Due to low response, we will be taking a break from having weekly polls. We'll probably resume the polls on a monthly basis in the future. In the meantime, we are leaving the previous poll results here in case you would like to see Georgia Right to Life's position on some of these controversial questions. If you have an idea for a future poll question, click here to email it to our webmaster!

Question: Should Georgia have a Right-To-Die law similar to Oregon?
Results:

Our Perspective:
A Right-To-Die law makes a lot of sense to people, until they learn what kind of "growing snowball" a law like this creates. That's why it's valuable to take a look at places that already have the law and see if there have been any bad effects. Click here to read about Oregon's assisted suicide experience so far.

One of the things that assisted suicide laws lead to is euthanasia laws. Consider euthanasia in the Netherlands. Since euthanasia and assisted suicide became legal in 2001, this is how far it’s come:

• Euthanasia has expanded to infants, the depressed, and the chronically ill.¹
• Children as young as 12 with parental consent and those as young as 16 with parental notification can access euthanasia.²
• The percentage of deaths from euthanasia has continued to increase.¹
• 80% of euthanasia deaths are not requested by the patient.³
• Virtually every guideline set up by the Dutch has failed to protect patients or has been modified or violated.⁴

Sources:

1. Herbert Hendin MD, Chris Rutenfrans PHD and Zbigniew Zylicz MD. Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Netherlands. JAMA, June 4, 1997 vol. 277, No 21, p. 1720
2. Associated Press, Reuters, BBC, Nov 28, 2000
3. Herbert Hendin MD, Chris Rutenfrans PHD and Zbigniew Zylicz MD. Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Netherlands. JAMA, June 4, 1997 vol. 277, No 21, p. 1721
4. Daley, Suzanne. The Dutch Seek to Legalize Long-Tolerated Euthanasia. New York Times, June 20, 2000, p.A10

Question: Should the United States Congress exercise veto power over Supreme Court decisions?
Results:

Our Perspective:
A little-known provision within the Constitution, giving Congress the ability to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal courts, is being brought up in the Presidential campaign as a way to remove the court's ability to strike down abortion laws, and effectively give the issue back to the states.  Many states would impose strict restrictions on abortion and help reduce the nearly 4,000 abortions happening every day.  One bill proposing to do such a thing, H.R. 300, is currently being proposed and would remove the court's jurisdiction over abortion, as well as other hot-button social issues. Given the fact that the Supreme Court has exceeded its own Constitutional authority numerous times by legislating from the bench against the will of the people (Roe vs. Wade being the key example), and given the fact that these excesses have had such a high price (such as over 47 million abortions), it seems both reasonable and imperative to us that something be done by Congress to limit the power of the Court.

Question: Do you think most people understand that assisted suicide is wrong?
Results:

Our Perspective:
It is critical that we engage in educational and legislative efforts regarding assisted suicide, and that church shepherds preach about it. For resources, be sure to visit www.grtl.org/euthanasia.asp and www.priestsforlife.org/euthanasia.

Question: Even with a ban on partial-birth abortion, the abortionist can still kill the baby using a slightly different abortion method. Do you think that the ban nevertheless advanced the pro-life cause?
Results:

Our Perspective:
We’ve got news for those who answered “No.” While the ban will probably not save any babies right away, there are at least 7 reasons why the ban advanced the pro-life movement. This is well-documented in our recent article: The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban – A Bittersweet Decision.

Question: Do you think that of acts of violence by abortion supporters against pro-life activists are more common than acts of violence by pro-life people against abortion advocates?
Results:

Our Perspective:
We’ve got news for those who answered “No.” In fact, acts of violence by abortion supporters far surpass those against them. This is well-documented at http://abortionviolence.com/.

Question: Have you signed a Will to Live form?
Results:

Our Perspective:
There is growing evidence that those who do not provide clear directions concerning the life-saving measures they would want are more likely to be denied them than to receive them. Many court cases have been decided in favor of removing all forms of life support. Therefore, it is important that those who do not want to be denied life-saving medical treatment, or even food and fluids, make their views known in some form of advance directive.

