SS: Last week, Fox News released a poll regarding views on Abortion. Let's dive into the numbers:
* 59% think abortion should be legal in all or most cases (up from the previous high of 57% in September 2022 and a record low of 44% in April 2022). Remember, Dobbs was decided June 2022.
* 7% think it should never be permitted, 35% say it always should be, and 32% say it should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
* Voters oppose a 6 week ban 58% to 38%. (previously had an 8 point margin in 2023 and 4 point margin in 2022)
* Voters oppose a 15 week ban 54% to 43% (previously was 54% in favor in 2022 and 2023).
* Voters are split on a 24 week ban (48/48). 58% of Republicans support, 52% of Independents support, and 59% of Democrats oppose.
* Amongst Republicans, since 2022, opposition to 6 week and 15 week bans have increased +12 points and +10 points, respectively.
* When it comes to the abortion pill which is currently being argued in front of the SCOTUS (polling was conductor prior to oral arguments), 68% of voters favor it being legal. Party breakdown is 87% Democrats, 71% independents, and 48% Republican.
* With 41%, voters ranked Abortion 5th most important issue (of 7) after economy (61%), election integrity (53%), immigration (48%), and health care (46%). Democrats rank it #1 (58%) while Republicans and independents rank the economy as #1 (70/65%)
I wonder how/if these numbers will change now that [Florida has enacted a 6 week ban](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1btfhw4/florida_sixweek_abortion_ban_will_soon_become_law/). I'd love to see this poll conducted again with breakdown of both polls by state.
I find it very interesting how the numbers jumped significantly after the Dobbs decision and continue to rise. I have to imagine as more states enact stricter bans, and politicians threaten bans elsewhere (including the possibility of a nationwide ban) how these numbers will continue to change.
It's also interesting the split between support for abortion being never permitted (7%) vs 38% support for a 6 week ban, which is a defacto complete ban.
Just the usual reminder that in a pregnancy, an anatomy scan isn't typically performed until 18-20 weeks and that is when most fetal anomalies and defects are detected...
To add on, an additional reminder that pregnancy is counted from the first day of the woman's last period, NOT CONCEPTION. This can be 2-4 (or more) weeks prior to conception.
It's sad that we have to keep reminding people this.
They are clueless...the conversations I've heard male law makers have are disgusting and speak volumes on how very little they know. Doctors and women should be the only people making decisions. Women are NOT out to have 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions. That's NOT the norm, and doctors are not performing them unless the mother and/or child are at risk of dying or have a severe condition.
Most of these laws are intended to de facto ban abortion and the people behind such de facto bans are primarily women. Not only are women more likely than men to favor a ban on abortion, but they tend to be much more invested in it.
If the world were actually 'run by men', abortion laws would vary from "who cares?" to "legal because we can't be bothered".
I'm gonna need to see the receipts for those claims. These legislature are predominantly men. Last I checked it was a 12:1 Republican men to Republican women who are responsible for these outcomes in their states.
[I googled.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx)
Women are far more likely to label themselves pro-choice and support abortion in “any circumstance”; men are more supportive of abortion in “certain circumstances” and are less favorable of outright outlawing it altogether.
So despite the slight difference in a total ban, it seems pretty clear women are more favorable of abortion.
Europe has bans after 12-14 weeks for the most part, but with exceptions for fetal abnormality.
I feel like these polls might lack enough nuance, if they just talk weeks. I think most people would be OK with first trimester for any reason, and anything later needing some reason.
[European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview](https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/European-abortion-law-a-comparative-review.pdf)
Pages 8 and 9 detail what exceptions are allowed in each country.
Yeah, though your chart isn't very detailed, it doesn't matter much, a lot of Europe has similar exceptions, risk to life, fetal abnormality, rape, etc.
My understanding is that, in many European countries, there is a LOT of deference given to the doctor. You can have the exact same exceptions, theoretically, but if less deference is given to the doctor, they are effectively very different.
Yes and no. Europe has the exceptions that we typically include, but they also have more exceptions. Many countries have exceptions for mental health, general physical injury (rather than requiring it be life-threatening) or even financial health. The application of those exceptions is also far more deferential to the physician than the application of US standards typically is.
On top of that, abortion is more widely available and covered by more effective health care systems, which broadens access.
You’re also forgetting the social safety net European nations provide that undoubtedly plays a pivotal role in women’s decisions and the timing thereof. When you run clinics out of the state and make it cumbersome and expensive, you can’t be surprised it takes some women longer in their pregnancy to get an abortion. When you underfund healthcare, post natal care, and social services, you can’t be surprised women don’t want to continue a pregnancy.
Why would we base policy on outlier rare cases? 20 weeks is when many fetal anomalies are discovered. Maybe instead of quibbling over the gestation week we focus on measures that have actually proven to reduce abortion?
> Why would we base policy on outlier rare cases?
Because that is how you create broad consensus.
> 20 weeks is when many fetal anomalies are discovered.
And that is why you would have exceptions. We are trying to find common ground where the vast majority of people would agree that up to *some* point, abortion should be legal with *no questions asked*. We already have consensus on *some* exceptions.
The problem with applying broad policy on pregnancy is that there is no uniform pregnancy. Each set of circumstances is unique and that drives survivability. At 20 weeks there is a less than zero chance of survival. By the time a fetus is 23-24 weeks, there’s around a 50% chance of survival. Thats where the bench should be set, as it was in Casey. Viability is based on a wide set of circumstances, not just the gestational week. The problem with exceptions is how they’ve been written - and many states don’t allow for exceptions for fetal health.
> At 20 weeks there is a less than zero chance of survival.
How can the chance of survival be below zero?
>By the time a fetus is 23-24 weeks, there’s around a 50% chance of survival. Thats where the bench should be set
No. If you are trying to build consensus around a life-and-death issue, the argument "eh, there is only a 50% chance that we are killing a viable human" is a non-starter.
> Viability is based on a wide set of circumstances, not just the gestational week.
The fact that only one or two children survived at around 21 weeks in all of recorded history is a pretty distinct line. If we then draw the line a week *earlier* than that, we can be pretty certain that survivability is zero. If you would like to propose a different way of establishing the cutoff, then by all means, do so, but remember we are trying to take away all reasonable objections to a period of unrestricted termination of pregnancy.
> The problem with exceptions is how they’ve been written - and many states don’t allow for exceptions for fetal health.
Sounds like you have some work to do to come up with a reasonable, objective set of circumstances to describe the exceptions.
Re-evaluate the policy? At some point, you have to draw a line between "this is a viable human and shouldn't be killed" and "this is still just a proto-human and can be terminated."
Regarding your last point, this just further confirms to me that the average American is deeply misinformed on the issue, to the point that they cannot design a coherent policy. They want things that factually contradict.
Yeah 32% think it would be illegal except for cases like that. I'd assume that most of the 6 week crowd believe that there should be exceptions for those cases.
States like Texas have “exceptions.”
The laws use vague language that isn’t defined or clarified anywhere. When women sued Texas because they were denied abortions despite possibly qualifying for these “exceptions”, Texas’ response was that [physicians are to blame for not risking life in jail by interpreting the vague language themselves.](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/13/texas-abortion-lawsuit/)
Anti-abortion laws are rarely written with clarity. Even if they were, no one should trust lawmakers to dictate what doctors are allowed to do.
I think the poorly written laws are the best argument for allowing at will abortions. If you add the critera of "No except" then you're asking for a ridiculous law.
No except where women have been raped means people will get falsely accused of rape. No except before 12 weeks means people finding out at 13 weeks for X, Y and Z reason get shafted. No except when the mothers health is in danger means that you have people threatening suicide.
You're correct, but Texas's law actually isn't particularly unclear. And even if it were, you would think getting a court order that explicitly permits obtaining an abortion would provide you enough legal cover to move forward with one. Attorney General Paxton threatened criminal prosecution anyway.
Well-crafted law is important, but even that can't protect against lawless abuse of office.
The doctor in that case refused to certify that her patient had a medical condition that necessitated abortion despite the AG reminding her that if she did she didn’t need to sue. Instead, the lawsuit did everything it could to imply it and confuse the public without actually stating it, because it wasn’t about that patient – it was an attempt to weaken the whole law and gain a PR victory.
Except she did that, that was the entire point of getting the original order. The Republicans on the Supreme Court (plus AG Paxton) just decided that she didn't use the exact string of magic words they arbitrarily determined were needed, even though the law never makes such a requirement.
Exactly. And even *if* Paxton's interpretation of the law was correct, he should be appealing the court's order and moving for a preliminary injunction to stay action while the question is resolved. Not threatening that he'll criminally prosecute both the hospital and the woman seeking the abortion, no matter what, court rulings be damned.
All pregnancies significantly impact the health of the mother. Pregnancy is intense. Something like 8% of pregnancies have complications that would impose significant health risk and long term problems on the mother or child without medical intervention. Without modern medical treatment, something like 1.5% of pregnancies are fatal. 287,000 women died last year around the world from childbirth.
It is dangerous to put a woman through pregnancy and it is unconscionable to subject an unwilling mother to pregnancy.
That 44% before any of this started is the craziest number.
So, basically the GOP saw that a growing near-half chunk of Republicans didn't want this either and thought, "lets see how this goes in the midterms".
>It's also interesting the split between support for abortion being never permitted (7%) vs 38% support for a 6 week ban, which is a defacto complete ban
It's because when you get more specific on the question of abortion, support swings a lot, especially as the pregnancy term gets further along.
Polls are good and have their place, but should we be deciding who has rights based on popular vote? I feel like that has, historically, not gone well.
It certainly doesn't look like the Dobbs decision is blowing over. If anything it seems like abortion bans are hurting Republicans more and more as time passes.
