LA TIMES POLL SHOWS HUGE DECLINE IN SUPPORT FOR ROE

By Dave Andrusko

Although it received relatively sparse national attention, a poll published on Father's Day in the Los Angeles Times revealed a massive slippage in support for Roe v. Wade. The same June 18 poll, complemented by data which appeared on the Times's web page, also concluded that "[Pro-life Texas Gov. George W.] Bush's opposition to abortion appeared more likely to help his candidacy than [pro-abortion Vice President Al] Gore's support for abortion rights will help his." In fact, Bush's pro-life stand turns out to be a huge advantage.

The most dramatic result from the Times's survey of 2,071 Americans taken in early June surely is that support for the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision has plummeted. Whereas in 1991 56% of respondents expressed support for Roe, by June 2000 that figure had plunged to 43% - - a precipitous drop of almost one-fourth in less than a decade!

But there is something equally important that must not be overlooked. Just because people are not defending Roe does not necessarily mean they have moved into the "opposed" column. They could say they were indifferent or did not know enough to have an opinion. But that has not happened.

There has been a large increase in the percentage who say they oppose Roe. From a low point of only 28% in September 1991, the number rose to 37% in August 1996, to 39% in November 1999, topping out at an all-time high of 42% in June.

That is exactly a 50% increase in opposition to Roe in less than nine years!

Faced with a 13 percentage point drop in support for Roe in only nine years, the Times's spin is that people are adopting a "more nuanced view of the circumstances under which abortions should be allowed."

Times reporter Alissa Rubin pulled in a couple of experts to explain away the results. One opined that the diminution is attributable to the sense of security supporters of abortion feel with Bill Clinton and Al Gore ensconced in the White House. But this hardly explains a 13 percentage point drop.

Another expert, Harvard's Bob Blendon, pointed out that "abortion opponents" have invoked Roe "as a barrier to imposing limits on abortion." Rubin paraphrases him as concluding, "As a result, increasing numbers of Americans may view Roe as an obstacle to adopting restrictions for which there is broad support."

But Roe [and its legal progeny] IS an impediment to enacting even very modest laws. More and more the American people understand this. And now the Supreme Court has said that Roe requires that partial-birth abortion cannot be banned. (See pages 1-3, & 19.)

And there were other indications of a softening of support for abortion and more enthusiasm for alternatives. There is more support for public funds to support adoption if Roe were deep-sixed (up from 64% to 74%); and a huge increase in the percentage of people who believe that life begins at conception (from less than a majority--41%--to 53%!).

But the other key finding (which no doubt made the White House cringe) is how the presidential candidates' respective stances on abortion played with the respondents. The Times severely underplayed the impact when it wrote, "Bush's opposition to abortion appeared more likely to help his candidacy than Gore's support for abortion rights will help his."

A closer look reveals that when people were told Bush opposes abortion, 27% said that made them more likely to vote for the Texas governor while 13% said it would make them less likely to vote for Bush. In sum, Bush's pro-life stance is a net +14%.

"But only 18% of respondents say Gore's support for legal abortion would make them more likely to vote for him," the Times reported. What is not in the account is what you find when you look directly at the results: 21% said Gore's position would make them less likely to vote for him. Gore's pro-abortion position, in other words, netted him -3%!

The conclusion is inescapable. Gore's pro-abortion stance hurts him a lot. Bush's pro-life stance helps him a lot.

What explains this turnabout on Roe? Part of it surely is a big jump in the percentage who believe that life begins at conception. As noted above, in 1989 only 41% held that position. Today over half - - 53%- - do.

What explains the increased recognition of the humanity of the unborn child? Some would cite the deluge of suggestions that even early on in pregnancy there really is someone in there-everything from car ads that remind pregnant women to buckle up to the routine use of ultrasounds. All subtly tug at our consciences, gently awakening our better instincts from a long slumber.

But of surpassing importance are the day in, day out, year after year educational efforts of right to life people who faithfully teach the truth about the humanity of unborn children.

Likewise, there simply is no way to exaggerate the impact of the nationwide debate over partial-birth abortions. It has taught the public that such exercises in baby killing are more akin to infanticide than to what people thought they understood as an "abortion," and that the party of abortion will never find an abortion of which they disapprove.

Even the loss at the Supreme Court will eventually redound to the benefit of unborn children. Most accounts carried a least a sanitized description. Others were more candid, helping the public to see how obscenely violent partial-birth abortion actually is.

The trend lines are moving rapidly in the right direction. At long last the American people are showing unmistakable signs that they are ready to shake off the embrace of the culture of death.