Exactly 40 years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Roe v. Wade ruling. In a 7-2 decision, the court majority decided that Americans have a constitutional right to privacy, which includes being able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
As you've probably noticed, it's been the subject of some controversy ever since, but as the right's efforts to end reproductive rights intensify, public support for the court precedent is growing.
As the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision takes place on Tuesday, a majority of Americans -- for the first time -- believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
What's more, seven in 10 respondents oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned, which is the highest percentage on this question since 1989.
"These are profound changes," says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart and his colleagues.
I put together the chart shown above, showing the results of polling from the last quarter-century on the Roe ruling. Though a majority of Americans have consistently opposed overturning the decision, note the trend lines -- support for Roe keeps growing.
The same poll asked respondents, "Which comes closest to your view on abortion: abortion should always be legal, should be legal most of the time, should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life, or abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions?"
Looking at the results (pdf), 31% believes abortion should be "always legal" -- an all-time high -- and 23% believe it should be "legal most of the time." The combined 54% majority reflects the strongest support for reproductive rights ever seen in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Consider the perspective of the Republican pollster who helped conduct the survey.
McInturff adds that the abortion-related events and rhetoric over the past year -- which included controversial remarks on abortion and rape by two Republican Senate candidates, as well as a highly charged debate over contraception – helped shaped these changing poll numbers.
"The dialogue we have had in the last year has contributed ... to inform and shift attitudes."
I suspect there's something to this. Shifting public attitudes are likely the result of many factors, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Republican agenda in 2012 -- including both policy proposals and over-the-top rhetoric -- helped remind the American mainstream of the reproductive rights they don't want to see taken away.
In other words, Akin, Romney, Mourdock, and Ryan may have inadvertently help deliver a much-needed wake-up call about freedoms that hung in the balance.
Leave a Comment:
Like everything else they do, they go so far to the right and extremism that they push people in the other direction.
i.e. Voter repression? We lined up anyway and reelected Obama .
Absolutely. Back in the 80s/90s people would see a 30-minute line and possibly turn around and go home. But now that they KNOW it's an intentional by the likes of Ricks Scott and Snyder, Scott Walker, and their ilk, they'll stay through a 4-hour line for the same reason Rosa Parks insisted on riding in the front of the bus.
Yes, support will continue to grow for reproductive rights, just as it has for abolition of slavery, voter rights, civil rights, equal pay, marriage rights, access to affordable healthcare, labor rights ...
Those of us who are 55+ Cannot Believe We Are Still (Again?) Arguing About THIS! we thought it was settled law 40 years ago.
I guess the so-called "pro-lifers" (who don't seem to care about post-birth life/lives) will keep at their sneaky tactics until bleeding to death from botched abortions starts killing large #'s of women again.
And "pro-life" is such a stupid term anyway - what does that make the rest of us: "anti-life"?? "pro-death"?? WRONG.
Ladies, it's about WHO GETS TO CHOOSE. YOU + your Dr/family/minister??? or some (usually male) politician???
If you value being able to have some control over your own body & your right to make your own choices, you ought to make your voice heard.
The Forced-pregnancy Party; The Vaginal Ultrasound Party. Apparently Congressional districts are not the only thing they're trying to . . . gerrymander. uuggh. If you'd told me about this 30 years ago I would not have believed it.
This is one issue where Republicans can't make a big tactical change. A large part of their base is Evangelical Christian and like the Blues Brothers, Evangelical Christians truely believe they are on a mission from God. There is no compromise with people who are convinced that imposing their personal religious beliefs on their neighbors and children is God's will.
You are so correct. And the ironic thing is that Evangelical Christians are doing a lot of very unChristian-like things to get their way, murder, harassment, terrorism.... the list goes on and on.
The Blues Brothers WERE on a Mission from God. These people are just nuts.
It's been said before but what I find most disturbing is in their efforts to impose God's law they are asking Congress to pass something violating the 1st Amendment. Most of God's top ten are not legislated against but the uproar only occurs when they are removed from some public facility. I am also frustrate by the hyprocracy of my representative...he supports a personhood amendment but wants to change the 14th to end the "anchor baby" syndrome. So if you declare it to be a person with all rights afforded by the Constitution, doesn't that imply citizenship?
I get the impression the only reason they want to interfere with others rights to choose is they want to sacrifice more unbelievers as cannon fodder to their war for god so they don't have to fight them selves. Making it so they can inherit the earth and kill the rest of us off. They are the first to bare arms against the government and their neighbors. They exploit abuse and enslave Women and children and say it is Gods will. Hate and bigotry are foundations of their morals because they believe they are above Gods laws and Jesus's teachings and twist histories and the Bibles very words to fit their deluded rants. If you want them to truly quote the Bible most have no idea what is written, because they go by what their chosen leaders say blindly.The majority don't have even a high school education let alone could even read. Just as an example look at the Westboro Baptist houligans excuse me "Church?" most were home-schooled denying the existence of evolution and believe the world is 6000 years old.
When I think of the anti-constitutional crowd that belittles, condemns and occasionally lashes out in violence against women and men exercising the law of the land, I cannot but think of that Paul Kantner lyric:
"Hide witch hide/the good folk come to burn thee/their keen enjoyment hid behind/a Gothic mask of duty!"
No one in a democratic land has a "duty" (Gothic or otherwise) to do what the State House of Mississippi has done, what the other Republican State Houses are about to do, and what "Right to Lifers" are wont to do at any turn they have a chance to hoist violence upon the rest of us!
No one! -Kevo
Kevo .... Thanks for the flashback . Blows Against the Empire ...
One of my favorite bands from that era ...OH OH Geezer alert! Why I remember seeing them.......
At what point do people believe that an abortion is murder? I think that's a clear question.
We often talk about civil rights and freedom; what about the freedom of the person in the womb?
Because the womb is inside another person .
Her body , her choice.
nyliberal,
Question 1: Do you believe that a fetus is a life? Assuming there is a heartbeat etc. (after about 5 weeks)
Question 2: In most cases, do you believe a woman has a choice in having sex, and as a result, becoming pregnant?
Just trying to understand, thanks.
Relevant I believe the supreme court addressed that question in their decision with Roe vs Wade. They concluded a fetus is a part of the womans body up until the point that the infant could be viable outside of the womb. That would be a minimum of five months, and then the chance of survival is slim. It does give a reasonable case for banning late term abortions and I do support that.
Where is the man in this discussion? Any responsibility at all? Any burden of decision? Any anything?
I didn't think so.
The man is at the mercy of the choice of the woman though on it, a man cannot force a woman to under go one and thus must take care of the infant for life.
Question 2: In most cases, do you believe a woman has a choice in having sex, and as a result, becoming pregnant?
And what about the cases where she didn't have a choice? Are you absolute in your belief?
Jan-21270,
Yeah, that's a good point. Do you think that the Supreme Court ruling then assumes that as technology improves, let's say that a baby can live 3 months out of the womb, that that becomes the new marker for "life?"
When it comes down to it, it seems like the big question is "when does life begin?" This ranges from answers of "at conception" to "after five months" to "out of the womb (no matter what the age)"...
The question always revolves around what is life. When does a fetus become a human. I think we need to use science to determine that, because religious concepts of life are just that, religion. lets start with what fertilization does, namely the bringing together two unique sets of genes.
A unique set of genes, however, does not constitute a human being. A gene coding for blue eyes only results in a blue eye when the fertilized egg develops and forms eyes during that process. Hence, a fertilized egg is not a human, but a envelope with chromosomes that has the potential to become a human under the right conditions. If the chromosomes contain a mutation that result in the loss of eyes during development, the blue eye gene is still there but does not contribute to the human being that resulted from the egg.