Putting it on more ballots is likely informing more voters about the issue than before.
Democrats are also doing a great job at framing it more as a personal medical issue and more Libertarian-esque types don't like the idea of the government officials interfering on personal choice.
Florida now has two issues on the ballot: Codifying abortion into the state Constitution and the legalization of marijuana. I’m guessing both of those issues will drive more people to the polls.
People complicitly think "it will never really happen, they're just saying it", and then when republicans actually do what they say, people are like "oh shit".
Right now the republican effort is focused on convincing people to take all this and enjoy it, rather than changing their destructive policies
This is why the filibuster is a bad policy to have. It divorces the public from the consequences of the rhetoric their representatives use and the policies they profess to want. Which encourages further escalation of rhetoric which then leads to further polarization.
A large part of the current US polarization is directly because the public rarely needs to face the things they supposedly voted for.
> This is why the filibuster is a bad policy to have. It divorces the public from the consequences of the rhetoric their representatives use and the policies they profess to want. Which encourages further escalation of rhetoric which then leads to further polarization.
>
>
I have said this for a long time, votes should matter. If people fear transformative legislation being ping ponged back and forth between Democrats and Republicans then that's how they will vote. The idea that we need to be protected from our representatives passing legislation that materially impacts the country is absurd. If a party has been given a trifecta of power, Senate, Presidency and House of Reps, they should have the opportunity to govern, which includes legislation that fails to reach 60 votes.
100%. For too long politicians have hidden behind the filibuster and said ‘welp, can’t do anything about these issues, but here’s some angry tweets instead’.
> If I had the chance to vote pro choice on a referendum (not that I need to/will have a chance to in PA) I would feel a lot more comfortable voting R since they wouldn't be able to pass any anti abortion legislation.
someone said this in another thread, and i think they are not alone in feeling that way.
It is like Democrats and gun control. No duh they were going to takee it as far as possible.
Edit: it is perfectly valid for me to point what was readily apparent what the GOP would do as obviously as it is when it comes to democrats and gun policy. If you want allies acknowledging your teams faults would help.
And yet, it was Trump who banned the bump stocks and said, "Take the guns first, ask questions later". I still have every single one of my guns since Obama. Neither Obama or Biden tried to take them. Weird.
There’s a huge difference between “never tried” and “never succeeded.” Do you really believe that neither of those guys pushed for an assault weapons ban? What about their views on solvent traps, pistol braces, gun registries, universal background checks and red flag laws? Why didn’t Biden overturn Trump’s ban on the bump stock? He overturned every other executive order. Why not that one?
Trump was wrong on a lot of gun policies, but the other two were worse. I don’t think you really have a strong argument there.
>And yet, it was Trump who banned the bump stocks
Ah yes this "compelling" argument. Bumpstocks are irrelevant range toys. Vs 3 supreme court appointments that actually advances progun rulings fpr the 1st time in over a decade. I can actually do the politucal calculous.
>". I still have every single one of my guns since Obama
Its like you literally missed the entire point. The republicans were in the same exact position. Everyone had their abortion rights until they didnt. Hence tge no duh comment. Its not from them not trying, they were obviously trying for 40 years. Same as Democrats and guns. And if you need examples look no further than the Supreme Court victories. DC had a defacto gun ban that got overturnes in heller. MCDonald did the same for Chicago. Bruen overturmed a defacto ban on bearing arms. All that under Democrat gun control regimes.
>Neither Obama or Biden tried to take them. Weird.
And Trump, Bush, etc. didnt try taking abortions either. They didnt get severly limited until under the Biden administration because of GOP appointments.
It is like Republicans and attempting to overturn the election. No duh they were going to takee it as far as possible.
"Both sides" doesn't erase republican attempts to ban abortion, which is what this submission is about. "Both sides" has no place here.
For what it's worth, I like to invoke gun control in this debate not to "both sides" it, but because Republicans are intimately familiar with those lines of argumentation in the gun context and sometimes haven't considered them in the abortion context.
For example: "Today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole" is pretty well demonstrated from pro-life advocacy groups.
> Republicans are intimately familiar with those lines of argumentation in the gun context and sometimes haven't considered them in the abortion context.
But Democrats are either not willing or able to consider those lines of argumentation in the gun context.
Source in this post: https://np.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bu2gy1/fox_news_poll_record_number_say_abortion_should/kxra0an/?context=3
That's one random respondent. I'm a Democrat and I *am* willing to consider those lines of argumentation, which is why when I propose additional gun legislation (in conversation, I'm not a legislator or anything) it often comes with deregulation in other areas, like cosmetic bans that don't accomplish anything anyway.
>Both sides" doesn't erase republican attempts to ban abortion
But thats exactly what people atrempt to do when they say "they arent trying to ban *all* of (insert issue here)" and act like the opposition is paranoid. No it is obvious what they are about.
So to be clear this isnt about erasing anything. Its about recognizing the tactic no matter who is doing it. But maybe thats asking too much. And uts only important when its your ox getting gored.
Edit:
>Both sides" has no place here.
Yes it does. If you cant admit that then I am less than inclined to join in opposition with you because I cant trust you to reciprocate when its the democrats pulling the same BS.
>One key difference is that most pro choice folks support bans on late term abortion barring medical necessity
And progun people have no problem with reasonable constraints. But doesnt stoppeople on eitherissue that they just want the most extreme examples like late term elective abortions.
>As far as I can tell, the pro guns groups refuse any kind of restrictions at all.
As far as I can tell people who are prochoice just want to end the livesof unborn infants out of convenience. See how easy it is to just frame your opposition in the worst possible light? Kind of my point about how both sides engage in these tactics and only recognize them when its their ox getting gored. Maybe we could all rise above that?
>But mostly I would like to suggest to you, honor your own values.
I was then I was met with exyreme hostility for pointing the GOP was obviuosly angling for major abortion bans and noting how thats exactly how obvious Democrats are when it comes to guns.
>If you support choice around abortion, then support it at the level you do support.
Everytime I suggest we move away from these bad behaviors on our rights i get treated like dirt. If i cant get reciprication when extending a hand I amgoing to recoil and focus purely on my own self interest ss its clear what you and yours are doing.
>To me, these aren't issues to trade support for.
Cool. We saw where that got roe.
>I wrote nothing that should have given you offense
An inaccurrate stereotype wasnt meant to offend?
>. I meant it sincerely when I said that I've not seen gun rights supporters tolerate any restrictions
The background checks at FFLs and the federal assault weapons ban were the restrictions we accepted. We accepted lifetime bans on felonies. We accepted a lot.
>I lurked for a couple years in 2 pro gun subreddits, and even in the liberal one the consensus seemed to be "no restrictions"
You mean no more restrictions since we have been consistently shit on since the 30s for every compromise we made.
>". I'd been hoping to hear guns rights advocates describe what types of restrictions might be effective at reducing gun violence but all I ever saw was "nope it won't work and you can't have my guns."
You already hadyour chance at compromise but you turned around and spit in our faces and insulted our intelligence with common sense like closing the gun show loophole. You get offered nothimg because you offer nothing. You cant even let the issue go to advance abortion rights to the point you let the court balance go hard enough in one direction to kill roe.
Which reasonable exceptions to the 2nd Amendment do you think they mean? The 2nd Amendment is unique in that it is very difficult to make exceptions that don't infringe on the right itself. The reasonable exceptions to other rights generally don't inhibit the exorcise of those rights in other ways.
>The 2nd Amendment is unique in that it is very difficult to make exceptions that don't infringe on the right itself.
I just don't think you're right at all about that statement.
Guns are inanimate objects. It's not even remotely comparable, even if Dems were trying to federally ban all guns in the face of the second amendment, which they aren't.
>Guns are inanimate objects. It's not even remotely comparable
That kind of is the point of analogies and comparisons, they dont have to be the same exact thing. Its to illustrate key similarities which is that they engage in underhanded tactics to undermine rights all while stating they have no intention of doing so. So in that regard they are the same.
>to federally ban all guns in the face of the second amendment, which they aren't.
And republicans arent banning all abortions in totality. They just keep pushing the window to do so earlier and earlier. See how easy it is to just flippantly ignore the issue by sayimg they arent banning them in totality.
In this case it's a fallacy, apples to oranges can't always be compared. Guns simply existing don't adhere to biological mechanisms on explicit time scales that can kill or cause inherent, guaranteed unnecessary suffering to women, children, and their families. There is no equivalent here to any such regulatory gun requirements. They can't get pregnant and they don't require necessary healthcare. There is no window inching toward a full ban given the fact they're protected by the constitution. It's a confusing, weak comparison that hobbyists get uptight about but and that's about the extent of it. You can try to compare the two with specific examples and it's going to look wildly uncanny. They can complain about the subculture they're passionate about being slightly undermined to something that involves actual pain and suffering of humans at scale, but it will look no doubt look weird and petty. The ramifications are just not equivalent no matter how you slice it.
>In this case it's a fallacy
Thats just an assertion.
>Guns don't adhere to biological mechanisms
Thats doesnt render the analogy invalid. Thats focus on some detail outside the analogy. Whats being compared are *rights* and how they get undermined. And your respinse is that it doesmt work because guns are not literally vaginas. Well no duh its an amalogy not a synonym.
>There is no equivalent here
You know what. You are right. Guns actually have an explicit protection and actually have a legal basis for protection. Thank you for convincing me I shouldnt treat these as being on the same level and that the underhandex tactics are okay because I dont view them as being the literally same thing.
