Reproductive Rights Prof Blog

New Poll Examines Public Opinion on Obama, Sotomayor and Abortion

The New York Times: Obama Poll Sees Doubt on Budget and Health Care, by Jeff Zeleny and Dalia Sussman:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whom Mr. Obama nominated to the Supreme Court three weeks ago, is still widely unknown to the public, the poll found. A majority of people surveyed, 53 percent, said they did not know enough about Judge Sotomayor, who would be the first Hispanic justice, to say whether she should be confirmed. But 74 percent said that it was either very or somewhat important for the Supreme Court to reflect the country’s diversity.

Before the Senate votes on her confirmation, 48 percent of people said her positions on issues like abortion and affirmative action were very important to know about.

The nomination of a Supreme Court justice, as well as the fatal shooting of an abortion doctor in Kansas late last month, injected a fresh dynamic into the national abortion debate. But the poll found essentially no change in the public’s views of abortion in the last two decades, with 36 percent saying it should be generally available, 41 percent saying it should be available but under stricter limits than are now in place and 21 percent saying it should not be permitted....

The issues of abortion and affirmative action sharply divide voters in each major political party. Among Democrats, 71 percent oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, while Republicans are closely divided. And 67 percent of Democrats support affirmative action programs for minorities, while 60 percent of Republicans oppose them.

Julie Graves Krishnaswami

The Problem with the Gallup Poll

TheHill.com: Pro-life and pro-choice, by Mark Mellman:

Obtaining meaningful poll results requires asking meaningful questions. It seems obvious, but too often this basic rule is observed in the breech.

Typically, after some useless result escapes into the ether, reporters and interest groups proceed to spin some new theory of public opinion based on faulty analysis of a meaningless question.

Last week’s Gallup poll on abortion followed this oft-repeated pattern. Gallup confined itself to reporting the accurate, if misleading, result — “51 percent of Americans call[ing] themselves ‘pro-life’ on the issue of abortion and 42 percent ‘pro-choice.’ This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.”

A Wall Street Journal blog twisted the result to suggest a substantive interpretation not in evidence — “A majority of Americans now say they oppose abortion rights, according to a Gallup poll released today.” Leave it to those who want to make all abortions illegal to move way beyond the facts, citing the poll results as proof the anti-abortion cause “is a vibrant, growing, youthful movement.”

What did these Gallup results actually reveal about American public opinion? Damn little.

More Abortion Polls

MSNBC FirstRead: A LOOK AT ABORTION POLLING NUMBERS, by Harry Enten:

Per a new CNN/Opinion Research poll, 69% of Americans do not want the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade. That result comes as other recent polls have suggested that more Americans are pro-life rather than pro-choice on the contentious issue of abortion.

A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll released yesterday found more respondents (49%) who consider themselves pro-life than those who see themselves as pro-choice (43%). It confirmed a Gallup poll released last week that found -- for the first time since the organization began asking Americans about abortion in 1995 -- a majority (51%) call themselves pro-life, with 42% calling themselves pro-choice.

Survey Finds Majority of Catholics Support Obama Speaking at Notre Dame

Quinnipiac University: Notre Dame Should Not Disinvite Obama, U.S. Catholics Tell Quinnipiac University National Poll; Attitudes On Abortion Similar Among All U.S. Voters:

U.S. voters say 56 - 31 percent, including 60 - 34 percent among Catholic voters, that Notre Dame University should not rescind its invitation to President Barack Obama to speak at the university's commencement, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

Observant Catholic voters who attend religious services about once a week say 49 - 43 percent that Notre Dame should keep President Obama on the program, while Catholics who attend services less frequently say 70 - 26 percent that Obama should speak, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey of 2,041 registered voters nationwide finds.

Opinions on Gallup's Latest Abortion Poll

The Opinionator (NY Times): Abortion, Debated, by Tobin Harshaw:

The idea that Barack Obama is out to win the culture wars has been kicked around since before he took office.... Yet, as gay marriage moves inexorably forward state by state and the president, a man of faith, does his best to keep the debate over religion from boiling up, it seems that the culture war is largely being fought on what has been its most contentious front: abortion. And this doesn’t seem a battle Obama is itching to fight.

