Is the Court's opinion — or the press coverage of it — moving people against abortion rights? I don't know, but if I did know, I can think of reasons why that might happen.
It might be that some people accept the word of the Supreme Court, and if the Court says there is a right, they believe that, and if the Court says there is no right, they believe that too. Similarly, some people might feel influenced by the views of these other people, the Justices, because they are smarter and more educated and have immersed themselves deeply in the subject.
The question was asked in terms of rights, and many people will interpret that to mean federal constitutional rights. They may, rationally and modestly, think they don't know enough about law to have a better opinion than the one the Supreme Court came up with.
Now, "supporting abortion rights" could also mean supporting rights in some other form. Indeed, "supporting" conveys the notion that it's a political position. A sophisticated poll respondent, knowing that Roe has been overruled, could interpret the question to mean, do I want my state legislature and Congress to pass laws that protect access to abortion?
Perhaps, as people adjust to the overruling and face political participation, they will withdraw from the position that the pollsters call "supporting abortion rights."
It's one thing to think: The Court has declared a right and I support that resolution of the complicated problem, giving the decision to the individual. It's a private matter, kept private. I am freed to look away and go about my life without the burden of deciding whose interests will prevail.
But it's something else to have to participate in the decision. The Court has thrown the burden back on the people, and now "supporting abortion rights" means connecting yourself to the decision to authorize abortion.
Maybe those extra 5 percentage points of difference in the poll between May and June are people who don't want responsibility for creating new abortion rights — getting statutes passed. If there were a constitutional right, it would be — one might think — out there already, inherent in the nature of human life. In that view, to support the right is merely to face reality. But if there is no constitutional right, and it's a matter of getting statutes passed, then "supporting" it means that you are choosing to order morality with the woman's interest in controlling her own body predominating over the life of the unborn.
Notice that the opposition to abortion rights did not increase by 6 percentage points, but only 2. "Unsure" increased from 5% to 8%. In any case, this is only one poll, and it's only been a few days. I'm just writing to open out the questions. I suspect there is a great deal of ambivalence out there, and some of the strong talk expressing horror over the loss of this long-held right may inadvertently push people some people away.
पोस्ट्स
६८ टिप्पण्या:
Violence and threats of violence, protests at the homes of the judges and threats against them, the ghoulishness of supporters of 9th month abortions, learning that it will be up to the states and is not a nationwide ban, learning that other countries are more restrictive than we are. The left are violent liars - it:s hard for reasonable people to support that, even if they agree on an individual issue.
This reflects just two data points in a very long data series. There is random variation, and it could well be coincidence. Natural and expected random survey outcomes include (1) no change, (2) support increased, or (3) support declined. Do not read too much into any single survey, as the margin of error is typically 4% or 5%.
Social science and opinion polling are inherently fuzzy.
If this poll is capturing a real phenomenon, my first guess would be that it is the result of the leak. That's when people first found out about the decision and started processing it, thinking through what it means in the real world. And it turns out that some people who think of themselves as pro-choice discovered that they are fine handing the decision over to the states.
People can see what garbage our media hath become. They can see the crime all over, given to them by Soros and the left's pro-Antifa Anarchist attitudes. People feel this virus and the protocols that have ruined their lives. The force of the state to buy an electric car. People understand that "safe, legal and rare" is not 70 abortions a day at a clinic in Wisconsin. That's not rare at all, now is it?
People can see the whiners and liars who yell non-stop about "but what if rape!" even though rape abortions are a tiny fraction of birth control abortions.
From the post:
"Similarly, some people might feel influenced by the views of these other people, the Justices, because they are smarter and more educated and have immersed themselves deeply in the subject."
Some people? Perhaps a few, but I'm not sure we can extrapolate that to the shift in the polls. I don't know what the demographic of the poll sample is, but I wouldn't count on most people to defer to the SCOTUS justices' expertise.
People understand increasingly that the issue is not "abortion rights".
Rather, the issue is whether abortion laws should be made by the US Supreme Court or by the state legislatures.
Even people who think that abortion should be legal think that that the abortion laws should be made by the state legislatures -- not by the US Supreme Court, or by the US Congress or by the US President issuing executive orders.
Perhaps the decision simply forced people to think harder about the issue, rather than just adopt the "popular" opinion.
I can think of a few other reasons:
1) like me, the latest round of reporting showed just how extreme our current laws are relative to other developed countries
2) maybe they are hearing the debate for the first time; when was the last time you heard the pro-life position articulated by actual pro-lifers?
3) in line with #2, the cultural forces supporting abortion are ever present and some people may feel free to finally voice their own opinions now
Access to abortion is a potentially big deal to sexually active fertile women. A very rough guess is those women represent 10-15% of the population.
For the 85% of the population who are not potential aborters, probably half don't think about abortion unless compelled.
The leak was a compelling event for some of them- it brought to the forefront that at least some people in the pro-abortion community are nucking futs, support literally pulling limbs off of babies in the process of killing the baby a few days before natural birth would occur, and forced them to consider that side of the equation.
I could see that concept nudging some of the "silent majority" into the anti- column.
My personal perspective- safe, legal, and rare, but that doesn't bring in the bucks.
I can think of a few other reasons:
1) like me, the latest round of reporting showed just how extreme our current laws are relative to other developed countries
2) maybe they are hearing the debate for the first time; when was the last time you heard the pro-life position articulated by actual pro-lifers?
3) in line with #2, the cultural forces supporting abortion are ever present and some people may feel free to finally voice their own opinions now
Everyone taking the June poll knew that the Court had overturned Roe, because that info was stated in one of the questions.
I wish reporting on Dobbs had emphasized the fact that the decision did not ban abortion. People's views on this morally complex issue should not be affected by Dobbs.
This may just be a blip. That said, it could be an increased awareness that abortion rights is not a yes-no toggle but a spectrum stretching across a pregnancy, and implicating issues of consent (rape, incest), which are all going to have to be worked out.
Perhaps pollsters should routinely start their interviews with this question: Are you paying attention?
Maybe the Court has succeeded in cooling the issue down as a national issue, leaving it to the states where there will be questions about how high a priority it is with so much going on. On social issues, there is a tendency to say whatever the progressives want will come about sooner or later, but maybe the idea of a sacred right to show penises to kindergarten children at any time and place, under any circumstances, will discredit the entire package of progressive rights to some extent.
In evaluating polling results, this is known as Row v. Column.
The law is a teacher.
The pro-abortion crowd kept saying that Roe should not be overturned because a majority of people were pro-choice, conveniently leaving out that for 50 years Roe heavily distorted public opinion.
This latest development really needs to be understood within the NSS or "duh" framework. It's something that has been obvious for decades for anyone who has not bought into the left media, activist and academia narrative.
"Access to abortion is a potentially big deal to sexually active fertile women."
For every fertile woman there is a sperm donor and at least one anxious parent of said donor who is sure the slut's pregnancy will ruin his life.
So there are more interested parties than just the fertile women.
i hope i'm not speaking too early.. But Where are the riots? Where are the MASS Marches?
Since "an overwhelming majority of Americans support Abortion; Anytime, Anywhere"..
Shouldn't there have been riots? and Mass Marches?
I mean, yes; there were a few.. but where there any more than a usual Saturday night?
You'd think (*i'd* think), that there would be MILLIONS of protestors.. i mean;
Since "an overwhelming majority of Americans support Abortion; Anytime, Anywhere"..
I had two thoughts - First it could just statistical anomaly or it could be that more people understand that overturning Roe does,not mean the end of legalized abortion.
I think the progressive tendency to overstate the impact of a particular action (think “people will die if net neutrality is ended) hurts them.
Polling on this topic has long been up and down. But definite trend against total bans.
I can't imagine that the violence is helping the cause, especially after making such a big deal about J6 and claiming that calling a government official "illegitimate" was "sedition," which is not even a thing in US law.
The make up of the poll could be the difference. Who they asked, how it was asked, the demographics of those asked this time vs last time. It could also be the simplest answer is that once the leak became public, the public was 'forced'- at least for a moment- to reflect on what this could mean, and not to social media influencers, but to themselves. It makes sense to me that the opposition to abortion 'rights' increased by a bit, and the 'unsure' increased by a bit more. Both of them increasing makes sense to me.
Also, you do have to factor in that the threats of violence and even calls for murder will sway people. It'll sway them to move away from those doing the threatening. BLM summer is two years ago, but no one has forgotten it.
And finally, sometimes the simplest explanation is the most likely: that when made to consider this in reality, a few more people each time are horrified by the idea of all of the babies that are destroyed in the womb. Those who demand or lean toward allowing abortions at anytime for any reason don't like to hear that, but it's a reality. To approve of abortion, you have to come to grips with killing another life. When confronted with this, some people cannot agree with it. And when asked again, as they get older, people will tend to be against ending life.
The poll question is not worded in terms of whether you support or oppose abortion rights but in terms of how “you think of yourself.” I think some percentage of prochoice Republican voters realize that the effect of their vote means they can no longer think of themselves as supporting abortion rights. It’s an open question as to whether they are OK with that, or will change their vote to be more supportive.
First its aborting babies.
Next its aborting you.
Currently the language out of the media and Democrat politicians has made abortion paramount to infanticide with their insistence of "up to the moment of birth". Even when asked directly, "do you support abortion up until the moment of birth" Democrats avoid answering and say "I believe that is between a woman and her doctor, and a woman has the right to choose". By default they support infanticide. Normal people don't.
Now, it hits home. In restrictive states, you have to support and vote for frothing infanticide candidates yourself. That will cause pause among the population.
Make it legal up to 14 weeks and be done with it so we can move on. Unfortunately, today's America is too divided and stupid to do that.
Similarly, some people might feel influenced by the views of these other people, the Justices, because they are smarter and more educated and have immersed themselves deeply in the subject.
Hence the immediate measures to delegitimize the Court as an institution.
Your comment made me think of Tyler Cowen's recent post The intellectual mistake of once-and-for-allism. An excerpt:
“Once-and-for-allism” occurs when people decide that they wish to stop worrying about an issue at the margin. They might either dismiss the issue, or they might blow up its importance but regard the issue as hopeless and undeserving of further consideration. Either way, they seek to avoid the hovering sense of “I’ve still got to devote time and energy to figuring this out.” They prefer “I am now done with this issue, once and for all!” Thus the name of the syndrome.
Do note however that it is an efficient mistake for many people to commit, and that is part of why it is so common.
I agree with Enigma that it’s a mistake to read too much into a single poll. The polls not only have a margin for error, but it’s also true that if ever there was a case for the “shy Republican voter” to speak his or her mind, this is the issue.
But I also think exhelodrvr1 is onto something. Violence and threats of violence repel people who might otherwise be neutral or even supportive, and with the pro-abortion side staging a temper tantrum that would humiliate a two year old, the natural tendency is to support the other side.
Could you write a more ambiguous question to measure support for abortion rights?
Putin is meddling again.
"Support abortion rights" is such a vague statement that two people with the same views could answer differently. Some might support state legislatures allowing abortion, and think of that as supporting "abortion rights," while others might say there's no inalienable God-given right but still support state legislatures allowing it. Why not ask "Do you think Roe v Wade was correctly decided, or should state legislatures be in control?"
If you look at the long-term Gallup poll results -- whose three categories of reply have to be considered carefully -- you see an unusual drop in the answer "illegal under all circumstances."
That position had generally garnered 15-20% of the responses since the '70s, and had been trending higher since a low point of 15% during the Clinton administration. The chart shows "illegal" to have hit the 20%s two or three times in the last 12 years.
Then, suddenly, in 2020, the result turns down rapidly, crashing to an all-time low of 13% at the latest measurement this year. "Legal under any circumstances" rose to its highest measure of 35%.
"Pro-life" fell. "Pro-choice" spiked.
What happened in 2020?
Yes, CCP virus. But also a giant spike in the financial markets that lasted right into early January.
I don't know what role the virus played in this, but bull market peaks often bring similar peaks in feelings of freedom, possibility, and euphoria, generally.
As the markets wane, the social extremes that accompany them will also fade. The Marist poll suggests that process is just getting underway.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Is it possible that we are returning to sanity after decades of rule by what has been called the Clerisy of media/academia/leftist government? People may be becoming aware of the corrupt use of phrases by the left;
1) Declaring someone "anti-immigrant" rather than correctly saying "anti-illegal immigrant" or "pro immigration with limits"
2) Declaring someone "anti-abortion" rather than correctly saying "anti-abortion after the first trimester" or "pro abortion with limits".
At some tipping point, people with commonsense opinions eventually find their beliefs mis-characterized for political gain. They naturally resent that.
Next up, declaring people "anti environment" rather than correctly saying "pro-nuclear power"
People react to extreme opinions. They're a turn-off when adamant and self-righteous.