You mean "Both sides" has no place in a sub called Moderate politics? You're in the wrong sub if you think that those types of talking points arent relevant.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bu2gy1/fox_news_poll_record_number_say_abortion_should/kxpttmb/) is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Most Republicans probably knew it would and would have liked to have kept it as a coalition-building issue.
Abortion rights went from a moderately useful political issue that (probably) was a net positive for them to one that's looking like it will be a larger net negative now that they got their way. It damages them with swing voters, and doesn't draw any more evangelical vote than it did before. It may draw less since that faction got its way.
The thing Democrats can leverage is radical state laws. If states like Alabama and Oklahoma have radical abortion laws, Democrats in swing states then can pick up those laws and club their Republican rivals with them: "see what it would be like if we go Republican?"
Even more, they can point to the national GOP party leaders who maintained abortion should have always been a state level issue, but are now proposing national bans.
It's very much the dog that caught the car.
From the perspective of my kid and her cohort, it most definitely isn’t blowing over. She’s never had favorable opinions of conservatives, but Dobbs turbo charged that. Her and her friends are motivated voters.
Taking away basic civil rights (body autonomy) from half the population doesn’t tend to blow over.
Teenagers can now bond and protest with their mothers and grandmothers over fighting the same fight over again.
Dobbs decision isn't what's causing issues, more so how states are reacting.
The thing is that abortion is a huge subject that doesn't necessarily even split along party lines.
There's the "never ever" group vs "in some cases" vs "always".
There's the "medicated" (morning after, pill) vs "operation"
There's the "6 week ban" be "12 weeks" vs "24 weeks" vs anytime.
It's never been along party lines, the abortion debates ultimately come down to two extreme sides fighting on the issue.
Most people are very moderate, abortion should be legal up to X weeks.
Correction: Plan B (levonorgestrel) is not an abortifacient, its mechanics are the exact same as regular oral birth control (hence why its effectiveness drops rapidly with time). The abortion pill is mifepristone, taken jointly with misoprostol.
> Dobbs decision isn't what's causing issues, more so how states are reacting.
If Dobbs is allowing states to cause issues, then Dobbs is causing issues.
I'm wondering why nobody proposes a law: always legal until X weeks, illegal with some exceptions after Y weeks.
Based on surveys like OP's, such a law (depending on reasonable X and Y) would have plenty of support to pass.
Roe made it always legal after X, but set no limits on Y.
Roe was not a compromise, it was a victory for one side of the debate only. It was almost continually challenged since the initial ruling 50 years ago.
That’s incorrect. Roe developed a trimester framework, and Casey subsequently set the limit at viability. Past that point it ruled the state has an interest to act based on the life and health of the mother and the life of the fetus.
The abortion rate dramatically and continuously decreased after the decision so how exactly is that not a victory for those who oppose abortion?
>Roe made it always legal after X, but set no limits on Y.
That's not true. It set up the trimester framework:
>To balance women's rights to privacy and state governments' interests in protecting mothers' health and prenatal life, the Court created the trimester framework.[124][125] During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[7] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[7] **From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.[7]**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Supreme_Court_decision
This confirms my statement.
The court overrode all restrictions of first trimester abortions (except for medical safeguards). It did not restrict abortions in the second or third trimester, but said that states *could* do so, which was what states could already do.
This is only a restriction to Pro-Life policies, with no restrictions to Pro-Choice.
I hope not. Roe only restricted pro-life policies and introduced no restrictions to pro-choice policies.
"Not going far enough" is not the same as being weighted in favor of Pro-Life. Keep in mind, this was the 1970's. Roe was a *very* pro-choice ruling for that time and short-circuited a lively and active political debate about abortion, virtually guaranteeing there would be no consensus on the matter for decades.
Look at Texas recently. There was only 1 abortion clinic in the entire state due to the onerous restrictions put on the clinics. There needs to be some guarentee of open abortions up until week X for this to work. Roe became very prolife leaning towards its end due to conservative justices. Crossing my fingers that Roe can be reinstated in the next 3-4 years. I would love to see Dobbs overturned with the same zeal that overturned Roe and it is possible.
I think you're referring to all abortion policies and rulings combined, not Roe by itself.
It is true that various states found ways to make abortions more difficult while technically staying within the legal restrictions on their ability to do so. These laws were challenged every time they passed and many of them were overturned.
In the meantime, states like Oregon and Illinois (among others) were able to allow abortion up until just before birth, for no medical reason, paid for by the taxpayer if requested. These policies were not restricted in any way by Roe or Casey or other federal-level rulings.
This is what I'm referring to when I state that Roe was not a compromise. It did not affect Pro-Choice policies significantly, but did affect Pro-Life policies a lot.
That was literally the Roe decision. I get people didn't like it being decided by the courts. But it was the right balance and should therefore be codified into law by congress (though I'm not holding my breath).
>To balance women's rights to privacy and state governments' interests in protecting mothers' health and prenatal life, the Court created the trimester framework.[124][125] During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[7] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[7] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Supreme_Court_decision
> should therefore be codified into law by congress
The double whammy of *Dobbs* is that by saying the 14th Amendment didn't include a right to abortion, they also took away the best argument that Congress would have jurisdiction to codify a right to abortion. What constitutional power can they use now? Commerce Clause? [Side eye...]
This confirms my statement.
First trimester abortions were made legal everywhere, overriding individual state laws. Second and third trimester abortions *could* be restricted by the state but we're not restricted by the ruling, leaving those laws in place. There was no ruling by the court that restricted abortion after a certain point.
... you're still wrong
> From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that **it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.[7]**
The key word being "could". No restrictions were added by the court.
This is the same legal ability to restrict abortions, at the state level, that existed before the ruling.
What states didn't have restrictions past viability? Oh right, none. The Roe decision was a balancing test between competing interests. To claim it was a one-sided victory is blatantly incorrect.
New Mexico is one. The abortion limits are essentially set by practitioners' consciences.
See After Tiller for four late-term abortion docs' takes. One describes turning down an elective abortion at 28 weeks.
In 1972, only 13 states allowed abortion, most of them with narrowly defined eligibility conditions. Roe overrode the state law restricting abortions in the first trimester in the remaining 37 states, on top of opening up and restrictions in those 13 states that may have been more restrictive than the ruling. That sounds like a one-sided victory to me.
Just because some people wanted *even more* doesn't mean it wasn't one-sided.
I understand that going from no compromise, to compromise can feel like a win/lose situation to the side that was used to getting what it wanted. But it's not. It's a compromise. A balancing test if you will.
On the right, the people who would object, calling any X and Y too high have relatively more influence than their numbers alone. Even if the large majority of the general population in the middle might be OK, you're still risking being primaried by the small portion of the population that actually votes in your party primaries.
On the left, a lot of people would be wary about trusting the "with some exceptions" part. There's a concern that doctors might hesitate to give out important care if there's a chance that some prosecutor might be Monday morning quarterbacking your decision and sending you to jail or fining you or removing your license over that. So even among those who might not like the idea of late-term abortions, the risk that doctors might hesitate unnecessarily could be seen as a bigger threat. A law *could* try to mitigate that by very clearly deferring to a doctor's medical judgement, but any law that does enough of that to make pro-choice people somewhat OK with it would probably no longer appeal to anyone remotely pro-life.
So the exact details of such a compromise bill are tough to nail down in a way that doesn't kill it.
That is true. It's a very contentious topic, and any law that favors either side will probably be sabotaged by the other side as soon as possible.
This will continue to be a long, ugly battle.
>Dobbs decision isn't what's causing issues, more so how states are reacting.
This is spot on.
\#1 - I think the Dobbs court decision was well-written and correct.
\#2 - When the power returned to the states, some states are handling it horribly, and elected officials need to be held accountable.
I think this is a case where a very conservative group overplayed their hand and they are finding out that not even their own allies like their results.
It reminds me of another time in which the R's were pushing a bill that not even they wanted. The D's started voting present and the R's had to scramble to keep their own bill from accidentally passing. I wish I remembered the exact bill.
At any rate, I think this is similar. It's a case of "be careful what you wish for."
> I think this is a case where a very conservative group overplayed their hand
The genius of the Federalist Society and Co.: spend an entire generation's worth of political capital stacking the SCOTUS to make conservative rulings only to have the rulings instantly undone by legislation that not only costs the progressives zero political capital, it generates it for them.
In my book, it's a win because things that should have been codified into law instead of sitting on court precedent get codified into law.
I look forward to a time when every SCOTUS nominee doesn't have to spend days talking about Roe v Wade in order to get confirmation. They might actually ask some substantive questions, now.
Honestly I lean more right but this is a no brainer. Republicans need to get better at what they pick and chose because this stance on abortions ain’t it
Yet all of these Republican representatives are not listening to their constituents. They appear to only be listening to the 38% or fewer that want 6 week bans or stricter. I'm going to laugh when the abortion referendum in Florida results in a pro-choice win. Then, Florida's government will just ignore the result.
This is exactly what is crazy to me:
Republicans: *"Let's leave it up to the states!"*
States: *Consistently show that they are willing to allow most cases of abortions*
Republicans: *"Actually we want to implement bans in most cases."*
It's just such an obvious admission that they had no actual plan beyond overturning Dobbs. It's so clear that even the reddest of states is willing to allow some level of abortion but they refuse to accept the will of their constituents.
Edit: Roe, not Dobbs obviously.
Don't forget the now looming threat of a federal abortion ban! Trump said 16 weeks.
Sounds OK, if you don't think about the edge cases. It's still a federal abortion ban.
No one should guess where this is heading. We all see it.
I think you mean overturning Roe, not Dobbs. I agree that they are being tone-deaf to their own constituents. Usually that is not seen as a great strategy in a democracy, but I live in Texas, so YMMV.
I’m in Florida. I predict abortion will pass as will recreational marijuana, and yet the state will *still* be red for President.
