The Ballot Box: The Poll That Matters Most


In the flurry of analysis and
responses following Gallup’s release of their poll that showed a majority
of Americans identify as pro-life, it is easy to forget a few simple
truths that have formed the core of the debate around abortion since
its inception.  Research has shown that people often hold conflicting
beliefs around abortion, and that they feel ambiguous toward this highly
personal decision.  That said, the vast majority of voters favor abortion
remaining legal.  Only a small cohort of Americans – 12 to 15
percent in most polls – takes the extreme view that all abortions
should be illegal.  While the majority of voters are conflicted
about abortion and tend to favor some regulations, they feel strongly
that this is a deeply personal decision that a woman should make on
her own with her doctor, without politicians and government getting
involved.  This sentiment is as strong as ever. 

Americans may say they are
"pro-life," but the label is misleading.  A significant number
of voters are confused by the labels pro-choice and pro-life. 
If we dig deeper into that label, we find that they are favorable toward
protecting Roe v. Wade, that they value privacy, and reject efforts
of coercion.  Research also shows that many feel that even if they wouldn’t
make the decision to terminate a pregnancy themselves, they do not feel
comfortable telling a woman if she should or should not make that decision
for herself.  They feel even less comfortable having the government or
politicians making this decision.  The labels of pro-choice and
pro-life do not mean much without the context of these textured layers
of values and empathy.  In fact, in the Gallup poll a majority of people
say they are pro-life and they believe abortion should be legal.   

The true debate behind Roe
v. Wade, allowing women to have access to legal, safe reproductive health
services, has been settled for decades.  Public support for Roe v. Wade
remains strong.  In a recent poll by CNN, 68 percent were opposed to
reversing the Roe v. Wade ruling, while only 30 percent wanted to overturn
it.  By rehashing the debate with sensationalist analysis of self-identifying
labels, we take the focus off of reducing unintended pregnancies, off
of providing medically accurate, age appropriate comprehensive sex education,
and off of giving men and women access to a range of birth control options. 
The pro-choice community and the President have argued we should work
together to reduce the number of women seeking abortion and to reduce
unintended pregnancies.   

Looking beneath the data, the
apparent increase in the pro-life label is among Republicans. 
It is common after the election of pro-choice leaders for attitudes
to become more polarized.  Pro-life voters get more firm in their
opinion as they feel threatened.  Meanwhile, pro-choice voters
become less strong in their beliefs as they believe they do not need
to be as vigilant.  The reverse is true when pro-life Presidents
are elected.  We have seen these trends with other elections.   

The election of President Obama,
as well as several other election results on specific measures, does
more to reveal American voters’ feelings on the issue than the latest
polls.  We voted in a pro-choice president by wide margins and rebuffed
the conservative, pro-life candidate.  In 2008 alone, voters in South
Dakota rejected an abortion ban for the second time, voters in California
rejected mandatory parental notification for the third time, and voters
in Colorado rejected redefining "personhood" as the moment of fertilization,
giving legal rights to embryos.  And, despite significant attempts to
qualify anti-choice initiatives in Georgia, Montana, Missouri, and Oregon
in 2008, efforts to even make the ballot failed in these states.  In
the end, the ballot box is the poll that matters most.   

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with Celinda Lake please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    We must as pro-choice women, remain vigilant to protect our rights, and take NOTHING for granted. The true thing is- we won, most Americans gave a mandate to a pro-choice president. We won, but we cannot breate easy, because a small but vocal minority will stop at nothing to try to take those reproductive rights away, or chip at it. Please make sure that you donate to Planned Parenthood, and other pro-choice organizations, it is very important. Also, we need to pressure our President to pass FOCA so that women do not have state restrictions placed on choice. These restrictions go against our Constitution, which gives woman a right to a safe and legal abortion. Anything that tries to deny any woman that is unconstitutional. We can’t let the anti-choice crowd continue to try to chip away at these rights, that woman’s very autonomy and freedom are
    dependent on.