New Gallup Poll On Abortion Shows More Americans Calling Themselves "Pro-Life," But Position on Abortion Availability Remains Stable

Gallup: More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time, by Lydia Saad:

A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

The new results, obtained from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.

It is not clear, however, that this shift in preferred nomenclature represents a significant change in the public's substantive position on when abortion should be legally available:

Still, the dominant position on this question remains the middle option, as it has continuously since 1975: 53% currently say abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances....

In Gallup's 2008 poll, 41% said abortion should be legal either in "all" or "most" circumstances, while 40% said it should be legal "only in a few" circumstances. In 2009, 37% said it should be legal in "all" or "most" circumstances, while 37% chose "in only a few" circumstances.  There was, however, an increase in people who said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (23% in 2009 versus 17% in 2008).

What Does the "Pro-Life" Movement Want? Don't Ask Ross Douthat.

The New York Times today published an astoundingly uninformed, naive defense of the current "pro-life" movement, by Ross Douthat, a senior editor at The Atlantic.  See: Abortion Politics Didn’t Doom the G.O.P.:

An iron law of recent American politics dictates that any Republican setback at the polls will be quickly pinned on the pro-life movement.... [W]hy should abortion opponents, of all conservative factions, take the blame for the financial meltdown, or the bungled occupation of Iraq, or the handling of Hurricane Katrina?

But never mind. Pro-choice Republicans, in particular, know exactly whom to blame for their party’s showing.

Douthat tries to paint the anti-choice movement as reasonable and compromise-seeking:

Compromise, rather than absolutism, has been the watchword of anti-abortion efforts for some time now. Since the early 1990s, advocates have focused on pushing largely modest state-level restrictions, from parental notification laws to waiting periods to bans on what we see as the grisliest forms of abortion.

Douthat completely ignores the fact, openly acknowledged by anti-choice advocates, that the movement sees these restrictions as mere steps on the way to ultimately banning abortion completely.  They have not settled into compromise; indeed, they are ready to pounce with all-out bans as soon as they feel their opportunity has arrived (the two recent attempts to pass abortion bans in South Dakota are evidence of this).

Douthat then goes on to cite polls that he claims demonstrate the public's desire for more restrictions than the Supreme Court would permit under Planned Parenthood v. Casey. 

The public is amenable to compromise: majorities support keeping abortion legal in some cases, but polling by CBS News and The Times during the presidential campaign showed that more Americans supported new restrictions on abortion than said it should be available on demand. And while some pro-lifers would reject any bargain, many more would be delighted to strike a deal that extends legal protection to more of the unborn, even if it stopped short of achieving the movement’s ultimate goals.

He pretends as though Casey is to blame for this state of affairs, making me wonder whether he has ever read Planned Parenthood v. Casey or understands how many restrictions states already can and do enforce against women seeking abortions:

But no such compromise is possible so long as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey remain on the books. These decisions are monuments to pro-choice absolutism, and for pro-lifers to accept them means accepting that no serious legal restrictions on abortion will ever be possible — no matter what the polls say, and no matter how many hearts and minds pro-lifers change.

It's well known that the public supports some restrictions on abortion and that most will disagree with a polling question that asks whether they support "abortion on demand."  That tells us nothing about whether the public prefers more restrictions than Casey currently permits.  Under Casey itself, the Court upheld mandatory waiting periods, government messages discouraging women from seeking abortion, and parental involvement requirements.  Since then, states have imposed even more intrusive measures, and the Supreme Court has upheld the first-ever federal ban on certain abortion methods.  There isn't a whole lot further to go short of banning abortion entirely.  And the public is certainly not ready to go that far.  When South Dakota, one of the most "pro-life" states in the country, placed just such a ban on its ballot in 2006 and again this year, voters rejected it (this despite the fact that the 2008 version contained limited exceptions for rape, incest, and medical emergencies).

As for Douthat's concluding words, they're just gibberish.  If you can make sense of what it means for "pro-lifers" to "compromise" on abortion and not be "absolutists," while still fulfilling the "movement's very purpose," let me know:

But so long as the Supreme Court remains closely divided, and a post-Roe world remains in reach, the movement’s basic political task must remain the same. Not because pro-lifers are absolutists who reject compromise, but because any real compromise will always depend on overturning Roe. Giving up on this goal would mean giving up the movement’s very purpose, while gaining nothing in return.

