-
Yoani Sánchez Uncaged
April 12, 2013 | 163 comments
-
Take the Helmets Off
February 4, 2013 | 68 comments
-
Let’s Pay Women Not to Abort
January 23, 2013 | 69 comments
-
The Millennial Divide
January 22, 2013 | 30 comments
-
The GOP’s Empathy Challenge
November 29, 2012 | 268 comments
The Nation's Pulse
The Meaninglessness of Opinion Polls on Roe v. Wade
There’s more to the Pew numbers released yesterday than the headlines will tell you.
In advance of the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, the Pew Research Center released a poll on Wednesday finding that 63% of Americans oppose completely overturning the ruling, which created a constitutional right to abortion and legalized most abortions nationally.
Just 29% of Americans want to see the ruling overturned, according to Pew, which added, “These opinions are little changed from surveys conducted 10 and 20 years ago.”
These are the headlines. But dig a little deeper and it becomes clear that the poll tells us little about Americans’ views on the legality of abortion.
According to Pew, only 62% of Americans know that Roe dealt with abortion. Indeed, 7% of respondents thought Roe dealt with school desegregation. (And I think it’s safe to assume most of them oppose overturning Roe.) Only 44% of respondents 30 years old or younger correctly identified abortion as the issue dealt with in the case.
Interestingly, self-identified Republicans were 11 percentage points more likely than Democrats (68% to 57%) to know that Roe addressed abortion.
There’s some good news in the poll for pro-life advocates: 74%of those who believe Roe should be overturned think abortion is either a “critical issue” or “one of many” critical issues, while just 31% of respondents who don’t want Roe overturned believe it’s critical. This underscores the “intensity gap” that pro-choice advocates have long lamented.
And there’s something to hearten Republicans: Pew found that 41% of respondents felt Democrats can do a better job of representing their views on abortion, while 36% felt Republicans would do so. Last March, Democrats held a 16-point advantage on that question. But again, all these data should be taken with a grain of salt.
Here’s another problem with the poll. Pew didn’t phrase the question very well. It asks,
Would you like to see the Supreme Court:
A) Completely overturn Roe v. Wade
B) Not overturn Roe v. Wade
This leaves no room for those who may believe that the ruling should be partially overturned.
Opinion polls about Roe v. Wade tell us little that’s meaningful. That’s not only because a significant minority of Americans can even link Roe with abortion. Many others cannot get to the next level of understanding by correctly identifying how Roe affects the availability of abortion.
In a 2007 study of registered voters, 55% of respondents said they didn’t want Roe overturned, while 34% said they wanted it overturned.
But then respondents were informed that Roe prohibits states from limiting abortion during the first six months of pregnancy, and that without Roe states could enact laws allowing abortion in some instances and prohibiting it in others.
About the Author
Daniel Allott is a writer in Washington, D.C.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (68) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Daniel Allott
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/17/the-meaninglessness-of-opinion
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Consternated Conferences
- The End of the Castros?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 1.17.13 @ 6:45AM
John Stossel has conducted petition drives in New York City and various California cities in which he asks people to help him ban H2O. He got plenty of takers. If you limit your queries to Binkie Twiddlers under 35, you can get them to sign anything banning anything -- well, maybe not Angry Birds. They'd be in favour of keeping Angry Birds.
Jack in Wi| 1.17.13 @ 7:55AM
Roe vs Wade is the most egregious attack on the rights of a free people to govern themselves. It makes this vile practice a Constutional right. The polling tells us that the vast majority want some restrictions on abortion. The states under our Constitution have the right to regulate social policy by law. The solution to this is to use Article 3 section 2 of the Constitution to strip the Federal Courts of their power over abortion. They have the power to do that. It has been a mistake to push for an amendment. Lets get the courts out of the states policy on abortion, and homsexuality as well. The regulation of vice and murder is states rights, not Federal. 60 million aborted babies have been replaced by 6o million mostly 3rd world immigrants.
SuperWittySmitty| 1.17.13 @ 7:21AM
I'm pretty sure that voters and most of us who are involved and active in society are aware of what Roe v. Wade is about, and the opinion of these people is what you should focus on. Let women make their own choice if they want to go through a pregnancy. It should be obvious that this is the policy that works best. In a perfect world, all pregnancies would be planned by parents who are equipped and enthusiastic but that's not the case. Let people decide for themselves how to exercise their reproductive abilities. Show respect for the law and for the rights of the citizens of America, regardless of their knowledge of our history or your religion.
Jack in Wi| 1.17.13 @ 8:01AM
Smithy: I think the vast majority of people by polling, want some restrictions on abortion. There has never been an honest debate in thsi country on the subject. Well the Republicans want pro-life votes but refuse to engage the issue. We have selected 7 inarticulate boobs on the subject to run as our presidential candidates in the last 7 elections. In the end those who love abortion will be replaced by those who don't. If they are Muslims so be it. God will not be mocked forever.
Simon Templar| 1.17.13 @ 8:18AM
Show respect for human life, respect for others values concerning the killing of innocents and the unborn, stop using abortion as a contraceptive and start using contraceptives and sterilization, let men participate in this decision, recognize that this policy has been abused and has resulted in mass genocide of 58 million people and has not worked, and finally recognize that 51 percent of the population believe it is immoral and should be restricted. Recent studies say 4 out of five surveyed. Speaking of law, this is not a law, was never legislated, never voted on, does not represent the will of the people, and was only an edict brought forth from a court that thinks it has the right and duty to legislate and create laws.
Most of all, let us start telling the truth instead of propaganda, falsehoods, and dishonesty.
I am not pretty sure about it but rather know what I am talking about as it is not conjecture but facts and reality.
fmm| 1.17.13 @ 2:19PM
Without knowledge of history and religion and the laws which evolved from them you have anarchy. People who disregard those things are not equipped to make their own decisions in a responsible way.
Albertus Magnus| 1.17.13 @ 8:31AM
RvW nationalized an issue that is Constitutionally a State power. The 10th Am. specifically reserves (not 'grants' it should be noted) powers not delegated to the United States. No where in the Constitution is there a right to abortion, or is it even mentioned. RvW trashes the 10th Am. by usurping under a Court order, a power reserved to the States. Please don't try to sell me on a "right to privacy." The 4th Amendment states that the people's privacy cannot be violated without a warrant. It does not say that anything done in private is by definition a 'right' and Constitutionally protected, which is a ludicrous assertion, but it is also the basis of RvW. Furthermore, such an assertion does not take in to account the right to life (see 5th Am.) of the unborn child. If the it indeed does have a right to life, then RvW collapses on its own absurdities. It should be noted that the Court specifically claimed that it was not competent to decide if an unborn child has a right to life or not and deliberately left the question unanswered.
Albertus Magnus| 1.17.13 @ 8:32AM
This brings us to the ultimate hypocrisy: The Court did in fact decide (defacto, if not by word) that an unborn child has no right to life, else its own conclusions are untenable. Until 1973 and Harry Blackmun's ludicrous twisting of the Constitution, such isues were decided by State Laws. The US government has no jurisdiction over abortion, or the practice of medicine, or of determining if an unborn child qualifies as a person under the Law and therefore has rights to be protected. By attempting to 'unify' all 50 States on this issue, all Blackmun has done is create a national divide and needlessly screw up elections, over an issue where the Feds have no jurisdiction.
Simon Templar| 1.17.13 @ 9:04AM
To add to the absurdities, it apparently is a double homicide if a murderer kills a pregnant woman but perfectly legal to kill the unborn child if the mother does it.
None of it has any sense 0f reality or fact. The old and worn out horsecrap about it being a woman's body as if she was getting a hangnail removed is absolutely a falsehood and utterly ridiculous.
Then there is the thirty years of false scientific information about the fetus and its capacity to feel pain and its fully formed humanness which has now been brought to light by advanced technology.
Then there is the purposeful cover-up and suppression of information about the psychological damage that results in the mothers who have these abortions that goes unreported and ignored. As well as the fight to stop these mothers from seeing sonograms or any other requirement proposed before making the decision to have one. Let alone the heath risk and potential dangers which are actively hidden and misrepresented by staff in these killing factories that are funded through forced tax subsidies.
dominic1955| 1.17.13 @ 10:09AM
Roe vs. Wade was a victory for the perverse, those who want all the joys of sex with none of the duties and responsibilities. It has nothing to do with "rights" or a "woman's body" or "choice" or any of those red herrings.
