Most US adults still support legal abortion 3 years after Roe was overturned, poll finds
The new findings from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
About half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any reason.
Advertisement
6 The new findings from the poll show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
AP
That level of support for abortion is down slightly from what an AP-NORC poll showed last year, when it seemed that support for legal abortion might be rising.
Laws and opinions changed when Roe was overturned
The June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes.
Advertisement
Most states have either moved to protect abortion access or restrict it.
Twelve are now enforcing bans on abortion at every stage of pregnancy, and four more do so after about six weeks' gestation, which is often before women realize they're pregnant.
In the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be increasing.
6 About half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any reason.
REUTERS
Advertisement
Last year, an AP-NORC poll conducted in June found that 7 in 10 U.S. adults said it should be available in all or most cases, up slightly from 65% in May 2022, just before the decision that overruled the constitutional right to abortion, and 57% in June 2021.
The new poll is closer to Americans' views before the Supreme Court ruled. Now, 64% of adults support legal abortion in most or all cases.
More than half the adults in states with the most stringent bans are in that group.
6 The June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes.
AP
Advertisement
Similarly, about half now say abortion should be available in their state when someone doesn't want to continue their pregnancy for any reason — about the same as in June 2021 but down from about 6 in 10 who said that in 2024.
Adults in the strictest states are just as likely as others to say abortion should be available in their state to women who want to end pregnancies for any reason.
Democrats support abortion access far more than Republicans do. Support for legal abortion has dropped slightly among members of both parties since June 2024, but nearly 9 in 10 Democrats and roughly 4 in 10 Republicans say abortion should be legal in at least most instances.
Fallout from state bans has influenced some people's positions — but not others
Seeing what's happened in the aftermath of the ruling has strengthened the abortion rights position of Wilaysha White, a 25-year-old Ohio mom.
She has some regrets about the abortion she had when she was homeless.
6 In the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be increasing.
AP
'I don't think you should be able to get an abortion anytime,' said White, who calls herself a 'semi-Republican.'
But she said that hearing about situations — including when a Georgia woman was arrested after a miscarriage and initially charged with concealing a death — is a bigger concern.
Advertisement
'Seeing women being sick and life or death, they're not being put first — that's just scary,' she said. 'I'd rather have it be legal across the board than have that.'
Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here!
Julie Reynolds' strong anti-abortion stance has been cemented for decades and hasn't shifted since Roe was overturned.
'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank teller.
Advertisement
She said her view is shaped partly by having obtained an abortion herself when she was in her 20s. 'I would not want a woman to go through that,' she said. 'I live with that every day. I took a life.'
Support remains high for legal abortion in certain situations
6 'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank teller.
AP
The vast majority of U.S. adults — at least 8 in 10 — continue to say their state should allow legal abortion if a fetal abnormality would prevent the child from surviving outside the womb, if the patient's health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, or if the person became pregnant as a result of rape or incest.
Advertisement
Consistent with AP-NORC's June 2024 poll, about 7 in 10 U.S. adults 'strongly' or 'somewhat' favor protecting access to abortions for patients who are experiencing miscarriages or other pregnancy-related emergencies.
In states that have banned or restricted abortion, such medical exceptions have been sharply in focus.
This is a major concern for Nicole Jones, a 32-year-old Florida resident.
Jones and her husband would like to have children soon. But she said she's worried about access to abortion if there's a fetal abnormality or a condition that would threaten her life in pregnancy since they live in a state that bans most abortions after the first six weeks of gestation.
Advertisement
'What if we needed something?' she asked. 'We'd have to travel out of state or risk my life because of this ban.'
Adults support protections for seeking abortions across state lines — but not as strongly
6 In states that have banned or restricted abortion, such medical exceptions have been sharply in focus.
REUTERS
There's less consensus on whether states that allow abortion should protect access for women who live in places with bans.
Just over half support protecting a patient's right to obtain an abortion in another state and shielding those who provide abortions from fines or prison time. In both cases, relatively few adults — about 2 in 10 — oppose the measures and about 1 in 4 are neutral.
