[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
Polling on Abortion Opinion Misses How Much Would Be Tossed Out With Roe David W. Moore ([link removed])


ABC Poll: Abortion Attitudes

Polls like ABC's (4/28/22 ([link removed]) ) showing widespread opposition to overturning Roe v. Wade probably understate the unpopularity of Samuel Alito's draft opinion.

Politico on May 2 released ([link removed]) Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s draft abortion position, signed by four additional justices, that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

In the wake of that revelation, numerous media articles have reported on polls measuring the public’s opposition to overturning Roe (for example, see here ([link removed]) , here ([link removed]) , here ([link removed]) and here ([link removed]) ). As Democratic pollster Mark Mellman reports in The Hill (5/11/22 ([link removed]) ), on average the polls show that about two-thirds of the public want Roe to stand, about three in ten want to see it overturned.

Other polls look at whether the public says that most or all abortions should be legal, or most or all abortions should be illegal. The results there are typical of this poll by ABC News (4/28/22 ([link removed]) ), which found 58% saying legal, 37% illegal.

Yet those numbers, and many of the stories and the polls, miss the larger point, and underestimate the true level of opposition to what the Supreme Court may rule.

For example, an analysis by Blake Hounshell in the New York Times (5/10/22 ([link removed]) ) noted:

Polling shows that abortion rights are popular. But the answers depend heavily on how the questions are worded. The public often shows conflicting impulses: Americans approve of Roe by large margins, but also approve of restrictions that seem to conflict with it.

The issue with the Supreme Court decision, however, is not just that it overturns Roe, nor that many people approve of Roe but also approve of restrictions inconsistent with it.

The Alito draft does not just overturn the main finding of Roe, that women generally have a right to an abortion in the first six months of pregnancy (until “viability”). Alito’s draft reasoning goes beyond that, denying that pregnant women have any rights under any circumstances to terminate a pregnancy, except those explicitly granted to her by the state.
WaPo: Alito’s draft opinion would imperil far more than he’s letting on

David Von Drehle (Washington Post, 5/3/22 ([link removed]) ): "Will there be any limit to the steps a state can take to enforce proper care and delivery of each fetus? Alito suggests this is a question for the Americans of 1868 to answer."

As David Von Drehle wrote in the Washington Post (5/3/22 ([link removed]) ):

Roe focused on the rights of doctors to treat patients. Planned Parenthood v. Casey put the emphasis where it properly belongs: on the rights of women. At heart, Casey asks: Does government have unlimited authority ([link removed]) to force a woman to carry an unwanted fetus? Casey answers: No.

Alito would say yes—defining an “undue burden” on a woman’s freedom is too difficult; therefore, all burdens may be acceptable. Left unclear is the answer to an obvious next question: What else can a woman be forced to do?

Von Drehle pointed out that abortion rights are derived from a series of Supreme Court rulings in the past century that are based on a right to privacy ([link removed]) , not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but underlying protections provided in the First, Fourth, Ninth and 14th amendments. These include rights of parents to raise their children without undue interference from the government, of people to marry whomever they choose, of married couples—and eventually single people as well—to use contraception. But as Von Drehle noted:

Though he claims otherwise, Alito would orphan all those rights with his would-be ruling. For he asserts ([link removed]) that no zone of privacy exists around family matters unless it is expressed explicitly in the Constitution, or was plainly recognized at the time the 14th Amendment ([link removed]) was ratified in 1868.

Alito would authorize any state legislature to criminalize the abortion of an hour-old zygote by a 12-year-old rape victim. This is not hyperbole; at least 10 states have already passed antiabortion laws with no exception for rape or incest ([link removed]) .

Given the impact of the proposed Supreme Court decision, the standard polling questions on abortion are mostly beside the point. One relevant question to ask the public is this:

Do you favor or oppose a Supreme Court decision that would allow states to criminalize all abortions, regardless of incest, rape or the health of the mother?

No polling organization has asked that specific question. But last month, ABC News (4/28/22 ([link removed]) ) asked, “Do you think abortions should be legal or illegal when the mother’s physical health is endangered.” Just 12% said illegal; 82% said legal.

Public opinion against the pending Supreme Court decision is likely even more lopsided than what most poll stories report. The margin of opposition to what Alito’s draft would allow appears as high as seven to one, and it could be greater.

Pollsters and the news media should make that clear.
Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .