Culture

Young Americans overwhelmingly “commonsense” on abortion

This summer, Students for Life of America conducted a study to find out just where the newest generation of  young adults stands on the pro-life/pro-choice debate. After interviewing 805 18- to 24-year-olds, SFLA released their results.

It’s more than clear that today’s young adults are not radical abortion supporters. Granted, a majority of them are not zealous pro-life supporters, either, but they overwhelmingly favor restrictions on abortion that give women accurate information and that promote the humanity of the unborn child. They see abortion as negative in greater numbers: “they were more likely to view abortion as a ‘bad thing’ (31%) rather than a ‘good thing’ (17%).”

This generation is not radical in their support of abortion and takes much more of a common sense approach to the issue than President Obama and Planned Parenthood with an overwhelming majority favoring common sense abortion regulations:

89% favored requiring abortionists to follow the same medical and safety protocols as other surgical clinics
84% favored requiring abortion facilities to warn women of seeking abortions of potential health risks
76% favored allowing pregnant women to view sonograms before undergoing an abortion
74% support making sex-selection abortions illegal in United States
70% agreed with offering a woman the opportunity to anesthetize her child before the abortion procedure.

In the nation’s ongoing debate over abortion, both sides often claim the youth. The evidence does indeed point to the fact that our youth lean pro-life and do not accept the “abortion on demand” standard promulgated constantly by Planned Parenthood and company. But it does our movement little good to claim that young adults are solidly on our side. As SFLA states, “[w]e knew that a lot of folks tend to try to put young people in a neat little box when it comes to the issue of abortion, but, with this rising generation, we knew we had to shed some light into how they are really thinking and the changing of this debate.”

While it’s heartening to see our youth taking the time to think about this cultural and moral debate, and while it’s even more encouraging to see that they tend to support the pro-life position, we cannot fail to continue our efforts to reach them. SFLA’s study also proves that many young adults are ill-informed on key issues, specifically conscience protections, the morning-after pill, and Planned Parenthood.

What they don’t know is literally killing this generation as 58% admitted that they didn’t know where resources were in their community or campus to support a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy who didn’t want to undergo an abortion.

Planned Parenthood still has the upper-hand when it comes to targeting and deceiving this generation. Our study found that young people supported Planned Parenthood by a ratio of six to one (66% “favorable” vs. 11% “unfavorable”), with two in five (40%) calling themselves “strongly favorable.” The plurality of even those who identify as Conservative (44%) and Pro-Life (46%) were even “favorable” towards Planned Parenthood. Even more shocking for those of in the pro-life movement is that fact that 48% said they did not know whether or not Planned Parenthood offered abortions.

These kinds of numbers demonstrate exactly why the work of Lila Rose and Live Action (and others who expose Planned Parenthood) is essential. Planned Parenthood is indeed good with putting up a good front. They want to appear like the “nice guy.” And many young adults buy the image they’re selling. But what we need to broadcast is that Planned Parenthood is selling a pack of lies. It’s pretty incredible that almost half of the young adults in this study didn’t even know whether America’s abortion giant provides abortions. We must continue to educate young people on the real facts concerning Planned Parenthood. Lies must never be allowed to stand and ease their way into the hearts of those who don’t know better.

As a young adult who falls within the age group surveyed, I’m dismayed that so many of my peers haven’t done their own research on Planned Parenthood. But when we fail to do our own research, we need others to step in and educate us. Many young adults are open to knowledge, facts, and truth when it’s presented. We also absolutely must let young adults know how they can help their friends in crisis pregnancy situations. It’s unacceptable that 58% of them don’t know what resources are available or where to direct a friend who is considering abortion. SFLA is right on: exposing Planned Parenthood and informing young adults about pro-life resources are two keys to winning this battle. We need to take the responsibility on ourselves to find the resources and the pregnancy centers in our area, let our friends – especially young people – know, and ask them to pass the information on to their friends. The more people who are aware of the resources, the more available the information will be to someone who really needs it.

Let’s close with some good news…because there’s a lot of it to be found in SFLA’s study! This amazing youth organization has many plans of their own to continue to foster a pro-life culture among our young adults.