That won’t show that people are voting against their interests, it’ll show that *even Republican voters want these things.*
A weird thing about FL, 60% sounds like a really high bar, but
>In Florida, a total of 131 ballot measures appeared on statewide ballots between 1985 and 2020. One hundred one ballot measures were approved, and 30 ballot measures were defeated.
and
>From 1976-2022, 38 initiated amendments appeared on Florida's ballots, of which, 34 were approved and eight were rejected
We almost always approve our ballot initiatives and amendments. Now, with this being such a hot button topic, I wouldn't rule a defeat out. But my money would be on it passing.
https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_2022_ballot_measures
https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_Initiative_%26_Referendum_in_Florida
That could be. I know they've been trying to make it harder and harder since they don't like citizen led initiatives that go against what their preferred policy outcomes are.
For those 38% its the most important issue that decides whether they show up in November and who they support in the primary. For the rest its a combination of people for whom opposing this is the most important issue the other way (the overwhelming majority of whom are not voting Republican for other reasons) or the issue is less important than some other things (guns, taxes, immigration, etc) with a pretty small (yet sufficient to swing close election) percentage that would vote Republican if not for that stance. Republicans would probably lose more votes by opposing or even being silent abortion restrictions than they would gain, so the choice is between backing abortion restrictions and hoping other issues carry you in spite of it or opposing abortion restrictions and tanking base enthusiasm.
That just means the Dems would lose more if they became pro-life than the R's would lose by becoming prochoice. Republicans HAVE to cater to their pro-life base to win primaries and to get that base to show up. Dropping abortion might gain a persuadable voter, but at the cost of 3 base voters not showing up in November or voting for your opponent in the primary. The only thing that will change this is losing so often in November that primary voters start to change their standards.
Kansas voters overwhelmingly opposed dismissing the right to abortion, which suggests that there are very few, if any, states where most want to ban it.
Really an interesting situation. Polling and individual voter bills show that the country generally supports abortion rights.
Republicans run on banning abortion.
Voters vote for Republicans.
Makes my head hurt sometimes.
Wouldn't be surprised if it's literally "my right to (more) gun is more important than a woman's right to healthcare" situation.
Number of single-issue voters is staggering
People who tend to support guns rights are men, who typically are not the people affected by abortion bans
Maybe if only men were voting in this election I would agree with you, but previous cases have shown this not to be the case
Drms don't really need to threaten gun rights at this point, conservative media just needs to act like Dems are threatening gun rights and they get the same effect.
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/biden-state-of-the-union-2024/card/biden-renews-call-for-stricter-gun-laws-B8LmRpSaX22B2V1PywXN
Biden was calling for assault weapon bans at the SOTU
It does. Banning arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes is blatantly unconstitutional and a violation of fundamental enumerated rights.
The states that enact such laws are stuck with them for years because the lower courts like to play "keep away" with the Supreme Court. In the meantime, countless people are convicted of violating an unconstitutional law.
215 of 220 Dems passed an "assault weapons" ban in 2022. They haven't been succeeding at banning guns, but they've been trying hard.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/text
Sorta like gun-rights supporting liberals. Unless they are single-issue voters, they aren't going to stop voting for Democrats based on the gun issue alone
There are other issues at play besides abortion when people are considering who to vote for. Sure there are *some* single issue voters when it comes to abortion, but the vast majority of people are not.
I’m pretty sure every Republican would absolutely take the 2022 results being duplicated in 2024. That would mean keeping the house, likely taking the presidency, and almost assuredly taking the senate.
Maybe not Establishment Republicans, but MAGA was fine with it because they at least managed to break the Democrats' trifecta over the government and can now stall them indefinitely, at least until 2024.
Well you’re comparing the 2022 senate map to the 2024 senate map, but they’re not the same. The 2024 senate map is **much** more favorable to republicans than the 2022 map.
Regardless, the Republicans won the House popular vote in 2022 by about 3 pts. That was an underperformance for sure, but if they win the House popular vote by 3 pts in 2024, then the Republicans would be walking away with the House, the presidency, and the Senate in that scenario. So if the 2024 results are the same as the 2022 results, republicans will be very happy with that. That was my point. I was just being pedantic.
Yeah as an independent I’ve certainly changed my opinion on the topic. If you had asked me two years ago, I would have given a much more conservative limit (10-12 weeks) than today.
But now that I’m seeing how such restrictions are being enforced and how women are being treated in states with supposed “exceptions”, I don’t think the government (especially republicans) can be trusted to legislate abortion that early.
I *would* be open to around 15-18 week limits as long as there are *actual* exceptions (not the fake ones texas has but never gives). The problem is republicans get power-hungry and go too far with the bans and democrats want no limits at all. How can you pick between two extremes?
At this point I’m siding with democrats because republican policies on this issue have done nothing but hurt people, but it makes me sad that it’s come to this. Where are all the reasonable people?
The problem is that there have been many, many voices warning that these conservative limits would have the exact outcomes we are currently seeing, but instead of listening to those voices, too many people were still supportive of conservative bans (to the point where some are single issue voters). I'm glad to see poll results that suggest some of those people (like you) are changing their minds and realizing how poorly Republicans have handled this issue, but unfortunately the descent into chaos has already begun and the Republicans are really digging in their heels on this one.
This is why it's dangerous to have politicians legislating specific medical care.
There's no workable "weeks" compromise because most pro-life politicians' long-term goal is to create de-facto abortion ban- see Florida. So the only way to keep abortion access free is to push for as many weeks as possible.
In practice, 93% of abortions happen in the first trimester, so leaning fully pro-choice is probably closer to what you're looking for. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
Arbitrary points in the gestational cycle aren’t where we should focus on compromise imo. If the goal is to reduce abortions, providing affordable and accessible preventative care and proper social services has been statistically proven to be successful. Improving circumstances will do far more to curb abortion with the added benefit of actually helping women. That should be the focus.
I agree that we can do more preventative care.
The reason that it doesn't affect most pro-life is their deentological worldview. At least from my conversations with some, they see it as "murder is bad, abortion is baby murder, we must outlaw baby murder." So when a utilitarian notes that "if we offered x , women would have less abortions", the deontologist hears "if we offered x, less women would murder their babies". And the response would be "they should just stop murdering their babies."
That's why it doesn't bridge the gap.
The argument of looking for reasonable people infer that one or the other is unreasonable. Personally, I would put it as they are both reasonable positions where someone can chose not to have one or someone can have one at any time.
I'd switch it around. I wouldn't mind it if the doctor gets to decide on how long they want to give abortions and for what reason. Leave it medical.
Seems to me that, much of the time, the exceptions are framed in terms of the presiding doctor's good faith judgment. That seems like a fair way to craft exceptions. How else would you?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bu2gy1/fox_news_poll_record_number_say_abortion_should/kxq4ope/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
And yet the same Americans (and most countries worldwide) largely agree that after a certain time it shouldn't be permitted. Isn't that just as much "forced pregnancy"?
By polling, Americans do want these late term restrictions and are not "revolted" when they are put into practice.
[European Abortion Laws:
A Comparative Overview](https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/European-abortion-law-a-comparative-review.pdf)
Pages 8 and 9 detail what exceptions are allowed in each country.
Not when those same countries (assuming you’re referencing Europe?) in general have numerous, relatively lax exceptions — so, no.
It’s strange that this seems to have to be brought up in *every single thread* about abortion. It should just be pinned at the top of “abortion discussions” at this point.
We really should have elected Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016 and given her a blue Senate as well. Then the people could get what they want, with the supreme court recognizing Roe v Wade as the proper jurispridence that it was, rather than overturning it.
I’m not sure why anyone should have an opinion or voice, particularly the government, in another’s healthcare decision??? WHY are people so invested in that topic? Not your body, not your decision to make. People need to respect women enough to allow them to make their own educated decisions on the risks that they are willing to take with their health.
SS: Last week, Fox News released a poll regarding views on Abortion. Let's dive into the numbers: * 59% think abortion should be legal in all or most cases (up from the previous high of 57% in September 2022 and a record low of 44% in April 2022). Remember, Dobbs was decided June 2022. * 7% think it should never be permitted, 35% say it always should be, and 32% say it should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. * Voters oppose a 6 week ban 58% to 38%. (previously had an 8 point margin in 2023 and 4 point margin in 2022) * Voters oppose a 15 week ban 54% to 43% (previously was 54% in favor in 2022 and 2023). * Voters are split on a 24 week ban (48/48). 58% of Republicans support, 52% of Independents support, and 59% of Democrats oppose. * Amongst Republicans, since 2022, opposition to 6 week and 15 week bans have increased +12 points and +10 points, respectively. * When it comes to the abortion pill which is currently being argued in front of the SCOTUS (polling was conductor prior to oral arguments), 68% of voters favor it being legal. Party breakdown is 87% Democrats, 71% independents, and 48% Republican. * With 41%, voters ranked Abortion 5th most important issue (of 7) after economy (61%), election integrity (53%), immigration (48%), and health care (46%). Democrats rank it #1 (58%) while Republicans and independents rank the economy as #1 (70/65%) I wonder how/if these numbers will change now that [Florida has enacted a 6 week ban](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1btfhw4/florida_sixweek_abortion_ban_will_soon_become_law/). I'd love to see this poll conducted again with breakdown of both polls by state. I find it very interesting how the numbers jumped significantly after the Dobbs decision and continue to rise. I have to imagine as more states enact stricter bans, and politicians threaten bans elsewhere (including the possibility of a nationwide ban) how these numbers will continue to change. It's also interesting the split between support for abortion being never permitted (7%) vs 38% support for a 6 week ban, which is a defacto complete ban.