More Americans also favor than oppose legal protections for doctors who prescribe and mail abortion pills to patients in states with bans. About 4 in 10 'somewhat' or 'strongly' favor those protections, and roughly 3 in 10 oppose them.
Such telehealth prescriptions are a key reason that the number of abortions nationally has risen even as travel for abortion has declined slightly.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
19 minutes ago
- NBC News
As Texas plows ahead with new maps, governors grapple with the prospect of mid-decade redistricting
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — As Texas Republicans plow ahead with a plan to redraw congressional maps ahead of schedule, many governors are increasingly grappling with an issue that they didn't think they'd have to confront until the end of the decade. Texas' unscheduled redistricting effort — which Republicans hope could help protect their narrow House majority during next year's midterm elections — has had a ripple effect, with governors across the country floating the possibility of following suit to either add to or counter or the plan, depending on their party affiliation. At the summer meeting of the bipartisan National Governors Association in Colorado Springs, Democrats largely condemned the efforts in Texas while cheering on efforts by members of their own party in other states. 'It's deplorable,' New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, said in an interview on the sidelines of the summit, referring to Texas Republicans' attempt. When it came to threats by Democratic Govs. Gavin Newsom of California and Kathy Hochul of New York to forge ahead with plans to redraw congressional lines in their states, Murphy added, 'I don't think we have a choice.' 'If they're going to play these games, we're going to have to be just as aggressive,' Murphy said, adding that 'we can't bring a knife to a gunfight.' Asked if he'd condone a redistricting effort in New Jersey, Murphy said 'all options are on the table in New Jersey,' though he acknowledged that there were major obstacles to doing so. 'I fear there are significant constitutional constraints here in our own [state] constitution,' he said. In New Jersey, like in many other states, an independent commission oversees redistricting. 'But we are looking at all options — and we have to, as Democrats. If this is the way the other guys are going to go, we have to respond forcefully,' Murphy said. 'We have no choice.' Hawaii's Democratic Gov. Josh Green called the actions by Texas Republicans 'really sinister,' 'unconscionable' and 'completely unethical,' and called on his fellow Democratic governors to 'fight fire with fire.' 'It's an obvious attempt to steal elections,' Green said, though he also said that 'the Democratic Party can't stand by and watch it happen.' 'It's very unfortunate, because two wrongs don't make a right. But we can't allow one party to break the rules and then consistently in the future break more rules,' he added. 'It's turning into a knife fight,' Green said. Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott kicked off a special legislative session on Monday, with congressional redistricting one of the topics on lawmakers' to-do list. The New York Times reported last month that members of Trump's political operation had privately urged Texas Republicans to redraw their maps ahead of the 2026 midterms. And Trump himself has publicly praised the efforts, urging Texas lawmakers to take actions that would help the GOP gain five House seats. Republicans currently control 25 of Texas' 38 congressional districts. The redistricting process typically occurs at the start of each new decade, when new census data is available. Texas' current maps were drawn in 2021, following the 2020 census, though they are still being fought over in court. The Republican effort in Texas has prompted some Democrats to fight back by threatening their own mid-decade redistricting schemes. Most prominently, Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, has raised the idea of redrawing California's maps. But that effort would come with major obstacles: An independent commission controls the redistricting process in California, not the governor. On Thursday, Hochul entered the fray as well, responding to a question about redistricting in New York by saying: 'All's fair in love and war,' according to Politico. While not promising action, she added that she'd 'look at it closely with' House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. Elsewhere, Illinois' Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker responded to a question about whether his state should pursue redistricting to counterbalance Texas' push by accusing Republicans of trying to 'cheat' ahead of the midterms. And a spokesman for Maryland's Democratic Gov. Wes Moore told The New York Times this week he will 'continue to evaluate all options.' On the other side of the aisle, just days after the state Supreme Court upheld the state's newest congressional map, Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said that 'there may be more defects that need to be remedied.' He added that population shifts in the state since the census has led him to believe the state is 'malapportioned' and that it 'would be appropriate to do a redistricting here in the mid-decade.' And in Ohio, state lawmakers are required to draw new congressional maps before 2026 because their current lines passed without bipartisan support. Republicans control 10 of Ohio's 15 House seats. Other Democratic leaders at the NGA did not urge their party's fellow governors to move forward with their own redistricting plans. 