, 20 or more years from now when newborn children enter the workforce? Has that ever been the case? Second, since when do we decide who lives and who dies based upon what the economy is going to be like for them down the road?

Shump on January 28, 2013 at 4:42 PM

You think women deciding to have an abortion, or not to get pregnant, due so based on who they see the future or based on historical economic analysis? And “We” don’t decide who gets an abortion. That’s a thing a woman decides mostly on her own.

We didn’t have a baby boom that lasted 2 decades after WWII for no reason. During those years people were extremely optimistic about their future. No one is optimistic now. When people are pessimistic they want to preserve their options, abortion is one of those options.

Rocks on January 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM

the majority is pro choice. some might agree with the prolife principle, but wont stomach imposing it on anyone.

nathor on January 28, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Trollishness aside, I wonder how many people sampled were pro-abortion and to chicken to even say it on an anonymous poll.

MelonCollie on January 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM

So we are becoming more liberal and more aligned with Obama. Great.

earlgrey133 on January 28, 2013 at 5:08 PM

People are so blind.

The left has pushed abortion incrementally to get people accustomed to the fact that babies are literally being murdered. Today they’ve progressed to killing fully viable infants. Some “progressives” call for the right to kill your newborn for up to one year after birth.

ObamaCare will begin to push the death of the elderly, slowly at first, then they’ll ramp it up like they did with abortion. I’m sure they’ll come up with some campaign to show the elderly as a burden on society … taking resources that should be given to others, and attempting to shame the elderly for living. The same will happen for the chronically ill and disabled.

The final step will be killing all those not deemed necessary for the function and protection of the state, especially those it considers “threats”.

Anyone who thinks abortion is about “a woman’s right to choose” is an idiot.

darwin on January 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM

i think this is largely because of the liberal media. pro-choice candidates are not questioned by the media as much as pro-lifers, who are given tougher questions to try to answer. pro-choice people get away with “i believe in a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body” and they are not really questioned much more than that! (never mind the fact that it’s not really her body. the media doesn’t care.) and look at the article on this site today about how the media didn’t cover March For Life. and they don’t spend much time covering things like pro-life charities, which provide support for pregnant women and new moms and their babies. (as a result, abortion lovers have this idea that pro-lifers don’t care about the baby after he/she is born, which is not true at all- not that the media cares!)

But seriously, I don’t buy that number. Would the Akin stuff have mattered that much to people that some decide hey, killin’ babies is cool now? I just don’t get the rationale for changing one’s mind based on that.

changer1701 on January 28, 2013 at 4:52 PM

i don’t get that either. why would people change their minds based on that? all that controversy was about abortion in cases of rape, which is less than 1% of abortions!

but again, maybe it’s the media, making a HUGE deal out of akin and mourdock. (even though what mourdock said was actually a good thing, and many people completely distorted the meaning of what he said, not that the media cares)

Sachiko on January 28, 2013 at 5:17 PM

crrr6 on January 28, 2013 at 4:36 PM

I think you hit the nail on the head. The lousy Democrat media outside of Philadelphia hasn’t mentioned it at all. And lefty bloggers who know about Gosnell say his case has nothing to do with abortion.

Steve Tsouloufis on January 28, 2013 at 5:27 PM

i don’t get that either. why would people change their minds based on that? all that controversy was about abortion in cases of rape, which is less than 1% of abortions!

Sachiko on January 28, 2013 at 5:17 PM

The polls just last year on a lot of these issues were very different. Did 25% of the country suddenly change its mind? I doubt it.

I think it’s something simpler which everyone’s overlooking. Given that we lost an election badly, Obama’s getting an across the board bounce, and it’s probably “leaking” into issue polls. There’s probably also a contingent of “Let It Burn” Republicans answering these polls as well, further driving up Dem numbers.

Doomberg on January 28, 2013 at 5:27 PM

But seriously, I don’t buy that number. Would the Akin stuff have mattered that much to people that some decide hey, killin’ babies is cool now? I just don’t get the rationale for changing one’s mind based on that.

