Roundup: A Final Look at Poll Results on Abortion Related Ballot Initiatives
by Brady Swenson, RH Reality Check
November 4, 2008 - 10:56am (Print)
A Final Look at Poll Results on Abortion Ballot Initiatives
As Scott reported over the weekend polling on the three abortion related ballot initiatives -- parental notification in California, redefining personhood to begin at fertilization in Colorado and the outright ban of abortion in South Dakota -- has moved toward protecting women's right to choose as we approached election day.
In late September those supporting California's parental notification initiative, Proposition 4, enjoyed a sizable lead in the polls, 52-36. However, the latest SurveyUSA poll shows the measure going down in defeat 40-46. Though that poll still leaves a large number of undecideds, opponents of the measure are encouraged by the historic margin of victory predicted in California for Senator Barack Obama as registered Democrats oppose the measure 59-28 and high turnout and enthusiasm for the top of the Democratic ticket could mean significant coat tails for the opposition to Proposition 4.
For a couple of weeks polls have shown that the Colorado ballot initiative amending the state's consitution to redefine "person" to include a zygote at the moment of fertilization will go down easily in defeat and there has been no change on that front.
South Dakota's Initiated Measure 11 remains very tight and too close to call. All recent polling on the measure also shows a high number of undecideds remaining. The two most recent polls are the Research 2000 poll from October 22-24 that shows opposition to the measure leading slightly 44-42 and a poll conducted by newspaper The Argus Leader showing the measure even at 44-44. This is the ballot initiative to pay close attention to tonight as its passage would send a direct challenge against Roe vs. Wade to the Supreme Court.
Excellent Voter Guide at Feministe
Feministe's excellent voter guide shows exactly why it is one of our very favorite blogs. Jill does a great job stepping through the issues important to women in the campaign for President and concludes that "even a brief look at the issues makes clear that [Barack Obama] is a solidly progressive, feminist choice for the presidency." Jill then goes state-by-state looking at the important abortion related ballot initiatives mentioned above and a brief look at some House and Senate races that are important to establishing a pro-choice majority in Congress.
Where Was Abortion Debate in 2008 Election?
Newsweek says that "abortion hasn't been a central debate in the 2008 campaign, but that doesn't mean that its opponents feel any less strongly about it." Indeed the abortion debate has remained relatively below the surface of this year's election as the economy dominated the domestic debate and two war fronts were the top concern in the foreign policy arena. Butsome new arguments were made in the abortion debate this year and some movement toward finding a middle ground centered on using social policy to reduce unintended pregnancy and provide support to single mothers and struggling familes, thus lowering the abortion rate:
What's new, then, is this: A few—a very few—prominent Christians and Catholics (like Douglas Kmiec, one of Weigel's ideological opponents) have been making arguments that allow a conservative Christian believer to vote for Obama in good conscience. These, in summary, are:
- A pro-life Christian can look at a candidate's policies on behalf of children—for isn't it as urgent for a nation to care for its born children as its unborn ones?
- A pro-life Christian needs to look beyond abortion to other types of needless killing, like war and torture and care for the neediest. Which candidate will better promote life, when considered this broadly?
- After 35 years, anti-abortion activists have accomplished very little, politically, to end legal abortion. Why not try something new? Work on the state level for restrictions? Work with political opponents to find common ground? Work to achieve justice on behalf of other, less intractable issues, like AIDS, literacy or childhood disease?
Catholics Shouldn't Be Afraid to Support a Pro-Choice Candidate
Much of the Catholic leadership in America has gone out of their way to tell their congregations how to vote today. Yesterday, Kansas City’s Bishop told Obama voters that they would essentially be going to hell for supporting the Democratic nominee. In response Tim Fernholz writes about Jesuit scholar John Courtney Murray:
Whenever these issues come up, I’m reminded of the great Jesuit scholar John Courtney Murray, who almost single-handedly developed the Catholic distinction between Church and state (ironically, modeled on the American constitution’s view of the issue) that was approved at the Second Vatican Counsel. A key piece of his puzzle was the argument that Catholics should not oppose anti-contraception legislation because it is considered a matter of private morality. He never assumed a position on abortion in his writings, and Catholics have continuously argued over how his complex intellectual legacy affects the hot-button religious-political issue of our day. Unsurprisingly, pro-life Catholics argue that the framework he used to justify his positions would not apply to abortion, while others argue that, in fact, it does. Here’s food for thought from a memo Murray wrote about contraception legislation:
… from the standpoint of morality Catholics maintain contraception to be morally wrong; and … out of their understanding of the distinction between morality and law and between public and private morality, and out their understanding of religious freedom, Catholics repudiate in principle a resort to the coercive instrument of law to enforce upon a whole community moral standards that the community itself does not commonly accept. The conclusion might be an exhortation to Catholics to lift the standards of public morality in all its dimensions, not by appealing to law and police action, but by the integrity of their Christian lives. This, to set the birth-control issue in its proper perspective.Murrray, of course, did not and does not create Catholic doctrine (and neither do I, certainly). But there are many on the religious right and left who are seeking to create a broader understanding of what it is to be “pro-life,” and finding it not incompatible with the decision to be “pro-choice,” or to support of Barack Obama. For further consideration about the role of religion in politics, I’d recommend this speech by the senator.
