New poll: Big majorities of Democrats and young people reject late-term abortion

Young pro-life advocates from St. Vincent de Paul Parish in Perryville, Mo., participate in the 46th annual March for Life Jan. 18 in Washington. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (CNS) -- Americans have shifted toward a pro-life stance in recent weeks during a period when some states are considering legislation that would legalize abortion up until birth, according to a new poll.

The Marist Poll at Marist College conducted in mid-February found that equal numbers of Americans -- 47 percent -- identified themselves as pro-life and as those who support abortion.

Advertisement

The findings reflect a dramatic shift from a similar poll in early January that found respondents supporting abortion by 55 percent to 38 percent.

"Current proposals that promote late-term abortion have reset the landscape and language on abortion in a pronounced, and very measurable, way," Barbara Carvalho, poll director, said in media release from the Knight of Columbus, the poll sponsor.

The largest swing in responses came from self-identified Democrats and people younger than 45, poll officials said.

The poll reported that among Democrats, the gap between people who identify as pro-life and those who support abortion was cut in half from 55 percent to 27 percent. The number of Democrats who identify as pro-life stood at 34 percent, up from 20 percent in January. Similarly the number of Democrats who said they support abortion fell to 61 percent from 75 percent.

Young respondents in February were almost evenly divided with 47 percent identifying as pro-life and 48 percent as supporting abortion. The figures represent a dramatic shift from January's poll in which 28 percent of young people said they were pro-life and 65 percent supported abortion.

The poll also found overwhelming opposition to later-term abortions. By a nearly three-to-one margin -- 71 percent to 25 percent -- respondents said abortion generally should be illegal during the third trimester of pregnancy.

Carvalho attributed the wide swing to legislative attempts to allow later-term abortions. "In just one month, there has been a significant increase in the number of Americans who see themselves as pro-life and an equally notable decline in those who describe themselves as pro-choice," she said in the media release.

The poll also found overwhelming opposition to later-term abortions. By a nearly three-to-one margin -- 71 percent to 25 percent -- respondents said abortion generally should be illegal during the third trimester of pregnancy.

About 66 percent of adults said abortion should be banned after 20 weeks except to save the life of the mother, while 18 percent said abortion should be allowed any time until birth. Five percent said abortion should be banned altogether.

Further, 80 percent of respondents would like to see abortion limited to the first three months of pregnancy at most. The number represents a 5-percentage point increase since January.

A breakdown of that figure shows includes 65 percent of respondents who support abortion, 64 percent of Democrats, 92 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of political independents.

"Arguments in favor of late-term abortion are simply not convincing the American people," Carl Anderson, CEO of the Knights of Columbus, said in the media release. "If anything, since these proposals have been unveiled, people are moving noticeably in the pro-life direction. It is now clear these radical policies are being pursued despite opposition of the majority of Americans of both parties."

The poll surveyed 1,008 adults Feb. 12-17 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Nora Bolcon
4 months 3 weeks ago

And all this proves is that the Knights of Columbus are lying even more than in January to try to convince the world something has changed but alas, lies are just that, lies!

Again, there exists on planet earth no polls which agree with this poll's numbers in any way, or form, or any that agreed with their January poll. If the truth is not what you want it to be just lie to everybody. That is the Knights of Columbus way.

It is too bad really, we need lay people who genuinely care about working to end the desire for abortion but these are not those people. Lies help no one. There does exist enormous global evidence that criminalizing and hindering abortion through any laws only promotes its occurrence everywhere in the world while also increasing maternal death rates. So some lies are really very dangerous both to the unborn and born alike. Not surprising this intentional misinformation comes from extremely sexist men who desperately want other laity to think they are important.

Like our current clergy, many men can only feel important while they are hurting women and children.