Recognizing that, I wish pro-lifers would stop spiking the football. I was happy that abortion would now go back to the states, where we might get cooperation. Instead, the rhetoric from both sides is off the charts.
Maybe as it’s become clearer that for Democrats “support” means abortion on demand up until birth the support for that particular take has waned. When Mississippi is more permissive than France who needs the DNC’s megaradical 9-months+ plan?
My guess is that opinion favoring abortion will continue to drop and the court’s decision is a big reason for it. The SC, rightly or wrongly, has mystical power in shaping moral debates. Having said that I believe opinion on abortion has been artificially propped up for decades through manipulative polling, virtue-shaming liberals, and the march through the institutions that progressives made from the 60s onward.
That march has ended and is reversing. The shaming is no longer working as well. And the polling industry cannot control and manipulate their numbers as easily as they could in the past, partly because conservative polling has become a thing. We may be on the cusp of a huge cultural shift in morality, one not seen since the end of the Roaring Twenties/Great Depression.
Maybe people read up and found out that Planned Parenthood was selling baby parts.
The left kept pushing for unlimited abortion on demand. That is why support for abortion is falling. I think most people agree with early term abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. However, most people instinctively know that late term abortions are an evil abomination except in very rare circumstances to save the live of the mother.
The left also insists on calling abortion birth control or a reproductive right. Abortion is not birth control to many of people. Birth control prevents pregnancy abortion ends it. The left also tried to force payment from the government, force hospitals perform them. They overplayed the issue for votes.
Among people I personally know, some thought Roe only allowed abortion in the first trimester and in the second under certain circumstances. When they learned it had been interpreted to mean until birth, their support for Roe as a right dropped. They are fine with Florida's 15 week bill.
As a pro-choice Republican, I don't worry about it, because none of the Republicans at the state level in my state, Republicans actually on offer, support banning abortion outright. I am pretty sure that if the Democrats were open to compromise, they could secure first trimester abortion rights into law. It's also pretty clear, by the Democrats' maximalist positioning on abortion, that the would rather have the issue than solve it.
In evaluating polling results, this is known as Row v. Column.
Hahaha….good ‘un!
I intended to comment on this blog post being an excellent example of out hostess’ mind at work which, when she isn’t having a meltdown, is very impressive. But I got sidetracked by WinceHumor.
- Krumhorn
The renewed abortion debate is focusing attention on just how radical the extreme left's position on abortion (which is now Democratic Party gospel) is. It's going from pretending it should be "safe, legal and rare" to loudly proclaiming that not only must it be subsidized and celebrated, that it should be allowed right up to the moment of birth.
Another factor is the possibility that it's never been popular with the American voting public save a very thin slice of far-left radical upper class college educated white elites whose influence over the media has resulted in widespread belief falsification through slanted and cherry-picked polls. Blacks, Hispanics and Asians seem considerably less enthused about abortion that our cultural elites are comfortable admitting.
In state after state, Republicans legislatures and governors have passed abortion restrictions...and then been soundly reelected. The voters have spoken...and they've by and large rejected abortion.
I believe the situation is that the pro-Roe people have, in general, acted very ugly in the last month, AND have consistently failed to make the case that Roe was actually a legitimate part of the US Constitution
1: The violence and threats of violence push decent people to at least NOT be on that side. That's a push to drop support, and increase undecided
2: The difference between Bruen and Dobbs is obvious to anyone willing to look. With Bruen, supporters of the change are saying "Yes! What part of 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"
In Dobbs, the opponents of the change have been saying "but they ruling's been around for 50 years!" Not "but this ruling is clearly part of the US Constitution!" That's a push to drop support, and increase opposition
Finally, one can quite reasonable believe that Roe and Casey are execrable trash, and that women should still have the right to have an abortion up until point X
So the pro "abortion rights" answer says less than supporters want it to
Enigma said, "Social science and opinion polling are inherently fuzzy."
Yes.
Althouse's points also make sense and may explain some people's responses (for example, the recent unpleasantness over the pandemic involves different opinions on "expert" judgement). Support for abortion rights may be softer than generally believed, especially in light of news of extremely liberal abortion laws (bordering on infanticide) in some states.
Finally, let's not overestimate the engagement of the respondents with the issue and the decision. Not everyone is a deep-diving policy wonk. In 1989, when Casey was decided, a woman I worked with said to me, "Didn't you hear? The Supreme Court outlawed abortion today". There are people out there who need lots of 'splainin' about things.
