The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Dan Balz's Take

The Pollster

A Shift on Abortion?

By Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta

Both foes and supporters of legal abortion should sit back and take a broad view before overreacting to Thursday's release of new poll numbers showing a big shift in Americans' attitudes about abortion.

The reason for skepticism (or at least restraint) is simple: other polls, including the Washington Post-ABC News poll, have not picked up such a basic reorientation on this divisive issue.

With their new data, Pew shows a sizable drop from 2008 to 2009 in the percentage of Americans saying abortion should be "legal in all cases" or "legal in most cases," a move that coincides with the election of a pro-choice president. Earlier this year, Gallup caused a stir with a similar finding: that the number of "pro-life" Americans for the first time outnumbered those describing themselves as "pro-choice." (A tilt back the other way two months later picked up little notice.)

Elsewhere the trend is decidedly different, as there has been no fundamental realignment on the question of legal abortion in Post-ABC polls (we ask the identical question). Nor have recent Post polls in Virginia picked up any such change in that key swing state. National polls by the AP, CBS News and the New York Times and Quinnipiac University also show no big increase in opposition to legal abortion.

Continue reading at Behind the Numbers»

Posted at 2:45 PM ET on Oct 1, 2009  | Category:  The Pollster
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: A Republican Comeback? | Next: Obama Bans Federal Employees From Texting While Driving


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



As always, the phrasing of the poll questions is vital. Most people do not support Taliban-types of groups making policies against all abortions and birth control. After each act of anti-choice terrorism for the last 30 years, the public has been reinforced who they don't want making reproductive health policies.


Unfortunately, they were funded by rogue regime to produce "faith-based" and abstinence-only "education" programs. The magnitude of that failure speaks for itself (one can also ask Bristol Palin). Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

Posted by: revbookburn | October 2, 2009 5:28 PM

But it would have to be done BEFORE their first period.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 3:33 PM

I am.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 12:16 PM

There are such things called birth control. If we provide teenagers access to methods of preventing pregnancy and protection against STDs, that would be a step forward. No one is talking about sterilizing anyone, period.

Posted by: em_doyle | October 1, 2009 10:19 PM

Apart from the number of abortions going way down, the cost of paying teens not to have sex would be minuscule compared to the $9 billion teen pregnancy costs annually.

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2009 8:57 PM

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2009 8:56 PM

I also agree that $50 million doesn't work. If you paid every teen $1,000 per year NOT to have sex -- a couple billion dollars total -- that would work ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2009 8:48 PM

em_doyle:

Oh, it's a "collective lack of insight" problem? I see now. Well, the "most effective" way to reduce the number of abortions is to permanently sterilize every female child. Then teenagers can have all the sex they (and you) want. Really, it's just A Modest Proposal.

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2009 8:47 PM

$50 million to fund abstinence-only just does not work. That is idiocracy at its finest. No one wants abortion as a solution. It would be far better to prevent it in the first place. But, instead, let's just pretend that teenagers don't have sex. God would not agree with your perspective; in fact, abstinence-only causes the waste of human life, and God would be offended by our collective lack of insight.

Posted by: em_doyle | October 1, 2009 8:35 PM

(Hi, VegasGirl, we are planning a trip to the Bellagio October 23rd ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2009 7:39 PM

Yes, that's what we should have done with Hitler too. Let's just agree to a reasonable number of Jews and gypsies that can be murdered every year.

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2009 6:54 PM

Yes, there is a shift on abortion -- however, the pro-life movement needs to give up its push to ban it outright, because all it will do is drive it underground, and make a bad situation worse. Instead, the goal should be to *reduce* the number of abortions.
That is realistic, and something nearly all reasonable people can get on board with.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | October 1, 2009 5:26 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.



 
 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company