Tim Donovan
4 months 2 weeks ago

Hello, Ms. Bolcon. I respectfully disagree with you about several points. First, the respected Gallup poll for years has demonstrated that significant numbers of American adults favor restricting or prohibiting the violence of legal abortion. Also, many people polled still misunderstand (after more than 45 years) the legal status of abortion. For instance, in 2018, Gallup found that 60% of those polled favored legal abortion during the first trimester; 34% were opposed to legal abortion. According to the Centers for Disease Control in 2015, of the almost 1 million abortions performed, almost 9% of those abortions were performed after the first trimester. Therefore, nearly 90,000 unborn human beings were killed during the second trimester or later. Some of these were so-called partial birth abortions, which are particularly inhumane, and are performed between 20 weeks gestation and later. In 1993, Martin Haskell, M.D. of Ohio in an interview with the American Medical News stated that of the hundreds of partial birth abortions (PBA). that he performed each year, 80% were "purely elective." In July, 2011, the Gallup poll found that a solid majority of those surveyed favored a ban on partial birth abortions, except to prevent the death of the mother by a margin of 64% in favor, 31% opposed. Dr. James McMahon developed this barbaric abortion method. On June 23, 1995 he submitted a document to the U. S. House Judiciary Committee. Of the approximately 2,000 of such abortions that he performed, only 9% were performed for "maternal health" reasons. Of that group, Of that group, the most common reason for the abortion was "depression." In my view, it's incredible that McMahon also stated that he used this method even during the final three months of pregnancy on women who were physically healthy and whose babies were normal, if he thought there were "psychiatric" reasons or if the woman was especially young.
On September 15, 1996, the Record of Bergen, New Jersey printed a report by Ruth Padawer, who interviewed two abortion doctors separately at one abortion clinic in Englewood, New Jersey. They stated that they performed over 1,500 partial birth abortions (PBA) each year. Please remember that this was only one clinic; abortion doctors Haskell in Ohio stated in an interview that each year at his clinic, he performed hundreds of PBA's, and McMahon presented a document to Congress in 1995 in which he stated that he performed about 2,000 such abortions. One abortion doctor at the Englewood, NJ abortion center reported, "We have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it's a miniscule amount." This assessment was confirmed by the other abortion doctor at Metropolitan Medical.
The Washington Post has for many years had an editorial policy in favor of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the 1973 U. S. Supreme Court decisions which legalized violence of abortion for any reason. On September 17, 1996, two investigative reporters, Barbara Vobejda and David Brown, M. D., reported in the Post after interviewing several abortion doctors--NOT including the two abortion doctors at the Englewood, NJ clinic, but different abortion doctors --that it was "possible-maybe even likely--that tye majority of these (partial birth) abortions are performed on normal fetuses." The investigative report also concluded that " in most cases, the physical health of the woman whos pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy. "
Please bear with my lengthy post. Back to the Gallup poll, which I assume you respect as valid, though you don't respect the validity of the Marist Poll (could you please explain why not?). Gallup found in 2019 (I believe I have the correct year, I sometimes am disorganized, but you can google poll results on abortion by Gallup) that 64% opposed overturning Roe v. Wade, and 28% of those surveyed favored the decision being overturned. However, the survey also found that only 28% favored legal abortion during the second trimester, and almost two thirds (65%) opposed second trimester abortions. Please remember that due to Doe v. Bolton, abortion is legal even after the fetus (which means "young one" in latin) is viable for "health" reasons which include" physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--all these factors may relate to health. " The Gallup poll found that 81% of adults surveyed opposed legal abortion during the last 3 months of pregnancy; 13% favored legal abortion during this trimester. I find it to be tragic that, while the overwhelming majority of people oppose third trimester abortions, that some people favor legally aborting an unborn infant who is very likely viable. Of course, I respectfully submit that even a newborn infant, although outside of her mother's uterus, is still highly dependent on others for survival. Professor Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard, wrote an interesting book (which I read years ago) titled "Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse," in which she persuasively argued that it's necessary for Americans to find common ground on a host of issues, not only abortion. She notes that even some legal scholars who favor legal abortion have argued that Roe was a poorly reasoned court decision. As she put it, even prominent Professor Laurence Tribe criticized the Court for "reaching beyond the facts of the case to rank the rights of the mother categorically over those of the fetus, and to deny the humanity of the fetus..." Glendon continued that Tribe expressed regret that Justice Blackmun, author of Roe, didn't demonstrate " a more cautious sensitivity to the mutual helplessness of the mother and the unborn that could have accented the need for affirmative legislative action to moderate the clash between the two. " Returning to the 2019 Gallup poll. When asked if one was satisfied or not regarding the nation's abortion policies, only 9% said they were "very satisfied." 2 8% of adults surveyed said they were "very dissatisfied" with our national abortion policies. When added to the 23% of men and women surveyed who said they were "somewhat dissatisfied", a total of 51% of Americans surveyed were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with our abortion laws. Of those dissatisfied with abortion laws, a slightly greater number (21%) wanted "stricter" laws instead of "less strict" laws (18%). I think the Gallup polls provide good evidence of some confusion about the meaning of our nation's abortion laws, and more Gallup data reveals that both women and men want more restrictions on legal abortion. In a May 1-10, 2018 poll, only 45% of people said abortion should be legal in the first trimester if the "woman does not want the child for any reason."A small majority (51%) responded that in that circumstance (which is a common reason for abortion)

Nora Bolcon
4 months 2 weeks ago

Hi Tim,

Sorry it took me so long to get back. I did not realize anyone had responded to me.

Virtually nothing that you stated refuted what I stated in my comment. Not even the gallop poll you brought up supports the figures in the Knights polls and gallop has been rated as the least accurate among reasonably sourced or mostly unbiased sources.

The Knights of Columbus claim to be a charity but spend most of their, corruptly procured through questionable insurance transactions, funds attacking women's rights to both abortion and birth control access. They are so sexist that they don't even allow good Catholic women to be knights. They are pushing an obvious agenda and as I said there are no reasonably sourced polls which support the numbers they state about Americans or democrats regarding wanting greater restrictions on abortion.

I don't believe that partial birth abortion which has been made illegal in the U.S. was even brought up in the Knights poll. Abortions which happen in the third trimester are generally done, currently (anything before the year 2005 I am not going to refer to because it is the past so not constructive since those abortion rates have dramatically changed from today's.) When the woman's life is in danger or if the fetus will be severely sick in some way. This is why all your vague and mostly non-sourced statements and research whose drs. and credentials are unreported by you are from before the year 2000.

That being said almost no women state they want an abortion for any reason. In fact 60 percent of all abortions are sought because their method of birth control failed. These figures were generally due to rationing birth control pills that some women were forced to do because they were poor or from having to depend on lesser reliable forms of birth control such as condoms. Appx. 90 percent of all abortions done in the U.S. now happen in the first trimester.

Now even if the Knights poll was not a the total falsehood it is, it would not matter. Because popularity of bad laws does not result in good ends. The facts - based on all reasonably sourced research how us continually that all countries that restrict abortion have more abortions or higher states of abortion and much higher maternal death rates. This is especially true in countries that restrict in any way free access to birth control. In fact after obamacare made access even easier for women to gain more reliable birth control, the abortion rates dropped to the lowest they have ever been. We currently have one the lowest rates of abortion around the globe. The world health organization has told us this is also true of western and northern Europe because they too have easier access to birth control and abortion. So be happy to lose the battle Tim. Your loss is saving lives of both the born and unborn alike.

Tim Donovan
4 months 2 weeks ago

Hello, Ms. Bolcon. I respectfully disagree with you about several points. First, the respected Gallup poll for years has demonstrated that significant numbers of American adults favor restricting or prohibiting the violence of legal abortion. Also, many people polled still misunderstand (after more than 45 years) the legal status of abortion. For instance, in 2018, Gallup found that 60% of those polled favored legal abortion during the first trimester; 34% were opposed to legal abortion. According to the Centers for Disease Control in 2015, of the almost 1 million abortions performed, almost 9% of those abortions were performed after the first trimester. Therefore, nearly 90,000 unborn human beings were killed during the second trimester or later. Some of these were so-called partial birth abortions, which are particularly inhumane, and are performed between 20 weeks gestation and later. In 1993, Martin Haskell, M.D. of Ohio in an interview with the American Medical News stated that of the hundreds of partial birth abortions (PBA). that he performed each year, 80% were "purely elective." In July, 2011, the Gallup poll found that a solid majority of those surveyed favored a ban on partial birth abortions, except to prevent the death of the mother by a margin of 64% in favor, 31% opposed. Dr. James McMahon developed this barbaric abortion method. On June 23, 1995 he submitted a document to the U. S. House Judiciary Committee. Of the approximately 2,000 of such abortions that he performed, only 9% were performed for "maternal health" reasons. Of that group, Of that group, the most common reason for the abortion was "depression." In my view, it's incredible that McMahon also stated that he used this method even during the final three months of pregnancy on women who were physically healthy and whose babies were normal, if he thought there were "psychiatric" reasons or if the woman was especially young.
On September 15, 1996, the Record of Bergen, New Jersey printed a report by Ruth Padawer, who interviewed two abortion doctors separately at one abortion clinic in Englewood, New Jersey. They stated that they performed over 1,500 partial birth abortions (PBA) each year. Please remember that this was only one clinic; abortion doctors Haskell in Ohio stated in an interview that each year at his clinic, he performed hundreds of PBA's, and McMahon presented a document to Congress in 1995 in which he stated that he performed about 2,000 such abortions. One abortion doctor at the Englewood, NJ abortion center reported, "We have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it's a miniscule amount." This assessment was confirmed by the other abortion doctor at Metropolitan Medical.
The Washington Post has for many years had an editorial policy in favor of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the 1973 U. S. Supreme Court decisions which legalized violence of abortion for any reason. On September 17, 1996, two investigative reporters, Barbara Vobejda and David Brown, M. D., reported in the Post after interviewing several abortion doctors--NOT including the two abortion doctors at the Englewood, NJ clinic, but different abortion doctors --that it was "possible-maybe even likely--that tye majority of these (partial birth) abortions are performed on normal fetuses." The investigative report also concluded that " in most cases, the physical health of the woman whos pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy. "
Please bear with my lengthy post. Back to the Gallup poll, which I assume you respect as valid, though you don't respect the validity of the Marist Poll (could you please explain why not?). Gallup found in 2019 (I believe I have the correct year, I sometimes am disorganized, but you can google poll results on abortion by Gallup) that 64% opposed overturning Roe v. Wade, and 28% of those surveyed favored the decision being overturned. However, the survey also found that only 28% favored legal abortion during the second trimester, and almost two thirds (65%) opposed second trimester abortions. Please remember that due to Doe v. Bolton, abortion is legal even after the fetus (which means "young one" in latin) is viable for "health" reasons which include" physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--all these factors may relate to health. " The Gallup poll found that 81% of adults surveyed opposed legal abortion during the last 3 months of pregnancy; 13% favored legal abortion during this trimester. I find it to be tragic that, while the overwhelming majority of people oppose third trimester abortions, that some people favor legally aborting an unborn infant who is very likely viable. Of course, I respectfully submit that even a newborn infant, although outside of her mother's uterus, is still highly dependent on others for survival. Professor Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard, wrote an interesting book (which I read years ago) titled "Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse," in which she persuasively argued that it's necessary for Americans to find common ground on a host of issues, not only abortion. She notes that even some legal scholars who favor legal abortion have argued that Roe was a poorly reasoned court decision. As she put it, even prominent Professor Laurence Tribe criticized the Court for "reaching beyond the facts of the case to rank the rights of the mother categorically over those of the fetus, and to deny the humanity of the fetus..." Glendon continued that Tribe expressed regret that Justice Blackmun, author of Roe, didn't demonstrate " a more cautious sensitivity to the mutual helplessness of the mother and the unborn that could have accented the need for affirmative legislative action to moderate the clash between the two. " Returning to the 2019 Gallup poll. When asked if one was satisfied or not regarding the nation's abortion policies, only 9% said they were "very satisfied." 2 8% of adults surveyed said they were "very dissatisfied" with our national abortion policies. When added to the 23% of men and women surveyed who said they were "somewhat dissatisfied", a total of 51% of Americans surveyed were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with our abortion laws. Of those dissatisfied with abortion laws, a slightly greater number (21%) wanted "stricter" laws instead of "less strict" laws (18%). I think the Gallup polls provide good evidence of some confusion about the meaning of our nation's abortion laws, and more Gallup data reveals that both women and men want more restrictions on legal abortion. In a May 1-10, 2018 poll, only 45% of people said abortion should be legal in the first trimester if the "woman does not want the child for any reason."A small majority (51%) responded that in that circumstance (which is a common reason for abortion) that abortion should be illegal. I was happily surprised that when asked if abortion should be legal if the "child would be born with Down Syndrome" 49% responded "legal" but almost as many (48%) responded "illegal." I'm a retired Special Education teacher who instructed children who were brain damaged. My friend is a Special Education teacher and has a sister with Down Syndrome. My friend and her husband (who is also a teacher) are the primary caregivers for my friends sister. I admire them for the love they provide for her sister. I'm pleased that apparently more people are recognizing the rights of people with Down Syndrome; hopefully, unborn human beings with mental and other disabilities will in time be accorded the right to life and not be discriminated against. The following questions asked by Gallup are from 2011, but I couldn't find anymore recent Gallup poll results. I am confident that these results would be fairly closed replicated today. In 2011, 69% of adults favored a 24 hour waiting period prior to a woman having an abortion; 28% were opposed. 71% favored parental consent laws when a young woman/girl under age 18 desires an abortion; 27% of those surveyed were opposed. By a large majority of 87% in favor and 11% opposed, respondents favored doctors informing the woman about "certain possible risks about abortion." In fairness, respondents were sharply divided on. whether or not tye woman should be shown an " ultrasound image of the fetus" prior to the abortion. Even so, 50% favored this, while 46% were opposed. I found this somewhat surprising, because it's common for pregnant women to have ultrasound photos taken of their developing babies and proudly showing the images to other people (family and friends). I might add that in many states that have laws regarding ultrasound images, it's the decision of the pregnant woman to make. In my state (Pennsylvania) abortion doctors are simply required to tell women about the availability of scientifically accurate photos of the unborn. The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson when he was an atheist was the medical director of the largest legal abortion clinic in the western world in the early 1970's in New York City. He ped 5,000 abortions, and in his words "presided over" about 75,000 abortions. Dr. Nathanson (whom I heard talk at the University if Delaware many years ago) was a founder of what is now NARAL Pro-Choice America. I read his book written in the late 1970's, "Aborting America." Although at the time he still generally favored legal abortion, he admitted several important facts. First, he asserted that the numbers of illegal abortions claimed by his group NARAL and other so-called abortion rights groups were "grossly exaggerated," and that he knew it, and suspected that his conferees knew that they were putting out false (that is) greatly exaggerated numbers to "impress" lawmakers. Dr. Nathanson did, though an atheist, favor significant legal restrictions. He did have a number of well-written chapters on both the "specious arguments in favor of legal abortion AND the "specious arguments against legal abortion." As an aside, Dr. Mary Calderone, when she was the President of Planned Parenthood in 1960 estimated that about 90% of abortions when illegal were performed by physicians. Alfred Kinsey (I apologize, I didn't look up the year of his noted report) also estimated that most illegal abortions were performed by physicians "in good standing." Dr. Nathanson asked in the book " Aborting America, " what kind of abortion laws we would have if "wombs had windows." Over the years, Dr. Nathanson slowly went from being an atheist to an agnostic, until he finally converted to our faith. I also read "Rites of Life: Tye Scientific Evidence of Life Before Birth," by Landrum Shettles, M. D., an ob/gyn who helped develop in vitro fertilization, was not a Catholic, and supported (as do I) legal contraception that isn't abortive. He also taught natural family planning. A very interesting book, and an interesting man, who presented the biological evidence that at fertilization a new human being comes into existence. Dr. Shettles described Dr. Alan Guttmacher, the late President of Planned Parenthood, as a friend. Dr. Shettles noted that on at least two occasions in textbooks Guttmacher agreed that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. The Guttmacher Institute, the so-called abortion rights research group, is named after Dr. Alan Guttmacher. Back to the 2011 Gallup polls. An overwhelming 88% of adult men and women responded that they favored doctors "tell(ing) about alternatives to abortion. Only 11% of respondents opposed disclosing such information. There are many hundreds of alternatives to abortion groups in our nation. Perhaps tye oldest and most well-known is Birthright, founded by Louise Sumerhill in Canada in the the late 1960's. The late Cardinal John O'Connor pledged that in the Archdiocese of New York, that any pregnant woman would be provided with as much available assistance as possible. The present Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, recently reiterated the same pledge, regardless of a woman's race, religion, or other background. For years, I have occasionally but consistently contributed modest sums to the Mother's Home in Darby, suburban Philadelphia PA. It is a shelter for pregnant women and their babies both before as well as for a,period of time after the new baby is born. Other practucak, compassionate services are provided. I just contributed a very small some to this home last week. I also occasionally contribute to Mom's House. This is a network of about six homes that provide free day care to low income pregnant women so that they can complete their educations. Back to the 2011 Gallup poll. 50% of men and women support legal abortion if there is "evidence that the baby may be physically impaired"; 45% believe abortion should be illegal in that case. If there is evidence "the baby may be mentally impaired", 51% favor legal abirtion, and 46%.oppose legal abortion.under those circumstances. Finally, according to the Gallup 3011 poll, if the "woman or family cannot affod to raise the child, " a solid 61% of adults favor illegal abortion under those circumstances. Only 36% favor legal abortion. in that case (another common reason for abortion). Gallup did find.large majorities of men and women who favored legal abortion in the rare cases to prevent the death of the mother (I support such a rare exception, as long as equal care is given to the mother and her developing baby). Large majorities also favor legal abortion when the woman is pregnant due to being raped. I knew in past years a physician active in the alternatives-to-abortion movement. He and his wife took homeless pregnant into their home, regardless of religion or race (the couple was white) or any other factor. They were an exemplary loving married couple, loving to each other, their children, and to pregnant women in need. The doctor's wife certainly sympathized with women in need. She had when she was unmarried and I believe fairly young become pregnant from the violence of rape. However, she courageously gave birth, and released her infant up for adoption. Although I don't favor legal abortion in that fairly rare case, I occasionally contribute to Dawn's Place.. This is a home in Philadelphia, PA, which provides shelter. educational opportunities, job training and assistance, psychological counseling, and other care for women sho have been traumatized. Finally, large majorities favor legal abortion in the rare cases when the fetus (unborn baby) has a condition where he or she will be incompatible with life. This is very tragic. Again, these very good followers of Jesus' teaching to love "the least of your brothers and sisters" was exemplified by this couple, who adopted an infant who had a fatal birth "defect." They lovingly cared for their boy until he passed away. Gallup also showed large majorities in favor of legal abortion in the uncommon cases when the pregnant woman's physical health is seriously threatened. Fortunately, few abortions out of the nearly 1 million abortions annually are performed for such extreme reasons. Although I believe that maximum legal protection should be restored to the unborn, I believe that what's most likely is that Roe would be overturned. This would once again give our elected representatives the authority to make state abortion laws.
I have been involved in the pro-life movement in various capacities for most of my 57 years (including, I might add, writing letters to my local secular county newspaper against capital punishment, for prison reform, and for stringent gun control laws.) I won't deny that there are some misogynistic men in the pro-life movement. However, I think the number of such men who are hostile to women's rights is fairly small. After all, are t he editors of America who have long taken a pro-life stand on abortion and many other matters haters of women? I hardly think so. Is Sister Helen Prejean, who is a supporter of the consistent ethic of life stance, a woman hater? Does she lack respect for herself or other women? Did the late Father Daniel Berrigan, the peace activist who was arrested and went to prison for protesting war, but who also demonstrated peacefully outside an abortion center on at least one occasion, hate women? I doubt it. How about his brother, the late Phillip Berrigan? He also favored the consistent ethic of life ethic. As you undoubtedly know, he left the priesthood and married a former nun, who in an interview I read years ago in the National Catholic Register described herself as pro -life "across the board." A self-hating woman who also hated other women? Again, I doubt it. Just several more examples, if I please may. Actor Martin Sheen is a member of the Consistent Life Network. Please go to their website and read their mission statenent, as well as a,partial list of people who favor their "whole life" position. I can assure you that the people are of different religions, both sexes, and various races. Off hand, I can think of three intelligent, articulate women who are pro-life. Two have written articles in America (and maybe they still do: Mary Meehan and noted attorney Helen Alvare. Also, as mentioned, Professor Mary Ann Glendon. Also, the late Democratic Louisiania Congresswoman Lindy Hale Boggs, who favored the Equal Rights Amendment. Also, former Ohio Democratic Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar, who had both a strong pro-life voting record and was sometimes criticized for being too much of a feminist. Pope Francis has been criticized both for being too so-called "conservative" and too so-called "liberal." ( I disdain such terms which I believe are properly political terms.). Pope Francis has affirmed the all m make priesthood, but he 's also given women more authority in the Church, has appointed more women ti posts in rhe Vatican There's no point in continuing gi through a laundry list of feminists or men who respect omen. I might that the late Nat Hentiff was a Jewish atheist and firmer New York State board member of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union. He was pro-life, but was liberal on at least sime issues related to women's rights. Regarding nations that have laws to priotect the unbirn, Irekabd has tragucakky voted to legakize essentialky abortion on demand.