Two common advance directives are Living Wills and Durable Powers of Attorney. Living Wills focus on the rejection of life saving medical treatment under certain medical conditions. Durable Powers of Attorney authorize a specified person to make decisions concerning the provision or withholding of life-sustaining measures when the signer is incompetent. Though such laws appear to protect patients' rights, they have some serious flaws from a pro-life point of view.

For a free copy of the Will to Live, contact:
GRTL - Education
Post Office Box 927
Lawrenceville, GA 30046-0927
Or call: 770-339-6880

Click here to download the GEORGIA Will to Live form from the National Right to Life website. For all other states, click here.

Question: Do you think abortions at any stage of pregnancy should be legal for women who don't want to miss a rock concert or sporting event?
Results:

Our Perspective:
We agree with the majority. There could probably be no worse reason to kill a late-term child because you don't want to miss a concert. In case you think this is a ridiculous reason that I came up with for our poll, think again. According to a ChristianNewsWire story, Dr. Tiller in Kansas has been doing late-term abortions because the mother didn't want to miss a rock concert. Read the story here.

Question: Do you think abortions should be legal or illegal in your state when the woman feels she is not yet ready to raise a child?
Results:

Our Perspective:
We agree with the majority. If a woman is not ready to raise a child, adoption is a much preferred option over killing the child. What if a woman had a toddler and she suddenly realized that she wasn't ready to raise a child? Should she be allowed to kill the toddler? Absolutely not. We believe unborn children deserve the same protection.

Interestingly, many pro-choicers agree that it is wrong to have an abortion for this reason. In a recent national poll conducted by Ayres, McHenry & Associates, this question was asked among others about abortion, and the response was overwhelming against sex selection abortions being legal. 63% polled said these abortions should be illegal, with 32% disagreeing and 5% that said they didn't know. You can see the entire poll here and the analysis here.

Question: Do you think abortions should be legal or illegal in your state when the woman has all the children she wants?
Results:

Our Perspective:
We agree with the majority. Just as we shouldn't be allowed to kill our toddlers when they interfere with a mother's education or career plans, we shouldn't be able to kill babies for that reason. One of the interesting things about studying Planned Parenthood's studies about why women have abortions, is that while most reasons stay the same, the women having abortions because they've already had the amount of kids they wanted has sky-rocketed. Today's younger generation is much more pro-life then their parents generation, thus we are seeing more and more older pro-choice women have abortions while young people having abortions is slowly dropping.

Interestingly, many pro-choicers agree that it is wrong to have an abortion for this reason. Obvously a woman in this position could giver the child up for adoption instead of having him or her killed. In a recent national poll conducted by Ayres, McHenry & Associates, this question was asked among others about abortion, and the response was overwhelming against sex selection abortions being legal. 64% polled said these abortions should be illegal, with 32% disagreeing and 4% that said they didn't know. You can see the entire poll here and the analysis here.

 

Question: Do you think abortions should be legal or illegal in your state when the woman thinks a child would interfere with her education or career plans?
Results:

Our Perspective:
We agree with the majority. Just as we shouldn't be allowed to kill our toddlers when they interfere with a mother's education or career plans, we shouldn't be able to kill babies for that reason. Interestingly, many pro-choicers agree that this is wrong. In a recent national poll conducted by Ayres, McHenry & Associates, this question was asked among others about abortion, and the response was overwhelming against sex selection abortions being legal. 72% polled said these abortions should be illegal, with 24% disagreeing and 4% that said they didn't know. You can see the entire poll here and the analysis here.

 

Question: Do you think abortions should be legal or illegal in your state when the woman does not like the gender of the fetus?
Results:

Our Perspective:
We agree with the majority. It is a moral crime to kill a baby because it's not the gender that the parent(s) wanted. Interestingly, many pro-choicers agree that this is wrong. In a recent national poll conducted by Ayres, McHenry & Associates, this question was asked among others about abortion, and the response was overwhelming against sex selection abortions being legal. 79% polled said these abortions should be illegal, with 17% disagreeing and 4% that said they didn't know. You can see the entire poll here and the analysis here.