  • ann-stone

     Celinda thank you for this article…As you rightly point out the Gallup poll that purports the majority of Americans are "pro-life’, misleads and misrepresents where Americans and even Republicans stand on this most painful, personal decision…    The label war of so called pro-life vs pro-choice is simply a reflection of the PR jockeying done over the last decade.  This public relations debate has mostly been over the so called "partial birth abortion" legislation. Those who call themselves pro-life won that round in public relations and that has radically distorted the use of that label.  Even today, if you ask these so called pro-lifers, many if not most, will still tell you it should be the woman’s choice to make.  They wrongly think if they are personally opposed to abortion that means they are pro life…  What they don’t understand if they still would trust the woman to make the choice (and want her not government to have the power to do so) that actually in fact makes them pro-choice… We have polling (as I am sure do you and others) that shows this is true even among Republicans (68% plus)…again understand what that means….a majority of Republicans still think the individual should decide not government.  After all getting government out of our lives has always been a core Republican principle.  Roger Rosenblatt an award winning journalist did extensive study and wrote a book ,Life Itself, Abortion in the American Mind, in 1992 on these two overlapping truths in America…folks want abortion strongly discouraged with government limits (not outlawed) but ultimately want individuals to retain the power to make the decision.  Celinda I am sure you already include this question, but we all need to push the other major pollsters to go back to including a question on "Who decides" if they insist on continuing to include the self labeling question.  Only then do we really know where Americans stand. And Celinda if you have more current figures (post-Gallup poll) that is on the question of Who decides….especially with the Party break out will you share that with us?  And if those numbers aren’t current will you ask the question in an upcoming survey and share that?  Thanks for all you do…Ann Stone Republicans for Choice  http://www.republicansforchoice.com

  • invalid-0

    I have never seen proof that our tallies, except handcounts, are accurate.

  • progo35

    You say in the summary of the article that most people in the poll identified as pro life but supported keeping abortion legal. In fact, the question asked whether abortion should be legal in all cases, most cases, some cases, or never. A small percentage answered for always and never, yet the largest percentage answered "in some cases," indicating that pro life generally means that one is against abortion on demand, not abortion to save the women’s life or for rape. Anyone who makes this exception would answer that abortion should be legal "in some cases," but would, most likely, still be considered "anti choice" by RH reality Check. The poll shows that while the American public believes in laws protecting a right to abortion in such caes, we generally do not favor abortion on demand, which is what the real debate is about. "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • invalid-0

    NO one else gets to make that choice for the woman, BUT the woman, no one. Our constitution says a woman has a right to a safe and legal abortion. Nothing mentioned about “quotas”. It is a personal choice, and if you don’t want to have one, then buzz off and don’t have one, but your obsession with trying to take that right away from other women is beyond ridiculous.

  • jodi-jacobson

    In keeping with the majority of anti-choice rhetoric, this term "on demand" is completely misleading and once again implies that women (and their partners, families, clergy, medical professionals) don’t have their own processes for deciding what is right for them.

     

    Roe v. Wade puts in place "restrictions" on abortion, allowing states to make limits on access to abortion services once the fetus reaches viability.  The number of women who seek late-term abortions is miniscule–more than 95 percent of all abortions occur during the first trimester and an increasing share before 6 weeks.  The rights of states to limit services come much later.  The far right has conflated of late-term abortion with abortion "on demand" when in fact the vast majority of women seeking late-term abortions are doing so because of severe and life-ending fetal abnormalities or for other legitimate reasons.  By conflating these issues, you then conflate early term abortions with late term.

     

    Just as language confuses the debate on the issue of pro-life versus pro-choice, so does this issue of "on-demand."  What the majority of people want to do is allow women to decide as individuals in conjunction with those close to them what is morally and ethically right.  Your "on demand" is someone else’s considered decision.

     

    Moreover, your moral and religious views are yours, not mine and not those of many others.  Why can’t you keep your terms and your morals for your own behavior and allow others to exercise their fundamental rights?

    Jodi Jacobson

  • progo35

    Jodi-

    there must be some confusion in your camp as to what constitutes an "anti choice" term, since JAN just validated that phrase by stating, "on demand is the only way…" Now that we’ve established that "on demand" is not "anti choice" language, let me say that your clarification does little to respond to the poll itself, as you simply restate statistics relating to how many abortions are performed early vs. late. The poll did not make that distinction, it simply asked whether abortion ought to be legal in all circumstances, most circumstances, or some circumstances. So, I think your response to my comment is misleading because you’re distracting from what the above article is discussing, which is whether or not the majority of Americans are really "pro life."