Abortion: Decisions Made in the Shadows
In our election daze we missed a great little piece in last Friday's New York Times that looks at the typical American woman having an abortion:
I had long assumed it was someone like Juno — the title character of the recent popular movie — a teenager in high school who finds herself pregnant and is not ready to raise a child.
This is wrong. The typical American woman having an abortion is a parent of one or more children (60 percent); in her 20s (57 percent); has never married (67 percent); is economically disadvantaged (57 percent); lives in a metropolitan area (88 percent); considers herself a Christian (70 percent); and has graduated from high school (87 percent) and attended at least some college (57 percent).
These numbers are illuminated by the short personal stories of three women who have had an abortion. I encourage you to click on over to read them.
There is never a valid justification for the taking of an innocent life - period. Christ's Church (The Catholic Church as identified on Earth) can never teach that any person can aid in the taking of innocent lives. To vote for a candidate who does not oppose abortion would be to aid in the taking of innocent lives. Abortion is irreprehensible. This core issue must be resolved before we can hope to spread love around the rest of the country and world. The other issues that stem from this basic disregard for the dignity of human life (like war) are not a reason to continue killing babies. As far as your statistics of women having abortions - it just proves that abortions from rape, incest and health of the mother are truly the exception (4% of abortions). But the more common are because women just don't want the hassle (96% of abortions). When children infringe on our lifestyle of selfishness - Obama has one thing right on - "Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation..." But wait a minute. Upholding the right to life is not only a religious right - it's also very Constitutional and obvious. Our founding fathers didn't write in the Constitution anything about "Privacy" they wrote that everyone has the right "...to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.." Read your Constitutions as well as your Bibles. No talk of Privacy in the constitution. The Bible was very exclusive NOT inclusive like Obama and other Pseudo-Christians like the Swenson Brothers like to proport. Jesus came to Divide. I would be careful with someone who wants to bring everyone together like Obama does...
Hey Pal not everyone in America is Christian or Catholic so why should they have to abide by your beliefs? In fact what does a womans choice have anything to do with anybody? It should be a decision made by herself and it will be between her and god only and women should not have to answer to anybody for her decisions. Abortion is a terrible thing, I think we can all agree on this, but you cannot, I repeat, cannot force a woman to bear a child she does not want because it conflicts with YOUR religious beliefs.
^^ Why is that post flagged? It seems like a reasonable argument. This is America, and everyone has a right to their Freedom of Speech.
So, Truth, it looks like you've managed to 'forget' all that stuff about separation of church and state. And apparently you think all those Iraqi and Afghani foetuses are less worthy than American foetuses. Pro-life indeed.
By the way, though, Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution either... It only states,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The Separation of Church and State was a letter from Jefferson written in 1802 to some Danbury Baptists explaining that the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress and that a state cannot give special treatment to one group over another, etc.
I haven't forgotten "...that stuff about separation of church and state." I don't think that abortion is a religious issue - it's a moral one that negatively effects society. It is no different than murder, which is illegal. I do believe that to be Christian & Pro-Death is impossible because the two concepts are mutually exclusive. In other words, the two cannot share the same space - one can be either/or but not both. As far as Iraqi and Afghani fetuses are concerned, they are innocent first and therefore must be protected as we are there doing right now. Again, the argument that because we war with other countries that we can therefore kill our own children doesn't flow. You could possibly put together an argument of cause and effect showing logically that because we (as a country - as a people) don't respect our own innocent human babies (i.e. the dignity of human life) that we don't respect other country's innocent human lives - this might hold some water. Develop the argument - I'll take a look at it and see if it gets some tracks.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Thomas Jefferson and our other Founding Fathers of these United States believed in a natural law-- i.e. a moral and philosophical law which one can attain through the use of right reason. All human laws were to be judged by their conformity to the natural law. An unjust law was in a sense no law at all. Natural law was not only used to pass judgment on the moral worth of various laws, but also to determine what the law said in the first place. Natural law always nourishes life and it recognizes that there are rules about how we should govern ourselves and our relations with others. Laws against murder, lying in court, theft, and elder abuse all come from the natural law. With the virtue of right reason, legislators and judges served the common good by devising systems of law that promote these basic aspects of human flourishing. During the late 1700’s and 1800’s, natural law was the primary mode of thinking of American lawyers. Abraham Lincoln, trained as a lawyer, led the nation to abolish slavery with speeches full of natural law.
