The dangers of argumentum ad populum

Writing in the New York Times, Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling (the former presidents of, respectively, the National Abortion Rights Action League and Heretics for Choice) fault House Democrats for failing to prevent the Stupak Amendment (amendment text (PDF) | vote tally). The House, they complain, has "reinforced the principle that a minority view on the morality of abortion can determine reproductive health policy for American women."

Except it isn't a minority view.

Back in May, Gallup reported that the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as pro-choice had fallen to 42%, versus 51% who identify themselves as pro-life. The same poll found that the percentages of Americans who are absolutist on abortion—i.e. always legal or never legal—is a statistical dead heat in the low twenties, while 37% believed it should be legal in a few circumstances and 15% thought it should be legal in most circumstances. Michelman and Kissling might be able to count 38% of the population on their side (or more-or-less on their side), but Gallup showed a clear majority—59%—who support greater curbs on abortion than exist today.

Those numbers were reaffirmed barely a month ago. Politico reported that "[a] poll by the Pew Research Center found that [only] 47 percent of Americans said abortion should be legal in all or most cases" while "45 percent said abortion should be illegal...." (Perhaps Michelman and Kissling do not read the New York Times, which reported the same finding.) Looking at Pew's own summary, we see another statistical dead heat. Pew says that 45% believe abortion should be illegal in most cases, 47% believe it should be legal in most cases, and a "slight majority of Americans (52%) say having an abortion is morally wrong."

These numbers represent a rejection of the Michelman-Kissling position not only at the level of policy, but on the more fundamental issue of our abortion paradigm. To be pro-choice is to reject the humanity of the child in utero; that is a necessary predicate for the primary claim of the movement (whether the former is dictated by the latter or vice versa), to wit, abortion is merely a medical procedure and is properly viewed as being in the category of reproductive rights. That's your 22% who believe in making it legal in all circumstances. And you can see why people with that mindset flip out at any suggestion of restriction abortion. After all, if you don't believe there's another human life in the equation, the whole thing looks a lot like an exercise in controlling women, something that is unanimously and rightly rejected.

So we have two data points to reconcile: It makes little sense to restrict access abortion if one views it as nothing more than reproductive rights and medical procedures, yet a majority of Americans want to restrict access to it. Unless we are to assume that a majority supports legislation that is senseless and invidious, we must infer that all of the 59% (and probably a significant fraction of the 15%), reject the extremist Michelman-Kissling paradigm. They think about abortion in other terms, and the only one that fits is the belief (tacit or otherwise) that abortion takes the life of a child. To be sure, only the 22% who would ban it outright would phrase their position in terms of abortion constituting murder, but that is necessarily the sum and substance of the larger group's position, too, even if they believe that the rights of the mother outweigh those of the child. For the latter, whether they think about it in these terms or not, the concession that there is a balance to be struck is to concede that there is something on the other side of the scales.

Michelman and Kissling explicitly cast themselves as the voice of the majority, but the reality is that they represent a small and dwindling extremist fringe.

Post facto:
Speaking for whom? (2/11/10)