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • jodi-jacobson

    I am a proponent of full support for universal health care for all people, including all born children, for the elimination of hunger, for the elimination of environmental threats to the lives of children and adults, to the end of poverty, the end of violence against women, children, gay, lesbian, and transgender persons, and full access to all basic information and services including full sexual and reproductive health care, needed for all living beings to exercise their rights.

    You and I disagree on who gets to decide what is a living being. You want everyone to define this on your terms, and you want everyone to be legally required to live according to your particular moral and religious code. You do not recognize that there are fundamental disagreements that your view is the one "right view."  This is a pluralistic society with a huge degree of disagreement on what constitutes "life" when "life begins" etc….the majority agree it is not for them to decide this for their neighbor or some woman they have never met. The public agrees that women get to decide.

    Abortion is not legal "on demand" without restrictions. There are indeed restrictions on access to safe affordable abortion services–indeed many of them that are in fact also supported by Roe v. Wade. So what people are saying is that they DO NOT support the overturning of Roe V. Wade–a large majority–because they recognize this as a compromise between a woman’s moral agency and decision-making power in her own situation–not what you decide for her–and reasonable restriction. 

    If for you, "on demand" refers to any woman who chooses abortion based on her own moral, ethical and other considerations and makes a decision that does not accord with your perception, then yes, it is "on demand."

    It is a misleading rhetorical term, not a reflection of any of these polls or public opinion.
    Finally, no matter what public opinion says, it is a woman’s internationally recognized fundamental human right to have control over her body. Period. Whether you or the majority of Americans agree or not. You can not abrogate fundamental rights through misleading public opinion polling.

    Jodi

  • colleen

    In fact, the question asked whether abortion should be legal in all cases, most cases, some cases, or never.

    Here is a link to the polls. Please note Ms Lake mentions more than one recent poll,  I believe that all of them are listed here. the top one listed asks the question about seeing SCOTUS overturn Roe v. Wade.  As you can clearly see 68% of the American people disagree with you and your friends here  and don’t wish to see Roe overturned. While you may believe you have the divine right to force other women to carry to term fetuses they don’t wish to gestate, 68% of your fellow Americans disagree with you.

    yet the largest percentage answered "in some cases," indicating that
    pro life generally means that one is against abortion on demand, not
    abortion to save the women’s life or for rape.

    This is wistful thinking on your part. The answers ‘indicate’ nothing of the sort. The ‘abortion on demand’ (like so much else of your rhetoric) is just more dishonest language from the religious right whose talking points you parrot so faithfully day after day after day under the mistaken impression that anyone cares.

    Anyone who makes this exception would answer that abortion should be
    legal "in some cases," but would, most likely, still be considered
    "anti choice" by RH reality Check.

     

     

    Bullshit on both counts. 

     

    The poll shows that while the American public believes in laws
    protecting a right to abortion in such caes, we generally do not favor
    abortion on demand, which is what the real debate is about.

    I don’t know what is more silly; the fact that you are claiming to understand polling better than Celinda Lake when It’s clear that you didn’t even bother to read her analysis carefully or the fact that you’re arrogant enough to claim that the majority of Americans share your far right opinions.

  • progo35

    People are in the middle, Coleen. People don’t support the radical “abortion for any reason that I choose, even if I am into my 23rd week…” unless they are radically pro choice/”pro abortion.” People do not support withholding the option of abortion from a women whose life is in jeopardy or who has been raped unless they are radically pro life/”anti choice.” So, the majority of people in America, while they may not want R v. W overturned, do not support extending that right to having an abortion whenever the women sees fit; most people support common sense legal restrictions on abortion, and, morally, believe that there are only “some” cases in which abortion is acceptable.

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • progo35

    Jodi-I support everything in your first paragraph as well, but here’s the difference:

    Throughout my twenty six years, I have thought about this issue very seriously, and have read many different sources on teh subject, including Our Bodies, Ourselves, Choice, the Bible, various religious texts, philosophy texts, and resources. I have also discussed this issue with many different people from the pro choice and pro life side of this debate. I have a dear family member who is pro choice, and we have had many discussons about this.