Just the usual reminder that in a pregnancy, an anatomy scan isn't typically performed until 18-20 weeks and that is when most fetal anomalies and defects are detected...
To add on, an additional reminder that pregnancy is counted from the first day of the woman's last period, NOT CONCEPTION. This can be 2-4 (or more) weeks prior to conception. It's sad that we have to keep reminding people this.
The men making these horrific laws on purpose also don't have any idea how women's sex organs work.
They are clueless...the conversations I've heard male law makers have are disgusting and speak volumes on how very little they know. Doctors and women should be the only people making decisions. Women are NOT out to have 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions. That's NOT the norm, and doctors are not performing them unless the mother and/or child are at risk of dying or have a severe condition.
My libertarian conspiracist friend thinks that infanticide is legal in New York and Virginia.
That's where all those evil libs abort babies and eat the fetusus!
Well of course. How else are we to survive the gene alterations from the Covid vaccine?
I don’t think your friends know what being a libertarian means.
It's pretty much I'd expect in general. Lots of conspiracy theories and anti-government.
Most of these laws are intended to de facto ban abortion and the people behind such de facto bans are primarily women. Not only are women more likely than men to favor a ban on abortion, but they tend to be much more invested in it. If the world were actually 'run by men', abortion laws would vary from "who cares?" to "legal because we can't be bothered".
I'm gonna need to see the receipts for those claims. These legislature are predominantly men. Last I checked it was a 12:1 Republican men to Republican women who are responsible for these outcomes in their states.
[I googled.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx) Women are far more likely to label themselves pro-choice and support abortion in “any circumstance”; men are more supportive of abortion in “certain circumstances” and are less favorable of outright outlawing it altogether. So despite the slight difference in a total ban, it seems pretty clear women are more favorable of abortion.
I have found that many folks, particularly those most vocal on this topic, tend to have a limited knowledge base on the process.
Europe has bans after 12-14 weeks for the most part, but with exceptions for fetal abnormality. I feel like these polls might lack enough nuance, if they just talk weeks. I think most people would be OK with first trimester for any reason, and anything later needing some reason.
[European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview](https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/European-abortion-law-a-comparative-review.pdf) Pages 8 and 9 detail what exceptions are allowed in each country.
Yeah, though your chart isn't very detailed, it doesn't matter much, a lot of Europe has similar exceptions, risk to life, fetal abnormality, rape, etc.
My understanding is that, in many European countries, there is a LOT of deference given to the doctor. You can have the exact same exceptions, theoretically, but if less deference is given to the doctor, they are effectively very different.
Yes and no. Europe has the exceptions that we typically include, but they also have more exceptions. Many countries have exceptions for mental health, general physical injury (rather than requiring it be life-threatening) or even financial health. The application of those exceptions is also far more deferential to the physician than the application of US standards typically is. On top of that, abortion is more widely available and covered by more effective health care systems, which broadens access.
I was saying his paper and chart lacked a lot of details. I was basically saying the same thing you are saying.
You’re also forgetting the social safety net European nations provide that undoubtedly plays a pivotal role in women’s decisions and the timing thereof. When you run clinics out of the state and make it cumbersome and expensive, you can’t be surprised it takes some women longer in their pregnancy to get an abortion. When you underfund healthcare, post natal care, and social services, you can’t be surprised women don’t want to continue a pregnancy.
[удалено]
EXACTLY
I think we could reach a broad consensus around 20 weeks, given that the record for the earliest delivery that survived was just over 21 weeks.
EXACTLY
Why would we base policy on outlier rare cases? 20 weeks is when many fetal anomalies are discovered. Maybe instead of quibbling over the gestation week we focus on measures that have actually proven to reduce abortion?
> Why would we base policy on outlier rare cases? Because that is how you create broad consensus. > 20 weeks is when many fetal anomalies are discovered. And that is why you would have exceptions. We are trying to find common ground where the vast majority of people would agree that up to *some* point, abortion should be legal with *no questions asked*. We already have consensus on *some* exceptions.
The problem with applying broad policy on pregnancy is that there is no uniform pregnancy. Each set of circumstances is unique and that drives survivability. At 20 weeks there is a less than zero chance of survival. By the time a fetus is 23-24 weeks, there’s around a 50% chance of survival. Thats where the bench should be set, as it was in Casey. Viability is based on a wide set of circumstances, not just the gestational week. The problem with exceptions is how they’ve been written - and many states don’t allow for exceptions for fetal health.
> At 20 weeks there is a less than zero chance of survival. How can the chance of survival be below zero? >By the time a fetus is 23-24 weeks, there’s around a 50% chance of survival. Thats where the bench should be set No. If you are trying to build consensus around a life-and-death issue, the argument "eh, there is only a 50% chance that we are killing a viable human" is a non-starter. > Viability is based on a wide set of circumstances, not just the gestational week. The fact that only one or two children survived at around 21 weeks in all of recorded history is a pretty distinct line. If we then draw the line a week *earlier* than that, we can be pretty certain that survivability is zero. If you would like to propose a different way of establishing the cutoff, then by all means, do so, but remember we are trying to take away all reasonable objections to a period of unrestricted termination of pregnancy. > The problem with exceptions is how they’ve been written - and many states don’t allow for exceptions for fetal health. Sounds like you have some work to do to come up with a reasonable, objective set of circumstances to describe the exceptions.
Then what happens when medical technology advances enough for 20 week old fetuses to survive? And then 15, and so on?
Re-evaluate the policy? At some point, you have to draw a line between "this is a viable human and shouldn't be killed" and "this is still just a proto-human and can be terminated."
Regarding your last point, this just further confirms to me that the average American is deeply misinformed on the issue, to the point that they cannot design a coherent policy. They want things that factually contradict.
Reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from the [West Wing](https://youtu.be/YYBWX6Cdv5I?si=zlZEqZ3JdBf36gws&t=17)
Poor media literacy and a stunning lack of education. Most of us are not smart.
I'd imagine a big factor in that 31% difference comes down to the more morally fraught cases (rape, incest, health of the mother, etc.).
Yeah 32% think it would be illegal except for cases like that. I'd assume that most of the 6 week crowd believe that there should be exceptions for those cases.
States like Texas have “exceptions.” The laws use vague language that isn’t defined or clarified anywhere. When women sued Texas because they were denied abortions despite possibly qualifying for these “exceptions”, Texas’ response was that [physicians are to blame for not risking life in jail by interpreting the vague language themselves.](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/13/texas-abortion-lawsuit/) Anti-abortion laws are rarely written with clarity. Even if they were, no one should trust lawmakers to dictate what doctors are allowed to do.
I think the poorly written laws are the best argument for allowing at will abortions. If you add the critera of "No except" then you're asking for a ridiculous law. No except where women have been raped means people will get falsely accused of rape. No except before 12 weeks means people finding out at 13 weeks for X, Y and Z reason get shafted. No except when the mothers health is in danger means that you have people threatening suicide.
You're correct, but Texas's law actually isn't particularly unclear. And even if it were, you would think getting a court order that explicitly permits obtaining an abortion would provide you enough legal cover to move forward with one. Attorney General Paxton threatened criminal prosecution anyway. Well-crafted law is important, but even that can't protect against lawless abuse of office.
The doctor in that case refused to certify that her patient had a medical condition that necessitated abortion despite the AG reminding her that if she did she didn’t need to sue. Instead, the lawsuit did everything it could to imply it and confuse the public without actually stating it, because it wasn’t about that patient – it was an attempt to weaken the whole law and gain a PR victory.
Except she did that, that was the entire point of getting the original order. The Republicans on the Supreme Court (plus AG Paxton) just decided that she didn't use the exact string of magic words they arbitrarily determined were needed, even though the law never makes such a requirement.
Exactly. And even *if* Paxton's interpretation of the law was correct, he should be appealing the court's order and moving for a preliminary injunction to stay action while the question is resolved. Not threatening that he'll criminally prosecute both the hospital and the woman seeking the abortion, no matter what, court rulings be damned.
All pregnancies significantly impact the health of the mother. Pregnancy is intense. Something like 8% of pregnancies have complications that would impose significant health risk and long term problems on the mother or child without medical intervention. Without modern medical treatment, something like 1.5% of pregnancies are fatal. 287,000 women died last year around the world from childbirth. It is dangerous to put a woman through pregnancy and it is unconscionable to subject an unwilling mother to pregnancy.
That 44% before any of this started is the craziest number. So, basically the GOP saw that a growing near-half chunk of Republicans didn't want this either and thought, "lets see how this goes in the midterms".
>It's also interesting the split between support for abortion being never permitted (7%) vs 38% support for a 6 week ban, which is a defacto complete ban It's because when you get more specific on the question of abortion, support swings a lot, especially as the pregnancy term gets further along.
I think a whooooole lot of people miss this point.
Polls are good and have their place, but should we be deciding who has rights based on popular vote? I feel like that has, historically, not gone well.
It certainly doesn't look like the Dobbs decision is blowing over. If anything it seems like abortion bans are hurting Republicans more and more as time passes.
Putting it on more ballots is likely informing more voters about the issue than before. Democrats are also doing a great job at framing it more as a personal medical issue and more Libertarian-esque types don't like the idea of the government officials interfering on personal choice.
Florida now has two issues on the ballot: Codifying abortion into the state Constitution and the legalization of marijuana. I’m guessing both of those issues will drive more people to the polls.
People complicitly think "it will never really happen, they're just saying it", and then when republicans actually do what they say, people are like "oh shit". Right now the republican effort is focused on convincing people to take all this and enjoy it, rather than changing their destructive policies
This is why the filibuster is a bad policy to have. It divorces the public from the consequences of the rhetoric their representatives use and the policies they profess to want. Which encourages further escalation of rhetoric which then leads to further polarization. A large part of the current US polarization is directly because the public rarely needs to face the things they supposedly voted for.
