Americans Support Legal Abortion & Marijuana

Abortion Sign

Recent polls have shown that voters want the government out of their personal business, including support for keeping abortion legal and for legalized marijuana. The Hill reports on a poll on abortion rights:

Political candidates, consultants and the media generally misunderstand the politics of abortion rights. They tend to believe either that most voters oppose abortion or that the anti-abortion base is larger than the abortion rights base. But neither is true.

A recent nationwide poll by Ann Selzer (declared “The Best Pollster in Politics” by FiveThirtyEight), commissioned by the Public Leadership Institute, proves that voters overwhelmingly support abortion rights both in general and when asked about specific reproductive rights policies. In addition, the poll shows that those who “strongly support” abortion rights substantially outnumber those who “strongly oppose” it.

Our poll found that by a margin of 69-to-27 percent, American voters approve of the constitutional right to abortion established by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. This result is similar to many polls over the years that have found Americans approving Roe by margins of 2-to-1 or greater.

Another poll from the Pew Research Center shows strong support for legalization of marijuana:

The share of Americans who favor legalizing the use of marijuana continues to increase. Today, 57% of U.S. adults say the use of marijuana should be made legal, while 37% say it should be illegal. A decade ago, opinion on legalizing marijuana was nearly the reverse – just 32% favored legalization, while 60% were opposed.

The shift in public opinion on the legalization of marijuana has occurred during a time when many U.S. states are relaxing their restrictions on the drug or legalizing it altogether. In June, Ohio became the 25th state (plus Washington, D.C., Guam and Puerto Rico) to legalize marijuana in some form after Gov. John Kasich signed a medical marijuana program into law. This November, Americans in nine states will vote on measures to establish or expand legal marijuana use…

By more than two-to-one, Democrats favor legalizing marijuana over having it be illegal (66% vs. 30%). Most Republicans (55%) oppose marijuana legalization, while 41% favor it.

These polls show that, of the major and minor political candidates, Hillary Clinton, Jill Stein, and Gary Johnson side with the majority on supporting abortion rights, while Donald Trump is on the wrong side.

Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are the only candidates who consistently side with the majority on ending marijuana prohibition. Donald Trump has spoken of legalization in the past, but is hardly consistent on this. Hillary Clinton is the most conservative candidate on drug policy, having been a hard-line supporter of the drug war. This puts her views to the right of both the nation and the majority of her own party. While Clinton has tried to soften her position at times during the campaign, one of the leaked Wikileaks emails showed that her private position remains one of hard-line opposition to ending prohibition.


  1. 1
    KP says:

    The sign makes no sense and is sexist.



  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Sure it makes sense, and there is nothing sexist about a woman protesting to defend abortion rights.

  3. 3
    KP says:

    Agreed, there is nothing wrong with a woman protesting to defend abortion rights.

    How does fellatio or cunnilingus for that matter, compare? Feel free to use detail if you feel the need to.

    At what point of gestation do you shift from a women's right to choose and the fetus/child?

    Is it twenty weeks and near viability? Thirty weeks? Forty weeks? A month after birth?




  4. 4
    David Duff says:

    KP, don't bother asking that question of a pro-abortionist, you will never, ever get a straight answer. 

    And that woman and her dimwit sign is beyond parody.

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    Kevin, the point in the woman’s sign is the destruction of sperm, not the specific sex act. Therefore cunnilingus does not play into this.

    I’d stick with current law (minus restrictions made in conservative states intended to make it more difficult to obtain abortions). The push for twenty weeks is too early–based on bogus claims that the fetus is conscious despite lack of a developed cerebral cortex. Often birth defects are not found until shortly after this. Plus many of the abortions post twenty weeks are due to restrictions in conservative states which prevent a woman from getting the abortion earlier.

    Restrictions in the third trimester are working out well, keeping abortions at this stage rare and for compelling reasons such as risk to the life of the mother.

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    David, “never get a straight answer” ???

    That is blatantly false on your part. I have always given precise answers to your questions re abortion. The fact that you did not like the answers based upon the science is quite different from your false claim here that you have not received straight answers. Your questions have tended to be based upon major misunderstandings of the biology involved.

    Saying the sign is “beyond parody” without a real response is just an indication that you have no good response.

  7. 7
    David Duff says:

    Then surprise me by providing me with an exact – repeat 'exact' – time scale when a foetus ceases to be a bunch of useless cells and become a human being.

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    I’ve already told you that the process is a continuum. There is no such point.

  9. 9
    KP says:

    Ron, I think you mean the continuum is closer to 25 weeks than 20 weeks. Is that correct?

    Does a woman have the right to choose up to the day of birth (as Bob Munck contends)?

  10. 10
    David Duff says:

    In that case you have no idea when when you have, so to speak, disposed of the garbage, or when you have committed murder.

  11. 11
    Ron Chusid says:

    Kevin, no I mean that embryology is a continuum from conception to birth. I’ve been through this quite a few times with David. He is looking for the mythological point in which life begins which is used in conservative pseudo-science. Science defines many discrete points in embryology, but not a point when life begins.

    As I said above, I am ok with current laws which keep abortion rare in the third trimester, but which do allow it under certain circumstances. The matter of conflicting rights becomes more pertinent the closer to the day of birth. I don’t know what Bob’s exact view is. There is a big difference between an Obstetrician sacrificing the life of the fetus if necessary to save the mother on what would have been the day of birth, and a woman suddenly deciding to abort when dilated to 4 cm.

  12. 12
    Ron Chusid says:

    David, no that is not what this means. As usual, you are confused as to the science. Science cannot be twisted to support your ideological or religious views. Murder is a legal matter, not a scientific matter.

  13. 13
    David Duff says:

    So am I to assume that you consider science to be above the law?

  14. 14
    Ron Chusid says:

    David, your comment makes no sense. Scientific facts exist independently of the law.

  15. 15
    David Duff says:

    Would those be the 'scientific facts' that ruled yesterday, or today or tomorrow?

    And 'scientific facts' are not "independent of the law".  It is a scientific fact that if you pull the trigger on a gun whilst pointing it at someone the resulting death will fall under the scrutiny of the law.

    Similarly, if you drag a kicking, wriggling foetus out before its time and it dies, that too is a matter for the law.  And the law will, or should, define *exactly* whether that is mere garbage disposal or murder.  

    The fact is that science has absolutely no answer to the problem of deciding when a foetus changes from a dynamic bunch of cells to a human being.  Therefore, a careful man would act with caution!

  16. 16
    Ron Chusid says:

    You show a rather profound lack of understanding of science.

    You are incorrect in saying: “The fact is that science has absolutely no answer to the problem of deciding when a foetus changes from a dynamic bunch of cells to a human being” It is not that science has no answer–it is that the question as you pose it is nonsensical, not related to how the process actually occurs.

  17. 17
    KP says:

    "I am ok with current laws which keep abortion rare in the third trimester, but which do allow it under certain circumstances. The matter of conflicting rights becomes more pertinent the closer to the day of birth."

    Thanks for the thoughtful answer. And we agree on preserving the life of the mother.

    The only grey area between us as I can tell is defined by the medical grey area you and I understand.

    While they are rare, in my view, third term abortions might become ever more rare.

    I wonder when/if science will shed more light in the next decade?

  18. 18
    Ron Chusid says:

    There probably isn’t anything more for science to she light on. It isn’t like, as conservatives like David, misrepresent it, that we don’t know. The point is that there is no magic moment when life begins. That is not going to change no matter how much more we learn about embryology.

  19. 19
    KP says:

    If there is no magic moment then there is little reason not to error on the side of life. To me, this is a slam dunk. I might even agree.

Leave a comment