These results reaffirmed similar results that have been found in both nationwide polling by National Right to Life and polling in Oklahoma by Oklahomans for Life.

The North Carolina poll found that 89% supported allowing abortion to save the life of the mother, 86% supported abortion in cases where there was a medical emergency involving a serious risk of substantial, irreversible physical harm to the mother, and 83% supported allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest.

These numbers show that it will be very difficult to pass life protective legislation without these exceptions. It is also most likely impossible to sustain laws without these exceptions when they face well financed pro-abortion citizen referendums with advertising that hammers on rape and women’s health.

The good news though is that a very strong majority will support allowing abortion only in these narrow cases.

Respondents were asked if they would support or oppose allowing abortion only under these four circumstances:

1) when it is necessary to save the life of the mother

2) when there is a medical emergency posing a serious risk of substantial irreversible physical harm to the mother

3) in cases of rape

4) in cases of incest.

71% said they would support such a proposal–51% strongly– while only 22% opposed it.

Legislation that allows abortion in only these four circumstances eliminates about 95% of all abortions and makes it impossible for stand-alone abortion clinics to profitably operate. Such legislation is successfully in effect in West Virginia and Indiana and is clearly superior to legislation based on weeks.  A 15-week abortion “ban” stops only about 5% of abortions and a 12 week “ban” stops only about 10%.

This proposal gained such strong majority support despite 49% of respondents identifying as pro-choice and 45% as pro-life.

“Pro-life” has been so denigrated by the press, and “pro-choice” so lauded, that these labels do not always accurately convey what many people actually feel about the issue. Candidates advocating for life will do better articulating their actual position rather than just relying on the label “pro-life.”

The poll also asked:

“Would you support or oppose a law prohibiting abortion except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother or when there is a medical emergency posing serious risk of substantial irreversible physical harm to the mother, or in cases of rape or incest?” 

57% supported such a law and 35% opposed it, even though the two questions described exactly the same proposal in different words!  This same phenomenon has been found in a previous national poll testing these questions.

Why such different results describing identical circumstances? It appears that a substantial segment of the population does not want unlimited abortion but very strongly wants abortion available in cases involving the mother’s life, rape or incest or medical emergencies. Many of these voters very strongly oppose “prohibiting” or “banning” abortion which they construe as prohibiting or banning all abortion. This is why pro-abortion candidates and groups, and the pro-abortion press will call any pro-life proposal, no matter how modest, a “ban”.

The wording of the first question assures the listener upfront that abortion will be allowed in those circumstances so important to them while the second question begins by asking about prohibiting abortion and primes some people to say no regardless of the rest of the sentence.  Pro-life advocates and candidates should avoid using terms like “ban” or “prohibit.”

The poll also asked about “heartbeat” legislation:

“Would you support or oppose allowing abortion only before six weeks when there is no detectable heartbeat and later in pregnancy only under these four circumstances:

1) When it is necessary to save the life of the mother

2) When there is a medical emergency posing serious risk of substantial irreversible physical harm to the mother

3) In cases of rape

4) In cases of incest”

62% supported such heartbeat legislation while 29% opposed it with the remainder undecided.

These results suggest that while a majority would support legislation limiting abortion to six weeks of pregnancy (if abortions for life of mother, rape, incest and medical emergencies are allowed throughout pregnancy), it may be just as publicly acceptable to pass legislation allowing abortion only in those four cases. This is especially so since the pro-abortion opposition and the press will vociferously oppose either to same degree anyway.

Allowing abortion only in the four circumstances discussed above is certainly the preferred legislative outcome since it would eliminate about 95% of abortions while heartbeat/six weeks legislation would eliminate about 55%. However, either would be far preferable to the current North Carolina 12-week abortion limit which has allowed about 90% of in state abortions to continue while making North Carolina an abortion destination state.

Another very significant result involved the use of abortion for birth control.  Respondents were asked:

“Do you approve or disapprove of abortion being used/allowed as a method of birth control?”

Only 29% approved of abortion being used or allowed as a method of birth control while 64% disapproved!

This result should be very helpful for pro-life candidates who point out that their pro-abortion opponent really “supports abortion for any reason, even as a method of birth control.” Abortion for birth control is really just another way of describing elective abortion, i.e., abortion for any of the reasons one would use birth control. A pro-abortion candidate’s position is that abortion should be available for any and all of those reasons.

This may also be helpful in opposing pro-abortion ballot initiatives which also allow abortion for any reason, even as a method of birth control.

The  poll also found that 62% opposed “using tax dollars to pay for abortion” and only 31% favored taxpayer funding of abortion.

These results should give guidance to both pro-life candidates and pro-life advocates in developing successful pro-life strategies and legislation.

Editor’s Note: This article was published at NRL News Today – NRLC, and is reprinted here with permission.

Urge Walmart, Costco, Kroger, and other major chains to resist pressure to dispense the abortion pill

These numbers show that it will be very difficult to pass life protective legislation without these exceptions. It is also most likely impossible to sustain laws without these exceptions when they face well financed pro-abortion citizen referendums with advertising that hammers on rape and women’s health.

The good news though is that a very strong majority will support allowing abortion only in these narrow cases.

Respondents were asked if they would support or oppose allowing abortion only under these four circumstances:

1) when it is necessary to save the life of the mother

2) when there is a medical emergency posing a serious risk of substantial irreversible physical harm to the mother

3) in cases of rape

4) in cases of incest.

71% said they would support such a proposal–51% strongly– while only 22% opposed it.

Legislation that allows abortion in only these four circumstances eliminates about 95% of all abortions and makes it impossible for stand-alone abortion clinics to profitably operate. Such legislation is successfully in effect in West Virginia and Indiana and is clearly superior to legislation based on weeks.  A 15-week abortion “ban” stops only about 5% of abortions and a 12 week “ban” stops only about 10%.

This proposal gained such strong majority support despite 49% of respondents identifying as pro-choice and 45% as pro-life.

“Pro-life” has been so denigrated by the press, and “pro-choice” so lauded, that these labels do not always accurately convey what many people actually feel about the issue. Candidates advocating for life will do better articulating their actual position rather than just relying on the label “pro-life.”

The poll also asked:

“Would you support or oppose a law prohibiting abortion except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother or when there is a medical emergency posing serious risk of substantial irreversible physical harm to the mother, or in cases of rape or incest?” 

57% supported such a law and 35% opposed it, even though the two questions described exactly the same proposal in different words!  This same phenomenon has been found in a previous national poll testing these questions.

Why such different results describing identical circumstances? It appears that a substantial segment of the population does not want unlimited abortion but very strongly wants abortion available in cases involving the mother’s life, rape or incest or medical emergencies. Many of these voters very strongly oppose “prohibiting” or “banning” abortion which they construe as prohibiting or banning all abortion. This is why pro-abortion candidates and groups, and the pro-abortion press will call any pro-life proposal, no matter how modest, a “ban”.

The wording of the first question assures the listener upfront that abortion will be allowed in those circumstances so important to them while the second question begins by asking about prohibiting abortion and primes some people to say no regardless of the rest of the sentence.  Pro-life advocates and candidates should avoid using terms like “ban” or “prohibit.”

The poll also asked about “heartbeat” legislation:

“Would you support or oppose allowing abortion only before six weeks when there is no detectable heartbeat and later in pregnancy only under these four circumstances:

1) When it is necessary to save the life of the mother

2) When there is a medical emergency posing serious risk of substantial irreversible physical harm to the mother

3) In cases of rape

4) In cases of incest”

62% supported such heartbeat legislation while 29% opposed it with the remainder undecided.

These results suggest that while a majority would support legislation limiting abortion to six weeks of pregnancy (if abortions for life of mother, rape, incest and medical emergencies are allowed throughout pregnancy), it may be just as publicly acceptable to pass legislation allowing abortion only in those four cases. This is especially so since the pro-abortion opposition and the press will vociferously oppose either to same degree anyway.

Allowing abortion only in the four circumstances discussed above is certainly the preferred legislative outcome since it would eliminate about 95% of abortions while heartbeat/six weeks legislation would eliminate about 55%. However, either would be far preferable to the current North Carolina 12-week abortion limit which has allowed about 90% of in state abortions to continue while making North Carolina an abortion destination state.

Another very significant result involved the use of abortion for birth control.  Respondents were asked:

“Do you approve or disapprove of abortion being used/allowed as a method of birth control?”

Only 29% approved of abortion being used or allowed as a method of birth control while 64% disapproved!

This result should be very helpful for pro-life candidates who point out that their pro-abortion opponent really “supports abortion for any reason, even as a method of birth control.” Abortion for birth control is really just another way of describing elective abortion, i.e., abortion for any of the reasons one would use birth control. A pro-abortion candidate’s position is that abortion should be available for any and all of those reasons.

This may also be helpful in opposing pro-abortion ballot initiatives which also allow abortion for any reason, even as a method of birth control.

The  poll also found that 62% opposed “using tax dollars to pay for abortion” and only 31% favored taxpayer funding of abortion.

These results should give guidance to both pro-life candidates and pro-life advocates in developing successful pro-life strategies and legislation.

Editor’s Note: This article was published at NRL News Today – NRLC, and is reprinted here with permission.

Urge Walmart, Costco, Kroger, and other major chains to resist pressure to dispense the abortion pill