Nora Bolcon
4 months 2 weeks ago

Tim,

You need to realize that one poll which also does not support the knights numbers does not constitute any real form of evidence since polls can be way off so you need non religious or unbiased polls which agree with the gallop you used and you do not have that.

Many other polls disagree enormously with the figures. Also much is dependant on how the poll asks a question. Stating 50 percent of women in any category of trimester give an answer that they want an abortion for no reason in particular is false. You may feel free to contact planned parenthood and ask for that research.

The problem with you statement is that none of your research has been supported by any known legitimate source. It is your job to supply that info. If you want to be taken seriously.

I did not in either of my past comments state as my main point that what the polls say really matters anyway because the world health info I gave you is based on strong and real global research and evidence so the polls which are erroneous are not what matters. Evidence and fact outweigh opinion polls right or wrong, especially, when facts tell you that making laws will definitely increase abortion and maternal death rates. Tim we have one of the lowest rates in the world. That is not really disputable so that is a good thing. Why do you wish to make laws that will only increase our country's abortion rates? How is that pro life?

Not liking evidence does not change that evidence and make it not reality.

Advertisement

The latest from america

Pope Francis proclaimed that the former Bishop of Wheeling-Charleston can no longer participate in the liturgy and commands him to make amends for the harm he caused.
What started as a "Gilmore Girls"-themed trip through New England gave me and my parents far more than we had expected.
Detail from a Latin Missal (iStock/wwing)
Latin is often seen as an outdated tradition, but language student Grace Spiewak writes that it can foster pride in our global church, reminding us of our unique and complicated history.
Grace SpiewakJuly 19, 2019
Callahan was an independent scholar working at the frontier where ethics meets medicine, law and religion.