We have people who openly advocate for killing born babies, because of their subjective definitions of personhood. We all know what wonderful paths we go down when an individual of the human species can be defined as a mensch or an untermensch based on ideology.
What they argue makes no sense, but it isn't like they noticed since it seems most people have abdicated any attempt at rational thought for emotional bleating. Does it make sense to protect a baby just born if only a few seconds ago you could legally suck its brains out? More cogently, how can one advocate for killing what is obviously a baby? Even when you go back past before the point of external viability, just what is the "fetus"? Is it a pomegranate or a sponge? The fact that it cannot survive outside does not take away the fact that the fetus is a baby-a human being!
None of this is relevant to the pro-aborts. When you want to get off the way you want but not have to own up to the responsibility it entails, people will go through crazy lengths to slake their lust and selfishness, including offering up their offspring on the altar of Baal.
Seek| 1.17.13 @ 1:02PM
Banning a practice and ending that practice are two separate things. Prohibition outlawed the distillation, distribution and sale of alcoholic drinks. But it certainly didn't it.
Nobody is "celebrating" abortion in saying that the law ought to reflect the futility of banning a practice. Every effort in history to ban abortion outright eventually has ended in failure. Abortion is a nasty business, all right, but on some level there ought to be some awareness of the consequences of criminalizing it. I advocate self-control rather than government control.
dominic1955| 1.17.13 @ 5:05PM
Quite true, but I wasn't speaking on that. Since you brought it up, the State has an obligation to at least reflect the moral law in that it should never make it look as though something like this is a "right". The State doesn't have to make a Prohibition style effort towards abortion as people will continue to make dumb choices regardless of what the government does, but the government should never tacitly or overtly approve of those choices with the weight of "law".
Simon Templar| 1.18.13 @ 1:45AM
There is not a single law that has ever been not broken. The laws are not there to ban or punish per se but to express the values and norms of a society and what is held to be sacred, not sacred, and what is valued.
Albertus Magnus| 1.17.13 @ 10:51AM
Mr. Templar, you are correct. This point is one of the tenets of RvW, that an unborn child may have a "right to life" IF the mother says so, or at least does not say that it doesn't. This means that an unborn child's "rights" are at the whim of another person, which is effectively to say that it does not have any rights at all. Rights cannot be "assigned" or removed at someone's whim. That RvW embraces this null concept is both a logical absurdity and a legal nightmare.
Job| 1.17.13 @ 1:26PM
To add to the absurdities, it apparently is a double homicide if a murderer kills a pregnant woman but perfectly legal to kill the unborn child if the mother does it.
now this is an excellent point but the left are for abortion and against death penalty for the guy in Conneticut and the rules of logic don't apply to them just like they don't apply to a woman who is menstruating.
Von Mises Jr| 1.17.13 @ 8:47AM
Have you even noticed that all the people that are for abortion have already been born?
Now if conservatives thought the same way as liberals, we could join forces and decide that any seniors that are not financially secure should be eliminated. Conservatives take care of their parents, so our moms and dads will be fine. Liberals are self-centered and selfish, so they might join us in offing their parents. The hidden jewel is that they are fair game soon also.
But conservatives are not ignorant and selfish as liberals, so we do not believe in pure democracy or polling stupid people to make societal decisions. That is why we have a Constitution and a Republic that does not simply take a majority vote.
But does it not follow logically that if babies can be killed in the womb for convenience, that grandma is fair game? Perhaps due to liberals, that is what is to be feared.
Miles Glorious| 1.17.13 @ 9:01AM
It's coming.
Albertus Magnus| 1.17.13 @ 10:53AM
It's HERE! Obamacare and its end-of-life decision making committees.
fmm| 1.17.13 @ 2:34PM
And what is the next step? Why stop with fetuses? Why stop with seniors? How about nationalizing the right to eliminate those who don't agree with you on any basis? If you do or don't like abortion, maybe someone will nationalize a law which says you can be aborted. On what basis do you choose? Where does it stop? Nationalizing laws which are not based on rigorous moral and ethical standards will always lead to societal degradation.
