Another unpredictable result of the overturn of Roe?
Most Americans want chance to support abortion rights on state ballot
Americans overwhelmingly would like to be able to vote on an abortion measure on their state ballot, an exclusive USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds. And if they had the chance, they would oppose efforts to ban the procedure by almost 2-1.Seven in 10 say they would support using a ballot measure to decide abortion rights in their state, an idea backed across party lines, by 73% of Democrats, 77% of Republicans and 67% of independents. Democrats are the most energized on the issue; 43% say they "strongly support" putting abortion on the ballot.If there were a ballot measure in their state, those polled would vote by 54%-28% in favor of making abortion legal. Democrats support legal abortion in their state by 7-1 (76%-10%) and independents by 2-1 (52%-27%). Among Republicans, 34% would support abortion rights and 54% would oppose them, a worrisome fissure for the party that has long been identified with the anti-abortion movement.At particular risk for the GOP are two groups of swing voters. Suburbanites by 56%-26% say they would vote to support abortion rights in a ballot measure. And women by 60%-25% would support an abortion rights initiative, significantly more than the backing among men of 47%-32%.
Are politicians going to begin to say "Let this up to the people to decide at the ballot box!" That would certainly give cover to a lot of Democratic politicians who are Catholic.
ReplyDeleteThe way the winds are blowing, it seems like politicians and their anti-abortion supporters are going to have to stand in the way of majority rule rather than to continue to say that they have been voted into office in order to oppose abortion by enacting laws or appointing conservative judges..
Could this be the beginning of a way to remove the abortion issue from partisan politics. It would no longer matter who is elected to Executive, Legislative, or Judicial positions.
I think a majority of people support abortion access under certain circumstances ( the "hard cases" and early stages), but oppose it under others; such as later term and after viability. I don't know if doing it by referendum would remove it from partisan politics. Our state's experience with death penalty referenda indicates that things can be a political football ad infinitum.
ReplyDeleteI don't want America to be governed by referendum, whether it's on this issue or whether we should reduce taxes or whether we should launch nukes. This is why we have legislatures. The authors of the Federalist Papers covered the topic of popular passions already, if only we have the wisdom to heed them.
ReplyDeleteAmericans already can vote on abortion on their state ballots - they are called the elections for state representative and state senator.
ReplyDeleteIt seems you are really afraid that your side would lose if people can vote for what they want on single issues.
DeleteOnly trouble with that is that these elected people can be supportive of one issue that we are in favor of, and opposed to everything else. Or vice versa. It's how we get single issue voters. I guess you can try to elect the candidates that support the most of the things you support. I am opposed to litmus tests.
DeleteI want restrictions on abortion, but I don't want it criminalized unless there are extremely clear guidelines for doctors about when and under what circumstances termination can occur.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with prolifers is that they are not focused on practicalities of real life. Instead they yearn for some future America in which women will be more careful about birth control, resist casual sex, dress modestly, and embrace their roles as mothers. They have been unable to engineer this moral reawakening thru 50 years of marches, demonstrations, preaching, and catechesis. So they're now willing to achieve their dream by throwing people in jail. And if that means upticks in maternal mortality, an even more stressed foster system, and a decrease in obstetricians, so be it.
Anyway, I'm just repeating myself, I think, so I will bow out of the abortion discussion.
"And if that means upticks in maternal mortality . . . ."
DeleteWhich is already disgracefully high.
See yesterday's Washington Post article titled America has a maternal mortality crisis. Biden push aims to change that. Here are the first few paragraphs:
As part of a major push by the Biden administration to address the nation’s maternal health crisis, senior officials have traveled the country for the past year, talking to midwives, doulas and people who have given birth about their experiences. They’ve held summits at the White House.
The result: an almost 70-page plan aimed at taking the United States from being the worst place to give birth among high-income nations — especially for Black, Native American and rural women — to “the best country in the world to have a baby.” But maternal health experts say it remains to be seen whether the federal initiative is enough to accomplish the administration’s goal.
As the only high-income nation that doesn’t guarantee access to provider home visits or paid parental leave in the postpartum period, the obstacles are formidable. The roots of the nation’s maternal health crisis lie in an accumulation of life events that start long before pregnancy begins and that are centuries in the making. Experts and the administration acknowledge that addressing maternal mortality means understanding the effects imposed on expectant mothers by racism, housing policy, policing, climate change and pollution. . . .
DeleteHere are some statistics on paid maternity leave:
Bulgaria – 58.6 weeks
Greece – 43 weeks
United Kingdom – 39 weeks
Croatia – 30 weeks
Chile - 30 weeks
Czech Republic – 28 weeks
Ireland – 26 weeks
Hungary – 24 weeks
Italy – 21.7 weeks
Poland – 20 weeks
Some of these countries aren't particularly rich, but provide better leave than we do.
Jean so I will bow out of the abortion discussion.
DeleteAs will I.
Katherine Here are some statistics on paid maternity leave:
DeleteBulgaria – 58.6 weeks
Greece – 43 weeks
United Kingdom – 39 weeks
Croatia – 30 weeks
Chile - 30 weeks
Czech Republic – 28 weeks
Ireland – 26 weeks
Hungary – 24 weeks
Italy – 21.7 weeks
Poland – 20 weeks
Some of these countries aren't particularly rich, but provide better leave than we do.
