January 22, 2014

5 facts about abortion

Today is the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s decision establishing a woman’s constitutional right to abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. The March for Life, the annual anti-abortion rally in Washington, also takes place today, and abortion remains a divisive political issue.

Here are a few key facts about Americans’ views on the topic, based on recent Pew Research polling:

1More than six-in-ten (63%) U.S. adults say they would not like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn Roe v. Wade, while about three-in-ten (29%) want to see the ruling overturned. These figures have remained relatively stable for more than 20 years.

FT-abortion-01-22-2014-012There is a growing regional divide in opinions about abortion. Three-quarters of New Englanders (75%) say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while four-in-ten residents (40%) of South Central states (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas) say the same. Many states have enacted new abortion restrictions in recent years, and challenges to several of those laws are making their way through the courts.

3Roughly six-in-ten Americans (62%) know that Roe v. Wade was a decision about abortion, but among adults under 30 years old, only 44% know. Younger adults also are less likely to view abortion as an important issue: 62% of Americans ages 18-29 say it is “not that important” compared with other issues, while 53% of adults overall say this.

FT-abortion-01-22-2014-024According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, 22 states enacted 70 abortion restrictions in 2013, making it second only to 2011 in the number of new restrictions in one year. From 2011 to 2013, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted, while 189 were enacted during the previous decade (2001-2010).

5There’s a difference between what Americans think should be legal and what they think is moral. About half of Americans (49%) say that having an abortion is morally wrong, while 15% think it is morally acceptable and 23% say it is not a moral issue. These views differ by religious affiliation: While 75% of white evangelical Protestants say that having an abortion is morally wrong, 25% of religiously unaffiliated people say so.

Category: 5 Facts

Topics: Abortion

  1. is Editor at the Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project.

Leave a Comment

Or

All comments must follow the Pew Research comment policy and will be moderated before posting.

79 Comments

  1. Halley3 months ago

    It’s very simple to find out any topic on net as compared to textbooks, as I found this article at this web page.

    Reply
  2. Ruth Walker4 months ago

    There has always been abortion. When it was illegal, it killed women and/or left them sterile. Most abortions are early, but some have to be late to save the health/life of the mother, who sometimes has other children to care for. What sort of people think they should decide such things or anyone but themselves?

    Reading ‘This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor’ by Susan Wicklund can help develop empathy. Dr. Wicklund had not even planned to be a physician, let alone an abortion doctor (and couldn’t bear to even watch a late term one, but knows they are sometimes necessary).

    Reply
    1. E Powell4 weeks ago

      Reasons given for having abortions in the United States
      johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abor…

      … but at the same time most Americans would support limits on elective abortions, e.g.abortions for convenience … 5 Sept. 2011, “Historical abortion statistics …
      Only 2 % of abortion are for anything but convenience.

      Reply
    2. Gisele Toumi2 weeks ago

      It’s flawed to say since people do something, it should be legal. Humans have been murdering since the beginning of time, but we shouldn’t legalize murder. The fact is that a fetus is a human being, and abortion is violent. It’s not like an early c-section or early birth/removal. Abortion is poisoning and dismembering another human being. I’m shocked that so many people think this should be allowed and accepted.

      Reply
  3. Jenna Jackson6 months ago

    I dont even understand how someone could actually do this to a poor baby. A popular saying is “My Body My Rules”. Well think of a baby in a situation like this. Their’s would probably be “My Body No Rules” or something like that. The point i am trying to get to is that abortion should be banned.

    Reply
  4. louise horan6 months ago

    I think abortion should be banned because you have got to think about the poor baby’s life that you are just about to end it, when it will be entered in the new world very soon. If you abortion a baby you should be prosecuted ans sent to prison for 45 yrs of your life.

    Reply
  5. Bill Bryan7 months ago

    ABORTION STATS: HIGHLY SUSPECT! Lots of lying by women obtaining
    abortions—especially by Catholics and Evangelicals—who most probably
    have much higher abortion rates due to their strictures against using any
    form of Birth Control.

    “The use of ONE Birth Control Pill or Condom is the Moral Equivalent of
    ONE ABORTION,” said Father Bruce Ritter, US spokesman for the Vatican on
    issues like abortion. The message being: USING BIRTH CONTROL PILLS
    IS THE MORAL EQUIVALENT OF MURDER—So says the Catholic Church
    and other leaders of Conservative Christian groups. Anyway:

    My 1st wife accidently became employed by The Midtown Hospital—an abortion
    mill in Atlanta, GA, which for years was one of the few places 2nd and 3rd Trimester
    could be performed in SE US.

    Every client was given a form where they could voluntarily enter various Demographic
    questions: One being: Religious Faith…………………..

    About half of the Abortion Clients would not fill out the form. Of the ones who
    did: About 80% Identified themselves as Catholic or Conservative Christian whose
    leaders opposed all forms of non-violent birth control methods—except the
    Rhythm Method. Assumptions were made that the vast number of non-Respondents
    were probably Catholic or Conservative Christian.

    This was emphasized by the fact that most of the non-Respondents would come
    in year after year to have abortion after abortion and would still not fill out the
    Demographic Form.

    Reply
  6. TJ Krest9 months ago

    What if Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Edi Amin, the men who flew the airplanes into the Towers and on and on, were aborted? Would that be a good thing?
    I think if all you protesters who spend time on being anti abortion, spent time caring for all the starving, abused, homeless children in the world, We might pay a little more attention to you. But that ain’t going to happen because that would be to socialistic and goodness knows you would not want to get your hands dirty touching all those unclean things.

    Reply
    1. Nahman7 months ago

      That’s not the point, the point is at the very second a fetus is formed, it is a living baby. An abortion is the killing of an innocent child. If they are unable to care for it, at least adoption would be an option here….