So, to equate a fertilized egg to a human being is the same as equating a death corps to a human being. They have exactly the same genetic material. So, what is the key difference between a living person and a death person? A theist would say a soul, but we were trying to find a scientific argument to equate a fertilized egg with a human. So, we are limited to substance monism to explain the mind. Three versions exist: behaviorism, functionalism, and mind-brain identity theory. Behaviorism attempts to explain mental states in terms of behavior. Functionalism holds that mental states are defined by their functional role, by the effect that they have on us. Mind-brain identity theory holds that the mind and the brain are one and the same thing, and that the mind arises from the interaction of nerve cells in the brain. Once enough interactions between the nerve cells stop, you are dead.
A kidney taken out of a body for transplant does not have a life on its own, nor is the soul of the donor split and partially merged with the recipient. So, where is the soul/mind located? That location would be the brain. And as I indicated above, once enough nerve cells stop contributing, you are dead. The flip side of this argument is that you cannot have a mind until you have enough interacting nerve cells in the brain to generate a mind. For nerve cells to be able to interact, they have to form synapses. Synaptogenesis happens relative late during development, somewhere after week 20. This implies that scientifically speaking, you do not have a soul/mind before that happens, because the required nerve interactions are absent.
"
First you really have to take religion out of the question completely as its an unconstitutional basis to make this kind of argument. So what that leaves you with is individual liberty, and like I said I think the supreme court ruling pretty much sums it up well enough for me. Obviously Relevant that as technology changes states can address limiting when abortions can be done. However, as an ICU nurse I am not sure when we will see the day that we can overcome the massive changes that an infant undergoes in those months to be go from the womb to the outside world. 5 months is really pushing it and honestly this is very rarely talked about but those infants cost millions and their chances aren't great.
As for the question of neuropathways, well those don't begin to come together until later. And the first five years of life the brain still sees massive growth, and new pathways made. That is why that time is so essential. I would not put religion in this because I don't find that it is significant in the right to life and liberty. In a perfect world there would be no abortions, and no one would ever need or want them. Unfortunately this is way off from being perfect and realistically, we need to consider that a woman should have some rights and say over her body.
Kim Van Der Linde,
I saw that exerpt on a post on heathenscientist.com too, it does brings many different aspects of defining life into the discussion, for sure.
Does this mean a human with brain nerve-damage is less of a human than one with fully functional nerve interactions? Assuming that we are using nerve interactions as our scientific guide for the soul/mind.
That is a very good question Relevant, and technically brain death meets the legal requirements for death. Even if your heart is still going, and you are being kept alive by machines.
I find that is a line that I wouldn't want to have to draw whether a child should be allowed to live because of brain damage...If they got synapses going at all they are alive in my opinion.
It should not be legal for rape victims to be denied the morning after pill, that takes the abortion issue off the table. That woman will never know whether an egg was fertalized, it works like some birth control does. It prevents the egg from sticking to the wall of the uterus. I think better education on this pill and a better working understanding of it would be massively helpful.
Ultimately, I believe everyone does bring a bias or "worldview" into the argument.
If I am an Atheist or endorse secularism, then excluding "religion" from the argument, helps my cause. If I am a Conservative Christian, then including "religion" in the argument, helps my cause.
When discussing these issues, I think that this tension should be realized.
When life outside the host can be successfully achieved. Take note of the word successfully, there are cases where the fetus will not successfully live outside due to serious defects and those are your late term abortions.
Your standard abortions are 6-12 weeks. Most are closer to the 6th week, than the 12th week. The mandated ultra sounds provided by our wise GOP leaders, has young ladies waiting until the embryo is visible from an external ultra sound which puts abortions closer to 12 weeks. Nice work guys.
Relevant, I would just like to point out that not all atheists believe in having abortions, and that not all conservative christians are anti-abortion. The numbers are probably small, but members all groups can have independent opinions.
Cowgirl55,
I 100% agree with you.
And sorry, I should have clarified that I was addressing the idea that "religion must be entirely separate from anything pertaining to the government," where I believe if we take out everything religious or of religious-morality from our government then we will be left with an Atheist/Secular society (that some would contend is a religion in itself) ... kind of off topic.
My grandfather was a small town minister in arkansas, he believe that child was a gift from GOD, however unlike most of his peers, he believe that you should keep abortions legal, as I grew up I knew his postion and sometimes wondered why among his collegues that he would take such a veiw, it wasnt till he passed away I asked my grandmother, and here is the storys she told me, as a young man, my grandfather had a friend and this friend had a sister, who had slept with a man that produced a baby, when she tried to see what her family would say if she keep the baby they told her they rather her be dead then have a baby, unmarried. so this sister boarded a bus to go to the back alley of springdale arkansas. where she had an "abortion" while on her bus ride home she bleed to death,.....My grandma said since then my grandpa realized that making it illegal did not cut down the abortions, however it did save womens lifes,if you made them legal and since he had sisters, daughters and granddaughters, he believed it should be legal, did he opose it personally Im sure he did, but he also realized that it is something that you cant change by just getting rid of the doctors.
i was glad to read this! This is how i feel on abortion too. So many people forget what happened to girls when they became pregnant and had no support and some familys felt so much shame that the the gilrs felt they had no choice but to have a back yard abortion. Pro Choice means just that, I personally would have never had one but that was my choice . Your grandfather learned first hand what it meant to make abortions illegal . I say education and support groups for girls are more important then ending legal abortions.
Education and support prevent more abortions than making it illegal would.
It just stinks that a good portion of that 46% minority is significantly more vocal about their stance than the 54% of us who want to keep our rights the way they are.
The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.
The Fourth Amendment gives citizens the right to privacy.
Which one is wrong?
Neither is wrong. No one is taking away your guns.
Who cares about your guns? Weird injection into the subject.
Congratulations to the GOP for waking a sleeping giant. Women already fought for this and we won't let it go, sorry.
I agree with others who say conservatives won't drop the abortion issue. They'll double down on it. The majority opposes gerrymandering and voter suppression, so that's exactly where they'll head. These are the ones I worry about. It took me a long time to understand what gerrymandering is about, and it's not a sexy news story. But it will allow Republicans to steal elections, and it should be stopped.
But with abortion as the main event, this party doesn't have a chance at a national election. Therefore they will need ways to steal elections.
I have a question...the whole reason for having an abortion is because the baby is not wanted...so...why would anyone want to bring an unwanted child into this world, wouldn't that be considered cruel to force someone to bring a baby into this would to suffer? And who would take care of it? Don't we have enough children who are orphans and have no parents or family to take care of them or love them?
Well your abortion foes all are for funding planned parenthood and making sure that all have access to contraception , to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They all want comprehensive sex education in the schools and access to contraceptives for teenagers to cut down on teen pregnancy. In addition if there is an unwanted child , they are willing to provide support programs and daycare for the mother to ease her burden .
Oh wait, maybe not
sick-that was some good satire :)
Doug-republicans don't want to ban abortions, most don't for them its just a way to get votes. They don't to end up paying for those unwanted babies.
No I don't think a fetus is a person.
The fetus depends, entirely on the woman's body and the body in question gets to decide whether or not it's willing.
It takes two and I can't be the only one stunned by the "I have to pay so why does she get to chose" argument.
You got to chose as well, that's your share of the consequences.
I hate that some people, aka my sister, think all Planned parenthoods clients are coming in for abortions, My sister asked me when I was very vocal about planned parenthood how I could support them when all they do is abortions, I answered what they do so much other things, my sister (who is a mike huckabee fan) said name one, lol so I started naming all the other wonderful things they do for low income women and children, Of course I was brain washed by the media, How can we be a nation that forces someone to carry a baby not matter how it was conceived to carry that baby say your a mooch when you want health care and food stamps for said baby
perhaps there's hope for civilization yet
If you believe in karma and reincarnation - both facts, if you think deeply about it and research it - then, for sure, the mind incarnates at conception. Therefore, there is no doubt that abortion is killing an incarnate being which, if possible, should be avoided.
