O'Reilly wrongly claimed that "about 50 percent of the country's pro-life"
On the October 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that "about 50 percent of the country's pro-life." In fact, less than 40 percent of Americans identified themselves as "pro-life" in a recent Gallup poll, and more than 60 percent of Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that established the right to abortion.
O'Reilly's comment came during an attack on recent articles about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers by syndicated columnist Molly Ivins and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. In her October 4 column, Ivins wrote that "Miers' church states on its Web site that it believes in biblical inerrancy, full immersion baptism, original sin and salvation dependent entirely upon accepting Jesus Christ. Everyone else is going to hell." Dowd, in her October 5 column (subscription required), wrote of Miers: "And we're expected to have faith in his faith and her faith, and her opinions that derive from her faith that could change the balance of the court and affect women's rights for the next generation."
In fact, contrary to O'Reilly's assertion that half the country is "pro-life," an August 28-30 Gallup poll (subscription required) found that 54 percent of respondents self-identify as "pro-choice," while only 38 percent consider themselves "pro-life," with a margin of error of +/-3 percent. Another Gallup poll, taken from July 7-10, asked:
"The 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court COMPLETELY OVERTURN its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?"
68 percent said "No, not overturn"; only 29 percent said "Yes, overturn." The poll had a margin of error of +/-3 percent.
Other polls of the public's views on abortion concur with Gallup's findings. A CBS News poll taken July 13-14 showed that 60 percent feel that Roe v. Wade was a "good thing," while 32 percent feel it was a "bad thing," with a margin of error of +/-4 percent. In a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll taken July 13-17, 65 percent of respondents said "No" to overturning Roe v. Wade, while 29 percent said "Yes," with a margin of error of +/-4 percent.
From the "Talking Points Memo" segment on the October 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: We don't know how Harriet Miers sees abortion. All we know is that she's a member of an evangelical Christian church. That's enough to disqualify her in the eyes of Ivins and Dowd. So let's get this straight. If you belong to conservative Christian church, these women believe you have no right to serve your country in a decision-making capacity. I mean, how crazy is that? About 50 percent of the country's pro-life. Are you telling me these people are disqualified from public service in America? I don't even think they know it, but Ivins and Dowd are espousing an anti-Christian bias, and they're not the only ones.
I'm sure Mr. S.G. has heard of something called a push poll.
First and foremost, overturning of Roe v. Wade would do NOTHING to state law. If Roe v. Wade were overturned tommorrow it would not make abortion illegal. It would give states the ability to make abortion illegal. Stating that Roe v. Wade made abortion legal and then asking people "Would you like to see the Supreme Court COMPLETELY OVERTURN its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?" is by definition a push poll.
It first assumes that people know the difference between state and federal law and then assumes that they know the specifics of the Roe v. Wade decision. When you presume to give them the "facts" but in fact give them a distortion (but not wrong) facts of course people would be more likely to say no.
These points were very well summarized in a chicago tribune article listed below. It all depends on how you ask the question.
[link to www.chicagotribune.com]
I'm sure the responses will be that the Chicago Tribune is a conservative newspaper or that the journalist is probably lying and that all fine and good, just read it and see for yourself.
Let me finish by saying im not supporting Bill O'Reiley. I probably hate him as much as anyone here (well, probably not as much as some of you) but don't spread incorrect myths.
No, a push poll is asking "Would you be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade if you knew that tens of thousands of young women would die?"
The word "completely" adds the correct emotional charge to the poll, but doesn't "push" information on the pollee.
The question, as given, is entirely valid because there is a strong possibility that Roe v. Wade will be PARTIALLY overturned through decisions that prohibit types of abortions, circumstances when a woman can have an abortion, parental rights to know, etc.
And, yes, everyone who is in the know understands that many states will still have legalized abortion. The issue is availability.
And, yes, everyone who is in the know understands that many states will still have legalized abortion. The issue is availability.
***************************
The right to an abortion, the right to choose is now a woman's legally. But where does it state it has to available on every street corner? It does not.
be explicit about what you are defining as a push poll. It seems to me that in regards to a US Supreme Court Nomination, the poll question regarding Roe v Wade "Do you think Roe should be overturned?" is absolutely the appropriate question. You apparently think they should have some sort of preamble to the point so that your argument is fresh in the minds of those being polled, but that's absolutely a push poll.