It's going from pretending it should be "safe, legal and rare" to loudly proclaiming that not only must it be subsidized and celebrated, that it should be allowed right up to the moment of birth.
In their zeal to pass state laws on legalized abortion, the Democrats are stuck with their ideology which compels an all-or-nothing law. If they accept ANY limitation on abortion, then their entire argument collapses. That's because, as pointed out in the arguments against Roe, there is no rational dividing line. So they are required by the illogic of their position to say yes right up until labor, until the woman is dilating, and even post-birth by the non-provision of medical care to a newborn.
The hard, scraping bigotry of low expectations.
For chrissakes people, time grows short, just try to get along.
---We may be on the cusp of a huge cultural shift in morality, one not seen since the end of the Roaring Twenties/Great Depression. [M Jordan]
I agree. But that would be at quite a cost.
---That [progressives'] march has ended and is reversing.
I hope you're right. This decision certainly fits as a piece of Mid-Century Leftism being tossed onto the ash heap.
To address the title question, why shouldn't there be a drop in support? For decades State-cultists have told us we have no inherent rights; that is, we only have whatever "rights" te State tells us we have or allows us to have. To be consistent, if the State tells us we have a right on Monday, but on Tuesday tells us that right doesn't exist, shouldn't a drop in support on Tuesday necessarily follow?
I absolutely believe that the very fact that the court has overturned Roe is persuasive to a measurable segment of the population. This was, after all, a 6-3 decision (or 5-1-3). And there has been relatively little explanation of why the majority opinion is wrong as a matter of Constitutional law.
The mood of the country toward abortion a few weeks ago was probably closest to that expressed by John Roberts in his concurrence. It basically boiled down to: "Yeah, Roe was wrong, but it's been around for a long time, and it would upset a lot of people to overturn it. So let's just trim it back a little." But now that Roberts was outvoted and Roe is gone, a new reality sets in. Now Dobbs itself is ostensibly entitled to respect under stare decisis, and people will be able to see for themselves just how disastrous or non-disastrous life really is for women in a post-Roe world. Given the number of states that will still keep abortion legal, and the fact that companies and even state governments are evidently planning to pay for women to travel out of state to get an abortion, a reasonable person may well infer that overturning Roe isn't such a bad thing after all. Some nominally pro-abortion people, therefore, may be starting to see that it's worth the marginal cost and inconvenience this decision will cause for some women for the country as a whole to have a Constitution, and an approach to interpreting the Constitution, that is cruelly neutral and isn't just based on preferred policy outcomes.
Because polls have noise.
Kai Akker said...
If you look at the long-term Gallup poll results -- whose three categories of reply have to be considered carefully -- you see an unusual drop in the answer "illegal under all circumstances."
That position had generally garnered 15-20% of the responses since the '70s, and had been trending higher since a low point of 15% during the Clinton administration. The chart shows "illegal" to have hit the 20%s two or three times in the last 12 years.
Then, suddenly, in 2020, the result turns down rapidly, crashing to an all-time low of 13% at the latest measurement this year. "Legal under any circumstances" rose to its highest measure of 35%.
That's an interesting claim. But has no link to support it.
Pew has
https://gregquark.blogspot.com/2022/05/pew-on-americans-and-abortion.html
So has the AP:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/9085360431161166641/4331006668998202706?hl=en
Neither find the results you claim
In particular, "Legal under any circumstances" does not get about 20% in any poll I know of. It appears you are conflating the "1st trimester" result with the "all pregnancies" result.
So, no
Could just be a statistical fluke. Happens with polls all the time.
That said, there is a certain percentage of the population that will support whatever the current situation is, and will change their positions based on that.
Maybe the riots and death threats have affected some people's opinion. The lefties are hysterical but are misleading their followers. They pretend this will ban abortion and that is a lie. The election this fall should tell us a lot but it will be local, not national no matter how much Democrats want to make it a national issue.
People... persons feel liberated from going along to get along with the religious ("ethical") advice and sanction of the wicked solution. One step, albeit a baby step, forward.
---Neither find the results you claim. [Greg]
I provided the link at the end of the comment.
Or it could be people are less afraid to answer truthfully.
Most major corporations give some sort of screening test in the hiring process. I've told many people who were highly qualified for jobs but never interviewed they were being screened out because they were answering the questions in that test truthfully rather then with the "acceptable" answers.