      Reply
      1. Niky6 months ago

        Nahman…I really agree with your opinion.

        Reply
  7. Barbara9 months ago

    The global population has soared past 7 billion. Over population is degrading our quality of life and depleting the precious natural resources we all need to survive and thrive. To address the population crisis, it is essential to provide comprehensive reproductive health care to all US and world citizens. This will greatly decrease the need for abortions. Until this is accomplished, abortion should be an available option.

    Reply
    1. Selfish9 months ago

      Your view and the view of people like you, says that: Killing in abortion should be available, because you are worried about degrading your quality of life.

      Why don’t you be a little bit less selfish, and be willing to take a more simple quality of life, if it becomes necessary (which it probably never will), in order to help everyone to have a life, rather than death because some don’t want to lower their quality of life, for the sake of saving someone else’s life or helping someone else’s life to exist.

      Reply
      1. louise horan6 months ago

        Your absolutely right I agree on your opinion

        Reply
    2. Choice for Reproductive rights?9 months ago

      By the way. The Pro abortion minority label abortion as reproductive rights.
      And Overpopulation people, claim that people should have the right to reproductive health care (contraception and abortion), in order to choose how many children to have in their reproduction.
      But if this is truly a choice, and a right to reproduce.
      Then what are you going to say when everyone decides they do want to have children? And that the reproduction is higher than the pro abortion people like. And it leads to a bigger population? Then what are you going to do, when people use their freedom of reproduction to have children and for the world population to keep getting bigger?

      You don’t care about people’s freedoms or their rights to reproduce. No. If that happened, you would order that there should be a forced limit on reproduction. Like the one child policy that famously exists in China.

      Some anti reproduction people, have said that there should be a forced no child policy. Which denies anyone the right to reproduce at all.

      Reproductive rights only means the right to have children. It was written into international agreements decades ago, and the term reproductive rights was specifically stated as being about the right to choose to have children.
      And it was against the policies of forced sterilisation and forced abortion which had happened to some minority groups of people in america, and some other countries, to deny people their right to reproduce.
      And it specifically said, it does not include abortion as a reproductive right. Because abortion is not about reproducing, but about not reproducing. And abortion kills a life, and so it is against the right to life.

      People who talk about overpopulation only care about that they don’t want people to live. They don’t care about life. Therefore, when people choose to reproduce, as is the true and only meaning of reproductive rights. Then the population will continue to increase. Which is not a problem! There is no problem with humans existing. The only problem is with the people who think other people don’t have the right to live, and want to kill the human race, until it reaches some made up number, chosen by people, none of who have no right to be a judge of life and death anyway!

      Today you talk about abortion. Tomorrow you will be declaring that if the people have more children than you like, forced abortion and forced prevention of people choosing the right to reproduce, should be forced on people by the state. As already happened in the past in many countries, and currently in some. And as the international human rights laws, and reproductive rights laws, were written to protect life, and prevent this forced denial of right to reproduce, and forced population reduction, and forced propaganda campaigns to promote abortion and force it if people don’t choose to stop reproducing.

      Reply
      1. Rob Mac9 months ago

        That was an amazing(ly long-winded) attempt at a strawman. You almost had me convinced.

        Reply
  8. Bryan Barrett9 months ago

    That any person needs to ask, “how many abortions since Roe Vs Wade decision’, is shocking; since 1973 abortions have resulted in the death of more than 57,000.000 Americans. Think about it; children denied the opportunity to experience life. You, the reader has that opportunity, yet you, by your silence , denied it to these innocent children.

    Reply
    1. Kathy Kennedy9 months ago

      Denied life to innocent children? All I can think of is 57,000,000 unwanted children being abused, unloved, or born to live in physical and psychological pain. Why would you wish that on anyone? Abortion rights in many instances simply facilitate compassion.

      Reply
      1. Think9 months ago

        So what you are saying is, it is better to kill someone who is unwanted, or who you think in the future might be abused, or poor, or has any negative experience in life (which is every human).

        Even though you don’t know what will happen to a child after it is born, or if it will be wanted by the mother if she kept it until birth, or if it will have adoptive parents who give it a good life.

        Humans don’t know the future. And yet you would like to justify killing someone, based the idea that “you” don’t like the idea of the future you predict for it. When it is not even your life but their’s! And that you can’t know how that future will turn out.
        And regardless that the child is not to blame for existing, but you would like to kill it, for the life it has without any control of it’s own.

        Then you can think about the human beings alive in the world today, who are unwanted or unloved by others, or abused, or poor, or having negative experiences.
        If you would kill them in the womb to avoid the life they have, then there is no difference between killing them now, to stop them continuing to live more of that life. Which you think it is better to kill to prevent them from living, than let them live. And to value their life. And perhaps to treat them like a human being, instead of like a burden. And perhaps care and help get them the help to have a better life.
        If you don’t want to care and help people, then don’t care and don’t help.
        But let them have their life. Don’t kill because you don’t want to care or help.

        Reply
      2. E Powell4 weeks ago

        “unwanted,abused” Margaret Sanger would be very proud of your statement.
        Abortion is really Murder, 55.5 million babies, their blood is on our hands.
        More then Chairman Mao of China. More then stalin, hitler, pol pot, ide amine, etc.
        We still are murdering about 1 million a year.

        the United State of Amerika, murdering our babies since 1973.

        Reply
  9. Elfriede Moore9 months ago

    Abortion should be a personal choice for women and have no place in court decisions.

    Reply
  10. John Balird9 months ago

    I am convinced that none of the people indicating an opinion on abortion have any idea of the fact that Earth is overpopulated by about 4.5 BILLION people. So none have any idea of the penalties that will be paid as civilization is forced to correct this deficit load on Earth’s life support system.