It's disappointing that the New York Times would devote op-ed space to a contributer who has neither thought through nor honestly articulated the "pro-life" agenda.  A much more insightful piece on these same issues can by found in Denise Ross's, What's the Matter with South Dakota?, in The New Republic.

Survey Shows Majorities Worldwide Oppose Criminalizing Abortion

AlterNet: Criminal Penalties for Abortion Rejected Across the Globe, by Jill Filipovic:

When you live in a country where abortion rights remain a contentious issue in every election and anti-choice activists are emboldened enough to demonstrate against the birth control pill, there are a lot of reasons to be pessimistic about the future of reproductive freedom. But internationally, there's a glimmer of good news: Around the globe, individual citizens support abortion rights, even when their own governments criminalize abortion.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes surveyed men and women in 18 countries that collectively make up 59 percent of the world's population. In 17 out of the 18 countries, a majority of respondents rejected criminal penalties for abortion. In nine of the 18 countries, majorities said that abortion is an individual decision that governments should butt out of. Of those nine countries which thought the government should intervene in abortion rights, only a majority in one -- Indonesia -- supported criminal sanctions for women who terminate their pregnancies.

Surrogacy Sees Increased Media Coverage

Wall Street Journal: Outsourcing Childbirth, by Cheryl Miller:

"Katie is coming out of the mommy closet," Caroline (Maura Tierney) teases her sister Kate (Tina Fey) in the film "Baby Mama," out in theaters today. Kate, a hard-charging executive at a Whole Foods-like grocery chain, seems to have the perfect life -- except, oops, she forgot to have a baby. Cursed with a misshapen uterus, she turns to a surrogate agency, which assigns a wacky South Philadelphia girl, Angie Ostrowiski (Amy Poehler), to carry her baby.

Surrogacy itself seems to have come out of the mommy closet, to judge from recent media coverage. The New York Times and the Boston Globe have both reported on the practice of outsourcing wombs to poor Indian women. On a recent cover of Newsweek, the abdomen of a pregnant woman appeared with the words "Womb for Rent" emblazoned upon it. The issue's lead story, "The Curious Lives of Surrogates," ignited a small media frenzy with its sensationalistic revelations about military wives cashing in as surrogates -- in part by bilking their government-provided health plans.

Does The HPV Vaccine "Promote" Promiscuity?

Meghan O'Rourke writes for Slate Magazine (9/27):

In recent months, you may have seen a TV ad featuring striking young women skateboarding and drumming as a voice-over intones, "Every year, thousands of women die from cervical cancer. I want to be one less woman who will battle cancer." The women represented are self-confident, accomplished, artistic, and independent. Only one boy shows up in the ad—in a still photo. But what is most striking about the ad is that it is just one part of a much larger cultural and political battle about young women and sex.

America declared a "war on cancer" 30 years ago, and yet few cures or vaccines have been discovered since. So when Merck announced that it had a created a drug that could prevent some 70 percent of cervical cancers from developing, you would think Americans would rejoice. Instead, there was a backlash. Last February, Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order that would have made Texas the first state to mandate the vaccination of schoolgirls against HPV, the sexually transmitted virus that is a frequent cause of cervical cancer. He promptly came under fierce attack. The Texas Legislature expressed its deep reservations about the vaccine, and the media reported that Perry had received a campaign contribution from Merck prior to signing the order. Ultimately, the order was vetoed by the legislature. Earlier this year, 24 states were contemplating making Gardasil—as the cervical-cancer vaccine is known—a mandatory vaccination for young women. Today, only one state, Virginia, has such a law, and it leaves a loophole for parents to opt out.

More Americans Want Abortion to Remain Legal

According to the Angus Reid Global Monitor:

More adults in the United States believe pregnancy termination should be allowed at least in some occasions, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 52 per cent of respondents think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up seven points since February.

Conversely, 43 per cent of respondents think the procedure should be illegal in all or most cases, down seven points in six months.

Both the article and the poll itself demonstrate the frustrating persistence of public confusion about so-called "partial-birth abortion bans."  The article notes:

In April, a Supreme Court ruling effectively banned partial birth abortion—a procedure performed in the late-term of pregnancy when the fetus can survive outside the womb—without making an exception for the health of the mother. 75 per cent of respondents believe partial birth abortion should be illegal.