Only 9% of survey respondents selected President Obama’s and Planned Parenthood’s position on abortion as their own stating that “abortion should be allowed at any time during a woman’s pregnancy and for any reason.”  We must expose the President’s radical view on abortion, as simply that…before November.

In 2010, NARAL/Pro-Choice America’s own poll of 700 youth found that 51% of pro-lifers under 30 called abortion a “very important” voting issue, compared with only 26% of those in the same age group who were pro-abortion. When announcing her retirement in 2012 as NARAL/Pro-Choice America’s President, Nancy Keenan cited this important study saying her departure from the pro-abortion organization will help foster a new generation of pro-abortion young leaders.

I’ve got news for Nancy Kennan, she can retire and so can Cecile Richards and every other pro-abortion leader, because that won’t raise a new generation of pro-abortion leaders. The humanity of the pre-born child has been brought to the forefront of the debate. And while we still have a long way to go to expose, promote, and educate in our movement,  the simple fact is that being pro-abortion is going out of style, being pro-life is in. And if Students for Life of America has anything to do it with it, Nancy’s organization and others like it won’t be around for too much longer.

Live Action on Facebook

  • Pingback: Good News on Our Youth and a Question for You « The Lost Generation

  • peach

    That same study (which I don’t exactly trust since I didn’t see their methodology anywhere and they have an agenda) also said that 44% identified as pro-life and 45% pro-choice. It’s not a big difference, but commonsense seems to favour pro-choice. A person could think abortion is a “bad thing” (what does that even mean? Are we 4 years old?) but still think abortion should be legal. The first set of statistics you quoted seem to suggest that the majority of people want abortions to be safe and want to make sure the woman is well-informed so she can make the best choice for herself (which might be abortion). Also, that poster is a little misleading. It says 76% believe women should see an ultrasound of their baby before making a choice, but the article says 76% favoured ALLOWING a woman to see an ultrasound. There’s kind of a big difference there. One implies forcing women to see it, the other says let the woman see it if she wants.

    And considering many of the people surveyed probably went to schools where no sex-ed of any kind or abstinence only sex-ed were taught, it’s not all that surprising that they don’t know what to do if they or someone they know becomes pregnant.

    Also, fyi, the morning after pill does not cause abortions http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Lol, peach. Your assumption that the people surveyed went to schools where no sex-ed or only abstinence was taught is laughable. As you said, you didn’t see their methodology, so let’s not assume what we don’t know. I see no reason why they would want to survey only one group like that, specifically since their goal was to see where the pro-life movement is gaining ground and where we need to work harder. They weren’t trying to paint a perfectly rosy picture…they were gathering facts to determine what further work needs to be done.

      I get your point on the ultrasounds, but obviously, I didn’t make the poster =) And here’s what I meant about young adults being “commonsense” on abortion. First, a 44/45 split is pretty much even, especially when you consider the typical margin of error. That aside, the point is that Planned Parenthood would like to have people believe that “pro-choice” people support abortion on demand. With all the common sense restrictions that the young adults favor, it’s pretty clear that they do not in fact support abortion on demand.

      Whether or not the Morning After Pill can cause abortions is dependent on when a pregnancy begins. For years, pregnancy was defined to begin at the moment of fertilization. And that’s the true/historical meaning. But, because people wanted to be able to claim that things like the Morning After Pill didn’t cause abortions, they changed the definition of pregnancy to begin at implantation. Even an abortion clinic (http://www.nyabortion.com/birthcontrol/themorningpill.shtml) admits that the Morning After Pill can stop implantation from occurring after fertilization has taken place.

      The following is from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Terminology Bulletin. Terms Used in Reference to the Fetus. No. 1. Philadelphia: Davis, September, 1965.
      In 1959, Dr. Bent Boving suggested that the word “conception” should be associated with the process of implantation instead of fertilization.[15] Some thought was given to possible societal consequences, as evidenced by Boving’s statement that “the social advantage of being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy could depend on something so simple as a prudent habit of speech.” In 1965, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) adopted Boving’s definition: “conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”

      • Stoneybrooke

        In my opinion, I’d think that a “commonsense” view of abortion would be one similar to the laws in many European countries, wherein it’s legal up to twelve weeks and after that, you need two physicians to certify that it’s medically necessary.