However, if the mother, on whom that being is entirely dependent for most of its time in the womb, acts on her strong feeling that it is inappropriate or impractical to bring that being to birth and years of nursing and upbringing, then one has to recognize that that being's karma is not yet adequate for human life. It's how life, death and the Universe works.
Accumulating the karma for a human life is extremely difficult and very rare. We humans are extremely fortunate and should never forget that. Perhaps a few more lifetimes as, say, a cow or a dog or a horse for example which earn good karma through generosity and other qualities, will gain that being a better opportunity next time around.
On the other hand, the mother also has a karmic debt to consider which she would be well advised to take very seriously.
In 1972 I was single and stunned by an unplanned pregnancy; I had been assured by an endocrinologist that I was infertile. Nonetheless, I became a single parent less than a month before the Roe v Wade decision and my beautiful son celebrated his 40th birthday last month.
I very much wanted to have a baby and wouldn't have aborted even if I'd had a safe and legal choice, but my decision to give birth and raise my baby "disgraced" my upper middle class family. (Fortunately, long before my parents died we worked things out.)
I'm just posting here to say that I wish abortion had been legal earlier than it was, mostly for women who suffered and died from pre-Roe criminal abortions, but also for myself, so it would be evident to everyone that I CHOSE to keep my baby, even though as I said there was no legal option at the time. My son never had any doubt that he was and is very much wanted, but I have heard others remark that we were "lucky" that Roe came too late for us, expressing the outrageous presumption that being unwed and having a choice, that I would have automatically chosen to abort.
People forget that having a "choice" doesn't necessarily mean choosing abortion; sometimes the choice is to give birth. The point is that every woman should have a choice.
It is possible that support for reproductive rights may not be growing, but rather the people who oppose abortion who tend to be older and religious are dying off. Yesterday's feminist is today's grandmother. And religious belief is again in decline among younger people.
Human civilization with its rapacious ways and bottomless appetites is running blindly toward catastrophe. The right would have a lot more credibility as "defenders of a culture of life" if they showed the same concern for other species and the environment that supports us all as they show for human zygotes.
Let us not forget to include that most of the right wing who purport to support a "culture of life" are also rabidly pro death penalty as well. Not to mention they are also in favor of aggressive military spending.
That's because it has very little to do with anything but having control over women, in the very same way that rape is not about sex so much as it is about control, forced submission, and humiliation.
Get religion out of government! Using the term “PRO-LIFE”, is allowing religious convictions to preside over this issue. The issue is “PRO-CHOICE”, “ANTI-CHOICE”. Okay, if I am wrong, let’s change the argument to, “PRO-LIFE”, “PRO-DEATH”… oops, I mean “PRO-MURDER”! Not ratifying a women's Right, stands in the way of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 4th Amendment and ignores the 9th Amendment!
When the Suffrage fight was won, Congress made an Amendment to the Constitution, in order to protect this Right. They didn't just say, “Yeah... Yeah, a women’s Right to Vote, although it is not enumerated, we'll make it happen, let’s move on.”. What if Congress hadn't amended the Constitution, we’d still be arguing this issue; oh, you don’t think so (rhetorical)! It would go something like this, "PRO-VOTE", "PRO-OBEY". See how easy that is; "the man" casts a vote which represents the common interests of the couple. There's that religion thing, again. In the old days, many marriage vows included the word "obey", for the Bride, anyway. Oh, the good old days and the right (or is it, obligation) to do as you are told.