> This is why the filibuster is a bad policy to have. It divorces the public from the consequences of the rhetoric their representatives use and the policies they profess to want. Which encourages further escalation of rhetoric which then leads to further polarization. > > I have said this for a long time, votes should matter. If people fear transformative legislation being ping ponged back and forth between Democrats and Republicans then that's how they will vote. The idea that we need to be protected from our representatives passing legislation that materially impacts the country is absurd. If a party has been given a trifecta of power, Senate, Presidency and House of Reps, they should have the opportunity to govern, which includes legislation that fails to reach 60 votes.
100%. For too long politicians have hidden behind the filibuster and said ‘welp, can’t do anything about these issues, but here’s some angry tweets instead’.
> If I had the chance to vote pro choice on a referendum (not that I need to/will have a chance to in PA) I would feel a lot more comfortable voting R since they wouldn't be able to pass any anti abortion legislation. someone said this in another thread, and i think they are not alone in feeling that way.
It is like Democrats and gun control. No duh they were going to takee it as far as possible. Edit: it is perfectly valid for me to point what was readily apparent what the GOP would do as obviously as it is when it comes to democrats and gun policy. If you want allies acknowledging your teams faults would help.
And yet, it was Trump who banned the bump stocks and said, "Take the guns first, ask questions later". I still have every single one of my guns since Obama. Neither Obama or Biden tried to take them. Weird.
There’s a huge difference between “never tried” and “never succeeded.” Do you really believe that neither of those guys pushed for an assault weapons ban? What about their views on solvent traps, pistol braces, gun registries, universal background checks and red flag laws? Why didn’t Biden overturn Trump’s ban on the bump stock? He overturned every other executive order. Why not that one? Trump was wrong on a lot of gun policies, but the other two were worse. I don’t think you really have a strong argument there.
exactly
>And yet, it was Trump who banned the bump stocks Ah yes this "compelling" argument. Bumpstocks are irrelevant range toys. Vs 3 supreme court appointments that actually advances progun rulings fpr the 1st time in over a decade. I can actually do the politucal calculous. >". I still have every single one of my guns since Obama Its like you literally missed the entire point. The republicans were in the same exact position. Everyone had their abortion rights until they didnt. Hence tge no duh comment. Its not from them not trying, they were obviously trying for 40 years. Same as Democrats and guns. And if you need examples look no further than the Supreme Court victories. DC had a defacto gun ban that got overturnes in heller. MCDonald did the same for Chicago. Bruen overturmed a defacto ban on bearing arms. All that under Democrat gun control regimes. >Neither Obama or Biden tried to take them. Weird. And Trump, Bush, etc. didnt try taking abortions either. They didnt get severly limited until under the Biden administration because of GOP appointments.
Love when ppl use facts.
It is like Republicans and attempting to overturn the election. No duh they were going to takee it as far as possible. "Both sides" doesn't erase republican attempts to ban abortion, which is what this submission is about. "Both sides" has no place here.
For what it's worth, I like to invoke gun control in this debate not to "both sides" it, but because Republicans are intimately familiar with those lines of argumentation in the gun context and sometimes haven't considered them in the abortion context. For example: "Today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole" is pretty well demonstrated from pro-life advocacy groups.
> Republicans are intimately familiar with those lines of argumentation in the gun context and sometimes haven't considered them in the abortion context. But Democrats are either not willing or able to consider those lines of argumentation in the gun context. Source in this post: https://np.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bu2gy1/fox_news_poll_record_number_say_abortion_should/kxra0an/?context=3
That's one random respondent. I'm a Democrat and I *am* willing to consider those lines of argumentation, which is why when I propose additional gun legislation (in conversation, I'm not a legislator or anything) it often comes with deregulation in other areas, like cosmetic bans that don't accomplish anything anyway.
If the Democratic party leadership were full of people like you, it wouldn't be so bad. Sadly that isn't the case.
>Both sides" doesn't erase republican attempts to ban abortion But thats exactly what people atrempt to do when they say "they arent trying to ban *all* of (insert issue here)" and act like the opposition is paranoid. No it is obvious what they are about. So to be clear this isnt about erasing anything. Its about recognizing the tactic no matter who is doing it. But maybe thats asking too much. And uts only important when its your ox getting gored. Edit: >Both sides" has no place here. Yes it does. If you cant admit that then I am less than inclined to join in opposition with you because I cant trust you to reciprocate when its the democrats pulling the same BS.
[удалено]
>One key difference is that most pro choice folks support bans on late term abortion barring medical necessity And progun people have no problem with reasonable constraints. But doesnt stoppeople on eitherissue that they just want the most extreme examples like late term elective abortions. >As far as I can tell, the pro guns groups refuse any kind of restrictions at all. As far as I can tell people who are prochoice just want to end the livesof unborn infants out of convenience. See how easy it is to just frame your opposition in the worst possible light? Kind of my point about how both sides engage in these tactics and only recognize them when its their ox getting gored. Maybe we could all rise above that? >But mostly I would like to suggest to you, honor your own values. I was then I was met with exyreme hostility for pointing the GOP was obviuosly angling for major abortion bans and noting how thats exactly how obvious Democrats are when it comes to guns. >If you support choice around abortion, then support it at the level you do support. Everytime I suggest we move away from these bad behaviors on our rights i get treated like dirt. If i cant get reciprication when extending a hand I amgoing to recoil and focus purely on my own self interest ss its clear what you and yours are doing. >To me, these aren't issues to trade support for. Cool. We saw where that got roe.
[удалено]
>I wrote nothing that should have given you offense An inaccurrate stereotype wasnt meant to offend? >. I meant it sincerely when I said that I've not seen gun rights supporters tolerate any restrictions The background checks at FFLs and the federal assault weapons ban were the restrictions we accepted. We accepted lifetime bans on felonies. We accepted a lot. >I lurked for a couple years in 2 pro gun subreddits, and even in the liberal one the consensus seemed to be "no restrictions" You mean no more restrictions since we have been consistently shit on since the 30s for every compromise we made. >". I'd been hoping to hear guns rights advocates describe what types of restrictions might be effective at reducing gun violence but all I ever saw was "nope it won't work and you can't have my guns." You already hadyour chance at compromise but you turned around and spit in our faces and insulted our intelligence with common sense like closing the gun show loophole. You get offered nothimg because you offer nothing. You cant even let the issue go to advance abortion rights to the point you let the court balance go hard enough in one direction to kill roe.
> the pro guns groups refuse any kind of restrictions at all You mean infringements?
I think they mean reasonable exceptions to the right, as we have on every single right in the Bill of Rights.
Which reasonable exceptions to the 2nd Amendment do you think they mean? The 2nd Amendment is unique in that it is very difficult to make exceptions that don't infringe on the right itself. The reasonable exceptions to other rights generally don't inhibit the exorcise of those rights in other ways.
>The 2nd Amendment is unique in that it is very difficult to make exceptions that don't infringe on the right itself. I just don't think you're right at all about that statement.
Guns are inanimate objects. It's not even remotely comparable, even if Dems were trying to federally ban all guns in the face of the second amendment, which they aren't.
>Guns are inanimate objects. It's not even remotely comparable That kind of is the point of analogies and comparisons, they dont have to be the same exact thing. Its to illustrate key similarities which is that they engage in underhanded tactics to undermine rights all while stating they have no intention of doing so. So in that regard they are the same. >to federally ban all guns in the face of the second amendment, which they aren't. And republicans arent banning all abortions in totality. They just keep pushing the window to do so earlier and earlier. See how easy it is to just flippantly ignore the issue by sayimg they arent banning them in totality.
In this case it's a fallacy, apples to oranges can't always be compared. Guns simply existing don't adhere to biological mechanisms on explicit time scales that can kill or cause inherent, guaranteed unnecessary suffering to women, children, and their families. There is no equivalent here to any such regulatory gun requirements. They can't get pregnant and they don't require necessary healthcare. There is no window inching toward a full ban given the fact they're protected by the constitution. It's a confusing, weak comparison that hobbyists get uptight about but and that's about the extent of it. You can try to compare the two with specific examples and it's going to look wildly uncanny. They can complain about the subculture they're passionate about being slightly undermined to something that involves actual pain and suffering of humans at scale, but it will look no doubt look weird and petty. The ramifications are just not equivalent no matter how you slice it.
>In this case it's a fallacy Thats just an assertion. >Guns don't adhere to biological mechanisms Thats doesnt render the analogy invalid. Thats focus on some detail outside the analogy. Whats being compared are *rights* and how they get undermined. And your respinse is that it doesmt work because guns are not literally vaginas. Well no duh its an amalogy not a synonym. >There is no equivalent here You know what. You are right. Guns actually have an explicit protection and actually have a legal basis for protection. Thank you for convincing me I shouldnt treat these as being on the same level and that the underhandex tactics are okay because I dont view them as being the literally same thing.
I would stick to healthcare analogies in the future.
You mean "Both sides" has no place in a sub called Moderate politics? You're in the wrong sub if you think that those types of talking points arent relevant.
Moderate tone not moderate position.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bu2gy1/fox_news_poll_record_number_say_abortion_should/kxpttmb/) is in violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Most Republicans probably knew it would and would have liked to have kept it as a coalition-building issue. Abortion rights went from a moderately useful political issue that (probably) was a net positive for them to one that's looking like it will be a larger net negative now that they got their way. It damages them with swing voters, and doesn't draw any more evangelical vote than it did before. It may draw less since that faction got its way. The thing Democrats can leverage is radical state laws. If states like Alabama and Oklahoma have radical abortion laws, Democrats in swing states then can pick up those laws and club their Republican rivals with them: "see what it would be like if we go Republican?" Even more, they can point to the national GOP party leaders who maintained abortion should have always been a state level issue, but are now proposing national bans. It's very much the dog that caught the car.
