“For this president to call himself pro-life, and for anybody to back him because of claims of being pro-life, is almost willful ignorance. He is so much anti-life because he is only concerned about himself, and he gives us every, every, every indication of that.”
– Rev. John Stowe, Bishop of the Diocese of Lexington in Kentucky (July 2020)
In a year when Americans are thinking about recession, a pandemic, racial justice, climate change and policing, Trump voters (or potential Trump voters) repeatedly in interviews brought up abortion in explaining their voting decisions.
NBC News recently reported that 30% of Republicans vote on a single issue: abortion. They may disagree with their party on health care, education, tax policy and social safety nets (and many do).
White, pro-life evangelicals support Trump. This group makes up roughly 15% of the population, but they vote in large numbers. According to National Election Pool exit polls, they made up more than a quarter of all voters in the 2016 US presidential election – and the overwhelming majority of them voted Republican.
Despite this support for pro-life, a majority of American adults say they don't support the Supreme Court's completely overturning Roe v. Wade, according to new data from the NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Tracking Poll.
Sixty-six percent of adults say they don't believe the Supreme Court should completely overturn the decision that established a woman's right to an abortion nationwide in at least the first three months of a pregnancy. Twenty-nine percent of adults say they do want the court to completely overturn the ruling.
(Laura Wronski. “NBC News|SurveyMonkey poll: majority want Roe v. Wade to stand.” NBC News. September 27, 2020.)
Desperate for voters, Trump is trying to deliver for his conservative base while avoiding making abortion a central focus of the election. His campaign worries it could turn off voters who support abortion rights and drive on-the-fence or undecided voters – especially women – to turn out for Biden en masse.
“He knows at the end of the day that opposing access to safe, legal abortion is a losing strategy,” said Kelley Robinson, executive director of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
(Jill Colvin. “Why Trump doesn’t want to talk about abortion rights.” Associated Press. October 02, 2020.)
Voters are dealing with an important question that directly relates to the pro-life movement: How much does Donald Trump value life after birth? The identity of “supporting life” has taken on a new meaning.
Between Trump's stances on immigration, his rhetoric on race and, most recently, his approach to handling the coronavirus, how can the populace believe Trump is a pro-life president if he doesn't value life after birth? Continued support for Trump has shone a giant spotlight on the hypocrisy of a lot of people who have fallen into his pro-life camp.
White women and White Christian voters played a critical role in Trump’s 2016 victory. But polling and focus groups make it clear that the coalition is developing cracks. Recent polling from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) indicates White women are increasingly abandoning Trump. White Catholics and White mainline Protestants – groups that both backed Trump in 2016 – are less likely to support the president than they did four years ago.
(Shefali Luthra. “These 'pro-life' women won’t vote for Trump. Here’s why.” USA Today. October 30, 2020.)
But, sadly, sources report, despite four years of a presidency defined by Trump’s unprincipled behavior – not to mention over 228,000 deaths from the COVID pandemic – white religious support for Trump has slipped only slightly. In the U.S., many Christian groups firmly believe they face an existential struggle for the future of their faith – and America itself as a White Christian nation.
“A lot of heart-to-hearts with people I love has helped me understand there is a difference between pro-birth and pro-life. Separating children and putting them in cages is not pro-life. Refusing to wear a mask is not pro-life. I really view that stance as really hypocritical — you can’t say you respect life only for unborn children and disregard other life.”
– Unnamed Voter
Abortion Studies
Studies have shown that when abortions are outlawed, there is a higher health risk for women who are then forced to undergo the procedure in a nonsterile environment, or have it performed by someone who is not trained for the procedure.
Abortion is sought and needed even in settings where it is restricted – that is, in countries where it is prohibited altogether or is allowed only to save the women’s life or to preserve her physical or mental health. Unintended pregnancy rates are highest in countries that restrict abortion access and lowest in countries where abortion is broadly legal.
(J. Bearak et al. “Unintended pregnancy and abortion by income, region, and the legal status of abortion: estimates from a comprehensive model for 1990–2019.” Lancet Global Health. 2020.)
Research supports the fact that the abortion rate in America decreases under Democratic presidents and policies, while the rate remains virtually stagnant under Republican administrations.
In the first year of George W. Bush’s presidency, for example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 853,485 abortions among women ages 15 to 44. In 2008, the final year of the Bush administration, that number was 825,564 (a mere 3% decrease in eight years). Contrast that with the Obama administration: The abortion rate dropped by 24% between 2008 and 2016 — resulting in 200,000 fewer abortions every year.
The data clearly show that when you invest in programs that address the lack of education, limited access to health care and economic uncertainty that contribute to increased rates of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, you are much more likely to decrease the number of abortions. It’s the difference between a victory in principle and a victory in fact.
(Danielle Burmeister. “I voted for people who would outlaw abortion. Then I saw how investing in people reduces abortions much more.” Des Moines Register. October 02, 2020.)
Danielle Burmeister – a one-time, single-issue of opposing abortion voter – found …
“Investments in health care, paid family leave and child care equip pregnant women with the support they need to carry and raise a child. Renewed focus on equal pay, comprehensive fertility and sex education for our young people and publicly funded access to family planning services all lead to fewer abortions. That, combined with renewed efforts to combat domestic violence, go much farther toward eradicating abortion in this country than merely appointing pro-life judges.”
This view is supported by the FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health. FIGO recognizes that the aim of reducing the number of induced abortions will be achieved by not criminalizing its practice or denying care when requested within the limits of the law, as is currently the case in many countries. The number of induced abortions will be reduced through education and access to effective contraception.
(Anibal Faúndes and Iqbal H.Shah. Volume 131, Supplement 1, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. October 2015.)
Unintended pregnancy could be reduced significantly if we showed true commitment to:
Comprehensive sexuality education that includes medically accurate information about abstinence and contraception;
Insurance coverage of and public funding for family planning services;
Greater access to emergency contraception (which prevents pregnancy and does not cause abortion); and
Programs that curb domestic violence and sexual abuse. Clearly, women who are able to avoid unintended pregnancy do not have to make the difficult decision of whether to have an abortion.
Ensuring a woman has the means to have and raise a child in health and safety should she wish to do so.
(Jessica Arons and Shira Saperstein. “The Right Way to Reduce Abortion.” Center For American Progress. January 20, 2006,
Making abortion less necessary is the “way” to humane, effective, and just policies. Criminalization of abortion only increases mortality and morbidity without decreasing the incidence of induced abortion, and decriminalization rapidly reduces abortion-related mortality and does not increase abortion rates.
Nations with robust women’s rights protections, liberal abortion laws and easily accessible birth control (especially long-acting birth control) have some of the lowest abortion rates in the world. Women's rights are actually decreasing abortion by making it less necessary.
American women now marry at an average age of 26, with educated women marrying and delaying childbirth even later. The fact is women like their freedom – including the freedom to be sexual beings while they also pursue an education, a career, and a life of our choosing.
Jill Filipovic, American attorney and author, says …
“American pro-life movement and their Republican representatives do oppose all of this (women's freedom). Relegating women to subservient roles, blocking access to contraception and threatening women and doctors with jail hasn’t worked to prevent abortion anywhere in the history of the world, but that won’t stop them from trying again.”
(Jill Filipovic. “Want to lower the abortion rate? Support pro-choice policies.” The Guardian. March 24, 2018.)
Filipovie explains …
“We know safe, legal abortion decreases abortion related deaths. We know widespread access to contraception, and especially reliable long-acting methods like the IUD, decreases unintended pregnancies and in turn abortions.
“Instead, the Trump administration has totally cut off even information about abortion for women overseas. And domestically, they’ve caved to ideological, science-hostile pro-life groups who tell women to plan their families 'naturally' – that is, with the rhythm method instead of contraception …
“The global numbers on abortion tell a clear story of progress and feminist gains. But we’re not nearly as far as we could be – only because those who claim to value 'life' are compromising women’s lives for their own ideological aims.”
(Jill Filipovic. “Want to lower the abortion rate? Support pro-choice policies.” The Guardian. March 24, 2018.)
No comments:
Post a Comment