The polling question at issue asked:

Now I would like to ask your opinion about a specific abortion procedure known as ‘late-term’ abortion or ‘partial birth’ abortion, which is sometimes performed on women during the last few months of pregnancy. Do you think that this procedure should be legal or illegal?

But "partial-birth abortion" bans, including the federal ban upheld this year by the Supreme Court, are not limited to any particular stage of pregnancy.  And although they are broadly worded, the procedure they purport to ban, the intact D&E, is not a procedure that is performed only in "the last few months of pregnancy" or "when the fetus can survive outside the womb."  In fact, the vast majority of states ban all abortions, regardless of the procedure, in the last few months of pregnancy, unless an abortion is necessary to save the woman's life or health.  To learn more, see this factsheet by the organizations that challenged the federal ban.

NY Times: "In Poll, Women Are Supportive but Skeptical of Clinton"

Katharine Seelye and Dalia Sussman report in today's New York Times:

Women view Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York more favorably than men do, but she still faces skepticism among some women, especially those who are older and those who are married, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Women hold more positive views than men of all the leading Democratic candidates. But winning the support of women, who made up 54 percent of voters in the last presidential election, is especially important to Mrs. Clinton, who has sought to rally them behind her potentially historic candidacy as she seeks to become the first woman president. The poll found that while many women continue to have negative feelings about her, over all they tend to agree with her on the issues and see her as a strong leader.

Jessica Arons on "Putting an End to the Albatross Myth"

For a thoughtful response to Melinda Henneberger's NYT op-ed declaring that it is bad for Democrats to be pro-choice, see this post on the RH Reality Check blog:

In her June 22nd New York Times op-ed, "Why Pro-Choice Is a Bad Choice for Democrats," Melinda Henneberger sends a mixed message to pro-choice politicians. She criticizes them for failing to address the complexity of the abortion issue, but she tells them instead of giving up on voters who consider themselves pro-life, they should give up on defending abortion rights. I don't think they have to give up on either.

...Rather than becoming silent on abortion, pro-choice leaders must struggle in this sound-bite-driven world to speak more clearly about the reasons in favor of legal abortion. And it would be nice if the media tried to do the same.

You can read longer a piece by Arons and Shira Saperstein on The Politico: Leaders must speak clearly on abortion.  See also their article, Following the Leader: Why Progressives Must Not Abandon Their Commitment to Reproductive Rights (Jan. 2005).

See also: NY Times: Young Americans Are Leaning Left, New Poll Finds

NY Times: Young Americans Are Leaning Left, New Poll Finds

Maybe Melinda Henneberger would have benefited from reading the following story before relying on anecdotal evidence from her "listening to women of all ages, races, tax brackets and points of view" in order to trumpet that "pro-choice is a bad choice for democrats."

Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee report in yesterday's New York Times:

Young Americans are more likely than the general public to favor a government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage, according to a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll. The poll also found that they are more likely to say the war in Iraq is heading to a successful conclusion....

They have continued a long-term drift away from the Republican Party. And although they are just as worried as the general population about the outlook for the country and think their generation is likely to be worse off than that of their parents, they retain a belief that their votes can make a difference, the poll found.

On the issue of abortion, young Americans' views parallel those of the general public (whose opinion has remained basically stable for years), with roughly equal numbers in each group (37-39%) agreeing that either "abortion should generally be available to those who want it" or "abortion should be legal, but with stricter limits than it is now."  A minority of each group (21-24%) says abortion should not be permitted.  Certainly, nothing in this poll suggests that voters are fleeing the Democratic party over the issue of abortion.

Wash. Post: "Clinton Owes Lead in Poll To Support From Women"

Anne Kornblut and Matthew Mosk report in today's Washington Post:

The consistent lead that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has maintained over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and others in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is due largely to one factor: her support from women.

In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Clinton led Obama by a 2 to 1 margin among female voters. Her 15-point lead in the poll is entirely attributable to that margin. Clinton drew support from 51 percent of the women surveyed, compared with 24 percent who said they supported Obama and 11 percent who said they backed former senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Clinton is drawing especially strong support from lower-income, lesser-educated women -- voters her campaign strategists describe as "women with needs." Obama, by contrast, is faring better among highly educated women, who his campaign says are interested in elevating the political discourse.