        Also–estimates vary, but it seems that about 50-80% of fertilized eggs never implant anyway and are flushed out when a woman has her period, which is probably why many people consider a woman “pregnant” only after implantation has occurred, which is also when her body starts changing in order to accommodate the embryo.

        Incidentally, in checking those facts I came across an interesting article about that, which asked the question: would you advocate going through and finding all of those fertilized eggs in women’s menstrual fluid (icky, I know, but hypothetically) and giving them another chance at implantation since they might still be viable? Or is it okay to flush them down a toilet or throw them out with a tampon? If it is okay, then why would emergency contraception not be okay?

        • Kristiburtonbrown

          Estimates vary because that’s a very difficult thing to prove. However, regardless of the percentages, there’s nothing even remotely related between a new human being dying naturally/not surviving on her own and another human being intentionally taking another’s life. That should explain the major difference between a baby on its own not being able to implant and a mother taking a drug that prevents the baby from implanting. One happens naturally; one is forced. That’s almost like saying, “Plenty of people have heart attacks after eating a diet of high-fat foods. So is it ok to give someone a drug that causes their heart to stop and them to die? I mean, if it happens on its own naturally, it must be ok for someone to force it to happen. Same thing, right?” Uh, no. =)

          • Stoneybrooke

            I get what you’re saying, but if someone has a heart attack, they’ll receive potentially lifesaving emergency care; we don’t just ignore the fact that it’s happening. Do you think something should be done to try to “save” those fertilized eggs? Should they be given burials and headstones?

            Another interesting question that I saw in doing some quick research: say you’re in a fertility clinic and there’s a fire. You can go in one direction to save a few petri dishes with 25 human embryos, or another to save a 2-year-old child. Which would you choose?

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            Good debate, Stoneybrooke =) I think you’d need to prove that the “fertilized eggs” (i.e., babies) you’re talking about are still alive. I don’t know how they could be. Often, they fail to implant because they have a defect that kills them. So, there’s no real point in talking about saving people who are already dead. I’m happy to discuss it if you can prove otherwise.

            That’s a great question, and one I’ve thought of before =). I think I could equally ask you if you were in a house on fire and there were two adults and one 2-year-old child, who would you choose? Choosing the child over the adults doesn’t mean you consider them any less valuable or less “human.” It probably just means that you are very moved by the cries of a little kid, as I would be…

          • Stoneybrooke

            Interesting responses, actually…and from what I’ve gathered, it really depends on when fertilization occurs and how quickly the zygote is allowed to be out in the open air. I think that if you could get to them quickly, at least some of these zygotes could still be viable. I don’t think there’s a whole lot of research about it, though, which isn’t exactly a surprise…

            What if the kid had already passed out from smoke inhalation and couldn’t cry? Haha, you don’t really have to answer that, because we could be involved in complicated hypothetical situations for a month if we go that route! But for me, the house-on-fire question involving the adults and child–speaking practically, I think the only person I could save would be the child since I don’t think I’m strong enough to carry two full-grown adults out of a fire. But in reality though, it would depend on the people and my relationship to them. If the two adults were my parents and the child was a complete stranger to me, I’m pretty sure I’d try to save my parents. I can’t say the same about the fertility clinic scenario, however; even if the embryos were, say, my potential cousins or siblings, I’d still save an unknown child before the embryos. I guess I just don’t understand how you could value an embryo and a child equally…I understand how you could value an embryo in itself, but to me its interests would always come after those of a born person, if you know what I mean.

            Thanks for humoring me and answering those hypothetical questions, though! :-)

      • peach

        I said “many” of the people surveyed had no or abstinence only sex-ed. Considering many states require abstinence only sex-ed or none at all and Students for Life of America says this is a national survey, I think my conclusion stands.

        I get what you’re saying about commonsense thoughts on abortion but where I disagree with you is where you say that means the majority of youth have pro-life leanings. Many clinics and physicians that perform abortions have certain restrictions on them but they are certainly pro-choice.