Also, the polls your source cites against the roe v wade ruling aren't convincing. The editorialist manages to demonstrate only somewhere between 41 to 50 percent which still falls short of a majority.
I'm afraid there's a lot more to this than Media Matters reveals. Their use of polling data in this case is not totally pertinent.
NARAL/Pro-Choice America favors abortion on demand for all 9 months of pregnancy. Yet, according to a recent ABC News poll [link to www.pollingreport.com] only 20% of respondents favor this position.
80% of respondents in an ABC News poll favor parental notification laws. [link to www.pollingreport.com] (NARAL doesn't.)
the polling data referred to by MMfA specifically addresses the claims O'Reilly was making. Therefore it is totally pertainent. The polling data you refer to addresses a different question and is therefore irrelevant.
Clarence Thomas?
Granted I am new to this forum... but I can't help but question your identity knowing the history between CT and DB. If you are so... answer this... as an textualist and an advocate of "original intent," please justify Kansas v. Hendricks... because this is a joke in law school.
I would wager that if you were to ask the hard-core 28 percent of "pro-lifers" if they would like to see Abortion completely illegal, only a small fraction of them would. Overturning Roe-v-Wade seems to be a different proposition then outright banning abortion, at least in the minds of a great number of voters. There's also a portion of that 28 percent that only support their pro-life stance in their political persona, I figure most of these are men (but I don't have hard numbers to back that up.) It's so much easier for guys in general to take a stand on the abortion issue, arguing one way or the other, but more willing to change their allegiences on the slightest whim (ie. When their mistress gets pregnant.) Until men can find themselves pregnant and carrying a child for 9 months, I really have a difficult time taking any of them seriously when they're arguing this issue.
All in all, strong support for repealling Roe-v-Wade is not all that it's cracked up to be.
Roe v Wade is bad law and should be overturned - but to say it would not be illegal is correct. It would just go back to the states to decide and most likely it would remain legal in many of them. It is based on a very vague, if even there, right to privacy in the Constitution. Each state should have the right to decide for itself, that's our Federalist system.
The States are limited by the Federal Constitution. They cannot pass laws which contradict it. Now, if the Court reverses itself and says there is no right to privacy either implicit or explicit in the Constitution, you are correct; the states will then be able to outlaw abortion again, if they so choose.
There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, and it could be argued fairly effectively that it is not even included implicitly. So Roe is weak, at best. It should be a state's issue.
"and it could be argued fairly effectively that it is not even included implicitly"
I think you'd have a hard time making that case. Your only hope is insisting on a strictly literal reading. Unfortunately, you'd also have to boot "executive privilege" and "separation of powers" if that's the route you choose.
There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, and it could be argued fairly effectively that it is not even included implicitly. So Roe is weak, at best. It should be a state's issue. by tommy
***
It also could be and has been argued very effectively that we have certain fundamental rights and because certain rights were specifically enumerated in the Constitution does in no way “deny or disparage others retained by the people”.
Amendment 9:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
and Amendment 4, wherein courts have found a right to privacy implied to some degree:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Here's an essay on privacy that most should find interesting, whichever side you're on:
[link to usinfo.state.gov]
Wrong, Tommy. The 9th Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Meaning: because certain rights are not expressly delineated in the Constitution doesn't mean they do not exist, including the right to privacy.
Funny how all you so-called strict constructionists fail to mention this Amendment when discussing rights to privacy, abortion, or any other rights you find objectionable.
fantagor,
You are missing the whole point - if I am a woman wanting an abortion and it's not available to me because I can't drive to a nearby city in my state, then my rights are being violated? You say availability, OK, I say availability. Where or who decides what that actually means?
You are trying to bend the Constitution to fit your agenda.
Availability is not the issue. While Roe v. Wade stands, a state which outlaws abortion is violating Constitutional law.
Of course while Roe stands it is illegal for any state to outlaw it. If it is overturned in the Supreme Court, it would then be up to the states.
Again, Tommy, you are abusing the 10th Amendment while ignoring the 9th. You don't get to pick and choose those Amendments that fit your personal beliefs, to hell with those that don't.
You argue that it's not the federal government's role to determine abortion rights, leave it up to the states. Yes, and when it was left up to the states to determine what “separate but equal” meant, oh, that was a real winner. And when it was at the discretion of the states to have or not have slavery, that worked well. Same goes for labor laws and poll taxes. When left up to the states, what did we get? Discrimination. It is the role of the federal government, if necessary, force the states to act in a non-discriminatory way, and limiting abortion to those states that “feel” like extending a woman the right to do what she wants with HER BODY is by definition inequitable, and by definition a violation of the 9th Amendment.
States' rights end when the states choose to violate the rights of its citizens.
first off, you're not a woman, so you will never know what it means or feels like to be pregnant or face an unwanted pregnancy, so really, you shouldn't open your mouth at all...but secondly, if you say: if i'm a woman and i want an abortion and i can't drive to a center in my city to get one...let me ask....HOW THE HELL DO YOU AS A WOMAN WHO IS PREGNANT GET TO THE HOSPITAL TO HAVE A BABY THEN? or take your baby to the doctor...if your argument is someone having the ability to drive to an abortion clinic...
"There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, and it could be argued fairly effectively that it is not even included implicitly." -- Tommy
--------------------------------------------------------------
I can't deny that the first part of your statement is correct -- but if I may be so bold, whatever happened to "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? Just because the right to privacy was not specifically stated as such, this does not necessarily mean that it was not implied. However, in the second part of your statement, you indicate that an effective argument can even be made against the implicit right to privacy. Care to provide more information concerning the grounds for this argument?
Bluestocking,
Anytime someone gives the old "not in the Constitution" line, cite the 9th Amendment. That's the catch-all, the evener-upper. Just because a right isn't expressly delineated in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sorry for triple negative, but there's no other way to phrase it.
"Just because a right isn't expressly delineated in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist." -- fantagor
--------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly why I made the point that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" -- especially since this is a principle which a goodly number of conservatives used to justify the War in Iraq, but which many of these same people seem rather conveniently to forget when it comes to the Constitution. You obviously noticed the fact (as did I) that Tommy failed to provide any information detailing the basis for his claim that an argument can be made against an implicit right to privacy. Since he stated that there's a reasonable foundation for this argument, I confess myself somewhat bewildered at his apparent reluctance to be more specific and indicate exactly what that argument might entail...
Roe v Wade is bad law and should be overturned - but to say it would not be illegal is correct. It would just go back to the states to decide and most likely it would remain legal in many of them. It is based on a very vague, if even there, right to privacy in the Constitution. Each state should have the right to decide for itself, that's our Federalist system. by tommy
***
Tommy
Don’t you think that if Roe was overturned and it was left in the hands of the states that for those states that allow it the administration would seek to have their law overturned in the federal interest of protecting life.
Case in point the Bush administration is challenging Oregon’s assisted suicide law even though the people voted in favor of it twice. In that case the administration is claiming their interest trumps the states right.
I see the abortion issue going the same way if it is turned back over to the individual states to decide. The ultimate goal of the evangelical right is to have their view imposed on everyone and have abortion banned...not just put in the hands of the state to decide.
I think that realistically abortion will never be outright banned or illegal - the enforcemnent and implementation of such a law would be staggering to our system.......I understand people are very emotional about the right to life, they want the procedure illegal, but I also believe as a practical matter they know it is more symbolic than applicable.
I think you underestimate the veracity of the Religious Right. Randall Terry is on record that once they get abortion relegated to back alleys and coathangers again, he's going after birth control.
It's not about life for these people; it's about control and power.
Randall Terry is a fringe nut, hardly a clear thinking person who sees abortion as fundamentally at odds with their beliefs - but respects our rule of law in spite of their personal feelings.
by calling women murders and urging the people to blow up abortion clinics? that's well within the law of the land? insighting violence against a person or persons/group is still a violation of the law.
I think you underestimate the veracity of the Religious Right. -by nerzog
***
I have to agree. I think anyone who believes the evangelical right is simply looking for a symbolic victory are dangerously underestimating their intent, their power, and their true agenda.
Nothing symbolic about going to prison if you perform an abortion and it is illegal.
Despite many people's objections and the very vocal minority who want abortion illegal, there is no groundswell of support among the American people to outlaw it - therefore, no matter the howling about "taking away a woman's right to choose", it will never happen. It is an issue that has no place being politicized, I have never understood the paranoia and the one-issue mentality many have about it - from both sides.
