Democrats’ Abortion Extremism Puts Them Outside The Mainstream

Democrats’ Radical Abortion Views Are Not Supported By Most Americans, Are At Odds With Laws Around The World, And Result In Them Opposing Basic Things Like Protecting Taxpayers From Funding Elective Abortions And Requiring Care For Infants That Survive Botched Abortion Attempts


SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “For 50 years, states have been unable to enact even modest protections for unborn children. More than 90% of Europe restricts abortion on demand after 15 weeks, but every state in America has been forced to allow it more than a month past that, after a baby can feel pain, yawn, stretch, and suck his or her thumb. Judicial activists declared that every state had to handle abortion like China and North Korea and no state could handle it like France or Germany. Not anymore. Now the American people get their voice back…. Democrats’ disgraceful attacks on the Court have echoed Democrats’ outrage at Brown v. Board in 1954. Today’s Democrats are jaw-droppingly extreme on abortion. 97% of Washington Democrats support legislation that would effectively require nine months of abortion on demand until the moment of birth. Only 19% of Americans share this radical view but 97% of Democrats in Congress embrace it. They would rather attack our institutions than let the American people enact the reasonable protections they want.” (Sen. McConnell, Press Release, 6/24/2022)


Only 19% Of Americans Think Abortions Should Be Legal In The Third Trimester

According to a 2021 AP-NORC poll, only 19% of Americans think most or all abortions should be legal in the third trimester. (“AP-NORC Poll: Most Say Restrict Abortion After 1st Trimester,” The Associated Press, 6/25/2021)


The United States Is One Of Only Seven Countries, Including China And North Korea, That Even Allow Elective Abortions After 20 Weeks

“There are 59 countries that allow abortion ‘without restriction as to reason,’ or ‘elective,’ or ‘abortion on demand.’ These are countries where the letter of the federal law does not impose specific eligibility requirements for women. The other 139 countries ‘require some reason to obtain an abortion, ranging from most restrictive (to save the life of the mother or completely prohibited) to least restrictive (socioeconomic grounds) with various reasons in between (e.g., physical health, mental health),’ the report says. Only seven of the 59 countries allow elective abortions after 20 weeks, the group found: Canada, China, Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.” (“Is The United States One Of Seven Countries That ‘Allow Elective Abortions After 20 Weeks Of Pregnancy?’,” The Washington Post, 10/9/2017)


Most European Countries Restrict Elective Abortions Before 15 Weeks

France: “Until February 2022, the limit for on-demand abortion was 12 weeks, but this was extended to 14 weeks in one of the last bills passed under president Emmanuel Macron’s first term as president.” (“EXPLAINED: What is the law on abortion in France?,” The Local Fr, 5/3/2022)

Spain: “Spain liberalized its abortion laws in 2010. In the years before, it allowed women to get abortions in only extraordinary circumstances, but the new laws allow all women to get the procedure in the first 14 weeks of a pregnancy, without restrictions.” (“In Spain, Abortions Are Legal, but Many Doctors Refuse to Perform Them,” The New York Times, 9/21/2021)

Switzerland: “Abortion is legal in Switzerland, although you will need a consultation with a doctor. … In Switzerland, the law was changed in 2002 to allow for abortions within a certain time period.  Abortion is permitted if it takes place in the first 12 weeks of the pregnancy, which Swiss law measures as starting on the date of the woman’s last period. This means that both medical and surgical abortions are permitted in Switzerland, with medical abortions taking place until the eighth week and surgical interventions taking place from the ninth week onwards.” (“Reader Question: Is Abortion Legal In Switzerland?,” The Local Ch, 5/5/2022)

Germany: “Paragraph 218 of Germany’s criminal code outlaws abortion, with possible penalties of up to three years in prison. Exceptions exist if the abortion seeker receives mandatory counselling; if the pregnancy creates health risks for the woman; or if the pregnancy is the result of rape. Nevertheless, terminating a pregnancy after twelve weeks is illegal.” (“On Abortion, Germany Is Not As Liberal As You May Think,” Euronews, 5/11/2021)

Italy: “Italy legalised abortion on May 22, 1978… allowing women to terminate in the first three months of pregnancy or after if the mother’s life is at risk or there is an abnormal foetus. [sic]” (Euronews, 5/22/2018)

Finland: “It also has the strictest abortion laws, being the only Nordic country where women need to acquire the signature of at least one doctor (in some cases two) to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. If the pregnancy has proceeded past 13 weeks, special permission from the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health (Valvira) must be obtained.” (“Finland Has The Lowest Abortion Rate Among Nordic Countries,” Helsinki Times, 4/8/2021)

Portugal: “Portuguese women have had the legal right to an abortion paid for by the state up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy since it was approved by a referendum in 2007.” (“Portugal Tightens Abortion Laws, Forcing Women To Pay To End Pregnancies,” Guardian, 7/22/2015)

Belgium: “Since 1990 women in Belgium can legally get an abortion if certain conditions are met. Abortions are only possible if the pregnancy is under twelve weeks. ... Terminations after twelve weeks are only possible if the mother is in danger or the child will not be fully healthy.” (“Can You Get An Abortion In Belgium?,” VRT NWS, 5/26/2018)


