71% of Americans support Roe vs Wade

[Gass3268]

Even a majority (52%) of Republicans support it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source

[longtimelurker]

Even a majority (52%) of Republicans support it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source

I'm waiting for the poll that asks, "Do you care about Roe vs. Wade."  That's what matters.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Even a majority (52%) of Republicans support it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source

I'm waiting for the poll that asks, "Do you care about Roe vs. Wade."  That's what matters.

Agreed. If they did care enough they would have voted for Clinton so that she could confirm Obama's rightful appointee to the Supreme Court.

[BudgieForce]

Unsurprising trend, since Roe v. Wade is no longer the controlling decision nor a major roadblock to outright banning abortion.

The average American associates Roe v Wade as the thing that legalizes abortion nationwide. A vast majority probably dont even know about later SCOTUS rulings on the subject.

[MarkD]

That's a shame, because Roe v. Wade was not a valid interpretation of the Constitution; indeed, it wasn't an interpretation of the Constitution at all. It needs to be overturned, no matter how many Americans say otherwise, for the sake of the integrity of the Court and the Constitution that it interprets.

[kyc0705]

Unsurprising trend, since Roe v. Wade is no longer the controlling decision nor a major roadblock to outright banning abortion.

I guarantee you that the vast majority of voters do not know this.

[KingSweden]

Unsurprising trend, since Roe v. Wade is no longer the controlling decision nor a major roadblock to outright banning abortion.

I guarantee you that the vast majority of voters do not know this.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

That's a shame, because Roe v. Wade was not a valid interpretation of the Constitution; indeed, it wasn't an interpretation of the Constitution at all. It needs to be overturned, no matter how many Americans say otherwise, for the sake of the integrity of the Court and the Constitution that it interprets.

No. We're not going to violate the rights of women and set back the clock for the sake of your own interpretation of the constitution.

[HisGrace]

I'm very skeptical of this since it says a majority of Republicans support it. That's hard to believe.

[junior chįmp]

I'm very skeptical of this since it says a majority of Republicans support it. That's hard to believe.

Because not even Republicans like Republican policies. The GOP caters mostly to its unhinged socially Conservative base but a large chunk of GOP voters dont actually like any of those policies or positions.

Abortion is alot like Obamacare. The GOP goes on derranged campaigns against it (which mostly caters to its minority far right base) but when they get the chance to do something about it....they run scared for the hills because they dont mean anything the say.

[RFayette]

How was the question worded?  I am just wondering what percent of voters know the meaning of the ruling.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

How was the question worded?  I am just wondering what percent of voters know the meaning of the ruling.

If people didn't know what the ruling was, 94% of respondents wouldn't have voiced an opinion.

[Indy Texas]

Part of the problem is that the median American voter seems to want impossible things when it comes to abortion policy. There's no way to really translate the aggregate average view into an actual policy.

It seems like the only way you could make everyone happy would be to create a situation where abortion is always legal but no one ever actually has one.

[IceSpear]

How was the question worded?  I am just wondering what percent of voters know the meaning of the ruling.

If people didn't know what the ruling was, 94% of respondents wouldn't have voiced an opinion.

LOL, because Americans never have opinions (occasionally strong ones!) on things they know nothing about, right?

[IceSpear]

Part of the problem is that the median American voter seems to want impossible things when it comes to abortion policy. There's no way to really translate the aggregate average view into an actual policy.

It seems like the only way you could make everyone happy would be to create a situation where abortion is always legal but no one ever actually has one.

This is the case for most things American voters want actually. They simultaneously want lower taxes, more public services, but no spending cuts!

Oh, and by the way Americans - Nobody actually cares what you want unless you actually vote based off what you want. This is what happens when you vote based off "wanting to have a beer with" and "charisma" and "they have the right letter next to their name" and "my family told me to vote this way" and "time 4 a change"...nobody elected actually gives a sh**t what you think.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Part of the problem is that the median American voter seems to want impossible things when it comes to abortion policy. There's no way to really translate the aggregate average view into an actual policy.

It seems like the only way you could make everyone happy would be to create a situation where abortion is always legal but no one ever actually has one.

This is the case for most things American voters want actually. They simultaneously want lower taxes, more public services, but no spending cuts!

Oh, and by the way Americans - Nobody actually cares what you want unless you actually vote based off what you want. This is what happens when you vote based off "wanting to have a beer with" and "charisma" and "they have the right letter next to their name" and "my family told me to vote this way" and "time 4 a change"...nobody elected actually gives a sh**t what you think.

[Calthrina950]

That's a shame, because Roe v. Wade was not a valid interpretation of the Constitution; indeed, it wasn't an interpretation of the Constitution at all. It needs to be overturned, no matter how many Americans say otherwise, for the sake of the integrity of the Court and the Constitution that it interprets.

No. We're not going to violate the rights of women and set back the clock for the sake of your own interpretation of the constitution.

Many pro-choice people (including Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) have said that Roe v. Wade was a poorly written decision. On that basis alone, it should be overturned. And later decisions such as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey are still on the books, so striking down Roe won't take away a "woman's right to an abortion." I despise abortion, and consider myself pro-life, but I also have respect for legal precedent.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Sure doesn't feel that way. How many people are lying to pollsters, like a "shy Tory"/Bradley effect?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

That's a shame, because Roe v. Wade was not a valid interpretation of the Constitution; indeed, it wasn't an interpretation of the Constitution at all. It needs to be overturned, no matter how many Americans say otherwise, for the sake of the integrity of the Court and the Constitution that it interprets.

No. We're not going to violate the rights of women and set back the clock for the sake of your own interpretation of the constitution.

