Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
June 20, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama ScandalWatch
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Terence P. Jeffrey's blog
  • MSNBC: Obama and Merkel Are the New 'Ronnie and Maggie'; Matthews Sees Conspiracy to Push Hillary 2016
  • NBC's Todd Excuses Obama's Poor Speech Performance: Crowd Too Small, 'It Was Hot'
  • Chris Matthews Whines About Sun Harming Obama's Berlin Speech
  • MSNBC's Hayes Slams 'Shameful Spectacle' of 'Anti-Food Stamp Jihad' by Republicans
  • The Inconvenient Suffering of China’s Laogai Prisoners
  • Serena Williams Slams French Taxes: 'Seventy-Five Percent Doesn't Seem Legal'
  • Bozell Column: Censoring the 'Anti-Gay' Viewpoint
  • Martin Bashir, Who Compared Conservatives to Hitler, Now Decries Nazi Comparisons

Gallup: 61 Percent Say All or Most Abortions Should Be Illegal

By Terence P. Jeffrey | May 23, 2011 | 17:30

A  A

Sixty-one percent of American adults—including some who describe themselves as “pro-choice”—told Gallup in a survey conducted May 5-8 that abortion should be illegal in all or most circumstances.

The Gallup survey, published today, asked 1,018 American adults whether they considered themselves “pro-choice” or “pro-life” on abortion. It also asked: “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?”

For those who answered that abortion should be “legal only under certain circumstances,” Gallup asked the follow-up question: “Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only in a few circumstances?”

Forty-nine percent told Gallup they were pro-choice and 45 percent said they were pro-life, marking the first time since May 2008 that the percentage of Americans describing themselves to Gallup as pro-choice exceeded the percentage describing themselves as pro-life.

(Pro-life self-identification peaked in May 2009, when 51 percent told Gallup they were pro-life and 42 percent said they were pro-choice.)

In this year’s survey, in addition to the approximately 49 percent who said they were pro-choice and 45 percent who said they were pro-life, another approximately 7 percent would not describe themselves as either pro-choice or pro-life. This included 2 percent who said they had no opinion on the matter, 2 percent who said they did not know what the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” meant, and 3 percent who described themselves as mixed on the issue or neither one of the two.

Only 27 percent in this year's survey told Gallup they thought abortion should be legal under any circumstances whatsoever.

About 71 percent said they thought abortion should be illegal in at least some cases. This included 22 percent who said it should be illegal in “all circumstances,” 39 percent who said it should be legal in “only a few circumstances,” and 10 percent who said it should be legal in “most” circumstances.

The 22 percent who said it should be illegal in “all circumstances” and the 39 percent who said it should be legal in “only a few circumstances” equal a majority of 61 percent who believe abortion should be illegal in all or most circumstances.

Because only 49 percent said they were “pro-choice,” and another 7 percent declined to describe themselves as either pro-choice or pro-life, the poll numbers indicate that at least some of those who described themselves as “pro-choice” must have also have been among the 61 percent who said they believed abortion should either be illegal in all circumstances or legal only in a few circumstances.

Gallup did not publish a breakdown of the percentage of self-described “pro-choice” people who said they believe abortion should be illegal in either all or most circumstances.

Gallup also asked respondents whether they personally believed abortion was “morally acceptable” or “morally wrong.” It did not ask anyone if they thought abortion was “morally right.”

A majority--51 percent--said they believed abortion was morally wrong. Only 39 percent said they believed it was “morally acceptable.”

The percentage saying abortion was “morally wrong” did not differ by gender, with 51 percent of men and 51 percent of women saying abortion was morally wrong.

It did differ by age group, however. Younger Americans tended to have a tougher moral view of abortion than their elders.

Fifty-three percent in the 18-34 age bracket said they believed abortion was morally wrong. That exceeded the 51 percent of Americans in the 55 and older bracket who said they believed abortion was morally wrong, and the 48 percent in the 35-54 bracket who said it was morally wrong.

Women and younger Americans were more likely than others to reject exceptions for legalized abortion. Twenty-four percent of women, and 24 percent of Americans 18-34 said they believed abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.

Only 19 percent of men took that position.

Crossposted on CNSNews.com

  • Abortion
  • Pro-choicers
  • Pro-lifers
  • Crosspost
  • Terence P. Jeffrey's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop George Soros

Comments

The headline offers a rather liberal interpretation of this poll

Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 6:54pm.

Circumstances don't necessarily translate into numbers that way.

  • Login to post comments

I would say the opposite

Submitted by The Irishman on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 7:40pm.

That the headline offers the conservative interpretation of the poll. At first glance it appears 61% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal, whereas the real number as reported is actually 22%.

  • Login to post comments

Pun intended

Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 8:33pm.

then.

  • Login to post comments

iz funniz Irish joke todayz murrycane.

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 9:02pm.

iz translate germanzee to irish for you murrycane. iz special translaterz.