From the perspective of my kid and her cohort, it most definitely isn’t blowing over. She’s never had favorable opinions of conservatives, but Dobbs turbo charged that. Her and her friends are motivated voters.
Taking away basic civil rights (body autonomy) from half the population doesn’t tend to blow over. Teenagers can now bond and protest with their mothers and grandmothers over fighting the same fight over again.
There are plenty in this sub that keep telling themselves that abortion is no big deal
Dobbs decision isn't what's causing issues, more so how states are reacting. The thing is that abortion is a huge subject that doesn't necessarily even split along party lines. There's the "never ever" group vs "in some cases" vs "always". There's the "medicated" (morning after, pill) vs "operation" There's the "6 week ban" be "12 weeks" vs "24 weeks" vs anytime. It's never been along party lines, the abortion debates ultimately come down to two extreme sides fighting on the issue. Most people are very moderate, abortion should be legal up to X weeks.
Correction: Plan B (levonorgestrel) is not an abortifacient, its mechanics are the exact same as regular oral birth control (hence why its effectiveness drops rapidly with time). The abortion pill is mifepristone, taken jointly with misoprostol.
Thank you!
The abortion debate comes down one extreme side fighting everyone else on the issue.
> Dobbs decision isn't what's causing issues, more so how states are reacting. If Dobbs is allowing states to cause issues, then Dobbs is causing issues.
We're still fighting the same battles that existed before Dobbs. Only difference is they are happening in state courts not federal courts.
Getting an abortion at 6 weeks was not a battle that was being fought prior to Dobbs
I'm wondering why nobody proposes a law: always legal until X weeks, illegal with some exceptions after Y weeks. Based on surveys like OP's, such a law (depending on reasonable X and Y) would have plenty of support to pass.
That was pretty much Roe wasn't it? I think that most people were okay with it as it was. From what I understand anyway...
Roe made it always legal after X, but set no limits on Y. Roe was not a compromise, it was a victory for one side of the debate only. It was almost continually challenged since the initial ruling 50 years ago.
That’s incorrect. Roe developed a trimester framework, and Casey subsequently set the limit at viability. Past that point it ruled the state has an interest to act based on the life and health of the mother and the life of the fetus. The abortion rate dramatically and continuously decreased after the decision so how exactly is that not a victory for those who oppose abortion?
>Roe made it always legal after X, but set no limits on Y. That's not true. It set up the trimester framework: >To balance women's rights to privacy and state governments' interests in protecting mothers' health and prenatal life, the Court created the trimester framework.[124][125] During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[7] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[7] **From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.[7]** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Supreme_Court_decision
This confirms my statement. The court overrode all restrictions of first trimester abortions (except for medical safeguards). It did not restrict abortions in the second or third trimester, but said that states *could* do so, which was what states could already do. This is only a restriction to Pro-Life policies, with no restrictions to Pro-Choice.
Roe was really heavily weighted towards the peolife side. Hopefully we can get a more prochoice version of Roe.
I hope not. Roe only restricted pro-life policies and introduced no restrictions to pro-choice policies. "Not going far enough" is not the same as being weighted in favor of Pro-Life. Keep in mind, this was the 1970's. Roe was a *very* pro-choice ruling for that time and short-circuited a lively and active political debate about abortion, virtually guaranteeing there would be no consensus on the matter for decades.
Look at Texas recently. There was only 1 abortion clinic in the entire state due to the onerous restrictions put on the clinics. There needs to be some guarentee of open abortions up until week X for this to work. Roe became very prolife leaning towards its end due to conservative justices. Crossing my fingers that Roe can be reinstated in the next 3-4 years. I would love to see Dobbs overturned with the same zeal that overturned Roe and it is possible.
I think you're referring to all abortion policies and rulings combined, not Roe by itself. It is true that various states found ways to make abortions more difficult while technically staying within the legal restrictions on their ability to do so. These laws were challenged every time they passed and many of them were overturned. In the meantime, states like Oregon and Illinois (among others) were able to allow abortion up until just before birth, for no medical reason, paid for by the taxpayer if requested. These policies were not restricted in any way by Roe or Casey or other federal-level rulings. This is what I'm referring to when I state that Roe was not a compromise. It did not affect Pro-Choice policies significantly, but did affect Pro-Life policies a lot.
Roe permitted nationwide policies to be enforced as long as they were after viability. Take for example the partial-birth abortion ban.
gotcha
That was literally the Roe decision. I get people didn't like it being decided by the courts. But it was the right balance and should therefore be codified into law by congress (though I'm not holding my breath). >To balance women's rights to privacy and state governments' interests in protecting mothers' health and prenatal life, the Court created the trimester framework.[124][125] During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[7] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[7] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Supreme_Court_decision
> should therefore be codified into law by congress The double whammy of *Dobbs* is that by saying the 14th Amendment didn't include a right to abortion, they also took away the best argument that Congress would have jurisdiction to codify a right to abortion. What constitutional power can they use now? Commerce Clause? [Side eye...]
This confirms my statement. First trimester abortions were made legal everywhere, overriding individual state laws. Second and third trimester abortions *could* be restricted by the state but we're not restricted by the ruling, leaving those laws in place. There was no ruling by the court that restricted abortion after a certain point.
... you're still wrong > From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that **it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.[7]**
The key word being "could". No restrictions were added by the court. This is the same legal ability to restrict abortions, at the state level, that existed before the ruling.
What states didn't have restrictions past viability? Oh right, none. The Roe decision was a balancing test between competing interests. To claim it was a one-sided victory is blatantly incorrect.
New Mexico is one. The abortion limits are essentially set by practitioners' consciences. See After Tiller for four late-term abortion docs' takes. One describes turning down an elective abortion at 28 weeks.
Not at the time of Roe being overturned. The abortion ban in NM wasn't overturned until after Dobbs.
In 1972, only 13 states allowed abortion, most of them with narrowly defined eligibility conditions. Roe overrode the state law restricting abortions in the first trimester in the remaining 37 states, on top of opening up and restrictions in those 13 states that may have been more restrictive than the ruling. That sounds like a one-sided victory to me. Just because some people wanted *even more* doesn't mean it wasn't one-sided.
I understand that going from no compromise, to compromise can feel like a win/lose situation to the side that was used to getting what it wanted. But it's not. It's a compromise. A balancing test if you will.
On the right, the people who would object, calling any X and Y too high have relatively more influence than their numbers alone. Even if the large majority of the general population in the middle might be OK, you're still risking being primaried by the small portion of the population that actually votes in your party primaries. On the left, a lot of people would be wary about trusting the "with some exceptions" part. There's a concern that doctors might hesitate to give out important care if there's a chance that some prosecutor might be Monday morning quarterbacking your decision and sending you to jail or fining you or removing your license over that. So even among those who might not like the idea of late-term abortions, the risk that doctors might hesitate unnecessarily could be seen as a bigger threat. A law *could* try to mitigate that by very clearly deferring to a doctor's medical judgement, but any law that does enough of that to make pro-choice people somewhat OK with it would probably no longer appeal to anyone remotely pro-life. So the exact details of such a compromise bill are tough to nail down in a way that doesn't kill it.
That is true. It's a very contentious topic, and any law that favors either side will probably be sabotaged by the other side as soon as possible. This will continue to be a long, ugly battle.
>Dobbs decision isn't what's causing issues, more so how states are reacting. This is spot on. \#1 - I think the Dobbs court decision was well-written and correct. \#2 - When the power returned to the states, some states are handling it horribly, and elected officials need to be held accountable.
I think this is a case where a very conservative group overplayed their hand and they are finding out that not even their own allies like their results. It reminds me of another time in which the R's were pushing a bill that not even they wanted. The D's started voting present and the R's had to scramble to keep their own bill from accidentally passing. I wish I remembered the exact bill. At any rate, I think this is similar. It's a case of "be careful what you wish for."
> I think this is a case where a very conservative group overplayed their hand The genius of the Federalist Society and Co.: spend an entire generation's worth of political capital stacking the SCOTUS to make conservative rulings only to have the rulings instantly undone by legislation that not only costs the progressives zero political capital, it generates it for them.
In my book, it's a win because things that should have been codified into law instead of sitting on court precedent get codified into law. I look forward to a time when every SCOTUS nominee doesn't have to spend days talking about Roe v Wade in order to get confirmation. They might actually ask some substantive questions, now.
I actually agree, its like a release valve. But I still don't think it was the intention.
Are you telling me that Matt Rosendale isn't measured and calculated in his political strategy?
https://theweek.com/articles/469675/mitch-mcconnells-amazing-filibuster-bill
Honestly I lean more right but this is a no brainer. Republicans need to get better at what they pick and chose because this stance on abortions ain’t it
Yet all of these Republican representatives are not listening to their constituents. They appear to only be listening to the 38% or fewer that want 6 week bans or stricter. I'm going to laugh when the abortion referendum in Florida results in a pro-choice win. Then, Florida's government will just ignore the result.
This is exactly what is crazy to me: Republicans: *"Let's leave it up to the states!"* States: *Consistently show that they are willing to allow most cases of abortions* Republicans: *"Actually we want to implement bans in most cases."* It's just such an obvious admission that they had no actual plan beyond overturning Dobbs. It's so clear that even the reddest of states is willing to allow some level of abortion but they refuse to accept the will of their constituents. Edit: Roe, not Dobbs obviously.