Many pro-choice people (including Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) have said that Roe v. Wade was a poorly written decision. On that basis alone, it should be overturned. And later decisions such as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey are still on the books, so striking down Roe won't take away a "woman's right to an abortion." I despise abortion, and consider myself pro-life, but I also have respect for legal precedent.

No. The case was settled decades ago. Why strike down such a decision that has monumental consequences for the sake of it being "poorly written"?

[MarkD]

That's a shame, because Roe v. Wade was not a valid interpretation of the Constitution; indeed, it wasn't an interpretation of the Constitution at all. It needs to be overturned, no matter how many Americans say otherwise, for the sake of the integrity of the Court and the Constitution that it interprets.

No. We're not going to violate the rights of women and set back the clock for the sake of your own interpretation of the constitution.

Many pro-choice people (including Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) have said that Roe v. Wade was a poorly written decision. On that basis alone, it should be overturned. And later decisions such as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey are still on the books, so striking down Roe won't take away a "woman's right to an abortion." I despise abortion, and consider myself pro-life, but I also have respect for legal precedent.

No. The case was settled decades ago. Why strike down such a decision that has monumental consequences for the sake of it being "poorly written"?

Repeating myself: Roe needs to be overturned (along with Planned Parenthood v. Casey) for the sake of the integrity of the Court and the Constitution that it interprets. A "monumental consequence" of keeping these precedents is that the Court is going to continue to be politicized and we're going to continue to have major battles over the confirmation of new Justices.

Regarding the fact that these cases are decades old, the Supreme Court had a precedent called Plessy v. Ferguson that lasted for over 55 years before it was overturned in Brown v. Board of Education. More than once the Court has overturned a precedent that was decades old. The most crucial question is, when the Court overturns a precedent, is the new decision a better interpretation of the Constitution than the old one.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

That's a shame, because Roe v. Wade was not a valid interpretation of the Constitution; indeed, it wasn't an interpretation of the Constitution at all. It needs to be overturned, no matter how many Americans say otherwise, for the sake of the integrity of the Court and the Constitution that it interprets.

No. We're not going to violate the rights of women and set back the clock for the sake of your own interpretation of the constitution.

Many pro-choice people (including Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) have said that Roe v. Wade was a poorly written decision. On that basis alone, it should be overturned. And later decisions such as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey are still on the books, so striking down Roe won't take away a "woman's right to an abortion." I despise abortion, and consider myself pro-life, but I also have respect for legal precedent.

No. The case was settled decades ago. Why strike down such a decision that has monumental consequences for the sake of it being "poorly written"?

Repeating myself: Roe needs to be overturned (along with Planned Parenthood v. Casey) for the sake of the integrity of the Court and the Constitution that it interprets. A "monumental consequence" of keeping these precedents is that the Court is going to continue to be politicized and we're going to continue to have major battles over the confirmation of new Justices.

Regarding the fact that these cases are decades old, the Supreme Court had a precedent called Plessy v. Ferguson that lasted for over 55 years before it was overturned in Brown v. Board of Education. More than once the Court has overturned a precedent that was decades old. The most crucial question is, when the Court overturns a precedent, is the new decision a better interpretation of the Constitution than the old one.

I still don't see how overturning Roe will quell whatever concerns you have.

[Calthrina950]

That's a shame, because Roe v. Wade was not a valid interpretation of the Constitution; indeed, it wasn't an interpretation of the Constitution at all. It needs to be overturned, no matter how many Americans say otherwise, for the sake of the integrity of the Court and the Constitution that it interprets.

No. We're not going to violate the rights of women and set back the clock for the sake of your own interpretation of the constitution.

Many pro-choice people (including Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) have said that Roe v. Wade was a poorly written decision. On that basis alone, it should be overturned. And later decisions such as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey are still on the books, so striking down Roe won't take away a "woman's right to an abortion." I despise abortion, and consider myself pro-life, but I also have respect for legal precedent.

No. The case was settled decades ago. Why strike down such a decision that has monumental consequences for the sake of it being "poorly written"?

Here's an article where Ginsburg, about five years back, expressed her concerns over Roe v. Wade: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit.

All I'm saying is that if you truly believe abortion is a constitutional right, then you should support moves that make that right more explicit. A decision with such "monumental consequences" should have a more solid standing.

[America Needs R'hllor]

That's a shame, because Roe v. Wade was not a valid interpretation of the Constitution; indeed, it wasn't an interpretation of the Constitution at all. It needs to be overturned, no matter how many Americans say otherwise, for the sake of the integrity of the Court and the Constitution that it interprets.

No. We're not going to violate the rights of women and set back the clock for the sake of your own interpretation of the constitution.

This. I don't care about religiously following the constitution, either- what matters to me is that women everywhere have the right to decide what happens to their bodies and the right to live a normal life without men forcing them to have a child they don't want. Of course, I'd prefer it to be enshrined in law and not a simple ruling, but I'm not going to support overturning it because of "integrity" or whatever. Too much is at stake to care about it.

Also, the poll doesn't surprise me- the public has moved to the left on social issues far faster than politicians think. But many of these 71% just don't care enough to withhold support from pro-life politicians or even get out and vote, and these 23% just have too much sway in Republican primaries.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Its a motivating factor for the midterms, but 1st term abortions wont be banned outside of the rural states. Abortions is becoming less of a birth control issue

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I'm very skeptical of this since it says a majority of Republicans support it. That's hard to believe.

Because not even Republicans like Republican policies. The GOP caters mostly to its unhinged socially Conservative base but a large chunk of GOP voters dont actually like any of those policies or positions.

Abortion is alot like Obamacare. The GOP goes on derranged campaigns against it (which mostly caters to its minority far right base) but when they get the chance to do something about it....they run scared for the hills because they dont mean anything the say.

And yet Democrats have to stir up fears about "theocratic Republicans" every election.