Polls like ABC‘s (4/28/22) showing widespread opposition to overturning Roe v. Wade probably understate the unpopularity of Samuel Alito’s draft opinion.
Politico on May 2 released Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s draft abortion position, signed by four additional justices, that would overturn Roe v. Wade.
In the wake of that revelation, numerous media articles have reported on polls measuring the public’s opposition to overturning Roe (for example, see here, here, here and here). As Democratic pollster Mark Mellman reports in The Hill (5/11/22), on average the polls show that about two-thirds of the public want Roe to stand, about three in ten want to see it overturned.
Other polls look at whether the public says that most or all abortions should be legal, or most or all abortions should be illegal. The results there are typical of this poll by ABC News (4/28/22), which found 58% saying legal, 37% illegal.
Yet those numbers, and many of the stories and the polls, miss the larger point, and underestimate the true level of opposition to what the Supreme Court may rule.
For example, an analysis by Blake Hounshell in the New York Times (5/10/22) noted:
Polling shows that abortion rights are popular. But the answers depend heavily on how the questions are worded. The public often shows conflicting impulses: Americans approve of Roe by large margins, but also approve of restrictions that seem to conflict with it.
The issue with the Supreme Court decision, however, is not just that it overturns Roe, nor that many people approve of Roe but also approve of restrictions inconsistent with it.
The Alito draft does not just overturn the main finding of Roe, that women generally have a right to an abortion in the first six months of pregnancy (until “viability”). Alito’s draft reasoning goes beyond that, denying that pregnant people have any rights under any circumstances to terminate a pregnancy, except those explicitly granted to them by the state.
David Von Drehle (Washington Post, 5/3/22): “Will there be any limit to the steps a state can take to enforce proper care and delivery of each fetus? Alito suggests this is a question for the Americans of 1868 to answer.”
As David Von Drehle wrote in the Washington Post (5/3/22):
Roe focused on the rights of doctors to treat patients. Planned Parenthood v. Casey put the emphasis where it properly belongs: on the rights of women. At heart, Casey asks: Does government have unlimited authority to force a woman to carry an unwanted fetus? Casey answers: No.
Alito would say yes—defining an “undue burden” on a woman’s freedom is too difficult; therefore, all burdens may be acceptable. Left unclear is the answer to an obvious next question: What else can a woman be forced to do?
Von Drehle pointed out that abortion rights are derived from a series of Supreme Court rulings in the past century that are based on a right to privacy, not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but underlying protections provided in the First, Fourth, Ninth and 14th amendments. These include rights of parents to raise their children without undue interference from the government, of people to marry whomever they choose, of married couples—and eventually single people as well—to use contraception. But as Von Drehle noted:
Though he claims otherwise, Alito would orphan all those rights with his would-be ruling. For he asserts that no zone of privacy exists around family matters unless it is expressed explicitly in the Constitution, or was plainly recognized at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
Alito would authorize any state legislature to criminalize the abortion of an hour-old zygote by a 12-year-old rape victim. This is not hyperbole; at least 10 states have already passed antiabortion laws with no exception for rape or incest.
Given the impact of the proposed Supreme Court decision, the standard polling questions on abortion are mostly beside the point. One relevant question to ask the public is this:
Do you favor or oppose a Supreme Court decision that would allow states to criminalize all abortions, regardless of incest, rape or the health of the mother?
No polling organization has asked that specific question. But last month, ABC News (4/28/22) asked, “Do you think abortions should be legal or illegal when the mother’s physical health is endangered.” Just 12% said illegal; 82% said legal.
Public opinion against the pending Supreme Court decision is likely even more lopsided than what most poll stories report. The margin of opposition to what Alito’s draft would allow appears as high as seven to one, and it could be greater.
Pollsters and the news media should make that clear.
Roe-Wade’s reversal by the Evangelical majority in the Supreme court is a religious infringement on democracy and government affairs. Unconcerned by their political platforms, over the last forty years, Evangelics (22% of the USA population) voted en masse for the ultra-conservative Republicans, electing four presidents and stacking the judiciary with a majority of ultra-conservative judges. Evangelics don’t do politics; their sole objective is to cater to their dogma: life on earth is god’s domain, and humans shouldn’t meddle.
In 2016, electing Donald Trump, they have prostituted their faith and ethics, throwing the country into chaos to arrive at the Alito climax: Reversal of Roe vs Wade.
It is no infringement on democracy, unless you believe that the Supreme Court has some democratic accountability in its structure. Bear in mind that, when Roe v Wade was passed, the US public was not a majority in favour of freely-available abortion. Was that decision undemocratic, too? This British socialist sees the liberal, middle-class campaigners for that neoliberal ideal of ‘choice’ as no heroes. They did not even want to build a movement of the working class to pass legislation for universal health care including abortion. Instead, they used an unelected court to impose a decision.
Rebecca Turner,
Your claim that “Roe v Wade was passed,” proves just how little you know.
We need to clarify what this all means.
Separation of Church and State. There are many religions in the world and not all believe in the same ideas. It is rather odd though for this Alito person to be going back into the 13th century to object.
Is he perhaps having mental aberrations? To not be able to make decisions about one’s own body, whether male or female is wrong. In fact many religions have many ideas which differ from each other.
Even more sad, both Mr. Alito and others on the court appear to believe that women have no right to control what happens to their own body. Didn’t America, Mr. Alito have a Separation of Church and state? And, as there are many religious beliefs in America— why would you believe there is only on way—–YOUR way?
Oh, and I did not make an error in writing this, I merely separate Mr. Alito from his job title and he returns to being the ordinary male in America who so wants to control other peoples’ lives.
This article, along with most liberal comment on the possible end of the Roe v Wade decision, misses the point of the Supreme Court. It is unelected and unaccountable to anyone – not the US government and not the people. That was an advantage for the middle-class, well-educated activists for abortion rights in the 1970s because they couldn’t be bothered to do the work of building a mass movement of the working class (and they didn’t like such people anyway). Instead, they used an elite court of wealthy judges to impose a decision on a country which, at the time, was clearly majority opposed to abortion on demand.
These days, there is a clear, if still small, majority in favour of freely-available abortion in the USA. However, those activists campaigning to keep the Roe v Wade decision cannot complain when the successors of those judges make a decision they don’t like. The Court does not need to pay the slightest attention to those activists, nor to the opinion polls. That is part of its purpose. The campaigners should have spent the last fifty years creating a mass political movement to pass popular legislation at state and federal levels. They didn’t bother. The anti-abortion campaigners did the work and reap their rewards.
Rebecca Turner,
If Roe v Wade is overturned, it will become THE FIRST RIGHT in American history that the Supreme Court has recognized by decision, and subsequently upheld as settled law when challenged. Maybe “settled law” is merely a reflection of public opinion where you live, but that is not how the American Judicial Branch functions.
This is a prelude to Fascism, and some people are too ideologically invested in supporting the repeal of Roe, to actually recognize the significance of this moment.
When the next group of angry white idiots tries to take down our government, they’ll be protected by these same judicial activists, and aided and abetted by a radical fringe of hate-mongers in the Republican Party… and on Fox News.
The problem you are not addressing is the anti-democratic nature of your Supreme Court. Its unelected judges-for-life have no mandate from the US people, so its decisions have no popular power. For campaigners, this is a double-edged sword. They can use it to avoid the work of building a movement which elects representatives to pass popular legislation, as they failed to even attempt in this case. The use of the ‘choice’ trope for abortion is revealing of the mindsets of abortion rights advocates as a class. Choice is the way that neoliberalism reframes citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling.
Given this inherent nature of the Court, campaigners who were happy to see Roe v Wade impose relatively freely available abortion without federal or state legislation cannot now complain when it changes its mind. That is the other edge of the sword.
The campaign that those activists back in the 1960s right up to the present day ought to have been pursuing was universal health care, publicly funded, free at the point of delivery, which would encompass abortion to all who require it. If that could be achieved in a capitalist society such as here in the UK, it could also be in the USA. I would suggest you examine how the Cuban people, despite the high levels of religious belief in that country, have provided excellent health care for themselves including abortion.
Nice red herrings… but I already abhor the Supreme Court, and would like to see term limits imposed, impeachments pursued, and criminal prosecutions for any conflict of interest that affects the opinion of a judge.
Maybe Elie Mystal could open your foreign eyes to our U.S. hypocrisy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQAQieLUBg
P.S. – I would also suggest that YOU learn the history of betrayal by the U.S. Government that the Cuban people… the people of Puerto Rico… the Filipino people… and the Hawaiian people, have endured at great expense and painful sacrifice, for more than 130 years.
Here’s a good source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1fSq_aPGHU
It seems we are in complete agreement about the US government’s hypocrisy, yet you didn’t respond to my argument about the double standard being applied by many campaigners in the USA. I’m a socialist, which means I have no interest in identity politics, nor in attempts by the bourgeoisie to use elite courts to impose their decisions on an entire society.
My point is still the same: the abortion rights movement, composed in the main of relatively comfortable, middle-class activists, used the neoliberal value of ‘choice’ and the Supreme Court as the goal and the means to achieve it. They did not build a mass movement of the working class. Consequently, they cannot point to the undemocratic nature of the Court when it makes a decision they do not agree with.
So nice of you to use generalities without any specific evidence to back up your assertions. Do you think you could be a little more vague?