Two-thirds of Americans oppose considering frozen embryos as people, with the issue rapidly resonating with Democrats already charged up by election-year messaging on reproductive rights, a new Axios-Ipsos poll finds.
Why it matters: The findings suggest the Alabama Republican Supreme Court decision on in vitro fertilization goes well beyond where public sentiment is in the post-Roe world.
Driving the news: 66% of the public oppose designating IVF embryos as children and holding those who destroy them legally responsible, while 31% support it.
>Republicans are divided on the question, with 49% supporting and 49% opposing.
>The majority of the country (54%) still isn't familiar with the ruling. But within a week of the decision, 65% of Democrats were, compared with 35% of Republicans.
It's telling how quickly the information about the Alabama ruling spread, particularly on the Democratic side, said Ipsos vice president Mallory Newall.
>"Democrats are tuned in in a big way," Newall said.
>And while the Alabama ruling doesn't outlaw IVF, its effects have left a significant portion of the population viewing it as a restriction that's "out of step with where the public is at," Newall said.
Context: The ruling has supercharged the election-year reproductive health debate and left abortion foes struggling to respond to the blowback.
>It's also clouded the legal landscape around IVF by raising liability risks that could drive up the costs and curtail the availability of services.
>Senate Democrats on Wednesday are expected to try to force a vote on federal protections for IVF and other fertility treatments that would shield clinics and pre-empt any state restrictions.
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/28/alabama-ivf-ruling-poll-ipsos
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1272281 Between the lines: Public sentiment on reproductive health is partly shaped by personal experience. Almost half of Americans personally know someone who's had an abortion, and nearly 7 in 10 know someone who's had a miscarriage.
>The poll suggests reported efforts by former President Trump and other Republicans to coalesce around a 16-week nationwide abortion ban aren't catching on beyond the GOP base, with 57% of the public opposed and 40% in support.
>There's even more pushback against efforts in some states to ban emergency contraception, or Plan B, with 77% opposed and 19% in support.
On another hot-button issue for states, the poll also showed 56% oppose state bans on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth while 41% support them.
>There was a significant partisan split, with 66% of Republicans backing such bans and only 16% of Democrats in support.
>Just over a quarter said they knew about the recent death of a non-binary Oklahoma teen after an altercation in a school bathroom.
Anonymous
quick! bring up transexuals!
Anonymous
>Republicans: "Improve white birthrates!" >Also Republicans: "NO, NOT LIKE THAT!"
Anonymous
>>1272287 Meanwhile Republicans just blocked a bill protecting IVFs meaning they believe it should be illegal along with their push for a total abortion ban
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gop-senator-blocks-bill-protecting-ivf-alabama_n_65df9d68e4b0189a6a80506a Anonymous
If its not a baby.. what is it? >But rape!!! >Thats just like abortion!! >InB4 embryo zygote morula blastocyte etc...
Anonymous
>>1272319 They can't cede ground because their religious base would get pissy and because actually agreeing that life doesn't begin at conception could potentially torpedo them legally down the line. They know the more self-contradictory their position becomes to not offend the majority of the country, the more they have to twist themselves into knots in court to defend their shit. Roe being gone hardly means the situation is settled.
Anonymous
>>1272337 I have no fucking idea what you're talking about. IFV thing is fucking dumb and there is no sizeable portion of the republican base that supports it.
>no no no not true! A bunch of Red states either have or are already working on cut-outs for IFV treatment.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1272342 The latest poll shows that Republicans are split in half over this issue. So you're lying.
The fact that Republican anti women's rights crusade is now affecting women who want to get pregnant is pretty telling, and predictable.
Anonymous
>>1272281 I'm more concerned that 1/3rd of americans are batshit crazy enough to think a frozen egg cell is the same as a human being
I've cummed to things you wouldn't believe
I've cummed to things you wouldn't believe Thu 29 Feb 2024 03:06:57 No. 1272428 Report Quoted By:
>>1272331 Contraception is killing the potential of a person, therefore it's wrong. So, every time you ejaculate into the toilet should be considered genocide. Millions of potential chuds gone, just like tears in the rain...
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1272342 I said their base doesn't support it though?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1272283 no no no you're doing it wrong. you have to use multiple buzzwords at the same time, like "commie troon leftists" or "libshit trannies", never say "transsexuals".