YES. Akin (and to a lesser extent Mourdock) came across as monsters to the vast majority of Americans, willing to force women to bear rape-babies and horrifically “consoling” them by telling them “hey girl, it’s a gift from God.” (And Akin made it even worse by claiming that women who get pregnant from rape weren’t REALLY raped, that they secretly wanted it, or else their bodies would have “shut that down.”)

Anyone who cannot see how utterly revolting that was to the supermajority of Americans who don’t view this question through the lens of hardcore Christian beliefs is so out-of-touch with the demos that their opinions on the entire range of political matters are immediately suspect. And YES, YES these gaffes (and their amplification by a gleefully complicit media) play a huge role in damaging the overall pro-life brand. From now on (at least for the immediate future), the pro-life movement will be instantly associated with those people and that position.

And rightfully so, given the fact that I actually haven’t seen a single person in the comments section here who is on the pro-life side that would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. You people come across as nasty, unfeeling partisans, willing to shatter the life and happiness of a rape victim in order to uphold your personal adherence to a value system that they might not actually even believe in. It does come across as a bit Bolshevik, frankly.

And that, in a nutshell, is why the pro-life movement is dying: you refuse to admit people into your team who are “pro-life with exceptions” anymore. And instead you defend and praise the Akins and Mourdocks, criticizing them only for their political foolishness as opposed to the actual content of their opinions.

Esoteric on January 28, 2013 at 5:32 PM

But AP, AP! How would the unskewed version of this poll read?

Seriously, I do believe most people are pro-choice to some degree. Trollish behavior among some people in the populist/conservative electorate have turned many people off. Plus it’s been beaten into their heads for how many years?

You can scoff at this poll and say: “no way, this isn’t accurate” at your own risk.

antisense on January 28, 2013 at 5:42 PM

54% of this polls respondents are ghouls.

jawkneemusic on January 28, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Esoteric on January 28, 2013 at 5:32 PM

I’m pro-life and have no problem with abortion in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. There, now you can say you’ve seent that sentiment expressed in the comments at HA.

Also, I find your claim outrageous that no one had a problem with the Akin/Mourdock sentiments, just that they were verbalized. I haven’t gone back through the multiple threads but I recall plenty of disagreement from even the staunchest socons.

As far as the voters who were disgusted at these comments, what percentage to you think even know about Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection act? If they don’t know, then media bias is far greater problem for conservatives than the Akins of the world. If they do know and don’t care or wouldn’t care if they did know, then this society is well beyond saving.

Kataklysmic on January 28, 2013 at 5:48 PM

As far as the voters who were disgusted at these comments, what percentage to you think even know about Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection act? If they don’t know, then media bias is far greater problem for conservatives than the Akins of the world. If they do know and don’t care or wouldn’t care if they did know, then this society is well beyond saving.

I think some know. I do think they do not care, or think it is not their business. If there is any indication based on their parent’s actions, these children would mostly be a drain on society. Just like the parents.

antisense on January 28, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Don’t act surprised as America rushes headlong into fiscal insolvency and gets taken over by an invading force.

Grace is over.

tom daschle concerned on January 28, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Rasmussen: Just 36% now identify as pro-life, 54% as pro-choice
…AND, only 5% of all Americans know what the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” mean.

TeaPartyNation on January 28, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Suigenocide finally comes out of the closet …

And into the prestigious Hall of Human Atrocities.

Eat your babies. See if I care.

StubbleSpark on January 28, 2013 at 6:10 PM

54% clearly aren’t aware that sucking out the brains, burning off the skin, or using a vacuum pump to rip a kid apart limb from limb is wrong.

Stoic Patriot on January 28, 2013 at 6:38 PM

People changed their minds because of what Akin said? If that’s all it takes then I guess their support for life was about an inch deep. People say all sorts of outlandish things on the pro-abort side, it doesn’t seem to hurt their numbers.

Hell, Obama has come out for outright infanticide and wasn’t tarnished by it one bit. Next up will be sex with children or killing them after they are born. At the rate we’re going that shouldn’t take long.

echosyst on January 28, 2013 at 7:01 PM

I don’t buy it.
Expect a poll in coming weeks that show a majority of people wouldn’t mind dumping the Constitution. The spin starts incrementally, to make the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Popularity seem valid.

