Posted on 04/25/2006 6:51:37 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
We’re not choosing between Cheerios or Raisin Bran, we’re ripping out the life of children.” —Charmaine Yoest, Family Research Council
The REAL Women’s Voices coalition released a national poll today at the National Press Club, which shows that most people do not know what Roe v. Wade means. The poll’s release coincides with tomorrow’s Washington “lobbying day” on Capitol Hill.
Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council says Americans like the word choice, but that is deceptive when it comes to abortion. “This is the civil rights issue of our day, and women’s voices are leading the way toward change,” Yoest said. “As we look ahead to the 2006 congressional elections, we are here to tell Congress that real women want a real response to pro-life issues.”
Here are some results from the poll:
Nearly two-thirds (65%) of respondents said they were familiar with Roe but when asked which of four descriptions were accurate, only 29% picked correctly:
29%: Made abortion legal in essentially all circumstances throughout pregnancy 18%: Made abortion legal but only in the first trimester 17%: Made abortion legal but only in limited circumstances 15%: Made abortion legal but only in the first and second trimesters
The majority (54%) agreed with one of the three following pro-life statements:
Abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances Abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother Abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life “The pro-life trend is almost impossible to deny,” says Marjorie Dannefelser, chairman of the Susan B. Anthony List, which sponsored the event. “Roe is hanging by a thread that is increasingly being frayed by the American people’s exposure to the facts of abortion. These numbers show that our abortion laws don’t represent the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans, including American women,” adding that pro-choice women of the past have “betrayed us.”
Also speaking was Ramesh Ponnuru, author of the just-released book, “The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life” (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company). “It is a time of great hope for pro-lifers,” Ponnuru said. “Pro-choicers are now on the defense.”
Ponnuru credits ultra-sound machines for changing the state of abortion in America. As for the way Democrats face this issue, Ponnuru sees three options. They can 1) run on a pro-life platform like Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Bob Casey, 2) change their rhetoric like Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, or 3) deceive the public like Sen. Hillary Clinton, who plays to the press and says she is “willing to compromise.” He believes the Casey approach holds the most promise.
“True feminism means listening to the voices of women,” said Janet Morana of Priests for Life. “It is my hope that the senators we visit this week will really listen to the message from REAL Women’s Voices.”
btt
Shad-Roe? Oh the humanity.
As horrid as this may sound to many here on FR, I'm not solidly in the pro-life camp....that said, I believe in the constitution and believe that this is solely a states rights issue. However, many Americans believe the hype and think abortion will be outlawed if Roe v Wade is overturned.
This erroneous notion must be corrected and the issue has to be explained honestly.
When it comes down to it, the pro-choicers will remain happy living in one of the many states that will retain their already liberal abortion laws. I don't think for a minute those people care what people in the Dakotas can or can't do. This is a campaign of disinformation that NARAL and company are running, and theyre trying to scare the bluestaters into thinking this will effect them.
Roe? Isn't that something you eat with crackers?
I'm not a die hard prolife nut, but I think the right to life isn't a right the state can take away without due process.
If Illinois started murdering black people you'd bet the feds would get involved.
After years of disappointing work trying to get Roe exposed for the heinous activist ruling it was/is, I am convinced the way to end the slaughter is to address the pregnancy temrination issue from the wisdom of 'self defense'.
If a woman's life is endangered by a pregnancy continuing, she must have the right to end her life support for the alive unborn child, and the same mortality isue is part of the notion regarding rape and incest ... parents should be able to end an increased risk to a minor child or a woman assaulted ought have the right to end her pregnancy. BUT, so long as the unborn are not considered human beings deserving to not have their lifetime cut off, the confusion will continue to be exploited. It is a very rare pregnancy that cannot be extended to 30 weeks and delivery of the alive child accomplished. Ending life support ought not have an automatic death sentence to an innocent child.
Never heard of such a case.
Social life?
Easy for YOU to say - you've already been born...
Cordially,
I disagree...some states have the death penalty, others do not. Community standards do differ from state to state, county to county, city to city. Obscenity laws fall into that distinction, essentially so does abortion.
The only way abortion would ever be outlawed completely would be for the states to actually vote in a new amendment to the constitution, since it is not mentioned in the Constitution, and neither is a distinction made regarding the beginning of life. That ain't going to happen...same reason we'll never see an amendment supporting roe v wade. For due process on the state level to be superseded by national law, you'd have read something into the constitution that isnt' there.
14th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What is it about "any person" that you don't understand?
Cordially,
"14th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Do a litle research and pay attention to 'ectopic pregnancies'. How about the notion that terminating a pregnancy shouldn't have an automatic kill for the innocent alive unborn ... want to editorialize onthat point?
"The only way abortion would ever be outlawed completely would be for the states to actually vote in a new amendment to the constitution ..." Perhaps, but isn't it interesting that the subpreme court was able to make abortion legal in the entire U.S. with a fiat ruling in 1973? What does that mean to you?
I'm not disagreeing...but there is no consensus on the definition of person and who constitutes one, particularly in utero. Overturning roe v wade has no effect on that definition either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.