    So media polls this uninformed population instead of educating it.

    Civilization deserves what is happening to it.

    Reply
    1. John Balird9 months ago

      The Pew comment policy is just another element of the reason that civilization deserves what is happening to it

      Reply
    2. You want to kill 4.5 billion people?9 months ago

      You want to kill 4.5 billion people?

      Exactly when would you offer up your life, before the life of the others who you expect to justify killing the live of?

      Sorry that is exactly why I am pro life. Because I have a conscience, and a sense of morality, and I value human life. I value every human life, not just my own life, and there is no human life whose life doesn’t have value and doesn’t have the right to life.

      Every life has the right to live, and every human who is living with the right to life themselves, and who wouldn’t want it taken away, should be pro life.

      Because the alternative is the desired world of the people who do not value human life, reminiscent of every murderer, and so they would even justify all kinds of murder, starting from abortion, and then euthanasia for elderly and weak, and then war and murder of other’s that the murderer doesn’t value the life of.

      Reply
    3. Amanda Polk8 months ago

      Over populated based on whose data? I could be wrong but I do not recall the Bible saying the Earth could only sustain X number of people. I believe that God created the earth and commanded his people to reproduce so that is what they do. Further, I would also argue that we keep researching cures for multiple dieses and I can’t help but to think that we have probably killed the child that was sent to earth to cure cancer, aids etc. God creates everyone with a purpose and we have no right to terminate a life that he created. In respect to helping the hungry and abused, I have dedicated my life to that very population and I might add that in the worst cases of abuse, I’ve never felt that a child would have been better off if he/she were aborted. The flip side is that many loving parents who want children and have reproductive issues would love to provide a loving and nurturing home to these “unwanted children”. At the end of the day, we all have to make our own decisions and we shall bare the fruits of those decisions be it good fruit our bad fruit. We will definitely bare the fruit.

      Reply
    4. overpopulated8 months ago

      Overpopulated? Where do you get your facts from last time I checked there’s plenty of room on Earth.

      Reply
  11. Sue9 months ago

    What is the average age of a woman getting an abortion? Average income? Any demographics? Use of contraception? Lots of questions.

    Reply
  12. Jack9 months ago

    Since Roe vs Wade, how many abortions per year and in total?

    Reply
  13. Ron9 months ago

    Interesting that an event called “March for Life” is characterized as “the annual anti-abortion” event.
    Why not use “pro-life”?
    Well, because words are weapons, and rhetoric is thought to be powerful.
    It isn’t.

    Reply
  14. Mrs Rev Tom9 months ago

    Abortion is a horribly painful choice to make. Women who WANT abortions will still get them, like they always have, legal or not…either in another country (for the wealthy) or in dirty back alley apartments. With all the govt money spent on stupid stuff, why can’t women (and men) have access to convenient, affordable birth control that doesn’t have health side effects? Morality aside, spontaneous passion or the heat of the moment decisions don’t allow much choice for women…if their man lies about having had a vasectomy or if a condom breaks…it is still the woman who is left with that horrible choice to make about her own life and the life of an innocent result of an accidental pregnancy.

    Reply
  15. See Abortion and Euthanasia. – Think Eugenics and Extermination of the most poor, vulnerable, and unwanted classes9 months ago

    See Abortion and Euthanasia promoted, with an intention of the majority of it’s subjects or victims, being the poor and vulnerable and the most unwanted of society. And think of Eugenics.

    That is to say –

    – Think of hitler killing the jews, gays, gypsies, and other unwanted of society.

    – Think of margaret sanger in the USA, creating the nazi inspired eugenics and abortion and sterilization programs in america, to kill the poor and vulnerable classes, who were also mainly the black and hispanic ethnic minorities.

    – Think of the intentional mass reduction of whole classes or sections of society, primarily targeted at the poor and vulnerable and those “unwanted” by the rich and selfish classes of society. By promoting their destruction by abortion and euthanasia.

    The poor, vulnerable, and those “unwanted” by the rich and selfish of society, should be the ones who are most protected by a civilized society. A society which cares about human beings. They should not be the ones most targeted for encouraging their elimination by abortion and euthanasia.

    A human and loving society protects and cares for those who are most vulnerable and most unwanted.
    An animalistic eugenic society, wants to kill off and reduce the descendants of those who are most vulnerable and most unwanted.

    Reply
    1. Ron9 months ago

      If you really want to worry, think of the fact that there are more than 7 billion people in this world and the numbers are growing. Realize the earth is a finite place and each year we are using up more and more of the earth’s natural resources. Think of the fact that robots are replacing humans in many tasks that human used to do. I do NOT have an answer of what to do, BUT it would make me smile if our government as well as other governments would realize this and start thinking about how to address disaster in waiting before it.s too late

      Reply
      1. Finite resources may be finite, but will never be so finite that humans will die because of lack of resources. Unless it is because humans are not sharing the available resources.9 months ago

        There is no reason to think any of those things are a problem.

        The only reason people think it is a problem, is because the eugenics movement, who wants to reduce the population of the poor and undesirables, by preventing birth, and killing those who are born, have said that it is a problem.

        So they encourage people to fear it, and to support abortion and euthanasia to kill the weak.

        And they encourage people to fear pregnancy and so to use birth control and sterilisation, and to encourage people to be obsessed by sex for pleasure so to think of sex only for pleasure, and think of reproduction as something less wanted because it gets in the way of this pleasure. Therefore reducing reproduction again.

        The idea that there would ever not be resources to support the population is false. And even if it had been true, it would be the act of an insane person to say to kill the existing people, or people newly conceived or born, in order to stop people dying from lack of resources.

        It is like saying, we do not have enough food for both of us to live for one month, so one of us should be killed. No, that is not human. If there is not enough food, then ration it. And then, share the food, and let each eat, until it runs out. Each human has an equal right to live as eachother. Don’t kill people off, so that others can keep eating.
        And there is more than enough food in the world for everyone, if people made the effort to share it around. And also don’t be greedy and eat more than you need.
        And the rich use so many more times food, and every other resources than the poorest.
        Killing off the poor makes very little difference to resources, because it is the rich who use many times more resources than the poor. So why are the rich seeking to kill the poor, when some of the poor use for example barely a tenth of the rich?
        Kill ten poor, so there can be one more rich? Is that fair?
        No, make the one rich, be a little less greedy, and to live a little more modestly, and then everyone can live instead of be killed, and can live more equally.

        Reply
        1. Ron9 months ago

          When I was young & went to school in the 1930’s the estimated world population was 3 billion plus and the U.S. was about 130 million. In about 80 years both these numbers have more than doubled.

          I wrote my comment because I DO NOT want to kill people off and I do not have a ready solution. In past centuries population was controlled by large uncontrolled plagues and large wars which killed millions. I did rule out that plagues & wars, they’re terrible solutions, BUT WHAT

          When we run out of petroleum, we will have to grow the fuel [we have this ability right now] but it will reduce the amount of food we can grow.

          Just take a look, do you or does anyone think the world by the year 2450 or 2500 the way we humans manage or NOT manage the world problem, will still exist anywhere near the way it is now.

          We do not address world warming, we do not prepare for the time that we can not get fuel out of the earth, we’ve expanded life spans and do little about worldwide housing for its large population.

          We have had amazing inventions, but also invented a lot of junk. The combined intellect of all human beings is large enough to figure this out . the only question is when are we going to get started ?

          Reply
          1. Stephen O’Brien9 months ago

            Malthus proposed a similar theory a couple of centuries ago. Since then the population has grown substantially, and living standards for much of the population has improved dramatically. Two factors have helped. First a free market has helped much of the world use their resources more widely, and second, human productivity has increased dramatically. The doomsday scenario of overpopulation is not impossible, but seems highly unlikely for the foreseeable future.

  16. Troy Jones9 months ago

    I favor legal taxpayer supported abortion for all women during the first three months of pregnancy, especially if they are not married. An early abortion is much less of a burden
    to taxpayers than supporting an unwanted child after it is born or putting it in prison
    after a careless upbringing.

    Reply
    1. Greed and Injustice9 months ago

      Human life is worth more than money.
      If you think human lives should be killed, for the reason of saving the state some money. Then you are a truly greedy person. And that is exactly why abortion is being promoted, because of other greedy people who have the power in governments and in pro abortion organisations, who spend taxpayer money to fund the abortion organisations, and to fund organisations that promote abortion with propaganda.
      Because of greedy governments who want to cut their bills on helping the poor, to make the rich more rich. Instead of spending whatever is necessary to help the poor and protect life and wellbeing, the government gives even more, to help kill the poor!
      If a person is poor and the unwanted of society, then help them, don’t kill them. Are we human who will value and protect human life? or are we animals who only kill the weak?
      God made us human, and made us to help eachother to live. And we will each be repaid for how we help or do not help other people, especially the weakest.
      What makes a person only want to kill a person rather than help a person? Is it that they lost their humanity and made themselves lowered to be more like an animal instead of a human?
      If a society kills it’s weak, rather than help them, then the society has given up it’s humanity and given up it’s right to exist. If it doesn’t let the weak exist, without trying to promote policies to kill them off, then why should the society responsible for this have a right to exist?

      Reply
  17. Troy Jones9 months ago

    Personally, I believe that a person has a right to privacy above almost all other things.
    I also believe a person should not have to pay for something someone else did out of
    carelessness or convenience, I am a tax payer and therefore believe taxes should not pay for abortions. I also believe that the use of illegal drugs should not be a burden to the taxpayer. So…the message to drug users should be that it negates their right to taxpayer
    supported medical care. I would like to see more bad habits eliminated from taxpayer
    supported medical care, but some lines are very hard to draw and enforce …and therefore
    enforcement may cost more than providing the medical care with tax money. Among these
    are riding motor cycles, eating too much of obviously ‘wrong’ food, etc.

    Reply
    1. Dusty9 months ago

      I am a taxpayer also and I help to create the wealth that all the “pencil pushers” live off of. Do you make a difference by actually doing something? Or are you another layer of “management” that is unnecessary and just a burden yourself. There are two sides to every story. This post is about taxpayer funded abortion not a judgment of other people.

      Reply
  18. Joan9 months ago

    Why was my comment not printed?

    Reply
  19. Darlene Clements9 months ago

    Let me assure you that if men were the ones who got pregnant and bore children Abortiion would be considered a sacrament and adequate contraception methods would be mandatory and provided by the Government.

    Reply
  20. RICHARD D. STACY9 months ago

    These percentage numbers would radically change if there was a larger spectra of safe, affordable oral contraceptives available. Presently, there is just one for women and none for men.

    Reply
  21. KR9 months ago

    This is not a political issue — “period”. Drinking and drug use at some level is legal. Assisted suicide for those with a short time to live is being put forward and will likely become part of every day life (eh hem). Philosophically, what is the difference?

    I suggest we outlaw sex. If you outlaw sex, then you won’t have any unwanted pregnancies. If you don’t have any unwanted pregnancies, you won’t have families agonizing over what their 16 year old child will do with their life. If you don’t have to agonize over your 16 year old child going to college and raising a young child on welfare, or have the parents support the next generation too, then you won’t have grand parents supporting grand kids. If you don’t have grand parents supporting grand kids, you will have grand parents that don’t need to work as long and will be able to retire more comfortably (since their pensions were decimated…another rant). If you have grand parents that can comfortably retire, you will have an ever aging population that is happier to not support the younger more complacent youth. If you have younger more complacent youth, then everyone will relax and have fun during their lives. So, stop having so much fun and outlaw sex. That will solve the problem. Worry about the things in your life you can control and stop worrying about controlling others. Politics is not the solution. Duh!

    Reply
  22. Patrick Venton9 months ago

    Most state lines are not too far away , or international boarders can be readily accessed, making abortion not to difficult to achieve. The nitty make up of the polarised groups are given to much hay and the media / press make sure the polarised positions and their extreme positions are dramatised to sell copy. Kind of a pissing contest continuum .

    Reply
    1. Williams Katherine9 months ago

      “Most state lines are not too far away , or international boarders can be readily accessed, making abortion not to difficult to achieve.”

      Tell that to a woman living in the middle of Texas, who doesn’t own a car and can’t afford a bus ticket. Tell that to a woman living in Africa, whose nearest access to ANY medical attention is hundred miles away. You’re perception of the availability of abortion is, at best, inaccurate.

      The poorest humans on the planet (and in this country) have the least access to adequate birth control and abortion, have the least access to reliable obstetrics, and have the highest maternal mortality rates. In New York in 2013, 10 in 100,000 Caucasian woman died from child birth or pregnancy, 79 in 100,000 African-American women died.

      The notion that this is a non-issue, is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of women dying, without access to proper medical care, and pregnancy prevention – and to the families they leave behind.

      Reply
      1. Al Devault9 months ago

        Let’s separate “proper medical care” from “abortion on demand’ because they are two totally different issues. Medical care borders on being a “right.” Abortion on demand is a choice, basically one that is used to avoid responsibility. It is disingenuous to put the two together.
        Since Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, I really don’t care what decisions a woman makes about her pregnancy. I do object strongly that I should have to pay for her choices!

        Reply
  23. Linda Szymanski9 months ago

    On a personal basis, I believe that aborting a child is wrong- I believe it is murder- I do not see how it can be called anything else. I do, however, believe that abortion does not have to be the “go to solution” for birth control, when educating our young teenagers and adults as to the responsibility of having sex, the very real possibility of conception and the resulting baby that will enter their lives as a result. I firmly believe that bringing up awareness, instilling personal responsibility and making it less than easy to get an abortion, will help to curb the behavior and irresponsibility of this age group. I do think that abortion should be available as the result of rape and threat to the mother’s life. Once again, our government is trying to control everything and in the end we alone are responsible for our actions and the results of those actions, even if everything is made legal, if we believe in God and His laws, we are indeed responsible for our actions. Legalizing something does not make it right, but it does remove the constant focus on battling this and other issues of a moral contest and allows us to turn our attentions to things the government CAN help us make better and more equitable- such as the creation of jobs and creating a favorable economic atmosphere in which to create and support these jobs. Also demanding higher accountability from our nation’s parents and our educational system that is WAY behind on a world basis. THAT is the purpose of government- not to be our conscious, but to offer support and opportunity with productive policy and standards.

    Reply
  24. Susan9 months ago

    For those that truly believe life begins at inception is it not TWO people that come into the equation and question as to the decision to have an abortion. “The mother has the right to choose for herself” but what about the second life in this equation where does his or her right come in.

    Reply
  25. Mike lipscomb9 months ago

    I wonder what the connection between Wade v Roe in 1973 and the halving of our National Crime rate 20 years later have to each other.
    I see it as aborting babies that are unwanted . It keeps those unwanted babies from being raised as unwanted children that don’t get proper nurture and grow up as predatators that don’t have normal feelings of love and empathy for others and become our street criminals. If the Evangical Right want to stop abortions, they have to be willing to correct the circumstances of young resentful mothers or parents though proper child care, family counseling, and financial aid in helping the young mothers gain a more fulfilling life so they can nurture their child they didn’t want.

    Reply
  26. Jean Mundell9 months ago

    “There’s a difference between what Americans think should be legal and what they think is moral.” Sadly, in a country that supports separation of church and state, religious morals/beliefs are increasingly used to create laws that impose their moral beliefs on all, taking away the moral choices of the rest.

    Reply
    1. george9 months ago

      Moral beliefs are not the sole preserve of religious people. Abortion is wrong, except in the most limited of circumstances. It is never acceptable for social reasons.

      Reply
    2. Joe9 months ago

      Murder is just as much a legal issue as it is a moral issue !! Everyone knows this, but those who are selfish choose to ignore that fact !!

      Reply
  27. Joan9 months ago

    Why is adoption not stressed more? I used to have a bumper sticker “Adoption not Abortion” but I never see any nor hear anything like that now. it is only abortion. In my 90-plus years I’ve learned there has always been and always will be women who choose abortion sad to say. I do not believe in criminalizing it, as none of us knows what it would be like to walk in the shoes of someone who finds herself in an unwanted pregnancy, whether thru rape, incest, life-threatening illness of the mother. Let God be the judge.

    Reply
  28. Frances Frainaguirre9 months ago

    What percentage of Baptized Catholics support the abortion law? What percent of practicing Catholics support the law? These facts are not included in these statistics!

    Reply
    1. June9 months ago

      There is a bar graph at bottom right of page – I don’t know how more specific you want it to be (i.e. – are these Catholics baptized?).

      Reply
  29. Janice9 months ago

    A woman’s right to choose, says it all.

    Reply
    1. george9 months ago

      A woman’s right to choose not to do what? Have sex or have the child?

      Reply
    2. Joe9 months ago

      Why should a woman have the right to choose the death of another human being ? That’s called “murder” according to the laws of the U. S. !