True or False; Diversity makes for a stronger workforce.
The measured by many metrics true answer is False. The only "acceptable" answer is True.
That's one of the more common questions that requires answering with a falsehood to be correct.
Blogger Kai Akker said...
---Neither find the results you claim. [Greg]
I provided the link at the end of the comment.
I suspect that a factor you did not consider is the progress in science and neonatology.
In 1969, I operated on a baby that weighed 1 pound 10 ounces. She was the smallest ever to survive surgery. There was nothing like neonatology then but she was tough. Now much smaller babies are surviving. The fact that some of them are 20 weeks or less has probably affected a number of people's opinions.
The "legal under any circumstance," which is infanticide, is probably ;political just like all the pro-choice people saying Dobbs outlaws abortion.
It's not going to happen. It does seem though, that strikes can be tactics rationally employed to produce a result, or they can be more emotional -- you won't give me this, so you won't get that. Because the sex strike isn't going to happen, Caroline can indulge her emotions without thinking out what a strike is intended to do or what its chance of success would be.
Kai Akker said...
---Neither find the results you claim. [Greg]
I provided the link at the end of the comment.
So you do. I'm sorry I missed that.
I think the problem is their question is garbage, because it doesn't ask about "at what stage of pregnancy".
Because the ones who do break things down by weeks / trimesters get entirely different results
The hysterics aren't helping. I'd like to know what state laws people support in red, purple and blue states. Even in very conservative states, I'd guess there's a lot of support for letting the woman end a pregnancy in the first trimester, which would cover most abortions.
BTW, in part because of much more effective contraception, the abortion rate fell for 30 years. The teen birth rate has fallen sharply.
---In 1969, I operated on a baby that weighed 1 pound 10 ounces. She was the smallest ever to survive surgery. There was nothing like neonatology then but she was tough. Now much smaller babies are surviving. The fact that some of them are 20 weeks or less has probably affected a number of people's opinions.
Dr K, that's a remarkable story and I hope you mean your patient made it to adulthood. It sounds like a long shot to me, but, if so, very very nice going in your role.
On the abortion data, it was the swiftness of the change in public opinions, as captured by Gallup, that struck me. Something dramatic occurred in 2020-21. I speculated as to what I think that was.
But I certainly know whereof you speak. Twenty-three years ago, I was visiting my hometown's hospital for a pair of patients. It was strange enough to be going there at all; the cases were an unsettling contrast. My mother lay dying in one ward at age 71. My cousin, her niece, was in another ward with her 22-week premature infant in an incubator.
The baby made it and graduated from college a couple years ago. My mother got a respite of a couple of months before it was her time. Those days, maybe weeks, I don't even remember clearly now, were a crash course in life's -- and medicine's -- ironies. Although that is not the right word. I am not sure what the right word should be. Our human vicissitudes.
I opined on this a few days ago in a comment to one of your earlier posts. I lean toward the cowardly explanation that it's easy to support something as grotesque as abortion when your support has no effect. "Of course, I'm on the winning team!" But when you have to take action to facilitate abortion, it's a little harder to find your courage.
Even in very conservative states, I'd guess there's a lot of support for letting the woman end a pregnancy in the first trimester, which would cover most abortions.
A lot of people here are saying that. But what is your reasoning here? That a baby is not a baby in the first trimester? That she is not alive? That she is not a human being? That some human beings are less equal than others and that that baby is in the sub-class?
Is your reasoning basically the pro-abortion position, but just earlier in the child's development with your own arbitrary line?
Sounds like it. And it is completely irrational. So how are those very conservative states supposed to justify it.
Now, I understand that most Republicans have been anti-abortion all these years, not pro-life -- and there is a difference, and if it needs to be explained to you, you don't get it -- but it will be a hard sell for even them to sell a justification that the Supreme Court has just rejected.
Dr K, that's a remarkable story and I hope you mean your patient made it to adulthood. It sounds like a long shot to me, but, if so, very very nice going in your role.
She was turning over by 3 pounds and went home at 4 1/2 pounds. I have often wondered how she turned out. The nurses fed her with a dropper into the little gastrostomy tube I left in. We had no infant respirators then. We never wrote it up. Two surgeons in Florida the next year got national publicity for operating on a 2 /1/2 pound baby.
letting the woman "end a pregnancy"
That's pro-abortion speak.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा