What the media call “extremist position” on abortion, is the opinion of 70% of Americans


While 6 states have passed very restrictive abortion laws, a poll is destroying what the media would like you to think about the issue.

The latest survey by Harvard University’s Center for American Politics, in collaboration with Harris Interactive, revealed that a majority of American voters believe that abortion should be legal until the first trimester and no more, or only in cases of incest and rape.

Very few believe, as the Democratic Party claims, led by Hillary Clinton, that women should be able to have an abortion in the third trimester or until the time of delivery.

The survey, conducted online in the United States on May 29 and 30, 2019, among 1,295 registered voters, revealed:

  • 41% of voters believe that abortion should only be allowed in cases of incest and rape.
  • 29% think that abortion should be legal until the first trimester.
  • 17% believe it should be during the second quarter,
  • 8% believe it should be in the third quarter,
  • And only 6% of Americans believe that abortion should be allowed until the moment of birth – this is the official position of the media, which conveys the official position of the Democratic Party.

To the question: should a doctor and a mother be allowed to kill a baby born with deformities or not?

  • A 70% majority responded that the doctor and the mother should not be allowed to kill the baby after birth.

To the question: “Do you think that our current abortion laws are too liberal, too restrictive or simply fair?

  • 29% believe that the current laws are too liberal,
  • 37% believe they are too restrictive and
  • 34% believe that the current laws were fair.

The survey also revealed that most Americans want the Supreme Court to overturn or amend Roe v. Wade*.

  • 20% believe that the Supreme Court should set it aside,
  • 49% think it should change the decision,
  • 31% believe that Roe vs. Wade* should be upheld.

This survey comes at a time when several states have passed pro-life laws in recent weeks that limit abortions to the moment when a heartbeat is detected or at the time of conception, angering pro-abortion Democrats and 2020 presidential candidates.

On the other hand, President Trump has made it clear that he respects life. He is, according to the evangelicals, the most pro-life president they have ever known.

For Democratic activists and journalists, Roe vs. Wade is the red line that is forbidden to cross or the country would plunge into the darkness of fascism and medieval past.

It was in the name of the hysterical protection of Roe vs. Wade that the activists tried to derail the appointment of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an episode you certainly remember, where a psychologist claimed to have been abused by Kavanaugh thirty years earlier when they were high school students – without being able to provide any evidence or testimony.

The opponents of Roe vs. Wade have two key arguments

  • The first argument is a classic conservative position, namely the harmfulness of the federal state’s involvement in the free decision of the States. They consider the Federal Supreme Court’s decision to be an abuse of State freedom. It deprives States, and therefore the citizens of each state, of the possibility of passing laws contrary to the decision without risking their cancelation.
  • The second argument, which stems from the first, is that if Roe vs. Wade were canceled, it would not prevent each state – California, New York State, New Jersey, Washington, to name only the most left-leaning ones as an example – from passing laws that resemble Roe vs. Wade, while others would pass laws that conform to the wishes of citizens – a democratic measure the leftists violently reject.

It is the reason why six States have just passed very tough laws that defy Roe vs. Wade: with 2 Conservative Supreme Court judges appointed by President Trump, which changes the balance of High Court, they hope that someone will file a complaint against the new laws, that the case will go all the way up to the Supreme Court, and that it will make a decision that will overturn Roe vs. Wade.

I might as well tell you that this is the media nightmare, the Democratic activists frightening bad dream. If such an event occurs, it will be a social earthquake. It will shake the strongest foundations of the American progressive left.

I would not be surprised if violence, triggered by the usual good humanists, would follow such a decision, as well as physical threats against Supreme Court judges and their families, and I am convinced that the judges know it, and that it represents a formidable pressure that will push them either to refuse to take such cases, or to vote for the continuation of Roe vs. Wade.

In other words, no media will mention the existence of this new important survey by a left-wing university, in the middle of a period of very harsh anti-abortion laws in Alabama, Georgia, and other states.

To avoid such tidal waves, wonderful France, nation of Human Rights, has outright passed a law banning to talk about these subjects. With respect for fundamental freedoms, of course.


*For once, Wikipedia gives a good definition of the judgment:

Roe v. Wade, 1973, was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

However, it ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government’s interests in protecting women’s health and protecting prenatal life.

The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy:

  1. During the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all
  2. During the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations
  3. During the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

Because the Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as “fundamental”, the decision required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the “strict scrutiny” standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.

Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email tips@thegellerreport.com

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.


Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Pin It on Pinterest