Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 25, 2006
NEW POLL SHOWS AMERICANS DON'T UNDERSTAND ROE VS. WADE
WASHINGTON - April 25, 2006 - A national poll released today at the National Press Club by the Real Women's Voices coalition shows that while 65 percent of Americans say they are familiar with the 1973 landmark abortion case, Roe vs. Wade, only 29 percent are able to select an accurate description of the ruling. Real Women's Voices is a coalition of national and state-based pro-life organizations bringing women from across the country to Washington on Wednesday to lobby Congress. The national survey of 1000 adults age 18 and over was conducted by the polling company,inc./WomanTrend on April 13-14, 2006. The margin of error is calculated at +/- 3.1 percent.
Key Findings:
* Sixty-five percent of respondents said they considered themselves familiar (23 percent very familiar and 42 percent somewhat familiar) with the 1973 United States Supreme Court case of Roe vs. Wade. Thirty-one percent said they were not familiar (19 percent just a little familiar and 12 percent not at all familiar).
* Though 65 percent said they were familiar with Roe, when asked to identify which of four descriptions most accurately describes what the case provides as the law, only 29 percent selected the correct description:
29% Made abortion legal in essentially all circumstances throughout pregnancy
18% Made abortion legal but only in the first trimester
17% Made abortion legal but only in limited circumstances
15% Made abortion legal but only in the first and second trimesters
* The majority (54 percent) agreed with one of three traditional pro-life statements:
- Abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances,
- Abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother,
- Abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother's life.
Only 41 percent selected a pro-choice view. Notably, three-quarters of Americans (75 percent) say they believe abortions should never be allowed, allowed only in very limited circumstances, or not past the first trimester of pregnancy. The 18-34 year old group (especially 18-34 year old women) was more likely than respondents overall to identify with one of the three pro-life views of abortion.
Statements from Real Women's Voices sponsors:
"Roe is hanging by a thread that is increasingly being frayed by the American people's exposure to the facts of abortion. These numbers show that our abortion laws don't represent the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans, including American women." - Marjorie Dannenfelser, Susan B. Anthony List
"Not surprisingly, a majority (54 percent) of Americans do not agree with what Roe permits-- that is, unrestricted abortion for any reason, even as a method of birth control. And while a majority of those polled (65 percent) say they are familiar with Roe, only 29 percent actually knew that Roe made abortion legal in essentially all circumstances throughout pregnancy." - Karen Cross, National Right to Life
"True Feminism means listening to the voices of women, it is my hope that the Senators we visit this week will really listen to the message from Real Women's Voices." - Janet Morana, Priests For Life
"Women around the country want common-sense legislation on abortion. We hear senators claim they want to 'reduce the number of abortions.' Pro-life women will be presenting the opportunity for them to prove it, telling senators to pass laws restricting abortionists from taking advantage of young women." - Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America
"This is the civil rights issue of our day, and women's voices are leading the way toward change. As we look ahead to the 2006 Congressional elections, we are here to tell Congress that real women want a real response to pro-life issues." - Charmaine Yoest, Family Research Council
Click Here to View Poll
jillian said:Well...as you said, the poll is biased. But I absolutely think most people don't know what the holding of Roe was. It said nothing more than there is a line before which the right of the individual to chart her own course overrides the governmental interest in regulation. People get bogged down in the dicta of the decision.
Kathianne said:Right, or something. It did things, without legal standing. It will be overturned, but not stop abortion, at least not every state.
jillian said:Kind of "activist" for them to interfere with the precedent for the purpose of limiting individual freedom. On those occasions where the Court has seen fit to go against precedent, it has generally been to expand individual rights.
jillian said:It did nothing without legal standing. Standing relates only to the issue of whether a person asserting a claim in Court has the right to assert that claim.
Constitutional analysis balances the rights of the individual against the rights of the state all the time.
It may be overturned by Bush's court... but the Constitution is only as strong as the people defending it.
Kind of "activist" for them to interfere with the precedent for the purpose of limiting individual freedom. On those occasions where the Court has seen fit to go against precedent, it has generally been to expand individual rights.
Kathianne said:
jillian said:Right...so one law professor from Pepperdine has a particular opinion?
I think part of the confusion of so many people is that they don't understand there are two schools of Constitutional analysis. The traditional, accepted manner of construction, which is to ascertain the intent of the Constitution versus "literalists" who think they aren't supposed to do any analysis and just "apply the words of the Constitution".
But that's not how the Constitution has been viewed even going back to the 1800's.
Kathianne said:Let's see, the one professor writing on what the majority writer of Roe said...Hmmm, something is not computing...
Sorry, but when the writer is writing of quotes from the person in question, which no one, not even yourself has argued, there is a problem. It was bad law from the beginning, which is why it will be overturned.jillian said:It's that his analysis is really irrelevant. The only thing relevant is the holding of the case.
The guy from Pepperdine is telling his opinion about what went on around the case... pretty irrelevant.
Kathianne said:Sorry, but when the writer is writing of quotes from the person in question, which no one, not even yourself has argued, there is a problem. It was bad law from the beginning, which is why it will be overturned.
Nope, bad law on bad law. There is not 'privacy' found in Constitution.jillian said:It was, and is, good law in keeping with the line of Privacy cases which were led by Griswold v. Connecticut and Loving v Virginia.
If these new activist judges want to mess with a whole line of cases, that isn't consistent with how the Court has handled things in the past.
Kathianne said:Nope, bad law on bad law. There is not 'privacy' found in Constitution.
Abbey Normal said:Jurisprudence based on manufactured penumbras and emanations = bad jurisprudence
:whip3: :wank:
dmp said:I'm not sure what any of that means, but I'm VERY Turned on....smart girls are SEXXXXXXXXXXXXXY
Abbey Normal said:I think you need some private tutoring.
dmp said:(sigh)...how do you know me so well?