NY Times: "Stuck in the Middle With You"

In last week's New York Times, Janet Elder reminds us that the country is not really as divided over abortion and other hot-button social issues as many claim (5/30):

Even as abortion, the environment and immigration -- some of the perennials in politics -- are being used by interest groups to raise the decibel level and galvanize the left and the right, some of the presidential candidates are playing to the middle. Perhaps they’ve been reading the poll numbers.

The United States is not really a nation divided. There is far more nuance in the public’s views of social issues than suggested by the characterization of the country as a divide of red states and blue states. ...

Abortion is the most often cited example. Opinion on that issue has been stable for more than 25 years. 

The majority of both Republicans and Democrats want abortion to be legal. In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last week, 60 percent of Republicans and 87 percent of Democrats said they support legalized abortion. Forty percent of Republicans and 11 percent of Democrats said abortion should not be permitted. In The Times/CBS News polls, majorities of both parties wanted abortion to be legal as far back as September of 1989, the first time the poll asked about it.

(Note: the full article may be available only to NYT subscribers.)

Nearly 90% of California Parents Support Comprehensive Sex Education in Schools

Via the Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report:

Eighty-nine percent of California parents -- regardless of their political and religious views, level of education and residence -- support comprehensive sex education programs in schools, according to the first statewide survey on the subject released on Thursday, the McClatchy/San Jose Mercury News reports. Comprehensive sex education includes information about contraception, sexually transmitted infections and abstinence, according to the McClatchy/Mercury News. ...

The researchers found that 96% of California parents oppose abstinence-only sex education requirements in schools. No subgroup by region, religion, income, education or political party fell below 80% support for comprehensive sex education, the study showed. Eighty-six percent of self-identifying evangelical Christians said they supported comprehensive sex education programs, while those who identified themselves as "very conservative" responded with the lowest rating of 71% support for the programs. "We were astonished by how universal this support is for comprehensive sex education," lead study author Norman Constantine of the PHI's Center for Research on Adolescent Health and Development said.

National and statewide polls have long shown that parents support comprehensive sexuality education.  Moreover, abstinence-only education doesn't work.  So why exactly are we continuing to develop and fund abstinence-only programs?

Menstruation, Fake Periods, and Womanhood

It's been very interesting to read all the male speculation on the emotional benefits (or not) of menstruation, musings prompted by the FDA's approval of Lybrel, the birth control pill that purportedly eliminates periods (although it is more accurate to say that, unlike traditional pill regimens, it does not induce gratuitous monthly, non-menstrual bleeding -- more on that below).  William Saletan (see yesterday's post) says he'll "stay out of the fight over womanhood."  Eugene Volokh, though, leaps right in, devoting a whole post to the issue, first laying out his assumption that most women must hate their periods but then seeking input from "people who have actually menstruated."

Some female bloggers (see here and here) have found the speculation offensive, or at least condescending.

At this post, KipEsquire asks, "How soon before radical feminists, neo-hippies and other professional anti-progress malcontents decry Lybrel and praise menstruation as a noble, to-be-celebrated part of the "female experience"?"  Hmm... why so sarcastic?  I guess he knows better than any "radical feminist" what the "female experience" is really all about.

I suppose I fall into the "radical feminist" camp, but my own reaction to all the uproar over suppressed menstruation can't be summarized quite that neatly.  In debating the benefits and drawbacks of periods in the context of Lybrel, most people seem to miss what to me is the most important point: that any "period" that occurs when a woman is on the pill isn't a period at all.  I personally felt snookered when I learned years ago that the (male) inventors of the birth control pill, Gregory Pincus and John Rock, had no medical reason for including a week of placebo sugar pills to induce a fake "period," but instead did so because they assumed that women (and the public) would more readily accept the pill if women appeared to continue to menstruate every month. 

While I can imagine that some women, for a variety of reasons, might welcome a biological period, it's hard for me to understand why they would welcome a male-invented, apparently medically unnecessary, pretend period.  Being on the pill interferes with a woman's reproductive cycle by stopping ovulation (and, along with it, all real menstruation).  Given the numbers of women who take the pill, people seem comfortable with that, so I'm puzzled at how introducing a monthly week of gratuitous bleeding makes the situation any more "natural."  I worry that the decades in which women (and men) have become accustomed to these fake, monthly periods have shaped perceptions about what is beneficial or normal for women. Or maybe for many women it's just that they've been misinformed or misled about what is really happening when they continue to bleed every month while on the pill.