      Reply
    3. SGK9 months ago

      You mean a woman’s “right” to take a life.

      Reply
  30. JR9 months ago

    The only way we will really know how the nation feels about abortion is to hold a nation wide vote, instead of asking a few thousand random participants on their opinion. That is what irritates me about so-called “statistics”, as they apply to only a handful of people vs. the entire country.

    Reply
    1. fire19 months ago

      We DO know how the nation feels on a multitude of topics through SCIENTIFIC polling. That is the meaning of statistics – they are real, not “so-called”.

      Please read the background materials thoughtfully provided by the Pew Research site. Correctly sampled and bias-neutral survey questions reliably predict the total population opinion. That’s also why Nate Silver and his recently sold blog fivethirtyeight.com correctly predicted multitudes of political races and issue outcomes when the faux news commentators were putting on happy faces before their gloom after the last national elections. Wishin’ just don’t make it so!

      Reply
    2. Williams Katherine9 months ago

      Unfortunately,what the nation “feels” is irrelevant to the law – and a national referendum is a truly appalling and disgusting suggestion. We should vote on taking the right to live away from women? Because regardless of what you “feel,” thousands of women die, every single day, due to pregnancy and childbirth.

      Also, you have confused statistics with polling data. An independent poll (like Pew) gathers info from demographics of people who match the general census data of the nation, and try to gather the general consensus by comparing results of that data.

      Statistical modeling, is gathering data and trying to determine facts and information from that analysis. For instance, it’s a poll result, that 63% of American’s believe that Roe v. Wade functions as it is written. It’s a statistic, that 99% of the world Maternal Mortality rate, takes place in “First World” nations, or that for every 100,000 pregnancies, 15-30 women will die. Statistics tell us what is – polls tell us what people THINK is. And I would prefer if laws continued to reflect statistics and scientific facts, over people’s emotional attitudes.

      Reply
      1. SGK9 months ago

        Williams Katherine asks “We should vote on taking the right to live away from women?” No. Women should have the right to kill their unborn children!

        Reply
      2. william9 months ago

        W. Katherine, “thousands of women die every day…..” is a statistic you cited. From whence did that gem emanate? The remainder of your discussion about statistics seems to be based on facts, too bad you preceded it with unsupported rhetoric and tainted the discussion.

        Reply
  31. Paul9 months ago

    The U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade decided that life begins at the end of the first trimester and no being should be aborted after that term (with few exceptions). Now Texas has determined that life begins at conception and no abort should be permitted in any case. Some people are trying to establish that life begins when the putative parents have amorous thoughts and therefor contraception should not be permitted, especially the ‘morning-after’ pill. Where will it all end?

    Reply
    1. Williams Katherine9 months ago

      Technically, Roe v. Wade asserts that the rights of the fetus do not begin at all – over the rights to privacy of the mother – until after the first trimester. Life is not defined as beginning at any particular point, in Roe v. Wade, and the justices did agree that viability takes place close to the end of the second trimester, and is a an equally valid (and potentially equally arbitrary) cut off for completely unrestricted access to abortion.

      “…the Court stated that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for preserving maternal health.”

      But your overall point is entirely accurate – Roe v. Wade already places all the necessary restrictions on abortion, that could potentially lead to an abortion ending a viable fetus. It’s the ultimate case of – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

      Reply
  32. Robert Reinsel9 months ago

    Abortion may be morally wrong in most cases. That is no reason to criminalize it or to make criminals out of those that have abortions or those who provide abortions. Those who have abortions must live with the fact of what they did.

    Reply
    1. BOB C9 months ago

      You are dead right, My Mother rest her soul had an abortion early in life ( in her early twenties ) and carried the guilt and remorse for the rest of her tormented life .

      Reply
    2. Joe9 months ago

      It is already “criminalized” — it’s called “murder.” The fact that the Supreme Court has refused to acknowledge it as such doesn’t change the definition of murder. If a human being with a beating heart and a functioning brain who has done nothing wrong is purposely killed, that is murder regardless of what a court says.

      Reply
  33. Mikki Mack9 months ago

    I find it interesting that those in the Southern states who are against abortion, are also states that have the highest number of teenagers drop out of high school, have the highest number of teen pregnancies, have the highest number of obese residents. Is there a lack of education, knowledge, and understanding on pregnancy, contraception, and an over-all lack of understanding about conception and sex?

    Reply
  34. Mikki Mack9 months ago

    What I find interesting, is that the states that are mostly against abortion, are also states that have the highest teen pregnancies, highest high school teen drop-out rate, and the highest obesity rates – is there a connection with lack of education, knowledge, understanding, etc.?

    Reply
  35. 84% of americans want abortion restricted. Only 9 percent want abortion unrestricted.9 months ago

    You might take this new poll into account, to rethink the statistics you claim.

    The title is:
    “New poll: 62% Americans see abortion as ‘morally wrong’, 84% support restrictions”

    It is from a pro life site. But it deserves investigation, considering it is so opposite to your interpretation isn’t it? In that it’s conclusion is most people want abortion restricted more than currently, and they are not happy with the situation as it is. And are not happy with the idea of promoting abortion, instead of the acknowledgement and valueing of human life either.
    They see that the majority of americans see abortion as morally wrong. But more importantly, 84% want restrictions of some sort on abortion.
    I am sure you know too, that the majority of people want restrictions on abortion, and not abortion free and without limits. But you choose to say they want it legal in most or all cases. They may want it not totally illegal, but the fact is the majority want it restricted and to at least around the first trimester. And that wish for restriction is getting to a more and more early time in pregnancy, each year. As medical knowledge about the embryo and fetus improves. And awareness of the public (so slowly) gets to know any of those facts that favour a child’s life rather than killing it.

    lifesitenews.com/news/new-poll-6…

    Which as we can see, your questions are of course tainted by the way you want to ask the question, and group the answers, and interpret them.
    To say that most support abortion being legal in most cases. Without mentioning that most want it to be “restricted in most cases”, and think it is bad and is killing a life, and shouldn’t be promoted, and that education should be promoted showing that life should be valued.

