On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Doug Henwood wrote:
>> [This is an interesting tack. Normally if you ask people their position
>> on abortion, the answers are ambiguous and overlapping and discouraging.
>> Here, when they ask about what side they identify with -- pro-life or
>> pro-choice -- and whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned -- the real
>> point at issue -- the results seem surprisingly stark and encouraging]
>>
>> http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1134#prochoice
>>
>> It's Definitely a Pro-Choice, Pro-Roe v. Wade Country
>
> So your subject heading was a Freudian slip?
D'oh!
> If you force Americans to make the choice - "pro-life" or "pro-choice" -
> they choose choice, like the good Americans they are. But, like I told Woj
> yesterday, this is a split-the-difference country. On specifics, there's a
> strong bias to restricting abortion. So overturning Roe v. Wade, to the
> middle American mind, would be "radical," but so would making abortion
> free on demand.
>
> For example, in a May 2003 poll, Gallup asked about circumstances under
> which abortion should be legal in the first and third trimesters. 82%
> thought abortion should be legal in the first trimester if the mother's
> life was endangered; 72% thought it should be legal when the pregnancy was
> caused by rape or incest; 60% if the child would be born with a
> life-threatening illness; 50%, if child would be mentally disabled; 41%
> when the woman does not want the child for any reason.
What an extremely sharp reply that resolves the difference much better.
I was struck by the exactly this difference, between those polls and this one and was thinking Teixeira had hit new solid ground. But unfortunately I think you're exactly right about the real relation between the ambiguities and the clarity. The majority in the middle are against "overthrowing Roe v. Wade" for exactly the reason you say, that would be radical, and they are against that on principle, in any direction. But are perfectly open to an almost infinite amount of restriction.
And -- contra both me and Teixeira -- that is probably the real point as issue with Alito, not overthrow. The evidence of his judicial history shows no inclination for precipitously overthrowing precedent (and it would take a precipitous overthrow get rid of Roe all at once). What it shows is an enormous willingness to add onerous restrictions as not "undue burdens." In other words, a willingness to hedge it to death. And then kill it in 20 years.
So really this is us playing with rhetoric rather than finding a new solid ground. Damn.
But it was a pleasure to get such a solid answer so quickly. Great list you run here! Too bad I was over my limit of 3 or I'd have replied immediately.
BTW -- what Alan Wolfe book are you thinking of? He blows amazingly cold, but what you quote sounds interesting.
Michael