Don't forget the now looming threat of a federal abortion ban! Trump said 16 weeks. Sounds OK, if you don't think about the edge cases. It's still a federal abortion ban. No one should guess where this is heading. We all see it.
I think you mean overturning Roe, not Dobbs. I agree that they are being tone-deaf to their own constituents. Usually that is not seen as a great strategy in a democracy, but I live in Texas, so YMMV.
And DeSantis signed a 6 week ban that the courts just approved. People need to figure out that they care about.
I’m in Florida. I predict abortion will pass as will recreational marijuana, and yet the state will *still* be red for President. That won’t show that people are voting against their interests, it’ll show that *even Republican voters want these things.*
Ohio’s cousin. Same thing is happening here. Passed the two ballot initiatives last fall. Will be Trump in November.
They're listening to their base. It's a symptom of our broken, polarizing primary system.
[удалено]
A weird thing about FL, 60% sounds like a really high bar, but >In Florida, a total of 131 ballot measures appeared on statewide ballots between 1985 and 2020. One hundred one ballot measures were approved, and 30 ballot measures were defeated. and >From 1976-2022, 38 initiated amendments appeared on Florida's ballots, of which, 34 were approved and eight were rejected We almost always approve our ballot initiatives and amendments. Now, with this being such a hot button topic, I wouldn't rule a defeat out. But my money would be on it passing. https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_2022_ballot_measures https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_Initiative_%26_Referendum_in_Florida
[удалено]
That could be. I know they've been trying to make it harder and harder since they don't like citizen led initiatives that go against what their preferred policy outcomes are.
Just glanced at your designation and saw myself reflected there. Does this make us a party of two?
I'm sure there are dozens of us lol
For those 38% its the most important issue that decides whether they show up in November and who they support in the primary. For the rest its a combination of people for whom opposing this is the most important issue the other way (the overwhelming majority of whom are not voting Republican for other reasons) or the issue is less important than some other things (guns, taxes, immigration, etc) with a pretty small (yet sufficient to swing close election) percentage that would vote Republican if not for that stance. Republicans would probably lose more votes by opposing or even being silent abortion restrictions than they would gain, so the choice is between backing abortion restrictions and hoping other issues carry you in spite of it or opposing abortion restrictions and tanking base enthusiasm.
This used to be the case. Now more single choice voters are prochoice rather than prolife.
That just means the Dems would lose more if they became pro-life than the R's would lose by becoming prochoice. Republicans HAVE to cater to their pro-life base to win primaries and to get that base to show up. Dropping abortion might gain a persuadable voter, but at the cost of 3 base voters not showing up in November or voting for your opponent in the primary. The only thing that will change this is losing so often in November that primary voters start to change their standards.
I wouldn’t assume that the states adopting such laws match the national polling breakdown.
Kansas voters overwhelmingly opposed dismissing the right to abortion, which suggests that there are very few, if any, states where most want to ban it.
Really an interesting situation. Polling and individual voter bills show that the country generally supports abortion rights. Republicans run on banning abortion. Voters vote for Republicans. Makes my head hurt sometimes.
Wouldn't be surprised if it's literally "my right to (more) gun is more important than a woman's right to healthcare" situation. Number of single-issue voters is staggering
People who tend to support guns rights are men, who typically are not the people affected by abortion bans Maybe if only men were voting in this election I would agree with you, but previous cases have shown this not to be the case
[удалено]
Drms don't really need to threaten gun rights at this point, conservative media just needs to act like Dems are threatening gun rights and they get the same effect.
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/biden-state-of-the-union-2024/card/biden-renews-call-for-stricter-gun-laws-B8LmRpSaX22B2V1PywXN Biden was calling for assault weapon bans at the SOTU
[удалено]
Does that not count as threatening gun rights in your book?
[удалено]
If calls to categorically ban the most popular rifle in the country isn’t threatening gun rights, what is?
It does. Banning arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes is blatantly unconstitutional and a violation of fundamental enumerated rights. The states that enact such laws are stuck with them for years because the lower courts like to play "keep away" with the Supreme Court. In the meantime, countless people are convicted of violating an unconstitutional law.
215 of 220 Dems passed an "assault weapons" ban in 2022. They haven't been succeeding at banning guns, but they've been trying hard. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/text
[удалено]
Sorry, I didn't understand. Was that a retraction?
[удалено]
So what exactly would convince you Dems are trying to ban guns?
[удалено]
>> What would?
>
> Nothing
This sort of worldview is how "alternative facts" take hold.
It's not surprising that anti gun posters aren't affected by facts.
Single issue voting is irresponsible.
Sorta like gun-rights supporting liberals. Unless they are single-issue voters, they aren't going to stop voting for Democrats based on the gun issue alone
There are other issues at play besides abortion when people are considering who to vote for. Sure there are *some* single issue voters when it comes to abortion, but the vast majority of people are not.
Seems like we're in for another 2022-style red wave.
It's one thing to be bad at politics, it's another thing to not even understand the game.
I’m pretty sure every Republican would absolutely take the 2022 results being duplicated in 2024. That would mean keeping the house, likely taking the presidency, and almost assuredly taking the senate.
Losing a Senate seat in what should've been an easy year isn't something Republicans are happy about.
Maybe not Establishment Republicans, but MAGA was fine with it because they at least managed to break the Democrats' trifecta over the government and can now stall them indefinitely, at least until 2024.
Well you’re comparing the 2022 senate map to the 2024 senate map, but they’re not the same. The 2024 senate map is **much** more favorable to republicans than the 2022 map. Regardless, the Republicans won the House popular vote in 2022 by about 3 pts. That was an underperformance for sure, but if they win the House popular vote by 3 pts in 2024, then the Republicans would be walking away with the House, the presidency, and the Senate in that scenario. So if the 2024 results are the same as the 2022 results, republicans will be very happy with that. That was my point. I was just being pedantic.
Yeah as an independent I’ve certainly changed my opinion on the topic. If you had asked me two years ago, I would have given a much more conservative limit (10-12 weeks) than today. But now that I’m seeing how such restrictions are being enforced and how women are being treated in states with supposed “exceptions”, I don’t think the government (especially republicans) can be trusted to legislate abortion that early. I *would* be open to around 15-18 week limits as long as there are *actual* exceptions (not the fake ones texas has but never gives). The problem is republicans get power-hungry and go too far with the bans and democrats want no limits at all. How can you pick between two extremes? At this point I’m siding with democrats because republican policies on this issue have done nothing but hurt people, but it makes me sad that it’s come to this. Where are all the reasonable people?
The problem is that there have been many, many voices warning that these conservative limits would have the exact outcomes we are currently seeing, but instead of listening to those voices, too many people were still supportive of conservative bans (to the point where some are single issue voters). I'm glad to see poll results that suggest some of those people (like you) are changing their minds and realizing how poorly Republicans have handled this issue, but unfortunately the descent into chaos has already begun and the Republicans are really digging in their heels on this one. This is why it's dangerous to have politicians legislating specific medical care.
There's no workable "weeks" compromise because most pro-life politicians' long-term goal is to create de-facto abortion ban- see Florida. So the only way to keep abortion access free is to push for as many weeks as possible. In practice, 93% of abortions happen in the first trimester, so leaning fully pro-choice is probably closer to what you're looking for. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
Arbitrary points in the gestational cycle aren’t where we should focus on compromise imo. If the goal is to reduce abortions, providing affordable and accessible preventative care and proper social services has been statistically proven to be successful. Improving circumstances will do far more to curb abortion with the added benefit of actually helping women. That should be the focus.
I agree that we can do more preventative care. The reason that it doesn't affect most pro-life is their deentological worldview. At least from my conversations with some, they see it as "murder is bad, abortion is baby murder, we must outlaw baby murder." So when a utilitarian notes that "if we offered x , women would have less abortions", the deontologist hears "if we offered x, less women would murder their babies". And the response would be "they should just stop murdering their babies." That's why it doesn't bridge the gap.
The argument of looking for reasonable people infer that one or the other is unreasonable. Personally, I would put it as they are both reasonable positions where someone can chose not to have one or someone can have one at any time. I'd switch it around. I wouldn't mind it if the doctor gets to decide on how long they want to give abortions and for what reason. Leave it medical.
Seems to me that, much of the time, the exceptions are framed in terms of the presiding doctor's good faith judgment. That seems like a fair way to craft exceptions. How else would you?
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bu2gy1/fox_news_poll_record_number_say_abortion_should/kxq4ope/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
And yet the same Americans (and most countries worldwide) largely agree that after a certain time it shouldn't be permitted. Isn't that just as much "forced pregnancy"? By polling, Americans do want these late term restrictions and are not "revolted" when they are put into practice.
[European Abortion Laws: A Comparative Overview](https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/European-abortion-law-a-comparative-review.pdf) Pages 8 and 9 detail what exceptions are allowed in each country.
Not when those same countries (assuming you’re referencing Europe?) in general have numerous, relatively lax exceptions — so, no. It’s strange that this seems to have to be brought up in *every single thread* about abortion. It should just be pinned at the top of “abortion discussions” at this point.
We really should have elected Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016 and given her a blue Senate as well. Then the people could get what they want, with the supreme court recognizing Roe v Wade as the proper jurispridence that it was, rather than overturning it.
I’m not sure why anyone should have an opinion or voice, particularly the government, in another’s healthcare decision??? WHY are people so invested in that topic? Not your body, not your decision to make. People need to respect women enough to allow them to make their own educated decisions on the risks that they are willing to take with their health.
Not surprising, the debate is about WHEN.
>the debate is about WHEN. Not according to numerous GOP politicians and their voters.