    I mean. if a majority say abortion should be legal in nearly all cases. But restricted in nearly all cases, except for honest risk to the mother’s health.
    Isn’t the most important fact, in this debate where currently abortion can’t be made illegal, and the pro abortionists are trying to prevent laws that even allow it to be restricted. That the majority of americans do want it restricted in most cases except for honest risk to the mother’s health.

    But you only report, a majority say abortion should be legal in nearly all cases. You are ommitting the most important part, that they want abortion restricted, and that they think it is not a good thing to encourage abortion and to deny the right to life of the human life in the womb.

    The poll in the link I gave above, says:
    “Only 9 percent believe that abortion should be available to a woman any time she wants one during her entire pregnancy.”
    But 84% support restrictions on abortion.
    62% say abortion is morally wrong.
    58% of strongly pro choice americans want abortion restricted.

    Reply
    1. Williams Katherine9 months ago

      “It is from a pro life site. But it deserves investigation, considering it is so opposite to your interpretation isn’t it?:”

      And here, is the crux of the problem with your entire argument. Something giving opposite results, does NOT mean it is a reliable source. You have to look at the factors that make the poll unbiased, and the effort of the source, to report the findings without interpreting them falsely. A poll on a pro-life site is not automatically going to be biased, but THAT’S what makes it data worth considering – how hard the site works to make sure the data is untarnished, not the fact that it says something opposite to what other data says. In fact saying that your results show the exact opposite of a nationally recognized independent polling group, like Pew, is not a strong indicator that your data is unbiased.

      And the poll, was actually sponsored by the Knights of Columbus and run by Maris – whose methods I think need serious consideration…

      “Respondents in the household were selected by asking for the youngest male.”

      How exactly is that creating a viable statistical model?

      Additionally, the questions you mention are incredibly vague and misleading. By all rights, every person who said that abortion should be restricted, could ALSO believe that it’s already restricted more than enough, and that it was adequately restricted under Roe v. Wade, BEFORE others started trying to tack on additional restrictions.

      I suggest you stop assuming that, just because you take a moral position that you think is popular, you don’t trust every random poll that agrees with you, and you argue that the poll Pew conducted is flawed – based on evidence – if you think their numbers are in accurate.

      Reply
      1. SGK9 months ago

        Those of you responding to Williams Katherine are wasting your time. Her mind is made up and viewpoints other than hers are just nonsense.

        Reply
  36. Will any media ever write about abortion, and say pro life is normal and preferable to abortion. How amazingly strange that life is never defended by the state and media powers of the world.9 months ago

    And most of the people who support abortion , or choice to kill, do so because of propaganda.
    Of which the western world media almost unanimously is pro abortion.
    Including this article. Which talks about guttmacher supporting abortion rights (There is no right to abortion. There is only a right to life. Which makes a right to abortion impossible), instead of just saying guttmacher support abortion. Because it is their business which makes their ally planned parenthood millions or billions of dollars.

    The only reason most people claim to be pro choice or think abortion is acceptable. Is because they don’t have any education about it, and they do not think about it very hard. And they certainly don’t think about the life of the human being which abortion kills. These people are just lazy thinkers or do not think about the issue at all. And they accept the view that is taught to them by the schools and media, which is abortion is good. And they have no human rights education or education such as doctors and nurses have, that life should be protected, not ended intentionally.

    Abortion (or acceptance of choice to abort) has moderate support only because of an intentional lack of education for truth about fetal development on the part of western states, and even about human rights and the right to life. Or to educate for protecting life, instead of favouring abortion. The people are just thinking what they are socially engineered to think.
    Which is to support abortion, because it kills human beings, as wanted by the eugenics movement. And it is a business which makes money from ending the lives of human beings on a mass scale, and for promoting the view that those lifes are without value. Honestly is it any different than the holocaust frame of mind?

    The latin american countries and countries which have less of an anti religion lobby, shame the USA state, and western states, on public education about fetal development, and human rights especially the right of every human being to life, and the obligation to protect life and never to intentionally end it.

    Almost all people who are pro life support the pro life position because they know the truth, that every human life is equal and has the right to life.

    And no state has the right to legalise the killing of life.
    And even less any right to legalise killing of life, and promote it on a mass scale such as the USA does, in the USA, as well as also trying to spread it around the world, because of the disgusting population control agenda of individuals who love themselves and value their life above others. But who dehumanise others, and try to encourage them to be killed. Again it is an exact reminder and type of inhumanity and abhorrence of the holocaust.
    The only worse thing is, the legalising and promoting of abortion by the USA, since roe vs wade, has led to over 55 million human beings killed in the womb intentionally legally in the USA, and over 1 billion in the world since 1980, largely because of the USA efforts to make abortion accepted, and calling it a right, and denying it as killing a human life, or denying that life any right to life. Just like the victims of the holocaust were denied right to life, because they were considered not equal humans to the ones who are controlling the killing and wanting to increase the killing.

    And the propaganda, that socially engineers people to be so unaware of the truth, and to be too lazy to think about the truth. Has to have huge amounts of billions of money and media control put into educating people into this belief that abortion is normal and even good.
    Compared to the idea that every human life is equal and has a right to be protected, as declared in the universal declaration of human rights, after the killing of the holocaust and world war 2, which taught people of that generation and the whole of humanity, a lesson. That every human life has to be protected. And intentional killing is never something that can be accepted as legal.