 

Question: Roe v. Wade took the rights of the people away to decide what type of abortion laws to pass. Would you support the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which would allow the individual states to decide in what circumstances abortion should be legal?
Results:

Our Perspective:
We agree with the majority. The people should be allowed to decide on such an important issue.

Marketers and professional pollsters will admit that the wording of a poll can lead to a desired result.  Recently it has been shown that previous media polls on whether Americans want the Supreme Court to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision might have been biased.

The biased polls allowed people to believe that this Supreme Court decision only allowed abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy. However when the breadth of the decision is explained -- that Roe v. Wade and a companion case (Doe v Bolton) led to virtually unlimited abortions -- a new survey shows that Americans are more likely to favor overturning it.

The Judicial Confirmation Network and the Ethics and Public Policy Center were curious to find out what the public thinks about Roe if educated about the facts of the case. They commissioned the highly respected national public-affairs research firm Ayres, McHenry & Associates to conduct a national survey of registered voters on abortion issues.  The surveyors first asked Americans a generic question about whether they wanted Roe overturned… and 55% of the respondents opposed that.

The surveyors then asked a series of questions about whether the respondents  thought abortion should be legal in the circumstances that the woman doesn’t like the sex of the fetus, has social-economic concerns or the baby has a fetal deformity.  The majority opposed abortion in these cases. The polling firm then told respondents that Roe prohibits states from limiting abortion even for these reasons during the first six months of pregnancy and that, if Roe is overturned, states could make abortion policies that would permit abortion for some reasons and bar it for others.

The results changed from 55% opposing the overturning of Roe to 48%! Confronting the conditions under which Roe v. Wade makes abortion legal clearly has an effect on attitudes about overturning the decision. Roe made abortion legal under conditions where an overwhelming majority of voters would prefer for it to be illegal. Maintaining public policy that is at such odds with will of the majority of Americans helps explain why abortion remains such a divisive issue in American politics.

Click here to learn more.

 

Question: Would you support a ban on all late-term abortions performed on women who's lives are NOT at risk?
Results:

Our Perspective:
We agree with the majority. Unfortunately, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that the Supreme Court passed this year will fail to stop late-term abortions on 6-9 month-old babies. Even many pro-choicers agree that late-term abortions for reasons that do not include saving the life of the mother are wrong. Learn more about late-term abortions in GA by clicking here.

Question: Would you support a GA ban on human cloning?
Results:

Our Perspective:
We agree with the majority. Learn more about human cloning and why it should be banned by clicking here.

 

Question: Do you support state laws that require a woman considering an abortion first be offered to see an ultrasound image of her unborn baby?
Results:

Our Perspective:
We agree with the majority, and we are celebrating the passage of the Full Disclosure Ultrasound Act that would do this very thing. Here are some interesting facts about this subject:

• Obstetric Ultrasound is the use of ultrasound scans in pregnancy introduced in the late 1950’s and has become a very useful diagnostic tool in assessing the gestational age, size, and growth in a fetus.
• Equipment that is currently used is known as a real-time scanner with a continuous picture of the moving fetus depicted on a monitor screen. Very high frequency sound waves are emitted from a transducer, which is placed on the mother’s abdomen and is moved to "look at" the content of the uterus. Repetitive arrays of ultrasound beams scan the fetus and are reflected back onto the transducer.
• According to studies by Focus on the Family, expectant mothers who see their babies in an ultrasound are far less likely to seek abortions than those who do not view an ultrasound image. 
• The bill requires that ultrasound equipment be available at facilities where abortions are performed or the pregnant women could be referred to another medical facility for the performance of the ultrasound exam.
• Pregnancy Help Medical Clinics in Georgia provide free ultrasound exams for pregnant women.
• The Department of Human Resources will be required to develop and distribute a form for physicians who perform abortions to verify that the pregnant woman was offered an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her unborn child prior to the abortion being performed.
• Eight states currently include viewing an obstetric ultrasound in their law:  Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Utah.  

The “Full Disclosure Ultrasound Act” will help women in Georgia to have the accurate information they deserve to make an informed decision about their pregnancy.