        I also know you didn’t make the poster but I thought I’d point it out to your readers. I think it’s important for them to see that the pro-life side is (also) capable of intentionally misleading.

        • PostersMakeItOkay

          So, what’s the point Peach? As long as both sides make intentionally misleading posters, then it’s okay to kill babies?

    • Detroiter327
      • Kristiburtonbrown

        Thanks, Detroiter. I’d encourage anyone who doubts the methodology to click on that link…SFLA explains who did the survey for them, how it was proportional, margin of error, etc. Good info.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003586781928 Magdalene Prodigal

    Considering that a third of this generation was aborted, the young people should have great concerns as to the promotion of abortion everywhere. Many of them have likley lost siblings they do not even know about.

    • Ashley

      Amen. :) I am passionately pro-life and all my friends know about it. We had to do a project on our career choice in health science. I want to do pre-natal care so I have a ton of pictures of unborn babies as young as eight weeks. I also had several quotes on why I’m pro-life.

  • Pingback: Young Americans Overwhelmingly “Commonsense” on Abortion | Foundation Life

  • Pingback: Young Americans Overwhelmingly “Commonsense” on Abortion | Live Action News & Opinion | A mí, háblame en Cristiano

  • Detroiter327

    I agree that knowledge should be wide spread, but its of no matter if the knowledge is false. The amount of false information on BOTH sides is staggering. Women should be shown and educated about all the potential health risks of abortion, but not if those risks are based on antiquated horribly done studies that only one doctor agrees with. A few states have even gone against the general consensus in the medical community and have instead sided with one or two doctors who very unfounded research. Never mind that their research is disputed and denounced by a huge percentage of doctors and researchers.”Lies should never be allowed to stand”. A lot of the misinformation is coming from your own side and no one will speak out about it. Instead of saying “Well I didnt make that poster” you should say “You know what that is wrong and yes it should be corrected”.
    Also, If we look at the study closely, about half of the people interviewed would be men. Most men couldnt even tell you how a pregnancy test works, how a baby is actually is made, or what a cervix actually is, let alone where to put a baby up for adoption.
    While many of the people who were interviewed were confused about PP, I would bet money that most pro lifers have no idea that 3/4 of abortions go on in HOSPITALS. HCA, for example, owns 200ish hospitals/surgery rooms in America and provides abortions. Thats abortion on a pretty large scale. Coincidentally it also had Bill Frist (pro life) as a majority shareholder. If the abortion industry is so thirsty and after blood money, shouldnt be include him in that description as well?

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Detroiter, it’s pretty interesting to me that you attempt to point out “false facts” while putting out false information yourself. In fact, only FIVE PERCENT of abortions go on in hospitals, according to Medical Students for Choice and PBS – clearly those are not pro-life sources. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/wars/faqs.html)

      Men’s views count just as much as women’s do on this issue. We all vote on abortion; we all elect the politicians who make the law; we are all involved with people who have unintended pregnancies. Thus, men and women should both have an equal say and should both be aware of what resources are available for women who need help and options other than abortion. Let’s not go down the rode of discounting people based on gender – I think that’s called discrimination.

      Concerning the poster, I don’t think it’s a matter of being right or wrong. I would not have worded it that way, but while you make an argument for why it’s misleading, there’s also an argument that many people would understand “should see” and “should be allowed to see” as basically the same thing. Since I have zero control over what SFLA writes, I see no point in debating semantics. They’re certainly not lying…it’s a matter of the best phrasing.

      Finally, try to give some facts instead of your own opinion if you want to claim that “only one doctor” agrees with what women are being told. I can guarantee you that’s not true. This paper (http://www.dakotavoice.com/Docs/South%20Dakota%20Abortion%20Task%20Force%20Report.pdf) does an excellent job of provider a medical basis for what women are being told. In fact, the legislation that came after this research, has recently been fully upheld – twice – by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. (http://liveactionnews.org/medical/court-upholds-decision-saying-planned-parenthood-must-inform-women/)

      • Detroiter327

        There is a very interesting and specific reason I brought that up! The % of abortions done in PP compared to freestanding clinics or hospitals differs from pro life website to website! Some say 1/4 is done in PP, some say less, some say MOST! The poster was just an example of my original point. I do not think they were lying, just intentionally being misleading. Obviously no one has control over another group, but looking from website to website the differences in facts are GLARING. You cannot overlook someones set of facts if yours are different, one of them has to be wrong. Not everyone can be right. As I said before education is of no matter if the facts are wrong. How can all the pro life facts be right if they are all different? The problem is rampant and it lessens the credibility of the movement as a whole.