    The thing I don’t see from the pro choice side is any willingness to place restrictions on abortion, to say, "I’m sorry, but that’s not an option for your situation" when a woman who, say, couldn’t afford an earlier abortion, has gone to 23 or 24 weeks. You feel that she should be able to obtain an abortion then because medicaid would not pay for an earlier abortion and she did not have the funds. I strongly disagree, and do not think that it is intellectually honest to argue that the fetus is a "clump of cells," or "part of the woman’s body" at that point in a pregnancy. While this is rare, even one is too much when the woman’s life is not a stake, because a life is being terminated to ameloriate comparatively less dire circumstances, such as the woman’s financial situation. If the woman had to raise a child she didn’t plan/want, than that would be wrong, but she does not have to do that. I can see the argument for an abortion being a woman’s choice between conception and 8 weeks after that, but once it’s past the single digit threshhold, it is intellectually dishonest to argue that the fetus has no individual significance. 

    If I saw more pro choice people willing to make a compromise in this area, I’d be more willing to make a compromise, too, but I haven’t seen that from any of the abortion lobbying groups.  

     

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • jodi-jacobson

    You keep skipping around on your timeframes here to make a weak argument.

     

    Over 95 percent of abortions take place before the end of the 1st trimester, the majority of those before 10 weeks and an increasing share before 6 weeks.

     

    Of the remaining 5 percent, the vast majority take place early in the second trimester and a few in the 3rd, a very few overall, and those when there are fetal abnormalities, a death in utero, or an iminent threat to the life of the mother.

     

    Of the ones that remain, I can not begin to say what the reasons are that women might seek a late-second trimester abortion, though i would guess again that this has to do largely again with health and life complications and….yes….in circumstances where a woman has not be able to afford to access services may well be seeking to terminate a pregnancy then.  I can not judge these women; I do not know the circumstances they face.  It is not my business.

     

    I would say if you are so deeply concerned about abortion in the second trimester, then you should spend some of your prodigious energy in making early abortion legal, safe and affordable; seek to help fund abortion funds that are trying desperately to provide funding to those women who have made that choice but do not have the funding needed; and see to dissuade others from passing laws, like waiting periods and the like, that only serve to make abortions happen later rather than earlier.

    You can’t be taken seriously when on one hand you are part of a movement that puts in place every possible obstacle to birth control and early abortion, and then decries what women do when they are faced with extraordinary circumstances and can not gain access to affordable, safe, legal services.

    It is not for me or for you to make decisions that "compromise away" fundamental human rights and takes those away from the next woman facing an unintended pregnancy she can not and will not bring to term.  it is her decision—no ifs, ands, or buts.  I am troubled by people that have 12 or 18 children in this world of increasing scarcity, but it is not for me to tell them what to do.  Conversely it is not for you to tell me or others what to do.

    I would recommend that your own argument suggests you should be a vociferous advocate for universal access to safe, early, affordable abortion services.  Your own stated goals would be better served.

     

    Jodi Jacobson

     

  • invalid-0

    The thing I don’t see from the pro choice side is any willingness to place restrictions on abortion, to say, “I’m sorry, but that’s not an option for your situation” when a woman who, say, couldn’t afford an earlier abortion, has gone to 23 or 24 weeks. You feel that she should be able to obtain an abortion then because medicaid would not pay for an earlier abortion and she did not have the funds.

    Because the proper solution for that scenario is to repeal the Hyde Amendment, and fund abortions the same way that other medical procedures are funded. Unlike you, we consider it quite significant that the women in question would have avoided a late-term abortion if it were possible.

    You say that the law should prohibit elective abortions at 23/24 weeks. We say there is no need for such a law, because no woman in her right mind would willingly go for that when an earlier abortion is orders of magnitude safer and less expensive. We say that having such a law will only complicate things for women in difficult circumstances who find themselves needing an abortion that late in the game.

    Bear in mind that the legal code is not a complete description of how things should be—laws are added only as they are needed. I mean, no one likes it when someone grabs all the ketchup packets from the condiment shelf at Burger King, but it rarely happens, and thus there is no law against it. And if there were, then how do you define how many ketchup packets are reasonable? What happens to someone like me, who loves ketchup, and usually grabs eight or more for my Whopper?

    You don’t like the idea of a woman willy-nilly aborting at 24 weeks. Neither do we. And unless the woman is a few cards short of a full deck, she has more reason than any of us not to like it. You really don’t need a law here—reality is enough of an obstacle.

  • http://www.goldpreise.biz/ invalid-0

    It is a personal choice, and if you don’t want to have one, then buzz off and don’t have one, but your obsession with trying to take that right away from other women is beyond ridiculous.