Question: In what circumstances, if any, would you support a doctor assisting his patient to commit suicide?
Results:

Our Perspective:
Assisted suicide is a very controversial issue, that hits home to many families that have already had to wrestle with a dying family member. Georgia Right to Life condemns assisted suicide for any reason. There is some information about the issue right now at our End of Life Issues page. We will be working this month on vastly expanding the content on that page to better explain why assisted suicide is a very scary path for our country to go down. We can see this by looking at Holland, where assisted suicide and euthanasia is legal, with safeguards in place that includes the patients requesting it, the patient having an incurable illness, etc., but in reality the majority of Holland citizens being euthanized are euthanized against their will! This is one of several reasons GRTL stands against assisted suicide.

Question: Is it your opinion that when Democratic lawmakers speak about the need to reduce abortions, they are probably looking for political advantage rather than sincerely trying to reduce abortions?
Results:

Our Perspective:
It is certainly true that Democratic politicians can read election results and poll numbers, and realize that supporting abortion does not win elections. The political advantage right now is with the pro-life position. At the same time, it is also true that there are serious and sincere pro-life Democrats in office and seeking office. Each candidate in both parties must prove his or her sincerity not simply by stating what he or she "believes," but by telling us what he or she will do to protect the unborn.

Question: Should scientists be allowed to use human cloning to create a supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical research?
Results:

Our Perspective:
Once again, we agree with the consensus. Every time "therapeutic cloning" is performed, a human being dies so that his/her body parts can be used for research. Even though this research could be helpful, it is still never ethically correct to sacrifice the life of one human to save another without the consent of the sacrificed.

Research, possible cures, and medical advancement need to continue but at what price?  Surely, not through the taking of human life.  No human being should be forced to be the subject of research without their permission, especially if that research leads directly to their death

"Therapeutic cloning" will never save millions of lives because cloning scientists would need to harvest hundreds of millions of human eggs from willing women.  The researchers at Advanced Cell Technology had trouble getting 71 human eggs from women when they began attempts at human cloning.  There are good reasons why millions of women should not be willing to have their eggs harvested, even for the paltry sum of $5,000.  These women face enormous risks that include bleeding, scarring, and pelvic swelling.  The “donation” process requires self-injections of powerful hormones to boost egg production.  If these hormones produce too many eggs, they can cause “hyperstimulation syndrome” which, in turn, could lead to strokes.

By the way, International Communications Research conducted this same poll in May, 2006 on a national level. The results were:
Yes                  9.7%
No                   83.4%
Don't Know      5.9%
Refused            1.0%

>> Click here to learn more about human cloning.

Question: Should scientists be allowed to use human cloning to try to create children for infertile couples?
Results:

Our Perspective:
We agree with the consensus. Cloning, for the sake of reproducing, is not the answer to their problem. There are many other life-affirming options available to infertile couples who want to be parents. While these couples hope to create a child to care for, the process of reproductive cloning will lead to the deaths of hundreds of tiny human beings. Adoption is a possible option that offers great rewards for couples and the children they adopt. Thousands of children are waiting in foster care for good homes. Many other children in countries overseas are hoping a family will find and fall in love with them.

Reproductive cloning would confuse family relationships. A cloned child would have only one parent, who would be its genetic twin. Would the clone be the person's child or sibling? This would also pose great problems of inheritance (What status would the clone have versus other family members?). Finally, cloning could mean more children would grow up in single-parent households, without the benefit of married parents. Not to mention the fact that many homosexual couples would want to clone children with their DNA.

Let’s take a closer look at the pro-cloner’s best argument. Let’s assume reproductive cloning could be done safely, and only look at cases that don’t involve celebrities, and no mass clonings of Hitlers or Einsteins. Let’s look at the infertile couple, Bill and Kathy, who choose cloning over in vitro. Bill and Kathy plan to clone Kathy. They could have chosen to clone Bill. Either way would work.

