37 Consecutive Gallup Polls Show Majority Of Americans Want Abortion To Be Illegal In Most Cases

Two Decades Of Gallup Polls Show Majority Of Americans Want Abortion To Be Illegal In Most Cases – Breitbart

.

.
In 37 consecutive polls performed throughout the past 21 years on the issue of abortion, Gallup has found that a majority of Americans surveyed say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

“In the past 20 years, the percentage who say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances or all but a few circumstances has never dropped below 54 percent,” writes Terence P. Jeffrey at CNS News.com.

A review of the data over the last two decades may appear to be at odds with Gallup’s latest poll, conducted May 6-10, with the headline: “Americans Choose ‘Pro-Choice’ For First Time in Seven Years.”

“Half of Americans consider themselves ‘pro-choice’ on abortion, surpassing the 44% who identify as ‘pro-life,’” Gallup’s Lydia Saad wrote in her analysis of that poll. “This is the first time since 2008 that the pro-choice position has had a statistically significant lead in Americans’ abortion views.”

Saad continued:

The pro-choice view is not as prevalent among Americans as it was in the mid-1990s, but the momentum for the pro-life position that began when Barack Obama took office has yielded to a pro-choice rebound. That rebound has essentially restored views to where they were in 2008; today’s views are also similar to those found in 2001. Some of the variation in public views on abortion over time coincides with political and cultural events that may have helped shape public opinion on the issue, including instances of anti-abortion violence, legislative efforts to ban “partial-birth abortion” or limit abortion funding, and certain Supreme Court cases. While events like these may continue to cause public views on abortion to fluctuate, the broader liberal shift in Americans’ ideology of late could mean the recent pro-choice expansion has some staying power.

As Jeffrey observes, however, in that Gallup survey, a combined 55 percent of participants said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances or in all but a few circumstances.

The poll specifically found that 29 percent of respondents said abortion should be legal “under any circumstances,” and 13 percent “under most circumstances.” However, 36 percent responded that abortion should be “legal only in a few circumstances,” and 19 percent said it should be illegal “in all circumstances,” totaling 55 percent believing abortion should be illegal in all, or all but a few, circumstances.

Gallup’s data sheet for that poll shows results for this particular question of when abortion should be illegal for the 37 surveys it has performed since September of 1994.

“In every one of these surveys, the combined percentage of respondents who said abortion should be illegal ‘in all circumstances’ or in all but ‘a few circumstances’ exceeded 50 percent of those surveyed,” writes Jeffrey, adding that “the lowest these combined answers have ever been was 51 percent,” in both September of 1994 and September of 1995.

Gallup has also asked survey participants the question, “With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?”

In September of 1995, 56 percent of participants described themselves as pro-choice and 33 percent as pro-life, while in the latest survey, 50 percent say they are pro-choice and 44 percent pro-life.

The labels of “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” however, may not be aptly describing Americans’ beliefs about abortion.

In the most recent poll results, on which Gallup’s headline – “Americans Choose ‘Pro-Choice’ For First Time in Seven Years” – was based, 27 percent of “pro-choice” individuals say abortion should be mostly illegal, while only 9 percent of “pro-life” people say it should be mostly legal.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, looked at the poll and tells Breitbart News: “While on the surface, it looks like more Americans are self-identifying as pro-choice than pro-life, when you look at the split in what exactly they favor, those numbers tell a different story.”

“Americans may be misidentifying themselves when it comes to the matter of abortion since a majority clearly support significant restrictions on abortion,” Hawkins continued. “We see students misidentifying themselves all the time on campuses across the country, which is why we no longer ask them if they are pro-life or pro-choice. They don’t know what the labels mean. Instead we ask if they support legal abortion or how long into a pregnancy they tolerate abortion.”

“As this pro-life generation continues to mature and technology continues to advance, more and more Americans will come to realize the great human tragedy of abortion,” she added.

Similarly, Maureen Ferguson of the Catholic Association tells Breitbart News, “This poll shows once again that most Americans oppose most abortions. Not only do the majority of people morally oppose most abortions, they want them to be against the law.”

“Polling numbers are even higher when talking about protecting babies from late-term abortion, so we hope the U.S. Senate will listen to the will of the people and pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions past 20 weeks of pregnancy,” she added.

.

.

Does anything serve as a better illustration of the moral retardation of the Left than their views on abortion and the death penalty?

I would think not, and it seems that Doug Powers agrees

Sally Kohn, moral retardation 101

USSC Shuts Down Obama’s Attempt To Force Christian Groups To Pay For Their Employees’ Abortion-Inducing Drugs

The Supreme Court Just Gave Obama Some Very Bad News – Tell Me Now

.

.
The Supreme Court just ruled against a major Obama agenda in a decision that is sure to leave the president devastated.

The highest court in the land just ruled against Obama’s attempt to force Christian organizations to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees. This is the fifth time the Supreme Court has ruled against President Obama.