Anonymous
>>1272403 That's always been the case that the religious nuts want to control all sex.
Watch them try and ban contraceptives next.
Anonymous
>>1272501 Religious people love sex. That's why they have way more kids.
They want creampies and bigass milky preggo titties.
Why don't atheists like creampies and preggo titties?
Anonymous
>>1272513 Then why do they want to ban sex? Checkmate cultist.
Anonymous
>>1272518 Speaking of checkmate. Sodomy isn't sex.
Anonymous
>>1272519 That's not very christlike of you.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1272337 Boomers should be dying en masse by now. How is their base still religious?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1272524 We haven't all been converted to goyimism yet.
Anonymous
>>1272522 Clearly not, otherwise you'd be for sodomy.
Anonymous
>>1272547 Wait, is the this old, "lol homosexuals disguised as priests raped boys." argument?
Do we want to go there?
i meant female duck embryos you bigots
i meant female duck embryos you bigots Thu 29 Feb 2024 11:21:21 No. 1272556 Report Quoted By:
>>1272281 veddy old style chyyNese recipe:
flied rice
5 flavor spice
aged garlic(2)
1 tsp ginger juice
2 tsps sesame oil
10 freshie girl embryos(these use to be so easy gets)
fry all in wok quick and add embryo last and stir on high for 1 minute.
https://mockmyfood.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/balut/ https://litter.catbox.moe/zivnx8.webp Anonymous
>>1272553 Why are you admitting you molest kids? That's against US law.
Anonymous
>>1272521 >>1272547 >>1272577 Homosexuals know their decrepit ways are wrong so they deflect their sodomy upon me. Shameless
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1272598 RuPaul is going to show up at your house and rape you now.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1272598 Then we better outlaw religion.
Anonymous
>>1272651 There's that fascism again.
Anonymous
>>1272674 But fascism used Christianity.
Anonymous
>>1272678 Look, I'm sorry your father wasn't around for you as a child. It's not God's fault though.
Anonymous
>>1272281 >1,020 is the entire US also your pic in OP shows its 49:49 as to whether or not people consider embryos people
Anonymous
>>1272710 Among so called "conservatives"
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1272718 According to whom?
Anonymous
>>1272710 >1,020 is the entire US Uncertainty reduces exponentially with sampling.
If you need help understanding this, you've probably only been alive for a minute fraction of a % of how long the sun has existed, but you can be sure it will rise tomorrow.
Anonymous
>>1272787 remember when these pollsters said clinton was going to beat trump?
Anonymous
>>1272788 She did beat Trump, but she didn't beat the Russian facebook memes
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1272690 Why are you talking about yourself?
Anonymous
>>1272787 According to his samplings of more is better, Dewey defeated Truman.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1272803 she lost and was humiliated
Anonymous
>>1272788 Pollsters put Hillary's chance of winning at about 70% a week before the election. I'm not sure if you know how odds work but if I tell you there's a 70% chance of something happens and it doesn't happen that doesn't mean I was wrong. It means the unlikely thing happened. Take polls with a grain of salt, anon. If you think they're definitive predictive tools then you don't know what they are or how they work.
Anonymous
>>1272821 horse race polls have proven to be shit. if horse race polls are shit, how good do you think issue polls are? because we really can't measure how good issue polls are like an election poll. Issue polls are 100% there to drive agenda. you get bullshit like dems claiming all this gun control bullshit is popular, even with NRA members, and then the NRA internal polling shows the oppsite and the fact that Pat Toomey's staffers said his primary numbers got hurt for years over him sponsoring "moderate" gun control.
to say nothing of the fact that if you change the wording of a question in an issue poll or purposely oversample a region you get a different answer.
Anonymous
>>1272809 >According to his samplings of more is better, Dewey defeated Truman. Pretty sure Truman won that poll. If you were referring to the polling leading up to the election, it was done far less frequently back then and even then it still showed Dewey's lead collapsing in the lead up to the election.
>>1272788 Pretty sure Clinton won that poll.
Anonymous
>>1272825 >horse race polls have proven to be shit Hillary won the popular vote. What the fuck do you think was being polled? The electoral college?
Anonymous
>>1272825 >to say nothing of the fact that if you change the wording of a question in an issue poll or purposely oversample a region you get a different answer. >Methodology matters Shocker. It's almost like there's a reason polls publish their methodology.
