Attitudes on Abortion: United States and Texas

How different are the attitudes of Texas registered voters from those of the residents of the United States?

First, the percentage of Americans who are pro-choice and pro-life is similar to the percentage in Texas. Compare the following:



 

Recently, James Henson and Joshua Blank, both of the Texas Politics Project, posted an article on the nuanced views of Texas’ registered voters in Texas and concluded:

    The presence of nuanced attitudes in both parties or on both “sides” of the abortion debate notwithstanding, the shift in the national legal landscape and the subsequent removal of nearly all access in Texas has put Republicans in a tougher position than Democrats. Looking just at the three choice circumstances, 54% of Republicans would allow some time for abortion access in at least one of the three, including 53% of self-identified conservatives. Voters who identify as “extremely conservative” make up the only group in which a majority (65%) endorses no exceptions for each of the three choice circumstances (65%). This group makes up about 25% of the electorate and a larger but still relatively small share of Republican voters overall (31% in April polling).

Republican policymakers and opinion leaders own Texas abortion laws which remain demonstrably out of alignment with the views of a large share of their partisans when those voters are faced with real-world situations that are frequently elided or misrepresented when Republican lawmakers defend the laws they have implemented. Democratic candidates should have an easier time.

Henson and Blank noted that a plurality of those Texas registered voters who identify as pro-life are willing to accept abortion under four circumstances. The table below illustrates the circumstances and timing results for pro-life Texas voters:


The circumstances and timing are important to Texas pro-life voters. As Henson and Blank note:

The interacting impact of timing and circumstances evident in the overall results also manifests among “pro-life” voters in ways that belie the notion that absolutes often associated with the “pro-life” movement prevail among all voters who embrace the label. For example, more “pro-life” voters would allow some legal abortion access than would prohibit it entirely in 4 of the 7 circumstances: health (16% never; 76% at some point during the pregnancy); rape (25% never; 69% at some point); incest (25% never; 65% at some point); and the detection of a serious birth defect (31% never; 58% at some point). Between 67% and 70% of “pro-life” voters would prohibit all access in the three “choice” circumstances, but between 25% and 28% would allow for legal access at some point during the pregnancy in each of these circumstances as well.

There are no data that measure the opinions of residents of the United States both in terms of timing and circumstances of abortion; however, the table below does address the circumstances under which pro-life Americans allow an abortion:

What this all means to me is that the abortion issue is nuanced and needs to be explained in more than sound bites. When and under what circumstances should an abortion be allowed? Is there a logical time, depending on the circumstances, that should allow an abortion? If you can, place yourself in the position of a pregnant woman. Then, decide what makes sense to you. Before “quickening,” abortion should be decided by a pregnant woman and her doctor. After that time, the government must make abortions safe for pregnant women. The decision then shifts to the circumstances. Is the woman pregnant as a result of rape or incest? Is the pregnant woman’s life or health in danger? Does the pregnant woman’s fetus have a fatal condition or a serious disability? In each case, the pregnant woman and her doctor must decide.

But more is required. The public needs to know what effects carrying the fetus to term will have for the pregnant woman. That needs to be explained in layman’s terms. We need compassion for the pregnant woman. We need understanding. We need to be kind.





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whither the Republican Party?

Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes write in The Atlantic magazine: So we arrive at a syllogism: (1) The GOP has become the party of Trumpism. (2) Trumpism is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. (3) The Republican Party is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. A syllogism is, according to dictionary.com: 1. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”. 2. deductive reasoning. 3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument. Which definition applies here?   First, has the GOP become the party of Trump? Has he taken control of the party appa...
Read more

Choices for the Final Four (ICRC Commissions, that is)

Image
With four commission positions remaining to be filled, whom should the commissioners select? The commissioners should choose an African American male from TCCC precinct 1. Since the greatest concentrations of African Americans are located in TCCC precinct 1 (see this map ), choosing an African American from this geographic area would provide the greatest voice to the area with the highest concentration of African Americans in the city and the area that would most likely be included in a council district that would possess a plurality of African Americans. The choice should Nathaniel Bradford because of his connections to the community. An Anglo male and an Anglo female should be chosen from TCCC precinct 2. One, if not both, should be chosen from those voter precincts slightly east and west of MOPAC that featured high voter turnout in the 2012 mayoral election (see this map ). The male and female from those voting precincts who the ARP considered the most qualified are He...
Read more

In Defense of a Theory

I’m a big fan of political scientist Seth Masket, but what he wrote in defense of the theory of presidential nominations expounded in The Party Decides intrigues me. First, he notes that his initial defense caused some blowback: Last week at Mischiefs of Faction , I wrote about the book The Party Decides and the extent to which the 2016 is causing trouble for it. I argued that the Republican race isn't providing a very clean test of the theory, while the Democratic race is. This invited substantial pushback from Jonathan Chait , Justin Grimmer , and others, suggesting that I was either protecting the theory from actual testing, or that the theory itself was untestable. So I'd like to clarify a bit and suggest just what evidence we've gathered this year. Then, he goes on to explain more fully: Now, in my recent post, I focused on what I see as the central claim of the book: The party generally gets what it wants. That is, when party elites have selected a...
Read more