'I would really call upon Texas Republicans to not yield to the temptation and to stick with the map that they themselves drew that benefits Republicans in the Texas delegation and continue with that until the normal redistricting period occurs at the end of the decade,' Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said in an interview. In Colorado, like in California, redistricting efforts are overseen by an independent commission. Meanwhile, some Republicans at the NGA expressed displeasure with the redistricting threats from both parties. 'I'll be perfectly honest. I only think about it once every 10 years,' Utah GOP Gov. Spencer Cox said in an interview. 'Obviously, there's concerns about gerrymandering, and both sides are doing it — you know, nobody has clean hands.' 'I don't love it. I wish there was a better way. I wish there was a nonpartisan way. Lots of states have tried,' Cox added. Former Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican, said he'd refuse to condemn Texas' efforts, even though he himself helped Colorado advance its own independent redistricting commission. 'So long as so many Democratic states still redistrict the old-fashioned way, so will Republican states. So I have no criticism for Texas, given that they're working within the same rules that have governed so many states — Democrats and Republicans — in the past,' Owens said. He added that his own approach, if he were still governor, 'would be to try to do redistricting in a bipartisan fashion.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Cameroon's election board bars main opposition candidate from presidential race
YAOUNDE, Cameroon (AP) — Cameroon 's electoral commission on Saturday rejected the candidacy of Maurice Kamto in the upcoming presidential election, fueling fears of unrest and increasing the likelihood of another Biya victory. Kamto, a former government minister, is seen as the main challenger to long-serving President Paul Biya. The electoral commission, ELECAM, said it approved 13 presidential candidates, excluding Kamto. No reason was given. Biya is included. Kamto, who has two days to appeal, was considered Biya's strongest rival in past elections. He came second during the last presidential election in 2018 with 14% of the vote, while Biya cruised to victory with over 70% in an election marred by irregularities and a low turnout. Biya, 92, the world's oldest serving head of state, said last month he would seek reelection on Oct. 12 despite rumors that his health is failing. He has been in power since 1982, nearly half his lifetime. Biya's rule has left a lasting impact on Cameroon. His government has faced various challenges, including allegations of corruption and a deadly secessionist conflict in the nation's English-speaking provinces that has forced thousands out of school. Security forces were deployed around the ELECAM headquarters and along major roads in Yaoundé, the capital, and in Douala, the economic hub. The United Nations Department of Safety and Security had warned Friday that the announcement could trigger protests in the capital.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge
President Trump is on a winning streak at the Supreme Court with conservative-majority justices giving the green light for the president to resume his sweeping agenda. Their recent blessing of his firings of more independent agency leaders is the latest example of the court going the administration's way. This White House in six months has already brought more emergency appeals to the high court than former President Biden did during his four years in office, making it an increasingly dominant part of the Supreme Court's work. But as the court issues more and more emergency decisions, the practice has sometimes come under criticism — even by other justices. Trump prompts staggering activity Trump's Justice Department filed its 21 st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term. The court has long dealt with requests to delay executions on its emergency docket, but the number of politically charged requests from the sitting administration has jumped in recent years, further skyrocketing under Trump. 'The numbers are startling,' said Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul, Weiss' Supreme Court practice, at a Federalist Society event Thursday. Trump's Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how 'activist' federal district judges have improperly blocked the president's agenda. Trump's critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly. But some legal experts blame Congress for being missing in action. 'There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,' Shanmugam said. In his second term, Trump has almost always emerged victorious at the Supreme Court. The administration successfully halted lower judges' orders in all but two of the decided emergency appeals, and a third where they only partially won. On immigration, the justices allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants and swiftly deport people to countries where they have no ties while separately rebuffing a judge who ruled for migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Other cases involve efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy and spending. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to freeze $65 million in teacher grants, provide Department of Government Efficiency personnel with access to sensitive Social Security data, proceed with mass firings of probationary employees and broader reorganizations and dismantle the Education Department. Last month, Trump got perhaps his biggest win yet, when the Supreme Court clawed back federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions. The most recent decision, meanwhile, concerned Trump's bid to expand presidential power by eviscerating independent agency leaders' removal protections. The justices on Wednesday enabled Trump to fire three members on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Decisions often contain no explanation Unlike normal Supreme Court cases that take months to resolve, emergency cases follow a truncated schedule. The justices usually resolve the appeals in a matter of days after a singular round of written briefing and no oral argument. And oftentimes, the court acts without explanation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's three appointees, have long defended the practice. Last year, the duo cautioned that explaining their preliminary thinking may 'create a lock-in effect' as a case progresses. At the Federalist Society event, Shanmugam suggested the court might have more energy for its emergency cases if the justices less frequently wrote separately on the merits docket — a dig at the many dissents and concurrences issued this term. But the real challenge, he said, is the speed at which the cases must be decided. 'It takes time to get members of the court to agree on reasoning, and sometimes I think it's therefore more expedient for the court to issue these orders without reasoning,' he said. 'Even though I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for the court to provide more of that.' The frequent lack of explanation has at times left wiggle room and uncertainty. A month ago, the Supreme Court lifted a judge's injunction requiring the Trump administration to provide migrants with certain due process before deporting them to a country where they have no ties. With no explanation from the majority — only the liberal justices in dissent — the judge believed he could still enforce his subsequent ruling, which limited plans to deport a group of violent criminals to the war-torn country of South Sudan. The Trump administration accused him of defying the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices rebuked the judge, with even liberal Justice Elena Kagan agreeing. The Supreme Court's emergency interventions have also left lower judges to grapple with their precedential weight in separate cases. After the high court in May greenlit Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administration began asserting lower courts still weren't getting the message. The emergency decision led many court watchers to believe the justices are poised to overturn their 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency leaders from termination without cause. But several judges have since continued to block Trump's firings at other independent agencies, since the precedent still technically remains on the books. The tensions came to a head after a judge reinstated fired CPSC members. The Supreme Court said the earlier case decides how the later case must be interpreted, providing arguably their most succinct guidance yet for how their emergency rulings should be interpreted. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned ruling reads. Liberals object to emergency docket practices The lack of explanation in many of the court's emergency decisions has frustrated court watchers and judges alike, leading critics to call it the 'shadow docket.' Those critics include the Supreme Court's own liberal justices. 'Courts are supposed to explain things. That's what courts do,' Kagan said while speaking at a judicial conference Thursday. Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week greenlighting Trump's mass layoffs at the Education Department. She noted a casual observer might think the president is legally authorized to dismantle the agency, but the government didn't present that argument. Her fellow liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and, particularly, Ketanji Brown Jackson, have made more forceful criticisms. Jackson increasingly accuses her colleagues of threatening the rule of law. She called one recent emergency decision 'hubristic and senseless' and warned another was 'unleashing devastation.' Late last month, Jackson wrote that her colleagues had 'put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.' But in Wednesday's decision letting the CPSC firings move forward, the trio were united. Kagan accused the majority of having 'effectively expunged' the Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency leaders, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, from its records. 'And it has accomplished those ends with the scantiest of explanations,' she wrote. Kagan noted that the 'sole professed basis' for the stay order was its prior stay order in another case involving Trump's firing of independent agency heads. That decision — which cleared the way for Trump to fire NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris — was also 'minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained,' she said. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' Kagan wrote. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under reasoned) orders to cite.'