Mimzey on January 28, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Mimzey 7:06

Agreed. This is more mind-molestation courtesy of the freaks on the left.

They did a study some years ago that found out poll results affect people’s opinions over time (it’s just another version of the ‘i’ll do it because everyone else is’ stupidity). that idea is behind most of these polls.

avgjo on January 28, 2013 at 7:16 PM

And that, in a nutshell, is why the pro-life movement is dying: you refuse to admit people into your team who are “pro-life with exceptions” anymore. And instead you defend and praise the Akins and Mourdocks, criticizing them only for their political foolishness as opposed to the actual content of their opinions.

Esoteric on January 28, 2013 at 5:32 PM

You have a point about the overall effect Akin and Mourdock had and are still having on the “pro-life” brand. Virginia’s attempt to force women to have ultrasounds before the pregnancy, including invasive ultrasounds, was also an overreach. I also agree that the GOP needs to be more accomodating to those who are “pro-life with exceptions,” which is always a more accurate characterization of the majority of Americans. Polls show that while the number of people wanting to declare abortion outright illegal has shrunk, the number wanting restrictions that were unheard of just 10 years ago is growing. In the 80s and 90s, parental consent was still being debated, yet most people, including women, want parental consent and notification. Even abortion in rape and incest is not permitted past the second trimester in most states. In most cases, however, the pregnancy is discovered and the abortion is completed by then.

What the pro-life crowd needs to do is calm down. The strides that have been made in the pro-life movement has been quite striking if you think about it. In the 70′s there was a movement to allow abortion on demand up to and including the third trimester. Popular media presented abortion as a choice with no consequences (no life here, just a blob of tissue like your appendix) – google the show “Maude” to see what I am talking about. Today, most people who answer to this zero-sum poll as pro-choice still favor restrictions that the true pro-choice crowd howl at. Also – give the pro-choice club their chance – they will overreach. We saw it with the Slate article the other day and I think we will see it again and again. The GOP needs to move on and away from Akin and Mourdock, but it needs to make clear that it will not acquiesce to the Planned Parenthood or NARAL crowd (like the Democrats have).

studentofhistory on January 28, 2013 at 7:20 PM

As other commenters have said; this reflects the fact that people are quite frankly tired of the issue; we have been arguing for decades and no real movement has happened.

ckoeber on January 28, 2013 at 7:29 PM

portlandon on January 28, 2013 at 4:42 PM

There is still hope. It is just going to take people voting with their conscience, especially Catholics. Hispanic Catholics most especially.

Gatekeeper on January 28, 2013 at 7:35 PM

studentofhistory on January 28, 2013 at 7:20 PM
What the pro-life crowd needs to do is calm down.

How can you honestly say this? To “calm down”? I see every indication of the pro-choice pro-abortion crowd as kicking into high gear. When you have an administration intent on making tax payers help fund abortions (read the HHS Mandate) , when you have TV shows and movies making random sex okay, when you now have schools handing out condoms..that should make the pro-life movement feel okay enough to “calm down”? No..we sat on the sidelines for too long. You can pull out people like Aiken and Mourock..both strawmen in this debate. I find it interesting that there is no debate about the emotional damage done to women, and men, involved in abortion. To tell pro-life people to “calm down” is an insult. Life vs. death is never something to calm down about.

Wileygrl3 on January 28, 2013 at 7:38 PM

avgjo on January 28, 2013 at 7:16 PM

We’re being bombarded with it. It’s going to be Traditional values = bad..military = bad..guns= bad..productivity= bad..religion= bad.. McDonalds= bad…Pot= gooood etc, for every single leftwing retard concept since Woodstock.
Having Commandant Obama reelected changed the whole thing. Matter of fact, thats what Van Jones said..”We’re not going change a bit here and there..we’re gonna change the whooole thing.”

Mimzey on January 28, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Don’t act surprised as America rushes headlong into fiscal insolvency and gets taken over by an invading force.

Grace is over.

tom daschle concerned on January 28, 2013 at 5:55 PM

My money’s on for that to happen in 5-10 years.