        A nice example of my point about a debate being settled and using antiquated studies would be with the breast cancer and abortion link. The amount of CURRENT AND CREDIBLE studies that have been done that have proved no subsequent link between abortion and breast cancer far outnumbers those that do. This goes to prove my original point even further! Some pro life websites say there might be a link, but more research has to be done. Others see it as clear as day. Only one group can be right, either there is enough evidence or their isnt. People who care about the credibility of this movement should not sit by idly and let people (even on their own side) publish bogus stuff.

        And I guess I was discriminating against men a little bit. I will never discriminate against men as far as involvement in the pregnancy process, but in the fact that as a whole they knew less about the pregnancy process than women. The fact men know less than women about the vagina cant really be debated.

        Both have been done in last 20 years. Credible, large in scope, and peer reviewed:
        http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

        http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199701093360201

        • Kristiburtonbrown

          Thanks for your thoughtful reply. As far as what you said about pro-life websites disagreeing with each other on how many abortions are done specifically at Planned Parenthood, the site I quoted wasn’t even a pro-life site. Clearly, PBS has no agenda, and they were even quoting numbers from a pro-choice group. So, I would assume you would consider that a pretty fair estimate.

          I don’t think the problem is that many in the pro-life movement publish “bogus” stuff. You may view it as bogus (on the breast cancer debate) because you are convinced by certain studies and find them to be more accurate. Other people sincerely, and based on their research, believe opposite studies are more accurate and are convinced by them. That doesn’t make their view bogus.

          I will say, though, that if I ever believe a pro-life organization is actually lying, I will disagree with that action. You don’t need to lie to prove your point. However, it’s often more fair to call things inaccurate rather than a lie, especially when they honestly can be interpreted a couple different ways.

          Again, thanks for the discussion. I appreciate that you make me think =)

      • peach

        The difference in the poster is more than just semantics and they ARE lying. If I was asked “should women see an ultrasound before making a choice” I would say no. If I was asked “should a woman be allowed to see an ultrasound before making a choice” I would say yes. Big difference.

        • Kristiburtonbrown

          Well, I disagree that they are lying because different people would interpret those questions differently. Some would see them as the same and others would see them as vastly different. That’s how you see it, and that’s definitely a valid viewpoint. However, I would say yes to both of the questions, so to me there is no difference. That’s why I don’t think it’s a lie – it’s just not the best way or the most accurate way to represent every person’s answer.

          • peach

            Because you would say yes to both they’re the same question? I would answer “are you pro-choice?” and “do you like ice cream?” both with a yes, but those are not the same question. Not the most accurate? So what is it then? Inaccurate? AKA untruthful? AKA a lie?? You said yourself you didn’t make this poster so you should be able to admit it’s wrong.

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            No, I actually think some people would view them as the same question – not because they have the same answer, but because some people would really interpret them as meaning the same thing. I already said that it wasn’t the most accurate way to represent the survey, so I’m not sure why you’re hammering on that. I think we’ve gone over this enough though, so I’m out =)

          • peach

            Because you’re wrong. But if you can’t admit that, whatever. Run away. =P

  • Pingback: Pro-life blog buzz 8-1-12 | Jill Stanek

  • Pingback: Pro-life blog buzz 8-1-12 | Jill Stanek | A mí, háblame en Cristiano

  • Pingback: Pro-life blog buzz 8-1-12 | FavStocks

  • Pingback: Leading Our Children to Life: What’s a Pro-Life Parent to Do?

  • Pingback: Leading Our Children to Life: What’s a Pro-Life Parent to Do?

  • Pingback: Leading our children to life: what’s a pro-life parent to do? | News of Life and Death