The Corner

Culture

New Poll Finds Huge Shift in Pro-Life Direction

The 2012 March for Life rally in Washington, D.C. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

New Marist polling out last night covered by Axios finds that Americans are now as likely to identify as pro-life (47 percent) as they are pro-choice (47 percent). A Marist poll from mid January reported that Americans were much more likely to call themselves “pro-choice” than “pro-life” (55 to 38 percent).

The poll’s most striking data shows that the shift in public opinion on abortion is being driven primarily by Democrats, especially younger ones. In January, only 20 percent of all Democrats self-identified as pro-life; the new poll found that percentage has jumped to 34 percent.

But among Democrats under the age of 45, the shift was even more significant: According to Marist, 28 percent of them said they were pro-life last month. Now, almost as many young Democrats identify as pro-life as pro-choice. The new poll found that 47 percent of Democrats under 45 call themselves pro-life, compared to 48 percent who call themselves pro-choice.

These changes have almost certainly been driven by recent instances of Democratic politicians pushing policies to expand abortion rights, even after the point of fetal viability: New York’s Reproductive Health Act allowing all abortion up to 24 weeks and increased access after that point, proposed legislation in Virginia that the bill’s sponsor said would allow abortion even during labor, and Virginia governor Ralph Northam’s interview in which he endorsed allowing physicians and mothers to let infants to die in some circumstances.

The survey also coincides with the GOP effort to push the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a piece of federal legislation that would require doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive after attempted abortion procedures. When Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.), the bill’s sponsor, asked for unanimous consent to the legislation earlier this month, he was blocked by Democratic senator Patty Murray of Washington. Murray and her fellow Democratic senators are expected to vote against the legislation in the Senate today.

Thenew survey found that 80 percent of Americans now say they support limiting abortion to the first three months of pregnancy, compared to 75 percent who said the same in the Marist poll last month, taken before these events began. A recent YouGov/AUL survey, meanwhile, found that nearly 80 percent of Americans oppose abortion in the last three months of pregnancy.

Marist has been polling public opinion on abortion for a decade, and Barbara Carvalho, who directed Marist’s poll this year, told Axios that this is “the first time since 2009 that as many or more Americans have identified as pro-life as have identified as pro-choice.”

Those Marist surveys consistently have found that, although Americans tend to call themselves “pro-choice,” they also tend to support policies that limit abortion to early in pregnancy. But this realignment in the pro-life direction is significant. It is an encouraging sign for the pro-life movement — and a warning to Democratic politicians who continue to propose increasingly radical pro-abortion policy.

Perhaps more than that, it ought to encourage Republican politicians to expose the Left for its radicalism on this issue and use anti-abortion policy as an electoral winner.

Editor’s note: This article has been revised since its initial publication.

Something to Consider

If you enjoyed this article, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS. Members get all of our content (including the magazine), no paywalls or content meters, an advertising-minimal experience, and unique access to our writers and editors (conference calls, social-media groups, etc.). And importantly, NRPLUS members help keep NR going. Consider it?

If you enjoyed this article, and were stimulated by its contents, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS.

LEARN MORE

Most Popular

Film & TV

The Manly Appeal of Ford v Ferrari

There used to be a lot of overlap between what we think of as a Hollywood studio picture (designed to earn money) and an awards movie (designed to fill the trophy case, usually with an accompanying loss of money). Ford v Ferrari is a glorious throwback to the era when big stars did quality movies about actual ... Read More
Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More
White House

Impeachment and the Broken Truce

The contradiction at the center of American politics in Anno Domini 2019 is this: The ruling class does not rule. The impeachment dog-and-pony show in Washington this week is not about how Donald Trump has comported himself as president (grotesquely) any more than early convulsions were about refreshed ... Read More
Books

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More