I think much of it has to do with pandering politicians who use it to get their base out to vote - to frighten them. That part, I find reprehensible from the pro life and pro choice crowd.
Until men can find themselves pregnant and carrying a child for 9 months, I really have a difficult time taking any of them seriously when they're arguing this issue.
************************************
What about all the women who have regrettably had abortions? Done decision, final, no turning back.
What about all the women who have regrettably had abortions? Done decision, final, no turning back. by tommy
***
As you so often point out personal responsibility…we all need to accept it. If these women chose to have an abortion (it is illegal to force someone to have an abortion) and they now regret their decisions then unfortunately they have to live with their decision. We make a lot of decisions in life and some we end up regretting. They have to deal with their choices and make whatever atonement they feel necessary but they can’t blame someone else for their decision just because they were given a choice and feel they chose the wrong one.
lostlogic,
I think you misunderstand me - of course it is their decision and they must live with the consequences. They are adults and are completely responsible for the choices they make. I was making the statement in the context of it being such a gut wrenching and serious decision that all measures, within the law, should be taken to give the woman all optional information.
Perhaps she would, after much thought, decide that adoption was the preferred choice for her - which should be strongly encouraged by everyone involved. Adoption is by far the more noble and courageous path, I would hope on that we all agree.
I think you misunderstand me - of course it is their decision and they must live with the consequences. They are adults and are completely responsible for the choices they make. I was making the statement in the context of it being such a gut wrenching and serious decision that all measures, within the law, should be taken to give the woman all optional information. -by tommy
***
I did misunderstand your point--sorry.
Now as to your point: Do you think that a woman contemplating abortion does not receive information on her options? What other measures do you want instituted?
I agree with you that adoption is a better option. As I have stated here before I personally believe life begins at conception and would personally chose another option but I also don’t believe my beliefs should be imposed on others in such a personal and private matter—which is why I am also pro-choice.
I'd like to see a survey asking young women to list the options they would have if they ever found themselves pregnant. How many would be totally ignorant about the possibility of giving the child up for adoption?
The information is out there. Many young women choose adoption. You simply don't like that some are free to choose otherwise.
well so I assume you support gay and interracial couples adopting babies then? why aren't you out on the forefront fighting for that?
because you're a hack tommy -- and a hack that knows nothing about being a pregnant woman or pregnant teen or sometimes pregnant child.
and what about all the women and/or men that end up having kids and those kids are abused, neglected and/or killed?
once you have a kid, there's no going back unless you abandon or abuse your kid...
abortion is a personal decision, as is the decision to have a child -- do i ask your opinion about how to raise my kid? no, so why should i need your opinion about whether or not to have my kid?
I have absolutely no problem with a woman taking that position, but a man will _never_ find themselves in the same one, obviously.
It is funny how all the poll links other than the CNN one are to Gallop on demand and the only way to see the numbers is to pay money.
Secondly if you look at the other site that you can go to and actually analize the numbers you will find some important facts about the polls.
Lets look at this.
While 65% like Roe v Wade and 29% dont:
73% want it to require parental consent and only 22% don't want parental consent.
Now only 35% want Abortion generally available while 23% want it more limited and 31% want it only for rape,incest or to save the mother and 9 % don't want it premitted at all.
So take that and think a total of 54% want it limited or more, meaning they are more pro-life than pro-choice and you can see where O'Reilly MAY( I say may because you have no idea where he got his numbers) have come up with his 50% are pro-life.
"Moreover, while nearly six-in-ten (59%) think it would be a good thing to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S., one-third (33%) say they don't feel this way."
So I say how is he really wrong if he came to this understanding.
Your [apache25] attempt to "actually analize the numbers" in order to "find some important facts", from these polls[?], is spurious at best. To force a relationship between an acceptance [Roe v. Wade] and "parental consent" WITHOUT factoring items, such as: repondant age, parental status, age of child, geographic & demographic controls, etc., seems to indicate your own bias.
You further obfuscate matters with your "54% want it limited"—without clarification— then state, "or more". Whatever "or more" means, is never clarified. Though its use portends a vague, ominous judgemental negativity. Then your "meaning", to infer a greater than pro-life to pro-choice is but a non sequitur. And finally your editorializing disparagement, "So take that and", unmasks your lack of candor while revealing the specious quality of your claim. Your hubris scamps.