Look, isn't this how our Government should work: The Supreme Court says, “Okay, a Right is being violated, although this Right is not enumerated, in the Constitution, we believe that this Right is protected under the 4th Amendment; it is a right to privacy. Even though this Right is not called out by name, in the 4th, the 9th Amendment allows us the latitude to enumerate, this Right requires protection, Congress, do your job!”. Here we go, again, someone isn't doing their job!
"Reproductive Rights" what about a baby's rights? The democrats captured the empty headed bimbo vote again I see.
If you are an example of someone who is "defending" babies, I pity those children!
I'm disappointed that in the entire raft of liberal talkers, not a one has had the gumption, or maybe even the notion, that we can do more than wring our hands over denial of access to abortion and contraception. In the big picture, those attacks on women’s rights are unconstitutional. That should be the context of the discussion; and the ERA should be the remedy put forward and discussed.
I don't know about you, but lots of us have mobilized, raised funds, and done lots of good on the grassroots level.
To Zelda Gatuskin: Maybe you are not actually reading the comments on this page and you are happy with just making general statements. At the risk of repeating myself:
Get religion out of government! Using the term “PRO-LIFE”, is allowing religious convictions to preside over this issue. The issue is “PRO-CHOICE”, “ANTI-CHOICE”. Okay, if I am wrong, let’s change the argument to, “PRO-LIFE”, “PRO-DEATH”… oops, I mean “PRO-MURDER”! Not ratifying a women's Right, stands in the way of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 4th Amendment and ignores the 9th Amendment!
When the Suffrage fight was won, Congress made an Amendment to the Constitution, in order to protect this Right. They didn't just say, “Yeah... Yeah, a women’s Right to Vote, although it is not enumerated, we'll make it happen, let’s move on.”. What if Congress hadn't amended the Constitution, we’d still be arguing this issue; oh, you don’t think so (rhetorical)! It would go something like this, "PRO-VOTE", "PRO-OBEY". See how easy that is; "the man" casts a vote which represents the common interests of the couple. There's that religion thing, again. In the old days, many marriage vows included the word "obey", for the Bride, anyway. Oh, the good old days and the right (or is it, obligation) to do as you are told.
Look, isn't this how our Government should work: The Supreme Court says, “Okay, a Right is being violated, although this Right is not enumerated, in the Constitution, we believe that this Right is protected under the 4thAmendment; it is a right to privacy. Even though this Right is not called out by name, in the 4th, the 9thAmendment allows us the latitude to enumerate, this Right requires protection, Congress, do your job!”. Here we go, again, someone isn't doing their job!
I have not heard Rachel or any of her guests discuss fighting back against states who are trying to eliminate access to abortion services while not denying the right to abortion by starting major lawsuits that would eventually end up in the Supreme Court as well as introducing an Abortion Rights Act in Congress. The states are using the same tactics now that they used to deny blacks the the vote. Even with the 14th (1868), 15th (1870), 19th (1920), and 24th (1964) Amendments to the Constitution, many states did everything in their power to circumvent the Court and maintain the status quo that protected the political power of an entrenched white male ruling class. While acknowledging their right to vote, through literacy tests, poll taxes, hidden polling places, and other state-sanctioned restrictions on access to voting, the states effectively denied blacks the ability to vote. And even now, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is under attack.
The parallel between voting rights and abortion rights goes even further: just as there is no “right to privacy” enumerated in the Constitution, there is also no Constitutional “right to vote.” Do we really have to wait 100 years to have the Supreme Court rule that denying access to abortion is the same thing as denying the right to abortion? Shouldn’t we be trying to sweep away all these restrictions in one fell swoop with an Abortion Rights Act that is supported by the Supreme Court? Wouldn’t a major Supreme Court action as well as major Congressional action at least through a spot light on what the states are trying to pull? Even knowing that Republicans will fight it at every turn?
I absolutly love the RMShow - I recently looked up the famous picture of Gerri Santoros after her death due to an effert to end a pregnancy with the help of her boyfiend. I think that those images say it all. We need to show this to our children who have come after the Roe vs. Wade - we can let that memory dim.