God doesn’t bless tyrannies. He can and has revoked his grace on America; all that’s left now is the takeover by Islamofacists.

Myron Falwell on January 28, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Mimzey 7:50

and yet, what’s to stop us from doing the same thing?

I guaran-dang-tee ya, there’s a huge market for better pop culture, better news, yes, better polls, for people willing and able to do it.

avgjo on January 28, 2013 at 7:58 PM

the majority is pro choice. some might agree with the prolife principle, but wont stomach imposing it on anyone.

nathor on January 28, 2013 at 5:00 PM

No, the majority is somewhere in between, and the only choices in the poll are pro-choice and pro-life. Example: I support parental notification laws, mandatory ultrasounds, a ban on telling women it’s just a clump of cells, and a ban on all abortions beyond 13 weeks. I support legal abortion for adult women in the first 13 weeks, given the above limitations.

Am I pro-life or pro-choice? I could describe myself as either, given the way the question is presented. It’s therefore a matter of which label I choose to adopt/identify with, not a change in the underlying beliefs.

alwaysfiredup on January 28, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Wileygrl3 on January 28, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Akin is not a strawman. He had the full-throated support of the pro-life community. But he should not have had that support, because his “magical uterus” theory set the prolife cause back. He was the avatar for the movement and he proved himself a buffoon. People do not want to identify with a movement whose avatar is a buffoon. It matters a great deal who a movement chooses as its public face. Both of Akin’s competitors were staunchly pro-life and would not have embarrassed the movement. But the pro-life crowd chose the purist, and that was a bad choice.

Gotta admit your mistakes if you hope to change. Find an appealing candidate who espouses your views. Don’t demand a purist.

alwaysfiredup on January 28, 2013 at 8:16 PM

When will our side ever learn to use language to our advantage? How do we ever expect to change the vernacular when we repeat exactly the label they wish to portray themselves with? Its Pro Abortion.

Bmore on January 28, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Game over social cons.

WisCon on January 28, 2013 at 9:19 PM

They have much to be proud of…killing babies….and for the rinos out there that want to think social issues aren’t important…the blood is on your hands and you will have to explain but I guess maybe your god is not the same God I worship

crosshugger on January 28, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Game over social cons humanity.

WisCon on January 28, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Fixed.

Myron Falwell on January 28, 2013 at 9:32 PM

Eleven months later, as of a week after the presidential election, that six-point gap had more than doubled

Given the recent experience with polls during the last campaign, it may be wise to view such wild swings using a bit of a skeptic eye.

whatcat on January 28, 2013 at 9:39 PM

If people are stopping calling themselves “prolife” because of what Mr. Akin and Mr. Mourdock said, first, they’re (the supposed pro-lifers who changed) and secondly, they evidently weren’t real pro-lifers in the first place.

Logus on January 28, 2013 at 9:42 PM

This just in: 65% feel more comfortable around mass murderers than practicing Christians.

applebutter on January 28, 2013 at 9:52 PM

There is not f***ing way that this is true… Blah, polls are always right, blah, blah… No they are not… Look around you and make your own f**ing poll if only one third 36% of the population is pro-life…

mnjg on January 28, 2013 at 10:06 PM

Allahpundit, stop analyzing polls like an idiot… Your analysis are so twisted and laughable… You are too much intimidated by your liberal surrounding and you take every word they say as the truth… Do you really believe that Akin/Murdoch idiotic comments made prolife supporters go from 43% to 36% and increased the pro-abortion from 49% to 54%?…

mnjg on January 28, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Akin/Mourdock fiascos

How can a couple of misstatements by 2nd- or third-tier pro-life politicians can sway millions toward keeping murder legal?

itsnotaboutme on January 28, 2013 at 10:48 PM

How can a couple of misstatements by 2nd- or third-tier pro-life politicians can sway millions toward keeping murder legal?

itsnotaboutme on January 28, 2013 at 10:48 PM

It will not… Pro-life people are very principled and they will not become abortionist because of two idiotic statements from Akin/Murdoch… Allahpunidt is making stupid analysis and he does very often…

mnjg on January 28, 2013 at 11:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2