by David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.
A North Carolina poll taken the first week of August of 1,000 likely general election voters by the McLaughlin Group for North Carolina Right to Life showed that if the question is properly phrased then a very strong majority would allow abortion only in a very small minority of cases. At the same time the poll showed overwhelming support for allowing abortion in those specific cases which constitute about 5% of abortions.
These results reaffirmed similar results that have been found in both nationwide polling by National Right to Life and polling in Oklahoma by Oklahomans for Life.
The North Carolina poll found that 89% supported allowing abortion to save the life of the mother, 86% supported abortion in cases where there was a medical emergency involving a serious risk of substantial, irreversible physical harm to the mother and 83% supported allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest.
These numbers show that it will be very difficult to pass life protective legislation without these exceptions. It is also most likely impossible to sustain laws without these exceptions when they face well financed pro-abortion citizen referendums with advertising that hammers on rape and women's health.
The good news though is that a very strong majority will support allowing abortion only in these narrow cases.
Respondents were asked if they would support or oppose allowing abortion only under these four circumstances:
when it is necessary to save the life of the mother
when there is a medical emergency posing a serious risk of substantial irreversible physical harm to the mother
in cases of rape
in cases of incest.
71% said they would support such a proposal, 51% strongly, while only 22% opposed it.
This proposal gained such strong majority support despite 49% of respondents identifying as pro-choice and 45% as pro-life. "Pro-life" has been so denigrated by the press, and "pro-choice" so lauded, that these labels do not always accurately convey what many people actually feel about the issue. Candidates advocating for life will do better articulating their actual position rather than just relying on the label "pro-life".
Legislation allowing abortion only in these four circumstances eliminates about 95% of all abortions and makes it impossible for stand-alone abortion clinics to profitably operate. Such legislation is successfully in effect in West Virginia and Indiana and is clearly superior to legislation based on weeks. A 15-week abortion "ban" stops only about 5% of abortions and a 12 week "ban" stops only about 10%.
The poll also asked:
"Would you support or oppose a law prohibiting abortion except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother or when there is a medical emergency posing serious risk of substantial irreversible physical harm to the mother, or in cases of rape or incest?"
57% supported such a law and 35% opposed it even though the two questions described exactly the same proposal in different words! This same phenomenon has been found in a previous national poll testing these questions.
Why such different results describing identical circumstances? It appears that a substantial segment of the population does not want unlimited abortion but very strongly wants abortion available in cases involving the mother's life, rape or incest or medical
emergencies. Many of these voters very strongly oppose "prohibiting" or "banning" abortion which they construe as prohibiting or banning all abortion. This is why pro-abortion candidates and groups, and the pro-abortion press will call any pro-life proposal, no matter how modest, a "ban".
The wording of the first question assures the listener upfront that abortion will be allowed in those circumstances so important to them while the second question begins by asking about prohibiting abortion and primes some people to say no regardless of the rest of the sentence. Pro-life advocates and candidates should avoid using terms like ban or prohibit.
The poll also asked about “heartbeat" legislation:
"Would you support or oppose allowing abortion only before six weeks when there is no detectable heartbeat and later in pregnancy only under these four circumstances:
1) When it is necessary to save the life of the mother
2) When there is a medical emergency posing serious risk of substantial irreversible physical harm to the mother
3) In cases of rape
4) In cases of incest"
62% supported such heartbeat legislation and 29% opposed it with the remainder undecided.
These results suggest that while a majority would support legislation limiting abortion to six weeks of pregnancy if abortions for life of mother, rape, incest and medical emergencies are allowed throughout pregnancy, it may be just as publicly acceptable to pass legislation allowing abortion only in these four cases. This is especially so since the pro-abortion opposition and the press will vociferously oppose either to same degree anyway.
Allowing abortion only in the four circumstances discussed is certainly the preferred legislative outcome since it would eliminate about 95% of abortions while heartbeat/six weeks legislation would eliminate about 55%. However, either would be far preferable to the current North Carolina 12-week abortion limit which has allowed about 90% of in state abortions to continue while making North Carolina an abortion destination state.
Another very significant result involved the use of abortion for birth control. Respondents were asked:
"Do you approve or disapprove of abortion being used/allowed as a method of birth control?"
Only 29% approved of abortion being used or allowed as a method of birth control while 64% disapproved!
This result should be very helpful for pro-life candidates who point out that their pro-abortion opponent really "supports abortion for any reason, even as a method of birth control." Abortion for birth control is really just another way of describing elective abortion, i.e., abortion for any of the reasons one would use birth control, and a pro-abortion candidate's position is that abortion should be available for any and all of those reasons.
This should prove far more effective than trying to (correctly) assert that a pro-abortion opponent supports abortion to birth since the opponent will deny it and say that he/she only supports abortion to viability and after that only when necessary for health. Of course, that really means abortion to birth, but the pro-abortion candidate will just deny it with the full backing of the press and much of the public will be confused by the imprecise, but scientific sounding, term "viability" and not believe the pro-life claim.
This applies equally to pro-abortion ballot initiatives, many of which allow abortion until "viability" and after that for unspecified "health". So far attempts to defeat such proposals by asserting that they allow abortion until birth have failed with pro-abortion initiative supporters just denying the truth with the press backing them. It would be much harder for the initiative's supporters and the pro-abortion press to deny that their proposal "goes too far and allows abortion for any reason, even as a method of birth control."
The poll found other encouraging data for the pro-life movement:
62% opposed "using tax dollars to pay for abortion" and only 31% favored taxpayer funding of abortion.
81% opposed "allowing non-doctors to perform abortions" while only 14% supported this.
76% supported "increasing funding for programs that offer alternatives to abortion that provide vulnerable mothers with maternal care resources including counseling, material assistance, medical care coordination, appointment scheduling and housing support" while only 18% opposed these alternatives.
The latter result is very important, both in states that protect unborn babies, and in those states that currently have unlimited, tax funded abortion either through legislation or constitutional amendment. It is also crucial to have programs providing these alternatives for unborn children conceived through sexual assault in states with pro-life legislation that cannot reach to those cases.
The poll also provided valuable guidance for pro-life candidates about their position and how their opponent's position should be articulated.
The poll asked respondents how they would vote in three scenarios.
In the first case the pro-life candidate was described as a candidate “who believes abortion takes the life of an unborn child and opposes abortion except to save the life of the mother.
This candidate also opposes using tax dollars to pay for abortion and says their opponent's support for unlimited abortion paid for with tax dollars, even as a method of birth control
and even late in pregnancy is too extreme.”
The pro-abortion candidate was described as a candidate “who believes a woman has a right to have an abortion with no restrictions and says the decision should be left to the woman. This candidate supports using tax dollars to pay for abortion and says their opponent's position of opposing abortion even in cases of rape and incest is too extreme and dangerous to women."
In this first case when respondents were asked for which candidate they would vote for, the pro-life candidate won by about 5% (45.5% to 40.4%). (In a September 2022 McLaughlin national poll asking the same question the pro-abortion candidate won by 47% to 45% over the pro-life candidate.)
In the second case the same descriptions of the candidates' positions were used except that the pro-life candidate would allow abortion only for life of mother and rape and incest taking that attack line away from the pro-abortion candidate. In this case the pro-life candidate beat the pro-abortion candidate by almost 10% (47.8% to 38.3%). (In the September 2022 national poll using the same question the pro-life candidate won 47% to 44%).
In the final case the same descriptions of the candidates' positions were used as in the second case except that the pro-life candidate would now allow abortion to save the life of the mother, rape and incest, and medical emergency. This time the pro-life candidate won by about 12% (49.8% to 37.6%). (In the September 2022 national poll using this question the pro-life candidate won 49% to 42%).
These candidate comparison results are consistent with the finding, both in the NC poll and earlier polls, of strong support for allowing abortion only in the four cases of life of mother, rape, incest and medical emergency when the question is probably framed.
These results, together with the strong opposition to allowing abortion as a method of birth control, should give guidance to both pro-life candidates and pro-life advocates in developing successful pro-life strategies and lead to protecting legislatively about 95% of children now lost to abortion, as well as the development of alternatives for saving many others.
Photo by Chris Anderson on Unsplash