Poll Shows Catholics Support Abortion Funding in Health Care
According to a new poll of Catholic voters carried out by Belden Russonello and Stewart for Catholics for Choice, Catholics support both a public option in healthcare reform and a plan that would include funding for abortion. The results show that the views of Catholics have been seriously misrepresented by the US bishops and by conservative Catholics in the debate over healthcare reform. A large majority of those polled, 84 percent, attend church regularly, from several times a week to a few times a year.
While Catholic voters are split on President Obama’s ideas for healthcare reform, they do want to see costs lowered and overwhelmingly support a government plan that would make health insurance available to the uninsured.
Large majorities of Catholic voters support health insurance coverage for abortions—either in a private or a government-run scheme:
-- when a pregnancy poses a threat to the life of a woman (84 percent)
-- when a pregnancy is due to rape or incest (76 percent)
-- when a pregnancy poses long-term health risks for the woman (73 percent)
-- when test results show a fetus has a severe abnormal condition (66 percent)
Opinion is split on whether insurance plans should cover abortion whenever a woman and her doctor decide it is appropriate (50 percent support and 50 percent oppose).
Catholic voters believe the US Catholic bishops are wrong on healthcare reform. Sixty-eight percent disapprove of US bishops saying that all Catholics should oppose the entire healthcare reform plan if it includes coverage for abortion and 56 percent think the bishops should not take a position on healthcare reform legislation in Congress.
Despite what many conservatives argue, Catholic voters are against refusal clauses for institutions that take taxpayer dollars. Sixty-five percent said that hospitals and clinics that take taxpayer dollars should not be allowed to refuse certain procedures or medications based on religious beliefs. In addition, 60 percent believe that hospitals and clinics that take taxpayer dollars should be required to include condoms as part of HIV prevention.
CFC president Jon O’Brien said, “Conservatives, including the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, have been presenting their own views as an accurate representation of all US Catholics. This poll clearly demonstrates that the bishops do not represent Catholic voters. Catholics have compassion. They want everybody to have access to comprehensive healthcare—including abortion in many circumstances. It is telling that the US bishops have done two polls on abortion recently. On neither occasion did they poll only Catholics. We did and the results are clear: US Catholic voters see reproductive healthcare as part of a comprehensive healthcare package—and that includes abortion for women who need it.”
Pollster John Russonello from Belden Russonello and Stewart said, “We have been chronicling the opinions and voting patterns of Catholics for many years and the lesson of today’s survey is consistent with our previous findings: Catholic views on healthcare and abortion are mainstream American views.”
The full findings of the poll are available at www.CatholicsforChoice.org.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Catholics had a choice before engaging in sexual activity. Abortion is murder , no euphemism can disguise this inconvenient truth.
My daughter has what you call a severe abnormal condition. She has Down syndrome. She is 7 and is learning to write her name in first grade.
I don't care how many so called Catholics in your poll say Christina should be aborted, or that the bishops are wrong, I stand by the truth that ALL human life is sacred, even if I stand alone with my Church.
"I don't care how many so called Catholics in your poll say Christina should be aborted,"
I do not see where it is being stated that those those with downs syndrome should be aborted.
Let me ask you this, Mr Book, if I told you because of your facial characteristics or intelligence, you had a 90% chance of being killed, would you feel targeted?
“Let me ask you this, Mr Book, if I told you because of your facial characteristics or intelligence, you had a 90% chance of being killed, would you feel targeted?”
[Citation Needed] on that 90%...
Of course if I had been born with Downs Syndrome then I would not be me, further by being aborted I would have had no desire to live… which is to say that if ‘I’ had Downs Syndrome and had been aborted then I would not have an opinion on the matter.
Do you want to force a woman to raise a child that she can not care for?
"Do you want to force a woman to raise a child that she can not care for?"
Would you approach killing, or placing into foster care, a 7 year old if the mother was single, became permanently disabled, and her income , now fixed and inadequate, insufficient to support the 7 year old with the same fervor you display when the question is about killing the child pre-birth?
Also, suppose a pregnant mother could not work due to circumstances and would not be able to after the birth, and the father could not financially support the soon-to-be family member. Suppose that the woman would refuse an abortion . Knowing that the Equal Protection clause prevents one group of people from being treated differently than another group, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause ) would you agree that the father has the right to abort the child for the exact reason you are now arguing?
Do you want to force a man to raise a child that he can not care for?
You see, your emotions blocked your logic on this entire issue. You are entitled to your opinions, but you should at least know that you are wrong.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Nothing you can type will convince Mr.Book to reexamine his stance that the convenience of the mother is worth less than the life of the child. He has made up his mind that the "woman's right to kill her baby if she thinks she needs to" outweighs the "constitutionally guaranteed right of the baby to live."
Mr.Book and I have gone round and round and no amount of fact or discussion will shine a light on that dark corner of his brain.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Where's that?
"Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime , unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The SCOTUS erred, imo, when they opined on Roe v. Wade.
I have forever maintained that the right to life should be sacrosanct, but the court thought that the right to abort was more important.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
To whom does this document apply, specifically?
Begins with the words 'No person' and it is describing prohibited actions of the government, it protects all people from actions by the government and finds unconstitutional any laws to the contrary.
Furthermore, it is Due Process (or Common Law, or Law of the Land) that the Bill of Rights are rights guaranteed to the people or to the states respectively. The right to life cannot apply to the states, because states are not living beings, so it must apply to the people. Seeing as how there are a plethora of laws protecting the unborn from assault, by attaching further punishment to a person guilty of assaulting a pregnant woman in which the assault injured or killed the child, then it is Due Process that the 5th Amendment also protects a child from the government even when the child is inside the mother .
Therefore, I assert that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.