Christians everywhere rejoiced at the decision and were thankful that their religious freedoms were being protected.

“How many times must the government lose in court before it gets the message?” asked Lori Windham, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “For years now the government has been claiming that places like Catholic Charities and the Little Sisters of the Poor are not ‘religious employers’ worthy of an exemption.”

“That argument has always been absurd. Every time a religious plaintiff has gone to the Supreme Court for protection from the government’s discriminatory mandate the Court has protected them,” she added. “That’s what happened to the Little Sisters of the Poor, Wheaton College, Notre Dame, and Hobby Lobby.”

“The government really needs to give up on its illegal and unnecessary mandate,” Windham concluded. “The federal bureaucracy has lots of options for distributing contraceptives–they don’t need to coerce nuns and priests to do it for them.”

The Supreme Court has told Obama no time and time again, yet he just can’t seem to get the message. Hopefully, this time he finally will.

.

.

Rand Paul refuses to play the media’s game of “gotcha”

I have some reservations about Rand Paul, and Ed laid out some of his today, but I like how he handled this question about abortion

A Republican presidential candidate did something new and refreshing when challenged on his abortion views by the press: he threw it back in the face of the Democrats. 

When quizzed on his about his views on abortion, Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul avoided the gotcha game and told NH1 reporter Paul Steinhauser to ask DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz if it was okay to “kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus.”

“Why don’t we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a 7 pound baby in the uterus?” Paul reportedly said. ”You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s okay with killing a seven pound baby that is not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it’s okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me.”

I think he handled that quite properly. He did not dance around, or get mealy-mouthed. He put the moral onus back on Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Well played!

OUTRAGE! Mean Republicans trying to defend unborn babies by telling the truth about partial birth abortion

Apparently the procedure is OK with Liberals. Butchering a baby is OK, but describing what actually happens during this “medical procedure”? GRISLY! Unbelievable, the act is not grisly, but describing it is? Moral retardation on display

The Bloomberg headline was shocking: “Grisly Language Propels Kansas Anti-Abortion Bill as U.S. Model.”

Bloomberg journalist Esme E. Deprez was tasked with informing readers about the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act, which last month was introduced in both Kansas and Oklahoma. The writing experience obviously wasn’t pleasant for her. The story began:

Activists in Kansas and Oklahoma are seeking to outlaw a common abortion technique by using the text of legislative bills to lay bare its graphic details, a tactic that may spread across the U.S.

Republican lawmakers in both states are pushing to ban what they call “dismemberment abortion” with language supplied by National Right to Life, a Washington-based advocacy group. Opponents say the bills inaccurately describe what medical literature calls dilation and evacuation, a method used in 96 percent of second-trimester terminations, according to the National Abortion Federation….

The aim is to rebrand a medical procedure with a new and unsettling name, include clinical details of what it entails in a bill and let lawmakers’ reactions guide the way they vote.

The Moral Retardadtion if Abortion and Feminism

Sick, sick, sick

In a stunningly evil and disgusting article, a feminist only willing to identify herself as “Lana” has described her decision to abort her child, based solely on the fact that he was a boy.

Lana begins her article by explaining that “the patriarchy has been well entrenched since the dawn of time,” and continues by writing about an argument she had with a man on an airplane, while she was pregnant, to summarize what she deemed “extreme patriarchy.”

The description of the argument is straight forward: Lana was flying to San Francisco to participate in an Occupy Wall Street rally. When the person sitting next to her found out about it, he swore at her, to which Lana responded by screaming at the top of her lungs “ASSAULT.”

After “contemplating” lying to the flight attendants and telling them that the man struck her, Lana decided to tell the truth. The flight attendants told her that they couldn’t force the man to move in response. And in response to that, Lana decided that she “could no longer depend on men to be an ally of the cause.”

The “cause,” in her mind, is feminism. Soon after, she went to the doctor and was told that she was pregnant with a boy. Her immediate response, she writes, was “my body had betrayed me even worse than the misogynistic suit jockey on the airplane so many months before. I was in shock, I started crying, weeping at the thought of what I was about to curse the world with.”

Over the course of several days, she decided that she could not bring another male into this world. She explains, “I couldn’t bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is.

“I knew what I had to do,” she adds.

Lana writes that she has no regrets for what she did and was “happy” that she did something “positive,” explaining, “It went off without a hitch. My body’s betrayal was no more, I was free, and for the first time since the airplane incident, I felt strong. I had done something positive, something that would actually make a difference, something good, even though as I would find out, many others wouldn’t see it that way.”

This is the naked face of the barbarism of radical Feminism, and of abortion on demand. I cannot even fathom having a child killed because of their gender, But, whoever wrote this is obviously a psychopath, after all, no normal human being would celebrate such horror.

*VIDEO* AlfonZo Rachel: MSNBC’s Very Scary Abortion Argument – Are Babies No Different Than Cancer?


.

.