  • progo35

    Another issue: I absolutely do not support late term abortion rights for fetal anomalies. If the woma’s life is at stake, yes, if the fetus is going to be born with an anomaly that will involve a handicap or will cause it to die shortly after birth, than no, I don’t support late term abortion rights.That doesn’t mean that I don’t feel for the woman in that situation, it just means that I feel that if late term abortion isn’t allowed on nondisabled fetuses, it shouldn’t be allowed on disabled ones. Everyone knows that there will be medical emergencies in which doctors must make a choice between saving the woman’s life or the fetus’s life, but a diagnosis of Down Syndrome in a fetus is not a medical emergency that threatens the mothers health. This position, moreover, stems from my stance as a disablity rights advocate, and not from my pro life beliefs or religion.  That is another issue that I don’t see compromise on. It seems like most staunch abortion rights advocates want me to support abortions on fetuses that have disabilities late in the pregnancy, and I cannot do that in good conscience, because, in fact, I view that as worse than aborting because of other personal constraints, at least in respect to the issue of human diversity and the inclusion of disability in that spectrum of difference. Why isn’t late term abortion reserved only for a risk to the woman’s life?

     

     

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

    • jodi-jacobson

      First, I am not asking you to support anything. You are entitled to, have a right to, and I will defend the personal validity your opinion (for you and your life). I am asserting that you have no right to determine what others believe, decide, do, in circumstances where we do not all share a basic premise.  And I am requesting that in your arguments you not conflate and confuse many different issues and levels and facts to make a weak case.

       

      I think you confuse many issues. Downs syndrome can be detected early in pregnancy, as I am sure you already know. I would highly doubt there are many late-term abortions going on due to simple cases of down syndrome, though i think it is worth pointing out how long Sarah Palin herself kept her pregnancy secret and had to "struggle" with whether she could care for a child with down syndrome. I can not believe that did not include the option in her mind of whether or not to terminate….and she had that choice, she made the choice best for her. 
      What I might decide at one point in my life might be different than what I might decide at another point in my life, and what she might decide is right for her at any point….ie….choice.

       

      But for you to assert that a woman should carry to term a pregnancy even if fetal anomalies would end in death at or shortly after birth is stunning.  Before you decide what is ok for other people and what horrors they should experience, please read this post by Lynda Waddington….http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/08/obamas-late-term-abortion-comments-ignore-stark-realities.

       

      Finally, i really have to ask: Why is it that we have male columnists at every major newspaper and website pontificating about the right of women to make reproductive choices, whole groups devoted to "pro-life" positions (their term, not mine), and crowds of people at clinics trying to stop women from recieving health care (even clinics that do not provide abortion!!!!) and none of these devotes even one-thousandth (if any at all) of their energy to ensuring the funding is available to make sure that children in foster care are safe, that social services are available for and there are sufficient resources to pay for case workers to check on children in vulnerable circumstances?  to ensure and devote time to sexual violence against and abuse of children by parents and relatives?  to ensure that every child in this country has sufficient food, health care, and a safe place to sleep?  a basic education?  why is it that so many of these groups actually mitigate against funding for such programs?  where is the outcry by these groups, pontificators on BeliefNet and elsewhere and other so-called pro-life persons when, for lack of effective resources, training, and accountability of social service systems three little girls are found stuffed in a freezer of a mother obviously mentally incapable of carrying for them? where is the outcry when children in urban areas are suffering astronomically high rates of asthma due to pollution?  When children die due to lack of resources and accountabilty of the FDA to provide a secure food supply, an agency undermined hugely by Republicans and the Bush Administration under the watch of a so-called "pro-life" President? 

       

      Where is the outcry when millions of children are going without basic health insurance, can not get adequate preventive care, and when children actually die due to preventable infections, such as the child in my state who died from a serious infection that could have been resolved by early and prompt dental care?

       

      Why are so many of these same people either silent OR worse yet actually working against state and federal support for programs to ensure that all born children have a sound start in life?

       

      I have yet to get an answer to any of these questions from any person in the "pro-life" movement, which is really about denying women choices, not promoting life by any standard I understand it.

       

      Jodi

       

  • invalid-0

    succinct & well put, goldpreise! i tend to be verbose when doing something as simple as ordering dinner – forget replying to the illogic of of those wishing to impose their belief system on about half of the population. thank you for putting it so well.