Job| 1.17.13 @ 3:09PM
agreed and all of this is coming soon to a theater near you, recall the death panel of Sarah Palin coinage. have fun with all these ethical discussions while your in the cattle car on the way to the FEMA camp.
Job| 1.17.13 @ 3:27PM
Cain killed his brother and now more bad people are in the world too.
now repeat after me: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.
now since i had to hold my nose and vote for Romney this is the least you can do for me.
Job| 1.17.13 @ 8:54AM
hmm somewhere between,"thou shalt not kill"and "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys'"there is a position that we should be able to agree on and it is consistant and moral.
Consistant and moral probably will not yield definition for secular or secularly legal. What Paul says concerning sinners in the world and sinners in the congregation could be a guide for conservatives on hot button issues such as Roe v. Wade:
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
Now God could have solved this problem in Eden when the census was 2 but his plan had a few more acts to go. So lets figure this out before the next election so conservatives don't have to do verbal calisthenics to have a cogent platform.
Simon Templar| 1.17.13 @ 9:24AM
So, you are an expert theologian? Do you have a degree?
The conservative position is not contradictory, inconsistent, contradictory, or immoral and does not need to be fixed.
I have neither the time or space to explain to you just how off you are in your supposed understanding of christian ethics and the bible.
The first paragraph illustrates this misunderstanding. Thou shall not kill is referring to murder, and yes there is a difference.
The second command refers to war with a society so corrupt and diseased that it is beyond saving or rehabilitating and is a vital threat to the Israelites.
What Paul is saying is that you have a responsibility to be out there with non-Christians confronting and
evangelizing them to the truth, not throw them away or ignore them or damn them and write them off. That is what is meant by judgement, not your twisted understanding. The member of the community is another story, you are instructed to shun and reject them as they have been told the truth and have rejected it, they do not have the excuse of ignorance.
Job| 1.17.13 @ 10:00AM
hmm the murder translation is well known Sherlock but thanks. the second reference about the Amelekits is what you say but try doing that in Las Vegas and see how far you get with it. Which underscores my third Paul reference, we are in the world and must tolerated its foibles; we can eliminate them from the congregation not the country.
Simon Templar| 1.17.13 @ 11:26AM
We are not at war with Las Vegas, nor are we getting commands directly and clearly from the Creator. Nor is any man or conservative calling for such action. You are being ridiculous and obfuscating. We do not have to tolerate its foibles, you are commanded to go out and preach the truth and confront the world. You are required to resist laws that are not in keeping with God's word and commands. This is Christian belief according to their scriptures. We are talking about people not their foibles and how to interact with them.
If Christians were to tolerate the worlds foibles then their teacher and master who never have sent them out to that world and instructed them to confront, resist, and instruct it.
Simon Templar| 1.17.13 @ 11:26AM
It may be well know but it is rarely understood.
Job| 1.17.13 @ 12:14PM
i am obfuscating and thats just what you'll have to overcome Sir.
this just in from the news room: recently Republicans lost an election that should have been a slam dunk because we can't align our positions very easily on matters the Federal Government has no business trying to align the 50 states on.
Job| 1.17.13 @ 12:22PM
and if you want to lose the next election trying to stuff the Roe Cat back in the bag go for it. I have said that abortion is murder on these pages but i really think the obfuscating is being used by RINOs to dilute the vote with these issues while the country goes to hell in a handbasket fiscally; we lose our freedom to these Brown shirts we'll see how much instructing and resisting you'll be doing.
Job| 1.17.13 @ 1:59PM
well there are some crickets up in here. but on the foibles thing, and thats a once a year word for me, even though i'm not asking for you to tolerate anything the Republican platform aint the pulpit.
Simon Templar| 1.18.13 @ 12:50AM
Republicans did not lose the election or any election on the abortion issue. This is a myth generated by liberal media just like every other claim that Republican lost because they stood against one of so many of Left Unsacred cows. Now, it will be gay marriage, and we will be hearing republican lost because of their stand on this when the reality is the vast numbers of Americans are opposed to this latest and greatest Left wing aberration. In fact it is continually argued that we conservative or republicans are not allowed to have an opinion, position, or social value of any kind other than what is dictated by the Left. Neither do the vast number of American have a say on anything. The people of California state they do not want homos marrying, well tough shit, they will go to the courts.