    And as ignored by the main powers of the world for the last several decades especially in the case of the USA and roe vs wade which allowed killing human beings in the womb legally and for any reason. And without even education to promote protecting life, as being preferable to an abortion.

    Life is the human right of every life, it is beyond even laws. It should be in our moral conscience. But failing that due to the existence of sociopaths who don’t care about morality or human life, there are the human rights conventions, which make it law to protect right to life. The states including the USA are bound to protect life, and abortion is illegal by these international binding human rights conventions. But why isn’t anyone carrying out prosecution and punishment and forcing compliance to the existing laws protecting life?
    Power has corrupted all those who fail to do protect life. And who allow laws legalising aboriton.

    Laws legalising abortion cannot last forever, because they do not make any sense, when compared with the natural right to life, and the binding laws protecting it.

    Reply
    1. Williams Katherine9 months ago

      First of all, tune into Fox News and other conservative news outlets, and you’ll find plenty of people who share your positions. Just because more of the media disagrees with you, doesn’t make it skewed – especially when poll after poll indicates that the bulk of the population doesn’t agree with you. There are still press outlets that agree with segregation and men having social dominion over women – it doesn’t make any of those positions morally superior to the rest of the media.

      Second, killing is your word, and it’s hyperbolic as hell. If you want your position – and your moral superiority – to be taken seriously, I suggest you use language that isn’t blatantly manipulated and inflammatory.

      Most people who do not agree with your clearly uninformed opinions about abortion, do NOT do so based on propaganda. Their position is based on the scientific understanding, that human life does NOT exist the second a sperm inseminates an egg, but instead begins near the point of viability, when synaptic brain function begins, and the fetus is first capable of living outside of the mother’s body. A brain dead person is no longer a person – by that same token, a collection of cells which does not yet have brain function, is not yet a person.

      If you don’t agree with at what point life begins, that’s your prerogative – but it is a completely and utter LIE, to state that pre viable zygotes and fetuses do have synaptic brain function, or that those who support a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions, are making that fact up just to justify ‘killing babies’. And NO abortion takes place after viability – because that’s one of the rules already IN Roe v. Wade, which most people agree makes it a great judicial decision. If a fetus is considered viable, and the mother’s life is in danger, the fetus is delivered and they attempt to save it. Roe v. Wade already gives the fetus more rights, as it approaches viability, and before that protects the mother’s rights first.

      Additionally – a WOMAN has as much right to life as a viable fetus, and before viability a LIVE WOMAN has MORE right to LIFE, than a zygote (which is the state of most aborted pregnancies). Abortion is a right, because pregnancy can end a woman’s life – and regardless of your opinions on the subject, she has a right to life too.

      ONE WOMAN A MINUTE dies in this world, due to complications from pregnancy and childbirth. That is NOT propaganda, it is a fact – and it’s been a fact in every legitimate review of the data for more than a decade. If you were educated on how pregnancy works, you would also know that for every one woman who dies, 20 more suffer injury, infection or disease, which can cause chronic issues and death, years later. You would also know, that many women who seek abortions are already parents – and if you force those women to carry a pregnancy they do not want, to term, you are potentially killing that woman and destroying an existing family. And that IS killing. Because you are forcing a condition on a living and thinking being, which has a potential to terminate her life, against her will.

      You can tell yourself, until you’re blue in the face, that pregnancy is a benign condition that isn’t really dangerous to women, and that right to life exists first with the mass of cells that is a POTENTIAL LIFE over the woman who is an EXISTING LIFE. You can tell yourself that deep down, we all agree that life begins at conception, and abortion is killing life, instead of preventing it from becoming a life. You can speak, all you like, about how a fetus’ right to life exists, while a woman’s right to protect her own life with a medical procedure, is murder…

      But why don’t you try telling it to family’s of the 10 women who died, in the time it took me to write this? Tell them that your perceptions of conception are the only RIGHT ones – even though they’re clearly not based on science or legitimate statistics about death and human suffering – and are more important than the lives of the women they lost. Somehow, I don’t think they’ll give a damn about your misguided moral outrage, or agree that killing and harming WOMEN is preferable, to providing access to all medical forms of birth control.

      Reply
      1. SGK9 months ago

        Abortion is not killing a life. No — it’s just having a wart removed. If the life is not growing, what makes removing it necessary?

        Reply
    2. Victoria Fleischer9 months ago

      You can keep your sense of morality, I’ll take care of mine and yes, I am a humanist. I was also raised in an educated household so I would question your position that women (and I use women purposely cause it really is about them) aren’t educated about and don’t understand it. Abortion is ugly, absolutely ugly and of the many women I know who have had them, I have never met one who didn’t take it seriously and understood the consequences of their actions. Legal abortion has support because we recognize the value of the woman dealing with pregnancy, we have collective memory of the horrors of illegal abortion and don’t wish that upon anyone. You can make all the laws you want against it but that won’t make it go away, it just forces women to take drastic actions. You can sermonize all you want about the sanctity of life, which I always find ironic when I read about children being killed by the adults responsible for them, people killing each other with guns daily and governments that wage wars that kill their own people. After my abortion, I had four children in a committed marriage. After experiencing birth I understood even more what my actions meant. I am not proud, I am not “happy” with my abortion. But I am grateful that I had the option to have a legal, safe abortion. I am very grateful that I had a chance at the life I wanted. And after giving birth, there is absolutely no way I could ever give a baby up for adoption. So the lives we are protecting are those of the women already here.

      Reply
    3. Joe9 months ago

      I really enjoyed reading your comment, you are one of the ones who see the problem. God Bless.

      Reply
    4. Joe9 months ago

      Outstanding points !! Thank you !!

      Reply