After Decades Of Support, Democrats Now Want To Repeal The Hyde Amendment, Which Protects Taxpayers From Funding Elective Abortions

‘For Years, The Hyde Amendment Represented A Rare Point Of Bipartisan Consensus On Abortion In Congress’

“For years, the Hyde Amendment represented a rare point of bipartisan consensus on abortion in Congress, with lawmakers from both parties agreeing that taxpayer money should not be used to fund abortions, with some exceptions.” (Time, 6/07/2019)

“Congress passed the first iteration of the Hyde Amendment in 1976, just a few years after Roe v. Wade, attaching it to Medicaid appropriations…. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the amendment in 1980.” (“What Is The Hyde Amendment?,” CBS News, 6/07/2019)

“[T]he amendment that restricts government funding for most abortions has been preserved by Democrats for decades — including with votes from some of the presidential hopefuls now decrying it.” (“Hyde Amendment, Abortion Debate Haunt 2020 Democrats,” The Associated Press, 6/07/2019)

But Now Leading Democrats Vow To ‘Lead The Fight’ To Repeal It

HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): “I do not think it is good public policy, and I wish we never had a Hyde Amendment, but it is the law of the land right now.” (“Ban On Abortion Funding Stays In House Bill As 2020 Democrats Promise Repeal,” NPR, 6/13/2019)

JOE BIDEN: “I can’t justify leaving millions of women without access to the care they need and their ability to exercise their constitutionally protected right. If I believe healthcare is a right as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code… For many years as a U.S. senator, I have supported the Hyde amendment as many, many others have because there was sufficient monies and circumstances where women were able to exercise that right, women of color, poor women, women were not able to have access, and it was not under attack … as it is now. But circumstances have changed.” (“Joe Biden Reverses Stance On Hyde Amendment,” ABC News, 6/06/2019)

“Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Wednesday the decades-old Hyde Amendment shouldn't be law … Warren has called to end the Hyde Amendment and co-sponsors legislation to overturn the ban.” (“Warren: Hyde Amendment Should Not Be American Law,” The Hill, 6/05/2019)

SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WA): “[Repealing the Hyde Amendment] would help address the unacceptable reality that far too many women, particularly low-income women, young women, women of color, and those who live in rural areas, have the constitutional right to safe, legal abortion in name only—not in practice. I believe that as the Trump Administration and its allies work as hard as they can to take away access to abortion in our country and move women backward, we need to do even more to lay out our vision for ensuring every woman—regardless of how she is insured, her zip code, or her income—can make the decisions that are right for her.” (Sen. Murray, Press Release, 3/13/2019)

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): “All women – regardless of their income level or type of health insurance – are deserving of the fundamental right to access the health care they need, including abortion. Unfortunately, for far too many women in this country, that care is out of reach because of cost. The Hyde Amendment, like so many other barriers erected to restrict access to abortion, unequally and disproportionately affects low-income women, women of color, young women, and immigrants. Repealing the Hyde Amendment is a necessary step forward to ensuring all women can equally access their constitutionally-protected right to abortion care.” (Sen. Hirono, Press Release, 3/13/2019)


In Recent Years, Senate Democrats Twice Filibustered Legislation That Would Require Care Be Given To Infants Who Survive Failed Abortion Attempts

In February 2019, 44 Senate Democrats voted to filibuster the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. (S.311, Roll Call Vote #27: Motion rejected 53-44: R 50-0; D 3-42; I 0-2, 2/25/2019)

In February 2020, 41 Senate Democrats again voted to filibuster the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. (S.311, Roll Call Vote #58: Motion rejected 56-41; R 53-0; D 3-40; I 0-1, 2/25/2020)

SEN. BEN SASSE (R-NE): “Are we a country that protects babies that are alive, born outside the womb after having survived a botched abortion? That is what this is about. Are we a country that says it’s okay to actively allow that baby to die — which is the current position of federal law? That’s the question before us, plain and simple. Here are the facts: We know that some babies, especially late in gestation, survive attempted abortions. We know, too, that some of these babies are left to die, left to die. No federal protections exist to shield them from this ugly fate. And only some states have protections on their books, and we've seen in our national discourse over the last month and a half a few states moving, in different ways, but to undo protections that some of these babies have had at the state level. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is trying to right this obvious wrong. The bill’s terms are simple: A child born alive during a botched abortion would be given the same level of care that would be provided to any other baby born that same gestational stage. That’s it…. This bill is exclusively about protecting babies that have already been born and are outside the womb. Every baby deserves a fighting chance…. This really shouldn't be controversial …” (Sen. Sasse, Remarks, 2/25/2019)


Democrats Have Passed Or Proposed Extreme Pro-Abortion Laws In States Like Virginia, New York, And Illinois, Rolling Back Any Reasonable Restrictions

FORMER GOV. RALPH NORTHAM (D-VA): “The infant would be delivered; the infant would be kept comfortable; the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desire, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. …This is why legislators, most of whom are men, by the way, shouldn’t be telling a woman what she should and shouldn’t be doing with her body. … We want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions.” (“Virginia Gov. Northam On Road Projects, Teacher Pay, Shutdown Impact, More,” WTOP, 1/30/2019)

“As states across the US pass laws restricting access to abortion, Illinois passed legislation declaring a pregnant person has a ‘fundamental right’ to terminate their pregnancy and stating that a ‘fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent rights.’ The new legislation, passed Friday, repeals a 1975 state law that required spousal consent, waiting periods, placed restrictions on abortion facilities, and outlined procedures for pursuing criminal charges against abortion providers. The bill also rolls back some state restrictions on late-term abortions by repealing Illinois’ Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Chicago Tribune reported. Many provisions in the two newly negated laws had not been enforced due to court injunctions, according to the paper.” (“Illinois Affirms The ‘Fundamental Right’ To Abortion By Passing A New Bill,” Vox, 6/01/2019)

“New York state enacted one of the nation’s strongest protections for abortion rights Tuesday, a move that state leaders say was needed to safeguard those rights should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade… Known as the Reproductive Health Act, the measure replaces a 1970 state abortion law that was passed three years before Roe legalized abortion nationwide. It codifies many abortion rights laid out in Roe and other court rulings, including a provision permitting late-term abortions when a woman’s health is endangered. The previous law, which was in conflict with Roe and other subsequent abortion rulings, only permitted abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman’s life was at risk.” (“NY Enacts New Protections For Abortion Rights,” The Associated Press, 1/22/2019)

  • “The One World Trade Center was lit pink at the direction of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday night in celebration of the state legislature passing the Reproductive Health Act, which expands abortion rights in the state. ‘The Reproductive Health Act is a historic victory for New Yorkers and for our progressive values,’ the governor said in a statement. ‘In the face of a federal government intent on rolling back Roe v. Wade and women’s reproductive rights, I promised that we would enact this critical legislation within the first 30 days of the new session — and we got it done,’ he said. ‘I am directing that New York’s landmarks be lit in pink to celebrate this achievement and shine a bright light forward for the rest of the nation to follow.’” (“One World Trade Center Lit Pink In Celebration Of New York Abortion Law,” Washington Times, 1/23/2019)


Voters, Including Pro-Choice Women, Are More Concerned About Inflation Than Abortion

A Recent Gallup Poll Shows More Americans Citing Economic Concerns As The Most Important U.S. Problem With Inflation And The High Cost Of Living As The Top Economic Issues

“Americans’ confidence in the economy remains very low, and mentions of economic issues as the most important problem in the U.S. are at their highest point since 2016. Inflation, which registered as the top economic problem last month and continues to be, was previously at this level in 1984.” (“Inflation Concerns Fueling Low Economic Confidence In U.S.,” Gallup, 4/27/2022)

In the most recent Gallup poll, among Americans naming an economic issue as the most important problem facing the country, or the high cost of living is the top concern. (“Inflation Concerns Fueling Low Economic Confidence In U.S.,” Gallup, 4/27/2022)

  • “Roughly four in 10 Americans name economic issues as the most important problem facing the U.S. This figure includes 17% who mention inflation or the high cost of living, 12% who name the economy in general and 6% who say fuel prices. … The percentage of U.S. adults who cite any economic concern as the country’s most important problem has edged up four percentage points this month to 39%, the highest level in six years.” (“Inflation Concerns Fueling Low Economic Confidence In U.S.,” Gallup, 4/27/2022)

Suburban Pro-Choice Women In A Swing State Say Their Top Issue Is Inflation, Not Abortion

“Laura Wilson is a mother of three who lives in the sprawling suburbs of north Phoenix, a hotly contested electoral area of Arizona that could decide which party controls the U.S. Senate after November’s congressional elections. Wilson, 61, is pro-choice, voted for Democratic President Joe Biden, and knew all about the news last week that the U.S. Supreme Court is likely poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision giving women the right to an abortion. Yet Wilson said she is undecided about who she will vote for this November, and abortion rights are not a priority for her. ‘It’s the economy and jobs,’ Wilson said. She said she was disappointed in Biden, because of high inflation and ‘too many homeless people on the streets.’” (“Suburban Phoenix Is Cautionary Tale For Democrats Hoping To Galvanize Voters On Abortion,” Reuters, 5/09/2022)

“Wilson was one of 21 women interviewed by Reuters in the northern suburbs of Phoenix - a key area for Democratic Senator Mark Kelly’s efforts to hold onto his seat - after news of the Supreme Court draft ruling broke. Most of the women said inflation, not abortion, was the galvanizing issue for them. Of the 21 women interviewed by Reuters, five said they were pro-life and Republican, while 16 said they were pro-choice. Just two of the 16 said the issue was the top priority for them when voting this November, while half of the 16 were undecided about who to vote for in the Senate race because of concerns about the economy. The other half said they would likely vote Democrat.” (“Suburban Phoenix Is Cautionary Tale For Democrats Hoping To Galvanize Voters On Abortion,” Reuters, 5/09/2022)



Related Issues: House Democrats, Supreme Court, Defending Life, Senate Democrats