Some people have argued that cloning is actually preferable to in vitro that uses sperm and egg from outside the marriage – as it means the child is genetically related to at least one parent. However, this presents a new problem: the cloned “daughter” in this case is very closely related – too closely. In fact, she is actually the biological daughter, not of Bill and Kathy at all, but of Kathy’s parents. She is actually Kathy’s biological sister, and Bill’s sister-in-law. As Kathy sees her “daughter” growing up as the spitting image of herself, it is plain to see that the family will go through some very strange experiences. How will the daughter differentiate herself from her mother, who is essentially the same as her? And how will Bill feel as he watches the woman he fell in love with (his wife) grow up as his daughter? The complications boggle the mind, and the ensuing family and personal dysfunctions are virtually assured. The notion that cloning is simply “an alternative to in vitro” is ridiculous. It’s a recipe for a very strange family life, indeed.

By the way, International Communications Research conducted this same poll in May, 2006 on a national level. The results were:
Yes                  9.7%
No                   83.4%
Don't Know      5.9%
Refused            1.0%

>> Click here to learn more about human cloning.

Question: Do you think abortion should be kept available for parents who find our that their unborn child has a physical or mental disability or deformity?
Results:

Our Perspective:
We agree with the consensus. The argument that abortion should be available for fetal deformity begs the question: it assumes the unborn are not human. Otherwise, the abortion advocate has just sanctioned killing off all toddlers who are handicapped. While we can certainly sympathize with those parents struggling to raise a handicapped child, it does not follow that abortion is justified. We must first ask if the unborn are human – for if they are, it is not true that hardship justifies homicide.

Interesting fact: In our quest for the perfect baby, 14,000 healthy babies are killed a year by amniocentesis. Download Source: Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, roughly 38,700 babies are killed a year because of a “possible problem affecting the health of the fetus.” Think about it: We're not going to have "Special Olympics" for very much longer if we continue at that rate!

Question: Do you support medical research that kills human embryos?
Results:

Our Perspective:
We would of course agree with the consensus. For more information about medical research that destroys embryos, go to our pages on stem cell research and cloning.

Question: Do you think abortion should be kept available to victims of rape and/or incest?
Results:

Our Perspective:
Rape is a serious evil.  Rapists should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. However, even when we do punish them, if the woman gets pregnant, we’ve let the rapist off easy. For when a woman gets pregnant from a rape, the rapist not only perpetrated an act of violent assault; he also forced her to become a mother.  So, if she wants to do what’s right, like everyone does, she has to carry the baby to term. It’s wrong for the rapist to have put her in the position where she either has to carry a baby she didn’t consent to create (followed by giving birth and possibly going through the pain of adoption) or she has to ask a doctor to kill the child. It’s the rapist who did all of this. So he should be punished for all of these things.  We are too easy on rapists who impregnate women!

However, the argument that a woman who has been raped should be able to abort the child begs the question: it assumes the unborn are not human. For, if the unborn are indeed human (and we have proven that they are in our other writings), then we must weigh two things: the woman’s right to be relieved of mental suffering against the unborn child’s right to life. The verdict, at least philosophically, is simple: hardship does not justify homicide, even if it relieves one of a terrible burden.

Do we want to live in a society where it is permissible to kill a human being because they remind us of a painful event?  What if the woman who’s been raped keeps the baby, but after 2 years she starts having flashbacks to the rape and is having a difficult time. Would it be okay for her to kill her 2-year-old? We’re assuming you would say no. If we asked you why not, you would probably say because it’s different.  The 2-year-old is a human being! But so is the unborn!  If the unborn is human, like the 2-year-old, then we can’t kill the unborn because it reminds us of a painful event either.

Should the child be forced to forfeit her life so that her mother can feel better? Would we expect the mother to forfeit her life to benefit the child? This is not a lack of compassion for the mother.  It is the refusal to kill an innocent human being even if it helps someone else feel better. If the guilty rapist is caught, do we allow the woman to shoot him because of the emotional relief it would bring her? If not, why should she be allowed to kill her innocent child for the same reason?

We know people that will testify that they were conceived in rape, and are obviously very happy that their moms allowed them to live! In fact, they get offended when people argue for abortion in rape cases, because they feel like that's saying they shouldn't be alive!