Words like “justice” and “rights,” which are rooted in natural-law jurisprudence, mean little in today’s legal world that only understands law as power or efficiency. So now in the 21st century, law is only power and therefore there is no basis on which the weak can challenge the powerful.
Today we have become a country that espouses ethical relativism. There are many issues important to this election, but issues of prudential judgment are not morally equivalent to everyone’s’ right to life. The right to life is “foundational” and all other rights depend on it. There are no truly grave moral or proportionate reasons, singularly or combined, that could ever outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion every year. Abortion runs counter to the natural law. Just as Germany had no right to determine that innocent Jews could by killed, neither do U.S. states have the right to legislate that innocent babies can be killed. The first responsibility of government, the indispensable core of social justice, is the equal protection of everyone (from conception to natural death) from violent destruction by others.
The only way your argument holds water is if we all agree that what is removed from a woman's body during an abortion is a "baby."
I don't think it is. I think it has the potential to be a human life (or a baby), but I don't think it becomes a baby until it is born.
Argue with me all you want, I know what abortion is and isn't about. And as far as I have seen, it's got nothing to do with babies.
What else could it be?
The medical establishment and most thinking people say it's a human embryo or fetus with the potential to become an infant.
One of the most common arguments abortion supporters use when confronting abortion opponents is asking, "So when does life start? But I guess the abortion supporters since they espouse ethical relativism are really asking “at what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?” If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb? Does this question have any impact our sick, elderly, frail or poor for the future? Could we even go further to say that if my child at 15 or my 82 year old father is a big pain in the derrière and I no longer think he/she has value to me then can I just get rid of him or her by death? I don’t think so…but if we as a human race keep diminishing the value of life then I promise some day this will happen unless we stand up for life from conception to natural death.
As technology has improved over the past few decades, we are able to save premature babies earlier and earlier. What used to be an "abortable" fetus is now a savable premature baby.
Science has proven this chronological development of a baby from conception.
1st week (1st month)
• Sex of baby is determined.
• Genetic traits are determined.
• Embryo travels from fallopian tube to the uterus.
2nd week (1st month)
• Egg is implanted on the wall of the uterus.
• Placenta develops.
3rd week (1st month)
• Heart begins to develop, 18-25 days.
• Brain begins to develop.
• Intestinal tract begins to develop.
4th - 5th weeks (1st month)
• Vertebra begins to develop.
• Blood flow begins.
• Eye development begins.
• Arm and leg development begins.
• The umbilical cord begins to form.
6th week (1 - 2 months)
• Fingers and the toes appear.
• Nose, ears, develops.
• Joints are developing.
7th week (1 - 2 months)
• All essential organs are developing.
• Eyelids form.
8th week (2 months)
• Muscle contraction occurs.
• Facial features become more prominent.
• Heart has four chambers.
9th - 12th week (2 - 3 months)
• The baby is about 3 inches long.
• The neck develops.
• Arms and legs begin to lengthen.
• Genitals are well defined.
13th - 16th weeks (3 - 4 months)
• The baby is about 6 inches.
• Hair begins to develop.
• The baby moves.
• Lungs develop.
• If female, the ovaries contain about 2 million eggs.
• The face is more developed.
• The baby can suck its thumb.
17th - 20th weeks (4 - 5 months)
• The baby is about 8 inches.
• Eyebrows form.
• Nails on fingers and toes form.
• Movement can be felt by mother.
• The circulatory system is working.
• Swallowing begins to occur.
21st - 24th weeks (5 - 6 months)
• The baby is about 11 inches long.
• The baby weighs about 1.5 pounds.
• Fingerprints form.
• Baby can hear&react to sounds from outside the womb.
25th - 28th weeks (6 - 7 months)
• The baby is about 15 inches long.
• The baby weighs about 2.5 pounds.
• Survivability outside the womb is possible.
• The baby can react to light from outside the womb.
29th - 32nd weeks (7 - 8 months)
• The baby is about 16 inches long.
• The baby weighs about 4.5 pounds.
• All bones are fully developed.
33rd - 40th weeks (8 - 9 months)
• The baby is about 18 - 21 inches long.
• The baby weighs about 6 - 8 pounds.
• The baby is ready to be born.
• Sleep patterns are apparent.
• Strong movement is very apparent.
Think about this - Where would we be today if Dr. Alexander Fleming who discovered penicillin was aborted. Penicillin has single-handedly saved countless lives and improved the quality of others. Where would we be today if Jonas Salk who discovered the polio vaccine was aborted? This has kept so many people from suffering from a lifetime of disability and pain; even death!
ms: Think about this - Where would we be today if Dr. Alexander Fleming who discovered penicillin was aborted.
*
Think about this - where would we be today if Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy or Richard Speck (who, combined, killed at least 55 innocent people) had been aborted? Sound like a ridiculous argument for abortion to be legal? Not any more ridiculous than your above statement for criminalizing abortion.
anon1971: Many people have been working over time on mental maneuvers to somehow come out with the notion that the dignity of the human person (from conception to natural death) has no value in comparison with the mother. Maybe you would be comfortable 50 years ago with appeals for people to look beyond the racism of Southern Democratic senators? Probably not. It all has to do with the value of a human being; unborn, newborn, old, black, white, any other race or nationality. So since you want to disregard the value of human life and you only want to discuss numbers then let me proceed. Over 48 million abortions have been performed in the U.S from 1973 and the total number of murders during the same period of time is 700,120 (including those taken by serial killers). The victims of either abortion or serial killers or any other murderer is wrong- illegal. Abortion is rarely anything but a selfish choice as well as murdering another human being is a selfish choice – power of one over another. In either case the victims rights have been taken away by another human being who made the choice as to whether the innocent should live or die – a choice they had no right to make. Abortion-rights supporters frame the argument as a women’s-power issue. Abortion gives a woman ultimate power over her own life. But it also gives her ultimate power over the life of another — whether you consider a fetus a life or not, it has the potential to become a child, and abortion irrevocably changes that outcome. PS - Dr. Alexander Fleming saved an estimated 200 million lives due to his discovery and Jonas Salk effectively cured and prevented millions of polio victims around the world. They valued life by making discoveries that save millions from disease. Unfortunately we can not cure the disease of selfishness or indifference for the well being of one another.
ms: Maybe you would be comfortable 50 years ago with appeals for people to look beyond the racism of Southern Democratic senators? Probably not
*
Anon1971: Why would I be comfortable with denying a person in their inaliable rights? Sorry, but comparing a black man, woman or child to a fertilized egg is insulting, to say the least. Do you think that simply because a person happens to be black that they are nothing more than dividing cells? Black men, women and children aren't sentient? That is an awful thing to even imply.
*
ms: It all has to do with the value of a human being; unborn, newborn, old, black, white, any other race or nationality
*
Anon1971: No, it has to do with the value of people. A pregnant woman is not less valuable than her pregnancy. A woman doesn't suddenly loose her rights as a person upon becoming pregnant. No person has (nor should they have) more rights than any other person and certainly a pregnancy (or zygote/embryo/fetus) shouldn't have more rights than the pregnant woman. As a matter of fact, the pregnant woman is the most qualified person to be making decisions regarding her pregnancy.
*
ms: Abortion is rarely anything but a selfish choice as well as murdering another human being is a selfish choice – power of one over another
*
Anon1971: Abortion is the termination of ones pregnancy no matter how much you emote that it is anything other than what it is. Your opinion about what constitutes a selfish act is immaterial.
*
ms: Dr. Alexander Fleming saved an estimated 200...
*
Anon1971: Still a completely insane reason to criminalize abortion. My but you sure like to s-t-r-e-t-c-h!!!
Thanks for the dialog...............
“The truth, of course, is that a billion falsehoods told a billion times by a billion people are still false.” Travis Walton
and
“Attitude is the way you mentally look at the world around you. It is how you view your environment and your future. It is the focus you develop toward life itself.” Anonymous
And you are welcome... I enjoyed the dialog also...
*
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
~Albert Einstein
*
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
~Abraham Lincoln