PS: To delve into your figures [sic] then try to construct meaningful questions or statements, might help. Try: X% of households [single &/or both parents, residing there] with school-age children [in-school] agree with...Perhaps factoring in which states or geographic location [N,S,E, W], maybe municipality size [city, town, parrish, ie: urban, suburban, rural] would add some credibility. Maybe throwing a curve ball to turn some heads..."religious affiliation/belief[s]". What about "church-going, faith-based, christian"...what is that?
I agree with your assesment that using just those numbers and those numbers alone prove nothing. Bias me, I do not even think so. I was just shedding some light on how someone else may perceive these numbers that Media Matters points out instead of the way they are extended to the population. You point out a good point, and with that point would me mean O'Reilly and Media Matters are both wrong in using only these numbers and not delving into repondant age, parental status, age of child, geographic & demographic controls, etc.
You see you can look at numbers all day long and get different points of view from each side. With that you come to just opinions of either O'Reilly or Media Matters. It is just opinions and that is what I was showing another way to look at numbers.
In other words, all you have is another opinion not backed up by facts.
Thanks so much for sharing.
An opinion on each side. You can interpret facts any way you want but the same bottom line remains, you can't say a person lied if they saw the facts one differently than what you see them.
"And, yes, everyone who is in the know understands that many states will still have legalized abortion. The issue is availability."
How many "in the know" people do you think are polled. Out of 1000 people, what percentage are "in the know"? 10, 20, 30%? That would mean that everyone not "in the know" would have to be either given the knowledge or you would have to assume that they knew it already. Im not sure every housewife and person who watches american idol/everybody loves raymond (not that they are bad shows mind you) knows the difference between legalizing abortion in the roe v. wade cases and state cases.
polls are a different animal and they need to be taken with the correct grain of salt when they use words like "completely overturn" or "legalization of abortion".
im sure o'reiley wouldnt be able to cite any correct stats but that might be besides the point in this case. its still fairly split 50-50 between pro-life and pro-choice, regardless of their view on Roe v. Wade. You could be the most pro-choice person and still think Roe should be overturned or pro-life and think it should be upheld. Politics and personal beliefs are not always one in the same.
The reason that most people don't favor overturning Roe vs. Wade is because they don't understand the issue. A good number of people think that overturning Roe vs. Wade would make abortion completely illegal. However, all it would do is send the issue back to the states. This poll shows that the majority of Americans actually would rather have each state legislature decide the abortion issue than the Supreme Court.
[link to www.rasmussenreports.com]
The reason that most people don't favor overturning Roe vs. Wade is because they don't understand the issue. A good number of people think that overturning Roe vs. Wade would make abortion completely illegal. However, all it would do is send the issue back to the states. This poll shows that the majority of Americans actually would rather have each state legislature decide the abortion issue than the Supreme Court. [link to www.rasmussenreports.com] by capitalist
***
I think you may not fully understand the issue. I think those that think overturning Roe would simply place it in the hands of the states don’t understand the agenda of those fighting to have Roe overturned. They are not fighting to have it overturned because they passionately believe in states rights. They are working to have it overturned as their first step to having it banned all together (along with several other issues that offend their personal beliefs.)
Once Roe is overturned and the individual states address the issue we will see the push for the administration to challenge those states whose law makes abortion legal and then we start the merry-go round again. Why do you think it is so important for them to stack SCOTUS. They want to make sure that it gets overturned and then when they challenge the states law they will win.
Just for the record, Antonin Scalia has said that the most that he will ever do is let the states decide the issue. He has said that he wouldn't strike down state laws that allow abortion.
I think you may not fully understand the issue. I think those that think overturning Roe would simply place it in the hands of the states don’t understand the agenda of those fighting to have Roe overturned. They are not fighting to have it overturned because they passionately believe in states rights. They are working to have it overturned as their first step to having it banned all together (along with several other issues that offend their personal beliefs.)
by lostlogic
----------------------------------------------------------
I'm not going to dispute that they ultimate goal of many on those seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade isn't to have a patchwork of abortion laws, but rather to get the whole the made illegal outright.
BUT. That is highly unlikely to happen. Sure you hear about President Bush wanting a human life (or however it goes) but it's unlikely that anyone would be able to get such an amendment forth; think about how easy it is to get a constitutional amendment passed-that is the only way abortion could be made illegal on a universal basis.
