Abortion continues to remain a highly contentious issue — but is it as contentious as we think it is? With the latest extreme abortion bans sweeping through state legislatures, polling on the actual issue of abortion varies wildly — often depending on who asks the questions, how those questions are framed and which outlet does the reporting.
The end result? A mishmash of results that are unreliable at best — and outright misleading at worst.
Take recent reporting on Fox News after the Alabama “no exceptions” total abortion ban passed. According to Raw Story, the news anchor leadingly asked Americans United for Life director Catherine Glenn Foster, “Why are the Democrats, why are the media, why are they hitting so hard against these states [passing abortion bans] when this is what the voters want?”
Of course, these measures aren’t what voters want. Fox is attempting to use the results from the 2018 Amendment 2 vote to claim Alabama voters want a total abortion ban with no exceptions — but the vote didn’t focus on an abortion ban, per se; it aimed to add “personhood” language to the state constitution. Even as legislators campaigned on the ballot initiative, voters were repeatedly reminded that as long as Roe v. Wade was in place, this would have no impact on legal abortion in Alabama.
How little does the Amendment 2 vote reflect what voters in Alabama really think about a total, no exceptions abortion ban? According to Vox.com, polling from 2018 shows that when asked about eliminating the ability to get an abortion in all cases, voter support dropped to just around 30 percent.
Vox explains:
Overall, however, the numbers reveal that while a majority of Alabamians do oppose abortion, most believe in a rape or incest exception at the very least (as do most Americans, as Vox’s Anna North explains). The plurality of respondents (29 percent) said abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the woman is in danger; 20 percent said abortion should be legal in most cases, and 16 percent said that abortion should be legal in all cases. In other words, the poll found 65 percent of Alabamians think rape and incest victims should have access to abortion.
Opposition to so-called “heartbeat” bans, which ban abortion as early as two weeks after a missed period, is almost as unpopular. Or at least, it is once respondents are clear of exactly what the restrictions mean.
Amanda Michelle Gomez reports for ThinkProgress:
When [Kaiser Family Foundation] asked people whether they’d support their own state enacting a law like Ohio’s, the public is pretty divided. A larger share (50%) of the overall public said they supported the ban, whereas 44% said they opposed it. There is a pretty stark difference along party lines: 70% of Republicans support the ban; 27% of Democrats support the ban; and 53% of Independents support the ban. Republican women are more supportive (77%) of the ban than Republican men (64%).
But when people learn that “heartbeat” bans actually amount to outlawing abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before many women and gender minorities know they are pregnant and so add up to a near-total ban, 12% changed their mind and said they opposed the restrictions.
Of course, that’s the exact reason why abortion opponents had been couching their bills in misleading language like “fetal heartbeat” — note, it’s not a heartbeat, but rather cardiac activity at six weeks, and it’s not even a fetus until 10 weeks of pregnancy — or “unborn pain” or “born alive infant” for so long.
Each of these labels is meant not just to evoke an emotional response, but also to muddy the waters on what the bills actually do and how early in gestation they go into effect.
Why haven’t we seen a full no-exceptions abortion ban before this? Because there’s absolutely no way to hide what the right has proposed and just how devastating it would be if enacted.
And as we’ve long seen both nationally and locally, when it comes to a complete ban with no exceptions, almost no one supports that sort of restriction — except for the very extremists that tend to propose it.
Help us Prepare for Trump’s Day One
Trump is busy getting ready for Day One of his presidency – but so is Truthout.
Trump has made it no secret that he is planning a demolition-style attack on both specific communities and democracy as a whole, beginning on his first day in office. With over 25 executive orders and directives queued up for January 20, he’s promised to “launch the largest deportation program in American history,” roll back anti-discrimination protections for transgender students, and implement a “drill, drill, drill” approach to ramp up oil and gas extraction.
Organizations like Truthout are also being threatened by legislation like HR 9495, the “nonprofit killer bill” that would allow the Treasury Secretary to declare any nonprofit a “terrorist-supporting organization” and strip its tax-exempt status without due process. Progressive media like Truthout that has courageously focused on reporting on Israel’s genocide in Gaza are in the bill’s crosshairs.
As journalists, we have a responsibility to look at hard realities and communicate them to you. We hope that you, like us, can use this information to prepare for what’s to come.
And if you feel uncertain about what to do in the face of a second Trump administration, we invite you to be an indispensable part of Truthout’s preparations.
In addition to covering the widespread onslaught of draconian policy, we’re shoring up our resources for what might come next for progressive media: bad-faith lawsuits from far-right ghouls, legislation that seeks to strip us of our ability to receive tax-deductible donations, and further throttling of our reach on social media platforms owned by Trump’s sycophants.
We’re preparing right now for Trump’s Day One: building a brave coalition of movement media; reaching out to the activists, academics, and thinkers we trust to shine a light on the inner workings of authoritarianism; and planning to use journalism as a tool to equip movements to protect the people, lands, and principles most vulnerable to Trump’s destruction.
We urgently need your help to prepare. As you know, our December fundraiser is our most important of the year and will determine the scale of work we’ll be able to do in 2025. We’ve set two goals: to raise $125,000 in one-time donations and to add 1400 new monthly donors by midnight on December 31.
Today, we’re asking all of our readers to start a monthly donation or make a one-time donation – as a commitment to stand with us on day one of Trump’s presidency, and every day after that, as we produce journalism that combats authoritarianism, censorship, injustice, and misinformation. You’re an essential part of our future – please join the movement by making a tax-deductible donation today.
If you have the means to make a substantial gift, please dig deep during this critical time!
With gratitude and resolve,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy