Why Pro-Lifers Hold Political Power—and How Pro-Choicers Can Stop Them

How you look at things.
Feb. 7 2013 5:45 AM

The Pro-Life Advantage

Why they hold political power—and how pro-choicers can stop them.

Anti-abortion activists hold placards infront of the Supreme Court during the annual "March for Life" on Jan. 25 in Washington, D.C.

Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

On Jan. 25, hundreds of thousands of abortion opponents assembled in Washington, D.C., for the March for Life. The weather was freezing, but they’re used to that. Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that declared abortion a constitutional right, was decided in January 1973. Every year, pro-lifers hold the march to mark Roe’s anniversary and renew their commitment to overturning it. “It might be 20 degrees out here,” activist Ryan Bomberger told the crowd, “but it has not put out this fire.”

William Saletan William Saletan

Will Saletan writes about politics, science, technology, and other stuff for Slate. He’s the author of Bearing Right.

Why do these people come out in the bitter cold, year after year? Because to them, abortion is mass slaughter. “Fifty-five million Americans have died as a result of legalized abortion in the last four decades,” march organizer Jeanne Monahan lamented in her opening remarks. That belief—that horror—keeps pro-lifers marching, voting, donating, and phone-banking.

By most measures, the United States is a pro-choice country. Half of Americans prefer the term pro-life, and most of us have moral qualms about abortion. But 40 years after Roe, most of us still don’t think that ruling should be overturned. Most think abortion should be legal in the majority of cases. Most think the abortion decision should be left to a woman and her doctor.


But the pro-choice majority doesn’t run this country, because a lot of its constituents don’t really care. They don’t march or phone-bank for women’s health or equal rights. They just want to be left alone. They don’t vote on abortion unless they’re scared. When the debate is quiet, it’s pro-lifers who hold the upper hand.

In polls, there’s a glaring gap between the views of the general population and the views of people who care about this issue. With the help of several pollsters, I’ve been looking at surveys with a wide range of intensity levels. A low intensity level, by my definition, is when few respondents—20 percent or fewer, let’s say—report that the issue is very important to them or that they would vote only for a candidate who shares their abortion views. A high intensity level is when more respondents elevate the issue to “very important” or “must share” status.

Note: Questions varied among pollsters, and from year to year in Pew and CBS/NYT surveys.

Across six Gallup polls taken from 1996 to 2012, self-identified pro-choicers consistently outnumbered self-identified pro-lifers. But in each of these surveys, among respondents who said they would vote only for a candidate who shared their abortion views, pro-lifers outnumbered pro-choicers. The pattern held in 1996, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012.

In Gallup’s data, the percentage of respondents who say a candidate must share their abortion views has fluctuated between 13 and 20 percent. What happens when the intensity level goes higher? To answer that question, I looked at surveys by the Pew Research Center. Last month, when Pew asked whether Roe should be overturned, only 29 percent of respondents said yes. But among respondents who said abortion was a “critical issue facing the country,” 62 percent said yes. That matches Pew’s 2009 survey, in which 79 percent of the “critical issue” respondents, but only 47 percent of respondents as a whole, said abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances. In both polls, high-intensity pro-lifers clearly outnumbered high-intensity pro-choicers. The intensity level was 15 percent in 2009 and 18 percent in 2013.

But in 2006, the only other year in which Pew asked the “critical issue” question, the intensity level was much higher. Twenty-eight percent of respondents said abortion was a critical issue. Among this group, 49 percent said they opposed “making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion.” Only 46 percent said they favored making abortions more difficult. This appears to be the only poll in which Pew or Gallup has found a pro-choice advantage among high-intensity respondents.

Pew’s data are intriguing but problematic. The “critical issue” question stayed the same in all three Pew surveys, but the pro/con question changed from making abortion more difficult (2006) to making it illegal (2009) to overturning Roe (2013). What we really need is the same pro/con question under different intensity levels. The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute has such a question. In 2007, and again in 2012, it asked, “If you agreed with a presidential candidate on other issues, but not on the issue of abortion, do you think you could still vote for that candidate or not?” And second, “Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?”

In 2007, 22 percent of Quinnipiac respondents said abortion was a deal-breaker for them in choosing a candidate. Among this group, 46 percent said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Forty-nine percent said it should be illegal in all or most cases—a 3-point pro-life advantage. But in 2012, the intensity level went up. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said abortion was a deal-breaker. And this time, pro-choicers held the advantage: In the high-intensity group, respondents who said abortion should be legal outnumbered those who said it should be illegal, 52 to 45 percent.



The Self-Made Man

The story of America’s most pliable, pernicious, irrepressible myth.

Does Your Child Have Sluggish Cognitive Tempo? Or Is That Just a Disorder Made Up to Scare You?

Mitt Romney May Be Weighing a 2016 Run. That Would Be a Big Mistake.

Amazing Photos From Hong Kong’s Umbrella Revolution

Rehtaeh Parsons Was the Most Famous Victim in Canada. Now, Journalists Can’t Even Say Her Name.


See Me

Transparent is the fall’s only great new show.


Lena Dunham, the Book

More shtick than honesty in Not That Kind of Girl.

What a Juicy New Book About Diane Sawyer and Katie Couric Fails to Tell Us About the TV News Business

Rehtaeh Parsons Was the Most Famous Victim in Canada. Now, Journalists Can’t Even Say Her Name.

  News & Politics
Damned Spot
Sept. 30 2014 9:00 AM Now Stare. Don’t Stop. The perfect political wife’s loving gaze in campaign ads.
Sept. 30 2014 10:44 AM Bull---- Market America is overlooking a plentiful renewable resource: animal manure.
Atlas Obscura
Sept. 30 2014 10:10 AM A Lovable Murderer and Heroic Villain: The Story of Australia's Most Iconic Outlaw
  Double X
Sept. 29 2014 11:43 PM Lena Dunham, the Book More shtick than honesty in Not That Kind of Girl.
  Slate Plus
Behind the Scenes
Sept. 30 2014 10:59 AM “For People, Food Is Heaven” Boer Deng on the story behind her piece “How to Order Chinese Food.”
Brow Beat
Sept. 30 2014 10:48 AM One of Last Year’s Best Animated Shorts Is Finally Online for Free
Future Tense
Sept. 30 2014 7:36 AM Almost Humane What sci-fi can teach us about our treatment of prisoners of war.
  Health & Science
Bad Astronomy
Sept. 30 2014 7:30 AM What Lurks Beneath the Methane Lakes of Titan?
Sports Nut
Sept. 28 2014 8:30 PM NFL Players Die Young. Or Maybe They Live Long Lives. Why it’s so hard to pin down the effects of football on players’ lives.