In the US there are no weeks of mandated maternity leave. Most large companies offer some ( one daughter-in-law got two weeks, with her company, another got 3 months with her employer); most small businesses offer none. If you were to check to see how many countries provide subsidized, affordable childcare after birth you would find that most developed countries offer it - including the less rich countries on your list- enabling women to continue to work, But not in the richest country in the world. Plus the women in most developed countries, including the less rich, have affordable, subsidized healthcare. No worries about paying the thousands in medical bills from their prenatal care - thousands for an uncomplicated pregnancy and birth - even more if complications. My d- I-law had c- sections and took two years to pay off her pregnancy and birth costs AFTER the insurance had paid their share. Many women don’t have insurance, not even a lousy policy like the one my daughter in law has.
Maternal mortality and paid parental leave are two different topics, right? Or am I missing something here?
DeleteCountries with a strong social welfare philosophy supporting family leave probably also have strong medical coverage, resulting in low maternal deaths.
Delete"Countries with a strong social welfare philosophy supporting family leave probably also have strong medical coverage, resulting in low maternal deaths."
DeleteStanley - I'm sure that's true. You're pointing to "root causes" which underlie those specific policies. In my opinion, there is a definite and widening solidarity gap among Americans. The will to provide health care to pregnant women, and to give parents adequate time to bond with their newborns, requires that people (like us) who aren't in their childbearing years be willing to pay add'l taxes to support these humane policies, even though people in our age range won't benefit personally/directly.
Personally, I think American solidarity has atrophied alarmingly over the course of my adult lifetime. I see many, many symptoms of it. Certainly, the decline in Americans' embrace of labor unions is one. Locally, we had a referendum on the ballot this past June to increase property taxes to allow our local school district to do some work on its buildings to support full-day kindergarten. (Our district is just about the last suburban district in this area to continue to have half-day kindergarten.) I'm not sure whether full-day kindergarten is seen as the same sort of unalloyed social good as parental leave or maternity care, but it's greatly desired by parents of pre-schoolers and kindergarteners. It makes the parents' childcare juggling a lot simpler. And I'm sure there are child-development benefits as well. The referendum passed - but by fewer than 50 votes across a district which covers tens of thousands of residents. A generation or two ago, a request like that would have been a no-brainer - it would have passed by an overwhelming margin. This area historically has seen primary education as one of its most important community values. But there is a new, Trumpy, me-first attitude in conservatism that is starting to seep in around here. The only people who knocked on our door this past election season were people urging us to vote No to increasing taxes to fund full-day kindergarten.
This referendum situation speaks to the disjointedness of American politics and in the American psyche or psyches. Perhaps people voted for the Repubs hoping for a compromise or moderate position like Jean, Katherine and even Anne supports. Instead, they got over-the-top grandstanding by Supreme Court Justices followed by the politicians. Now they fear that even raped ten year old girls will be forced to give birth. That women in risk of death will not be helped. This support for referenda constitutes a big "Whoa" to the government. As Katherine indicates, elected legislators don't necessarily match the nuances if the electorate's intentions. A referendum can be a corrective.
ReplyDeleteActually, I haven't made this point before, and I think it's important to consider:
DeleteThere is a difference between how laws are worded, for ex "endangering the health of the mother," "endangering the life of the mother," and "to save the life of the mother."
In a "save the life" state, a doctor must wait until the mother reasonably cannot survive. Sometimes this could affect her health permanently or preclude her having any other safe pregnancies. A 10-year-old rape victim in not necessarily in danger of imminent death. A pregnancy would proceed until she was. And if she delivered, she could develop fistula, which would necessitate surgical repair or preclude future pregnancies. (Read up on fistula among African child brides.)
In an "endangering the health" state, a doctor might proactively terminate if the mother has a pre-existing condition, such as a 52 year old woman with diabetes or the pregnant 10-year-old.
In Canada, before its current law went into effect, obstetricians could terminate after two other consulting obstetricians concurred. So doctors, not legislators, were making because decisions.
Leaving it to legislators to be smart enough to a) understand some basic obstetric realities and b) to tweak and fix existing laws isn't good enough, imo, and that's why I'm not celebrating Roe or going to thanksgiving services.
I agree that it is the wording that is important and that this is ultimately a medical issue that is very dependent upon the expertise of doctors.
DeleteNo one has a right to an abortion just as no one has the right to a heart operation, but we all have a right to good medical care. Most of what is good medical care will be defined by physicians and the medical community with the state rarely intervening in the details.
If we do have a ballot issue here in Ohio I will be looking very carefully at the wording in regard to physicians.
Thanks Anne and Jean for your many thoughtful comments on this issue. I understand your frustration with the discussion. I doubt that discussion on this issue will change the hearts and minds of anyone anywhere.
ReplyDeleteI made this post mainly because I hope that referenda will let us move on from fruitless politics on this issue and enable us to face other issues in more constructive ways.
This article from BBC seems like a good explanation of why the US hasn't been able to get a national paid parental leave program launched. It suggests the politics may be turning in favor of paid parental leave.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210624-why-doesnt-the-us-have-mandated-paid-maternity-leave
I'll add a comment of my own. The traditional assumption for this sort of thing is, "Democrats support; Republicans oppose". Perhaps that's still largely true. But the demographics of party affiliation are shifting beneath our feet. For example: I don't think it's nearly as true as it was even in 2000, when George W Bush ran for president, that Republicans oppose abortion. That's because different people are affiliating with the Republican Party now than was the case a generation ago. The Republican Party is considerably more blue collar- and, at least to a small extent, more racially diverse. Democrats, for their part, are becoming more educated (and therefore more white and suburban) - and, at least to a small extent, less racially diverse.
Similar shifts may come into play on the question of paid parental leave. I think many/most Republicans would support it. I think most Democrats would, too - but I also think Big Business and wealthy individuals, who presumably would be the ones asked to fund a paid parental leave policy, wield more influence now with Democrats than was the case a generation or two ago.