  • invalid-0

    I am a proponent of full support for universal health care for all people, including all born children, for the elimination of hunger, for the elimination of environmental threats to the lives of children and adults, to the end of poverty, the end of violence against women, children, gay, lesbian, and transgender persons, and full access to all basic information and services including full sexual and reproductive health care, needed for all living beings to exercise their rights.

    I have found that reading Jodi Jacobson’s posts is an effective way to attain orgasm!

    Thank you, Jodi, for reminding us all what an authentic pro-life position looks like. Would that people advocate for it with the same fervor they reserve for denying women reproductive control.

  • progo35

    Jodi-you do not paint an accurate picture of those in the pro life movement because you assume that people of this belief don’t support the things that you lay out in your post. The pro life people that I know support these things, give regularly to charity, and often volunteer their time at soup kitchens, programs for children in poor neighborhoods, big brother/sister programs, and other worthy causes. Moreover, generation X and Y have come into our own and the younger generation often sees pro life issues differently than they were perhaps seen in the 1970s when Roe v. Wade was passed. Many of us do ascribe to what’s called a "consistent pro life ethic," which includes being against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. As for the Bush administration, it poored billions of dollars into education for students in poor neighborhoods, students with disabilities, and into programs to ensure that everyone "has access to a basic education." The Bush administration also gave more in AIDS relief to Africa, including condoms, than any other president. Bush vetoed expanding SCHIP to middle class households so that the poorest children would have that option and the funds would be available for that, instead of for children whose parents can afford healthcare but would rather use the federal system, which would make funds less available to the poorest children who need services provided via SCHIP. The Bush administration also expanded care for senior citizens with Medicare advantage A and B, and worked on women’s rights issues in Afghanistan and Iraq. Laura Bush worked tirelessly to expand awareness of breast cancer for women in America and other countries. 

     So, I disagree that pro life people don’t care about the born. You can go and see things however you want to, but for me, the evidence does not support your conclusion. 

     

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • invalid-0

    I am all about women (and all humans) having a choice in most areas of life. After all, God has given us all free will. But even though we have free will, there are still laws governing the choices we make. To say it should be legal to kill a baby is the same as making murder legal. Why doesn’t the baby get a choice? People who perform abortions are people who have no respect for the life God has given to that person. How can we decide who is worth keeping and who is not? And the mothers who get abortions are like mothers holding their own infant, and telling someone else to kill it! HOW can a person do this to an innocent life, or any life for that matter? It is horrid to think that a person would ever, ever, ever want to kill someone else, especially a new baby who has not yet even had the chance to live.

    All of you pro-choicers out there–why are you not rallying to make murder legal then? What is the difference here? Because the baby is still in the mother? Honestly, I think it is because people are just too stinking selfish and care about nobody other than themselves. Kill someone else because it is most convenient for you, and it’s okay, right? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. A mother who kills her children (already born) will be convicted of murder, but you want to actually make it legal to kill one that isn’t born? I’ve heard all of the arguments–if the mother is too young, if the child has a physical problem, etc. I still don’t think that it makes a difference. You don’t get to justify murdering someone, so why do you get to justify murdering a baby?

  • invalid-0

    In response to Anonymous (8:09 p.m.) …

    First of all, the murder of George Tiller (who is not a doctor) was a wrongful act. (Of course, Roe v. Wade made Mr. Tiller’s acts of murder legal.) The killer caught in Kansas City should pay heavy.

    Second, I mailed a letter to the Editor of the campus paper at The Ohio State University in 1985 after reading an article. (“I don’t want the readers to think that all students here support legalized abortion.”) One week later, I entered one of the classes I was conducting.
    “What’s everybody smiling for?” Without recalling the exact words, part of the letter that one of my students held up (informing me that it was published) read like this:

    I do believe that murder is sometimes justifiable (with an example of a police officer and a criminal). If a mother who is carrying life in her womb was informed by two hospitals that she has less than a forty percent chance of physically surviving if the child is carried to term, then I believe that murder is justifiable. In several countries, if the mother was told she had no chance of physical survival if the child was carried to term, she would respond “That doesn’t matter – I want my child to live.” Whether that would always be helpful to the child’s future, I respect those ladies.