I was recently telling a Democratic friend about Obama's abortion balancing act. One day he repeals the Mexico City "gag rule" delighting pro-choice activists. The next week he seems intent on making it up to pro-life voters, announcing that one priority of a new faith-based council will be reducing the need for abortion.
My friend interrupted and said, "why should we care about appeasing the pro-lifers? We won."
The first reason, I said, is because Obama promised.
But then I thought about the word "we." Obviously my friend was making a realpolitick assumption that his side, the Obama coalition, was almost entirely pro-choice. But is that really true?
No. Pro-lifers made up a meaningful percentage of Obama's winning coalition. Professor John Green of University of Akron, czar of all religion-and-politics polling, reports that based on not-yet-released survey conducted in December, about a quarter of Obama's vote came from pro-lifers, defined as people "wanting serious restrictions on abortion, but not necessarily a full ban on abortions." What's more, Green will report, about one third of young voters who went for Obama are pro-life.
These findings comport with Beliefnet's own less scientific user survey.
Now obviously, pro-choicers made up an even bigger portion of his coalition. But pro-lifers comprised a surprisingly big minority.
As a point of reference, this would mean that pro-lifers made up a bigger percentage of Obama's vote than....union members, white Catholics, Jews, gays, Latinos or 18-21 year olds.
As a good Democrat, you'd never think of being so cavalier with those groups, why would you blow off the pro-lifers?
The strong showing comes in part because Obama improved with Latinos, evangelicals, Catholics, and regular church-goers. Obama doesn't have to act on abortion right away -- most of Obama's religious voters care more about the economy than abortion -- but he also shouldn't think that he can abandon his abortion reduction promises without political consequences.
UPDATE: For those curious about the methodology, Prof. Green described to me how the term "pro-lifer" was defined. The following question was asked:
"Now I would like you to think about the issue of abortion. Which of these statements comes closest to your views on abortion... (1) It should be legal and solely up to a woman to decide, OR (2) It should be legal in a wide variety of circumstances, OR (3) It should be legal in only a few circumstances such as to save the life of the mother, OR (4) It should not be legal at all"
Those who answered #3 or #4 were counted as "pro-life." Seems like a very solid methodology.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Why does the other side say they want to lower it?" Because hardly anyone who is pro-choice is "pro-abortion" (no one I know, certainly). That is an inflammatory, ideologically loaded term that identifies maybe a handful of people (and even that is a guess; I can't say for sure that absolutely no one is "pro-abortion," though someone surely is). If I might speak as a member of the "other side," we do believe in a woman's right to choose, but at the same time, we hope that fewer women will have to face that moral choice. Another term I take exception to is "anti-life." Who, pray tell, is anti-life? I read a beautiful pro-choice statement once -- "It is precisely because life is sacred that we believe it should not be created carelessly."
Interesting data. Am curious how it compares with previous elections. How many of these abortion restrictionists voted for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc.?
Tim,
Regarding the "beautiful" pro-abortion statment about the sacredness of life: ... "we believe it (life) should not be created carelessly:" If we truly believe life is sacred, how do we support its destruction - particularly when the life is innocent?
The abortion debate has been unproductive for all involved. President Obama wants to be part of a new discussion about how to reduce the perceived need for abortions. What is the problem with focusing on plans most people would consider reasonable? In my view, this would include encouraging chastity outside of marriage (except for gay people, who can't get married in most states), comprehensive sex education, lifting shame from single women who do get pregnant, and creating a culture that greets any new life with joy.
Perhaps the most effective way to reduce abortions would be to relieve economic pressure on pregnant women.
Dennis, it depends on the circumstances. As Amy says, relieving economic pressure on poor women can help reduce abortion. Family planning services and comprehensive sexuality education to prevent unwanted pregnancies are other strategies to ensure that life is not created carelessly. When a woman does face the moral decision of abortion, the decision is hers to make -- not yours, not mine, not the state's.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.