Merkel walks into a boozer. drinks 'erself into complete inebriashun. she falls down lashings. pees 'ere drawers. eats 'ole cod an' meatloaf. den passes oyt in de street.

iz not roofles murrycane? hmmm. iz suntin lost tranzlationz.

  • Login to post comments

In that case, I commend you

Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:51am.

A fine job, sir. ; )

  • Login to post comments

iz funniz germanzzeeee joke.

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 8:28pm.

diz iz unt fer shur diz timez murrycane. iz rollingz on floor, jigglez like bacon until iz unt butt flop off on florz get alll drity. no rilly. iz laff so hard murrycane. iz merkel she talk about circumcisions. but iz tranzlates all wrong. iz merkel talk about Balzac. iz french guy sez merkelz.

Mitlauf! unt kechupz! Youiz  like tästiz V€€t ßÜttz? iz goot new friend nah. iz angry black dead irishmoon! merkel iz happiz.

  • Login to post comments

Apparently I'm more important to you

Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 8:34pm.

than the Irishman. It's appreciated. See ya around.

  • Login to post comments

Yeah, trogster---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 8:45pm.

you are about as important as a paper target at a shooting range.

While said targets are indeed necessary, it would be a good idea to remember that you serve the same function here at NB's as do those targets at a range facility.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Then I wonder how the Vet got into the military.

Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 9:03pm.

Shouldn't you be able to hit when you serve? Obviously something similar holds true for firefighting.

  • Login to post comments

Can't speak for The Vet, trogbreath---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:47pm.

but I qualified as an expert on the range while in the military.

Your allusion to 'be able to hit when you serve' reference firefighting is nonsensical.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

MD

Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 5:16am.

Just because you don't get it doesn't make it nonsensical.

  • Login to post comments

"nonsensical", troglodyt---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 5:53am.

is the adjective form of 'nonsense'.

nonsense - (1) words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas  
(2)  language, conduct, or an idea that is absurd or contrary to good sense 

The statement - 'you should be able to "hit what you serve" when firefighting' -, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

As the statement makes no sense, how does my "not getting it" somehow change the equation in your favor?

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

md

Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:39am.

That you lecture me about a word that exists in my language too, is all good and hopefully well-intentioned, but utterly superfluous. The crux here is that apparently you think meaning and sense are in all circumstances objective categories, which in my opinion is quite doubtful.

The statement - 'you should be able to "hit what you serve" when firefighting' -, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

That may very well be true. The problem: I didn't write that. First of all "what" wasn't part of the question (otherwise cobraman would have had a valid point). Secondly, concerning firefighting I wrote:

"Obviously something similar holds true for firefighting."

  • Login to post comments

iz merkel is clarivicationz on cirmcumstancingz.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:58am.

iz merkel meaningz to say. Iz merkel say hey u, u iz hit when unt servez. iz meanings to say ---

hey u, u is hit bowlz whin you serve mitloafen vit ketchupz. Balzac! MitloafenZ! Soros! Drowning straw manz! merkel roll on floorz! Shakespam!

  • Login to post comments

Second time around, trogster---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:45pm.

I did quote "what" in place of "when".

An error, to be sure, as you did say "hit 'when' you serve".

That changes nothing, despite all your highfalutin' attempts with verbiage, when referencing the statement "Obviously something similar holds true for firefighting."

For all your vaunted patting yourself on the back, successfully, without breaking your arm, regarding your stunning command of the English language, your analogy sucks as far as being a concise, clear, and definitive comparison.

"You should be able to hit when you serve" applies to tennis or ping-pong.

Or you could be referring to a waiter or waitress "hitting" the table with the food they are serving.

Perhaps you meant that a waiter or waitress should  'be able'  (be "allowed") to hit the actual food they serve; though whether you might mean hitting the actual food itself, or maybe the customers they 'serve', is manifestly unclear. 

Much like your stupid analogy.

MD

 

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

No md

Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:18am.

I meant exactly what you were referring to in your first reply to me. So I assume you were quite able to comprehend the intended meaning. The only thing that is manifestly unclear is why you play dumb here. 

  • Login to post comments

iz fall in water iz ztraw manz getz wet.

Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:00am.

is meanings to say sez merkel. iz speculumz. Mitloafenz wit kechupz!

  • Login to post comments

Not playing dumb here, troglodyt---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:53am.

Not at all.

You make no fookin' sense.

That is on you, ass-eyes, not me.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Ok it was a lie MD

Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 4:05am.

I know why you play dumb.

  • Login to post comments

iz funniz most funniz germanzeee joke.

Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 5:30am.

iz merkel. iz yu unt to kno merkel? iz merkel. iz poop. iz on floor. iz in frownt ezzybody. ok. iz not iz so funny. iz germinzeee way.

  • Login to post comments

That's Tennis.

Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:58pm.

