Only 39 percent of Americans think abortion is morally acceptable but 56 percent think it should be legal, according to PRRI's new Americans Values Survey. With same-sex marriage, it's 42 percent and 49 percent. And with marijuana use, more think it's morally acceptable than that it should be legal, by 48 percent to 43 percent.
This readiness to differentiate between morality and legality helps explain some of the survey's more puzzling findings. For example, while by 57 percent to 42 percent the public agrees with Catholic bishops and evangelical leaders that religious liberty is being threatened in America today, by 56 percent to 40 percent the public believes that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should be required to provide free contraceptive services to women--the mandate under the Affordable Care Act that is the principal example of the threat given by those religious authorities.
In fact, the public supports the mandatory coverage at the same level regardless of whether a religious organization objects to it. And Catholics, by a few points, actually support the coverage in greater numbers when the religious organization objects. Take that, Catholic colleges and hospitals!
Indeed, all Catholic groups--including the most frequent Mass-attenders--believe by wide margins that the Church should focus on helping the poor at the expense of fighting abortion rather than the other way around. After 40 years of seeking to reverse Roe v. Wade, the Catholic hierarchy still hasn't managed to convince its flock that abortion is the top social priority.
The point here is that most Americans, including most Catholics, think there is a difference between what is immoral and what should be illegal, and they associate the immoral with religious views (or lack thereof). They recognize that these views differ, and are reluctant to impose them on others. On abortion, they can thus be "pro-life" personally even as they support a woman's "right to choose."
This, of course, drives Catholic bishops and other conservative clerics crazy. But, like it or not, it shows real respect for religious pluralism. Indeed, it may even suggest that at least some of the public sees the threat to religious liberty coming from religion itself.
Môlsem | Oct 22, 2012 | 12:23pm
The way out of this mess may well reverse which party is most involved: seems to me that Roe v Wade or no Roe v Wade, abortion would remain available in a variety of states. So much for the ‘stick’.
How about the carrot? Why aren’t we addressing the fears that lead woman to contemplate abortion? Why don’t we assure every woman that having a child is not going to interfere with work or education! Why can’t we assure every woman of top-flight medical care through pregnancy and delivery, and top-flight child care for every child whose Mom is involved in school, college, or work? Isn’t being pro-life after birth really pro-life? Or are we just trying to force women to have a child and devil take the hindmost?
Texas Aggie | Oct 22, 2012 | 4:58pm
“by 57 percent to 42 percent the public agrees with Catholic bishops and evangelical leaders that religious liberty is being threatened in America today, by 56 percent to 40 percent the public believes that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should be required to provide free contraceptive services to women”
What wasn’t asked is where the threat to religious liberty is coming from. I would bet that a significant number of that 57% feel the threat is coming from one or both of the following: The Catholic hierarchy and the fundamentalist religionists. Both groups are trying to force their vision of religion down the throats of everyone else, and they have absolutely no qualms about using governmental power at all levels to do it.
Religion, uncontaminated by power, can be the source of a great deal of private solace, artistic inspiration and moral wisdom. But when it gets its hands on the levers of political or social authority, it goes rotten very quickly indeed. - Philip Pullman
GWH | Oct 23, 2012 | 9:31am
Thirty-nine percent believe abortion is morally acceptable. So, a majority believes abortion is morally unacceptable. Somehow, inexplicably, a majority believes religious institutions—or any people on conscience—should be forced to participate in a morally unacceptable practice.
You need to think long and hard before you applaud such a clear violation of religious freedom. To believe (know) something is morally wrong yet force others to support it is a very dangerous path to go down and could lead to a very uncomfortable place.
My leftist friends frequently scream about how conservatives are always trying to force their beliefs on them when they exact opposite it true.
Mark Silk | Oct 23, 2012 | 11:17am
Just to be clear, Glenn, it’s mandatory contraception coverage that the majority thinks religious institutions should be required to provide. And the majority does not think that contraception is morally unacceptable.
Tom Downs | Oct 23, 2012 | 12:16pm
Just released report projects that mandatory coverage for birth control will reduce abortions by 75%. Legality supporting morality;certainly not an attack on religious freedom. Everybody wins.
Matt | Oct 23, 2012 | 1:16pm
The Catholic Church has been really disingenuous on the “contraception mandate”. Their “religious freedoms” are not being violated by being required to provide insurance that covers contraception any more than a Muslim employer’s religious freedom is violated by being required to pay employees with money that might be spent at a liquor store.
roy | Oct 23, 2012 | 1:56pm
Statistics and morality are like oil and vinegar, to me. Your piece, as I read it, is replete with ambiguos terms. As an example you might well disagree with, there is no same sex marriage. Where and when did the concept of marriage begin? Jesus was questioned by the Pharasees concerning Moses and divorce, and the answer went something like this. “Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of your hears, but from the beginning, it was not so.
Marriage is older than Moses, and to attempt to redefine it now, or as in your case it seems, to allow others to redifine it, is simply wrong. It’s not possible for me to have a positive review of your work unless and until you work out some faulty premises. Another quick example: I always hear of Catholics who do not follow the Pope. To me, they are more aply defined as Protestors - or Protestants.
So, you put your finger on the division there, but seem to misidentify the actual problem, which gives me a problem, with your reasoning.
toodles.
Mark Silk | Oct 23, 2012 | 2:12pm
Same-sex marriage is new, but polygamous marriage is old. Was Jacob married to Leah but only “married” to Rachel? Or did polygamous marriage use to be real marriage but now is no longer…and according to whom?
BabyRaptor | Oct 28, 2012 | 10:31pm
@GWH-Please explain how something being legal for anyone who chooses to do it is “forcing support” and “violating religious freedom.” Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing to you say “Abortion is okay.” Nobody is trying to force women to get abortions. We just want our right to get one if we think it’s best.
The only way this could possibly be stepping on your freedom is if you feel you have the freedom to force others to live according to your views. If you honestly think that, please educate yourself. If you don’t, and you see some other way that me having a choice violates your rights, please explain. I’m all ears.