There is a second argument that is more about the woman.  Abortion does not undo the rape.  In fact, abortion is probably not the healthiest solution for the woman in the rare case of a pregnancy resulting from rape.  There are experts who agree.

Dr. Sandra Makhorn (noted author and rape counselor): The primary problem facing the rape victim is not pregnancy, but the attitudes projected by others: “The belief that pregnancy following rape will emotionally devastate the victim reflects the common misconception that women are helpless creatures who must be protected from the harsh realities of the world.” This study illustrates that pregnancy need not impede the victim’s resolution of the trauma; rather, with loving support, non-judgmental attitudes, and emphatic communication, healthy emotional and psychological responses are possible despite the added burden of pregnancy. (Cited in T. Hilgers, et al, New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University Pub., 1981, p.194)

Dr. Hern (the nation’s leading abortionist) admits rather candidly that abortion does nothing to treat the trauma of rape: “Victims of sexual abuse and rape deserve special care. However, the abortion counselor should recognize that the emotional trauma experienced by the rape or incest victim cannot be treated adequately, it at all, in the abortion clinic setting. All rape and incest victims, as well as victims of physical abuse, should be referred for appropriate psychological counseling and support.” (Abortion Practice, p.84) Click here to download the source and read it for yourself.

However, our first argument about the humanity of the unborn stands alone when talking about a rape exception.  Even if a raped woman had an abortion and felt great afterwards, that wouldn’t change the most important fact:  In an abortion, an innocent human being is slaughtered in an attempt to right the wrongdoing of his or her rapist father.

---

Question: Do you believe that showing graphic pictures of the aftermath of abortion is a method that should be used by pro-life activists?
Results:

Our Perspective:
The word "abortion" has lost almost all meaning in the last 34 years. Many people hear the word and think of a benign medical procedure that extracts formless tissue. Pro-lifers must visually awaken moral sensibilities. As Scott Klusendorf says, "We must move the debate from the abstract question of "choice" to the concrete issue of the dead baby."

The results are powerful. There was a substantial shift of former pro-choicers moving to the pro-life side during the debate on partial-birth abortion for one reason: It was visual.

Some reject the use of graphic pictures on the grounds that it substitutes emotion for reason. This objection misses the point entirely. The question is not, "Are the pictures emotional?" They are. The real question is, "Are the pictures real?" Truth is the issue.

Pro-abortion columnist Naomi Wolf observes, "The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers’ practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics....[But] how can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy."¹

Having said all of this, it is also very important to use graphic aids wisely. Don't just walk up to someone on the street and spring out some abortion pictures and say, "Hey, look at this!" When Georgia Right to Life speaks out on the issue of abortion, we often use a short video that depicts the aftermath of abortion. Before rolling the clip, however, we explain to the audience that the video contains graphic pictures. We advise them to look away if they don't want to watch. There is no narration describing the pictures; just instrumental music.

Georgia Right to Life speakers have shown graphic pictures to thousands of people, in schools and churches, in Christian and secular venues, to youth and adults, with a very positive response. In fact, we get much better responses to presentations with graphic pictures than in the presentations where the pictures have been censored.

1. Naomi Wolf, "Our Bodies, Our Souls," New Republic, 16 October 1996.

Question: Do you think that a mother who has had an abortion and then has given birth to other children should tell those children, at some appropriate time, that she had an abortion?
Results:

Our Perspective:
The phrase “at some appropriate time” is the key here. A mother would probably not tell her children when they are too young; too sensitive, etc.  The poll question also seems to assume the mother is emotionally ready to share this news; i.e. she has healed from her abortion, and is willing to tell others at some appropriate time.  Some women never tell anyone and some women tell people if they think that it will do good and not harm.  This is and should be a very individual decision.

The experience and insight of Dr. Philip Ney, a child psychiatrist who has studied this issue for decades, is important when we examine this issue. He maintains that the children likely already know, and certainly are impacted by their mother's abortion whether they realize it or not. Abortion always wounds the family, and families, in the end, are healthier when they know what their wounds are. Dr. Ney provides valuable guidance on this topic, and his material can be found at www.messengers2.com.