Poll: Majority of Minnesotans Support Abortion Rights
by Andy Birkey, New Journalist Fellow
December 21, 2009 - 12:06pm (Print)
This article is republished from Minnesota Independent, a partnership between RH Reality Check and the Center for Independent Media.Â
St. Cloud State University poll data released on Friday (PDF) shows most Minnesotans support abortion rights and oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, a result that’s in line with polling throughout the decade. Republicans, religious conservatives and those who never completed high school were most likely to oppose abortion rights.
In the survey conducted this fall, 8.7 percent of respondents felt that a woman should never have an abortion for any reason; 30.4 percent said it’s acceptable in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother; 12.6 percent said abortion is allowable only if the need to have one “is clearly established”; and a plurality of those surveyed, 45.9 percent, said that abortion is a woman’s personal choice.
The preference for banning any and all abortion was higher among Republicans (17 percent), Baptists (15 percent) and Catholics (12 percent). Lutheran support for a total ban was low (3 percent) and comparable to non-religious people (2 percent). Minnesotans who had not completed high school were much more likely to support a total ban on abortion (24 percent).
Two-thirds of Minnesotans support maintaining Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that determined a right to abortion, while 25.4 percent would like to see that decision overturned. The percentage of people who support an overturning of Roe increased among Republicans (48 percent) and Baptists (69 percent). Lutherans were less likely than Minnesotans in general to support overturning Roe, with only 20 percent.
There were few differences between rural, suburban and urban responses.
St. Cloud State University will be releasing more data in the coming weeks, including Minnesotans’ views on same-sex marriage.
I am a little boggled. Amost 9% believe there should be no abortion whatsoever.
I wonder if they're aware of the complications of pregnancy and that if their position were law they would be condemning to death about 3% of the women who get pregnant each year? At 6 million pregnancies per year that would be in the neighborhood of 180,000 deaths annually.
If there is 'no abortion' whatsoever, then it would be illegal to take her to surgery, hemorrhaging or not. After all, the surgery might put that incredibly valuable little ectopic pinpoint at risk, and it's immoral to interfer with its right to kill its mother. In order to Uphold Morality, no price is too high to pay -- even the human sacrifices of a couple hundred thousand women annually.
Actually, I suppose I shouldn't be so appalled - most of them probably 'don't believe in' life-threatening complications of pregnancy so they 'don't believe' there will be any deaths. 'Hope' and 'faith' sure kill a lot of people.
Only when it's medically necessary to save a woman's life would Brinkman's bill allow abortion. But that never happens anyway, he says.
Re abortion to save the mother's life - "It's a fallacy perpetrated by the Planned Parenthood people," Brinkman says. "My doctors tell me they're never in that type of dilemma."
I wonder who Brinkman's OB/GYN is and just exactly what they discuss during his appointments?
The poll was not very useful. It used loaded and misleading wording to produce the desired responses.
The poll asked about whether Roe v. Wade should be "completely" overturned, not just whether it should be overturned. Many people favor time limits on abortion.
The poll is also unhelpful because it asks about a topic about which people are poorly informed. Because of all the media bias, many people think that Roe v. Wade allows for time limits on abortion or that overturning it would automatically outlaw abortion.
Roe v Wade does indeed allow individual states to impose time limits on abortion after fetal viability as measured by trimester. So-called abortion on demand is NOT mandated by the decision in any way.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
[I added the Bolding for clarity]