BUT. That is highly unlikely to happen. Sure you hear about President Bush wanting a human life (or however it goes) but it's unlikely that anyone would be able to get such an amendment forth; think about how easy it is to get a constitutional amendment passed-that is the only way abortion could be made illegal on a universal basis. by 1428a
****
I don’t think you read or understood my post. I was not speaking of the administration trying to push an amendment through. I was speaking of them challenging the state laws through the legal system. As I stated earlier in the thread Gonzales v Oregon is case in point.
If they succeed in having Roe overturned then the decision is back in the hands of the states. For those states that make it legal I see the administration going after them to have the law thrown out (as they did in Oregon). If SCOTUS rules in the administration’s favor in a case like this then PRECEDENT is once again set—just this time it will have the effect of making abortion illegal.
Does anybody really think one of the Bush twins would have a child outside of a marriage if they got pregnant? Does anybody really believe that either one of the Bush twins is not sexually active? Does anybody really believe that the Bush twins are not on the pill? Does anybody really believe that they wouldn't have an abortion? Does anybody really believe Daddy W would ever know anything about it?
Of course not. Anybody who thinks these girls are above having an abortion is just plain stupid. I am not condemning them, mind you. I am just saying that Daddy Bush is a walking double standard and a hypocrite. What's worse, he and his minions in Congress and the religious right want to use the legislative and judicial systems of this country to legally sanction what they view as sin. If you or anyone opposes abortion because it is your view that it is a sin, that is one thing. To try to get your personal view of sin written into the criminal law is something else -- namely, unAmerican.
"Thirty-two percent (32%) say that overturning Roe vs. Wade would make abortion illegal. Forty-seven percent (47%) say it would be up to individual states to set their own laws."
The 32% aren't that far off:
"Thirty-nine percent (39%) of American voters say it would be best for the Supreme Court to establish rules governing abortion. Fort-seven percent (47%) would prefer rules established by the state legislatures."
Roe v Wade allows state legislatures to establish rules governing abortion. The states could have effective laws governing abortion at any time, if they chose to write them and pass them. They've failed because most pro-life activists disdain the idea that the health of a woman might take precedence over the life of a fetus. Pro-lifers prefer writing legislation that clearly violates the principles set down in Roe v Wade and then bitching and moaning about it when their laws are struck down.
If one was cynical, one might think that they like those failures. Passage of sensible legislation that abides by Roe v Wade would satisfy too many moderates -- leaving the anti-contraception theocrats without a policital base.
50, 54, 38 percent, its all the same. Numbers don't lie, liars lie about numbers.
I don't think it is right to drag Mier's faith into the fray. That forces the issue to be taken up for separation of church and state, when we are addressing right to privacy and violence towards women. Let us not loose sight of the target.
Abortion Statistics - Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999:
16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy
55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years,
people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%.
Okay, if a person wants legal abortions ONLY in the case of rape or to save the life of the mother, then I think that person falls into the pro-life category. According to this poll, 55% agree with those restrictions. So Bills claim of 50-50 seems fair to me. This poll is 6 years old so the numbers may have changed a bit.
[link to womensissues.about.com]
I'd say that if someone believed that a choice on abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor, they'd be pro-choice. 55% of those polled in May of 2005 held that pro-choice view.
Perhaps the difference between the two numbers (besides the date) is that the pro-life crowd has put out the myth that women can get an abortion at any time during her pegnancy for any reason. But very few if any abortion clinics will do abortions after the first trimester. The "Woman and Doctor" choice would appear to remind people that late term abortions are primarily done for medical reasons, and are decisions that women and their spouses and doctors make together under difficult circumstances.
Americans may not agree with a decision to terminate a pregnancy if test results indicate that the child would have Downs syndrome or spina bifida, but I'm not sure they'd want to write their preferences into law -- despite the pro-life movement's effort to portray all late term abortions as grisly, heartless crimes perpetrated on perfectly healthy babies.
I think the bottom line for me is that O'Reillys claim of a 50-50 split is DEFENSIBLE if you look at certain poll numbers, just as it can be REFUTED if you look at other poll numbers. MMFA chose to cite the numbers that would REFUTE him, because they are a "most vicious political" site...LOL