For more on this, see The Well-Timed Period (Lybrel Approved and I Offer Marketing Advice to Wyeth Via a NYT Critique), which also has a helpful post explaining the difference between menstruation and the "withdrawal bleeding" induced by placebo pills (or a week without taking pills) in ordinary birth control regimens.

Gallup's Annual Values and Belief Survey: Results on Abortion

Gallup's annual Values and Belief survey, conducted May 10-13, 2007, yielded unsurprising results about the public's general position on the legality of abortion.  From Public Divided on "Pro-Choice" vs. "Pro-Life" Abortion Labels, by Lydia Saad (Gallup News Service):

Gallup's root question measuring these abortion attitudes simply asks, "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" The trend, which dates from 1975, shows a majority of Americans have consistently fallen into the middle group.

This year was no exception.  Americans also "generally agree that Roe should remain the law of the land on abortion. Only 35% of Americans say they would like to see the Supreme Court overturn this decision; a slight majority, 53%, say they would not like to see it overturned."

What really makes me see red, however, is this question (also asked in October of 2003):

Now I would like to ask your opinion about a specific abortion procedure known as "late-term" abortion or "partial-birth" abortion, which is sometimes performed on women during the last few months of pregnancy.  Do you think this procedure should be legal or illegal?

Given the wording of that question, it's no shock that 72% of respondents in 2007 thought it should be illegal.  This question neatly embodies persistent misperceptions about the ban, misimpressions that make it impossible to know what a fully informed public would really think. 

For example -- thanks in no small part to the pro-choice movement's early floundering on the issue -- the question tries to be neutral by offering the alternative label "late-term" abortion.  However, the so-called "partial-birth abortion" bans (including the federal ban) are not limited to the latter stages of pregnancy, and the procedures they prohibit are performed throughout the second trimester.

This question thus buys into the bait-and-switch tactic of the bans' proponents, where the public rhetoric is all about babies "inches from taking their first breath," while the legislation specifies no particular stage of pregnancy. 

The question is also misleading because abortions performed in the "last few months of pregnancy," under any technique, are exceedingly rare.  Most states ban all abortions after viability except where the woman may die or where her health is in danger.  Roe v. Wade permits this.  By focusing on the "last few months of pregnancy," the question is likely to elicit the public's well-known objection to post-viability abortions rather than zeroing in on any informed opposition to intact D&E or any other actual procedure.

And finally, because the bans are so vaguely worded, the question's suggestion that "partial-birth abortion" is about a "specific" procedure is highly misleading and buys into the anti-choice other bait-and-switch tactic, in which the rhetoric is about a specific procedure, while the legislation remains intentionally vague and broad.

NYT on Gen Nexters and the Culture Wars

Ann Hulbert writes in Sunday's New York Times Magazine about the Pew Research Center's recent report, "A Portrait of 'Generation Next'":

So what is special about Gen Nexters? ... [I]f you look closely, what makes Gen Nexters sui generis — and perhaps more mysterious than their elders appreciate — are their views on two divisive social topics, abortion and gay marriage. On the by-now-familiar red-and-blue map of the culture wars, positions on those issues are presumed to go hand in hand: those on the right oppose both as evidence of a promiscuous society and those on the left embrace them as rights that guarantee privacy and dignity. Yet as a group, Gen Nexters seem to challenge the package deals.

Young Americans, it turns out, are unexpectedly conservative on abortion but notably liberal on gay marriage. Given that 18- to 25-year-olds are the least Republican generation (35 percent) and less religious than their elders (with 20 percent of them professing no religion or atheism or agnosticism), it is curious that on abortion they are slightly to the right of the general public. Roughly a third of Gen Nexters endorse making abortion generally available, half support limits and 15 percent favor an outright ban. By contrast, 35 percent of 50- to 64-year-olds support readily available abortions. On gay marriage, there was not much of a generation gap in the 1980s, but now Gen Nexters stand out as more favorably disposed than the rest of the country. Almost half of them approve, compared with under a third of those over 25.

Read more about the Pew Research Center's report.