"Shouldn't you be able to hit when you serve? "

What does Tennis have to do with ether military service or firefighting?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

I don't know cobraman.

Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 5:18am.

Feel free to speculate.

  • Login to post comments

Pliz. Pliz monkeypipple. Iz no say zat.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:03am.

iz merkel no like speculum. Pliz no talk speculumz. iz troggiz Balzac in meatloafenz vit ketchupz! Iz clean book nah!

  • Login to post comments

iz funnee, oh waitz, not funniz germanzee joke. iz serialz.

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 8:46pm.

  iz new freenz iz irishmoon. hey, iz not gayz. Honextings. Not iz unt rilly anyting wrong wit dat. is got tru storiz. iz deh irishmoon, he go to dentistz. he go dentist with troggiz trolliz. iz go to dentistaz. say dentizt, u pull tooth. iz big hurry iz want to goez bar nah. so no no no novocainz or nuttin' juz pull iz toot. iz unt dentizt iz say. ok irishmoon, you iz ferry ferry brave manz, which tooth you want me iz pull? iz irishmoon he trun around, look at troggiz trolliz, say, ok honey you show dentistaz bad tooth nah.

ahhhhh! fool you murrycane! I seeses you butt pop pop pop and rolling on floor! Hah! Mitloaf with mashenz potatoez! merkel!

  • Login to post comments

Gallup and abortion polling - don't look to tomorrow's headlines

Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:07pm.

Gallup and abortion polling - don't look to tomorrow's headlines to see this one covered, as it is doubtful that a single national MSM outlet, or national MSM journalist on TV or Cable, will make it visible to the broad public.

This is the last thing that the MSM want the broad public to be aware of  -- how they actually view issues.

The mantra of the left on an issue like this is: Don't discuss it, and carry a big stick, er... a coat hanger.

(;~/ gary

  • Login to post comments

Are all abortions viable?

Submitted by Less1leg on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:19pm.

There is no accountability of two healthy male and female participants when it comes to sexuality and the creation of life. Before our "liberal" friends go nuts saying Rights. Let's look at the life lost in this mess, the pre-born child. There are some reasons a person should be granted a legal abortion, that's entirely true. But, to have an abortion because it offends your life at this particular moment isn't to me a good enough reason to end the life of an unborn child. Promiscuity shouldn't be the reason why a female should be granted an abortion. I'm sorry. If you are going to be promiscuis then you maybe should have your tubes tied. There will always be, you know them, you know, those two in high school who got a little to friendly upstairs when the parents weren't home. And you know, she got pregnant. Look, without being prudish, having sex should have it's consequences. And yes that female will carry that child to term and between the two of them, a choice, adoption or keep the child. But there shouldn't be a death sentence on the unborn because of promiscuity between two healthy adults, and having a healthy pregnancy. Consequences and responsibility those two words are missing from our liberalized side of society. They talk about the right to chose, the right to life, the rights of the woman. But nowhere do they give rights to unwanted, the most vulnerable, the unborn child.

  • Login to post comments

→ No, Less

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:29pm.

By definition, no abortions are viable.

OK, I'm being cheeky because the question sounded oxymoronic, but to the heart message of your post, you're absotively, posolutely right.

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • The regulated states of America infringe on pursuit of happiness (Niall Ferguson)
  • The rationale for wind power won't fly (Jay Lehr @ WSJ)
  • President Obama parrots false 'equal pay' statistic (Bader @ OpenMarket.org)
  • Whose war on women? (FRC)
  • Romney's revenge (Avik Roy @ NRO)
  • Relax, the Arizona voter registration ruling was narrowly drawn by Scalia (Hans von Spakovsky)
  • Snowden loses his moral authority with dangerous leaks (Rothman @ Mediaite)
  • Rapper Lil' Wayne stomps on American flag (Rare)
  • Apple releases information about data requests from NSA, other agencies (LA Times)
  • Five myths about privacy (Solove @ Washington Post)
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: The Superman of Dads and Grads
Cal Thomas's picture
Cal Thomas
Cal Thomas Column: Broadcast Nets, Ailes Is What's Good for You
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: If the GOP Falls for 'Immigration Reform' Ruse, It Deserves to Die
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Let People Sell Their Organs to Sick, Needy Recipients
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Anthony Weiner's Underage Girl Problem
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Audit the Man of Steel?!
more cartoons
  • NewsBusters Interview: Amity Shlaes on Coolidge, Media, and Neo-Keynesianism
  • Slate Says Lack Of Emotionalism Sunk Gun Control Bill
  • O’Reilly: Obama Could Be Impeached If Evidence Shows Intel Agency Read Emails Without Warrant
  • Christie: Obama’s ‘Charm Offensive Should Have Started January 2009’; ‘Bit Late in Dating Game’
  • Howard Stern to Jimmy Fallon: ‘How You Got The Tonight Show I Don't Know. You Barely Beat Craig Ferguson’
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use