More voters than ever before say they are “pro-life,” according to a new survey from Rasmussen Reports.
The survey, which was conducted from June 30-July 1, found that approximately 44 percent of respondents say they are “pro-life,” while a slightly larger percentage, 48 percent, say they are “pro-choice.”
And although the survey found that more respondents currently identify as being “pro-choice,” the report also notes that the number of Americans who say they are “pro-life” is at an all-time high.
Now, although this may come as welcome news to many, it's important to remember that the survey, which polled some 1,000 likely voters, is just a survey and that the data should be carefully scrutinized before being accepted as gospel.
Still, if the trend holds and the number of people who identify as being “pro-life” continues to increase, it will most certainly change the future of U.S. politics.
Remember, the Rasmussen survey comes just days after the Supreme Court ruled that the owners of Hobby Lobby could not be compelled under the law to cover the cost of their employees' abortifacients -- a decision Democrats and abortion supporters (but I repeat myself) rushed to use in their latest fundraising campaigns.
Yes, many who oppose the Supreme Court ruling scream and holler about access to contraception, but that was not the point (or the topic) of the ruling. The ruling had to do with whether an employer should be forced under penalty of law to cover the cost of abortion-inducing drugs.
As explained by Tim Carney: “The Green family, who owns Hobby Lobby, aren't Catholics, and they don't have a broad objection to contraception. Instead, they object to methods of birth control that may also cause abortions -- which is why they didn't cover them.”
Here's the the FDA's guidance on ella, one of two pills Hobby Lobby wouldn't cover [emphasis added]: “The likely primary mechanism of action of ulipristal acetate for emergency contraception is therefore inhibition or delay of ovulation; however, alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also contribute to efficacy.”
Further, the journal Reproductive Sciences noted in a recent study [emphasis added]: “Our evaluation suggests that UPA [the active chemical in ella] succeeds in preventing the clinical appearance of pregnancies mainly by its negative effects on endometrial receptivity, which is a postfertilization mechanism.”
"Endometrial receptivity," as Carney notes, involves the uterine lining accepting a fertilized egg.
So ella, known commonly as the morning-after pill, works "postfertilization” as opposed to merely preventing fertilization.
Anyway, all of this is to say that the ruling, which has inspired ugly partisan fights, was about abortion and not merely about access to contraception. Abortion is still a very serious and polarizing topic and any increase on either the “pro-life” or “pro-choice” side of the issue would undoubtedly change the landscape of U.S. politics. If nothing else, it would be much harder to raise funds -- and scare up votes -- by pushing the idea that opposition to abortion is a "war on women."
Let's see if the figures identified by Rasmussen hold.