Simon Templar| 1.18.13 @ 1:00AM
The majority do not want Obamacare. Well tough shit and as Nancy says we will go over the fence, paratroop in, dig a tunnel, pole vault over....
Republicans lost this election because they continually cave in, compromise by running moderate candidates, fail to deal with media damage and assaults on their candidates and generally play footsy with the opposition candidate refusing to bring one critically defining issue or another up and confront the Left wing opponent. They lose because they fail to show up at the polls and become disenchanted and buy the media narratives. It has been estimated that close to 15 million Evangelical conservatives did not vote. That is the reality. Face it and stop with all the bullshit.
Job| 1.18.13 @ 2:22AM
yes they do cave in because they don't have a cogent stance. now this is getting tiresome in a Dr. Seussian way.
i've explained in these pages today why this stance is not logical. the only thing i haven't done here is explain it to you on a boat or explain it to you with a goat.
the election was 66million votes to 61million, now granted 3 million of those were probably deceased and another 3 million were probably voted several times but a million here and a million there and sooner or later you lose Sir.
Job| 1.17.13 @ 11:00AM
"I have neither the time or space to explain to you just how off you are in your supposed understanding of christian ethics and the bible."
this is exactly my point because in todays 'sound bite" "twitter" world you ain't gonna have the time nor space to explain it to anyone else either. and to legislate that meaning is impossible without something that weighs as much as the health care bill or Kant or the manhattan phone book.
Simon Templar| 1.17.13 @ 11:32AM
I was referring to space limitations of these input boxes. I was referring to the level and range of your misunderstanding and claims, not the issue per se.
The constitution was written in a handful of pages.
This issue is not as complicated as people have made it with their falsehoods, obfuscation, and rationalizations, like so many other issues.
Job| 1.17.13 @ 11:54AM
break it down so i can understand it on my sub par level it will be good practice and the next republican candidate can take notes too.
Simon Templar| 1.18.13 @ 1:03AM
Break it down for yourself and study these issues and politics more diligently yourself. I am not here to provide a bullet points for you or anyone else. Think. You were given a brain, use it.
Either lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Job| 1.18.13 @ 2:38AM
what are you here for then the rarified air?
PJ| 1.17.13 @ 9:24AM
Another decent indicator that the tide may be turn for the anti-abortion groups is the March-to-Life rally held annually in DC increases every year with young people unlike those pro-death rallies that has grandmothers holding their 1970s-made-signs.
7-08| 1.17.13 @ 9:56AM
Silly me, I always thought that the reason Roe vs. Wade has stood for forty years was women telling all you meddling clowns to keep your hands (and legislation) off their bodies. Poll that!
dominic1955| 1.17.13 @ 10:00AM
What about that body that isn't theirs? What woman has two heads or four arms?
Warrior| 1.17.13 @ 10:56AM
The ease that these woman accept poles is the problem.
If I have a right to do with my body whatever I want, why can I be locked up for attempted suicide or dug use? Better yet, why can a government prevent me from ingesting more than 16 ounces of soda or a handful of salt with my lunch? Why is it illegal for me to buy steroids or HGH over the counter so that I can be stronger?
Simon Templar| 1.17.13 @ 11:34AM
He is awfully quiet. Crickets. Excellent points.
PolishKnight| 1.17.13 @ 11:03AM
Hypocrisy 101. While taking the metro to the zoo in DC, my wife and I were sitting across from women "reproductive rights" protesters. I overheard one of them squawking that Germany's healthcare system was so much more affordable than the USA.
Like with Sandra Fluke, they want the government hands off their bodies but they want it to pay for the hands on their bodies. In other words, they want a sugar daddy.
OK, let's allow legal abortion but simultaneously cut off all non-disabled women from welfare after 2 years and even then, make the children wards of the state where applicable. An orphanage would be better for most of them anyway based upon the poor performance of most of these children when they reach adulthood.
Simon Templar| 1.17.13 @ 11:44AM
It stood for forty years precisely because it was a supreme court edict that is nearly impossible to overturn and you know that and that is why it was driven up into the courts in the first place and not into a legislature or a vote of the will of the people.
Meddling clowns? That is really rich.
Stay the fuck out of our businesses, our schools, our food and beverage consumption, our churches, our marriage institutions, our wallets, our gun rights, our free speech, our radio stations, our internet, our light bulb choices, our religious rights of expression, our health care choices, our patient doctor relationships, our energy industries, our banks and mortgage requirements and lending business practices......
Simon Templar| 1.17.13 @ 11:48AM
Stop your GD liberal meddling and tyranny.
Job| 1.17.13 @ 12:29PM
Stay the fuck out of our businesses, our schools, our food and beverage consumption, our churches, our marriage institutions, our wallets, our gun rights, our free speech, our radio stations, our internet, our light bulb choices, our religious rights of expression, our health care choices, our patient doctor relationships, our energy industries, our banks and mortgage requirements and lending business practices......
right on Pie man but to be consistant unfortunately, and i say this with some regret, you'll have to add stay the f*ck out of our vaginas to that list.
fmm| 1.17.13 @ 2:39PM
But then you would not get your gratification which is all that matters to you!
Job| 1.17.13 @ 3:01PM
ad hominems and volume, nice.
Simon Templar| 1.18.13 @ 1:21AM
Pie man? Not an ad hominem?
You really are a confused person who thinks he knows it all despite your ignorance on so many of these issues we are discussing.
No, we are not going to add it to the list.
The federal government, meaning the courts, should not be dictating morals, social norms, or making law nor imposing left wing agendas on the people of the United States. Yes, stay out of the social engineering business and stop giving people rights that they do not inherently have and are in direct conflict with our constitution. Yeah, federal government, meaning the Left and its politicians, stay out of peoples bedrooms including the vaginas, as you put it. Stop legislating from the bench. Liberals want to use government to dictate everything and they want you to subsidize it.
Simon Templar| 1.18.13 @ 1:27AM
The idea is that a Republic, that is self governed, is suppose to be based on the consent of the people not the dictates of a small minority, an elite political class, nor a branch of government controlled by one party with an agenda that steam rolls right over the wishes, desires, values, and consent.
Simon Templar| 1.18.13 @ 1:29AM
....of the PEOPLE.
Job| 1.18.13 @ 2:51AM
hmm this is paraphrased but after being revilled as: "an expert theologien do you have a degree, rediculous, obfuscating, twisted and that the level and range of your misunderstanding and claims is sub par" i thought i ridicule you with Pie man and i apologise for that . good luck with the rest of that.
spike59| 1.17.13 @ 12:01PM
so a baby is a "woman's body?'
up is down, white is black, right is wrong...
PolishKnight| 1.17.13 @ 10:10AM
Arguments to deny rape victims the right to get an abortion even if to save their own lives cost a Republican senatorial candidate an easy win and probably hurt Romney's chances as well.
Pity that it was all for nothing.
Even when pro-life candidates won, what did they accomplish? Getting Roe V Wade overturned is a momentous challenge and will take years to accomplish while other legitimate and daily issues: civil rights for white males, the marriage penalty, and the messed up divorce court system all go unaddressed.
The bottom line is that Roe V Wade cannot be overturned unless Republicans get the votes which they aren't. Even then, they'd then have to federalize abortion laws which is another challenge. Then people could simply grab a discount jet to Canada.
JD| 1.17.13 @ 12:21PM
Nothing is achieved in winning elections. The achievement is the changing of minds that leads to the winning of elections, among other things.
PolishKnight| 1.17.13 @ 12:48PM
Obama and his cronies would disagree with you. But sure, winning elections alone and then largely playing "bipartisan" ball with the opposition as GWB and GHB did probably was almost as bad as them losing. When the left wins elections, or anything else for that matter, they milk it to the max. That kind of determination is useful in war and business but the right seems to have a problem in making it work in politics.
In the meantime, not too many minds seem changed sufficiently to make prohibition of abortion overall, much less the radical proposition when the mother's life is endangered or rape victims, a reality. Not only aren't the votes from the standard electorate there but also the bureaucrats, judges, teachers, etc. Heck, even the police are slowly becoming socialized via the unions.
JD| 1.17.13 @ 3:00PM
Obama and his cronies disagree with me on almost everything.
They may well officially disagree as to whether winning elections is a cause of change or a result of change (I said the latter). They're certainly happy to use their elections as mandates.
But winning elections is a result nonetheless, and the way they campaign proves that they know it. They work, first and foremost, to make the public believe a great many untrue things. Once that is achieved, the election wins follow naturally.
Watchman| 1.17.13 @ 3:10PM
Anybody remember FOCA? You may have to Google it to jog your memories.
I seem to recall Obama, during his campaign in 2008, saying that getting FOCA passed was his #1 legislative priority (correct me if I'm wrong). Even then, I suspected it would NOT play out that way, and despite that, I have been surprised, at how almost totally FOCA has been dropped from the national conversation.
This indicates that the pro-abort politicians, of whom Obama is a certainly a leader, know that extending abortion politically is a losing cause. The guy is one *smart* politician. He dropped it like a hot potato, preferring instead to generalize the issue to the "War on Women", make like the social "progressives" are just defending existing, reasonable rights, and wait for Republicans to stumble in the gaffe-o-sphere (and the lapdog media to cooperatively pounce). It was a very effective strategy.
The real shift is in how much support for abortion, as a fundamental "right", has slipped among the younger generation. You can bet your bippy the Dems have noticed, and that's why they never crusade on the issue, and why FOCA was quietly dropped (amazingly quietly). Republicans have not YET figured out how to capitalize on it, partly because, as pointed out above, the GOP establishment is actually pretty lukewarm on the fundamental pro-life position, which is that the unborn is a human being, all other points and claims notwithstanding.
RAM| 1.17.13 @ 3:47PM
Too bad fetuses can't be polled about policies that will kill them.
cicero| 1.17.13 @ 4:45PM
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. The 4th Amendment states that the people shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. This right to privacy was made up by the court.
To state the obvious, women have a right to be secure in their own bodies. We are not talking about their bodies. They don't have to carry a pregnancy. They don't even have to get pregnant. However, they are responsible for the child once they choose to do those things that result in pregnancy. Oh, yeah, no one is responsible for what they do or cause anymore. If we elect Obama, and his like, he will pay our rent, make our car payments, and take care of us. After all, we souldn't want to be punished by having children. And if its good enough for M & M, its should be good enough for everybody. Except having armed guards in your kids' schools. Or am I getting confused.
I think I'll watch Dancing With the Stars, or maybe another game . . .
Albertus Magnus| 1.17.13 @ 5:52PM
Car payments? I'm still waiting for Obama to buy me an Aston Martin. But then I actually have a JOB and pay my own bills, so I guess I'll be waiting a long time.
Job| 1.17.13 @ 6:06PM
a woman is on her way to Canada or an alley for an abortion are we going to search her to see if she is carrying a fetus because that might fit the definition of unreasonable?
Simon Templar| 1.18.13 @ 1:32AM
I think we need to search you for a brain and determine if it is capable of reason.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.17.13 @ 6:11PM
What's really interesting is some of the very same pro-abortion activists are also pushing for gun control in the name of "saving the children" in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy. Where were they when it came to saving the children before they were born? To me this is no debate , abortion is murder and that's the end of the story. God bless those in Ireland who are fighting to keep their nation pro-life in the wake of EU pressure to change their laws.
Job| 1.17.13 @ 6:15PM
while were out crusading lets put a stop to divorce too.
Riff Raff| 1.21.13 @ 12:22AM
That's pretty stupid. Divorce doesn't kill anyone. Hey Job, get a job. And maybe an education while you're at it.
hrgfue | 1.17.13 @ 7:56PM
2013 Happy New Year,NFL,NBA,fashion kickoff for u
GobBluthe| 1.18.13 @ 1:24AM
Interestingly, self-identified Republicans were 11 percentage points more likely than Democrats (68% to 57%) to know that Roe addressed abortion.
This is pretty much the case with every issue.