>and then the NRA internal polling shows the opposite Lol. Lmao even.
Anonymous
>>1272788 Any pollster will tell you they cannot 100% predict election results, especially a nationwide race like the Presidential election which is determined by winning electoral votes, not the popular directly. It's extremely convoluted and complicated.
What they did predict was that it was likely Hillary would win, about 66% likely. 2 in 3 odds is not 99%. And it was a very close race that hinged on a few thousands of votes in a few swing states. And she won the popular vote.
Many MAGA voters however were underrepresented in polling, because either they don't respond to pollsters or they aren't willing to be open with strangers about their political beliefs.
Anonymous
>>1272828 and she lost the election
>>1272830 the popular vote isn't how you win elections.
Anonymous
>>1272831 have you ever read methodology of polls?
>we asked 200 old people living in major cities who have land lines >>1272832 538 had a hissyfit over how the polls were wrong
Anonymous
>>1272828 >Pretty sure Truman won that poll. Nope the polling methodology of polling everyone you could instead of a sample size was still maintstream.
Also Trump lost.
Anonymous
>>1272825 >horse race polls have proven to be shit. Not really. You just have to know how to read them and understand what sorts of things they're good for predicting.
>because we really can't measure how good issue polls are like an election poll What? We absolutely can. We look at the poll and then after the election look at how accurate it is. We know exactly why the polls for the 2016 election failed to predict the outcomes by examining the exit polls.
>you get bullshit like dems claiming all this gun control bullshit is popular, even with NRA members, and then the NRA internal polling shows the oppsite and the fact that Pat Toomey's staffers said his primary numbers got hurt for years over him sponsoring "moderate" gun control. Polls can be misleading, yes. That doesn't mean they don't predict anything. They're important tools but tools that should be taken with a grain of salt. A poll or two on its own tells much or nothing. Massive polling and aggregates can tell you quite a bit if you know what you're looking for.
Anonymous
>>1272858 >Not really. You just have to know how to read them and understand what sorts of things they're good for predicting. 538 says there are issues with horse race polling. you are a retard who is pretending to be smart
>What? We absolutely can. We look at the poll and then after the election look at how accurate it is. We know exactly why the polls for the 2016 election failed to predict the outcomes by examining the exit polls. they don't know exactly. if they did they could correct it right, but even 538 says they can't really do that
>Polls can be misleading, yes. That doesn't mean they don't predict anything. They're important tools but tools that should be taken with a grain of salt. A poll or two on its own tells much or nothing. Massive polling and aggregates can tell you quite a bit if you know what you're looking for. polls are used by propagandists to try to force support for something
Anonymous
>>1272837 >and she lost the election Yes. And? The attack was on polling reliability/methodology. Nobody said elections were decided by popular vote. They said polls are unreliable for determining public sentiment. They demonstrably aren't.
>the popular vote isn't how you win elections. I mean that was kinda my point.
>>1272838 >have you ever read methodology of polls? Yes? Many times?
>we asked 200 old people living in major cities who have land lines You're an idiot.
>>1272842 That was in reference to Truman winning the popular vote, a thing he did. By the way, even bringing up Truman is fucking insane. Public polling as a science was in its fucking infancy then and they were working off of far shallower data. Models get more accurate with time like with AI.
>Also Trump lost. Yes. He did. I said he did.
Anonymous
>>1272862 >polls are used by propagandists to try to force support for something Damn, bruh, that's wild. Why don't we have gun control again? I thought polls force support for shit and we basically have infinite polls showing support for gun control.
Also why are you treating 538 like god? You realize they're propagandists, right?
Anonymous
>>1272894 because republican voters aren't dumb enough to fall for propaganda. only urbanites are that retarded
Anonymous
>>1272892 >Yes. And? The attack was on polling reliability/methodology. Nobody said elections were decided by popular vote. They said polls are unreliable for determining public sentiment. They demonstrably aren't. >>the popular vote isn't how you win elections. >I mean that was kinda my point. so you think 538, a website named after the electoral college was too retarded to factor in the electoral college?
are you 12 or are you not American?
>>1272892 >Yes? Many times? no you haven't
>You're an idiot. no argument
needs to resort to insults
sad
Anonymous
Quoted By:
this anti-abortion issue that Republicans have to pander to has made white people look like morons. Every other racial group is more rational and know an embryo isn't a person. It's embarrassing.
Anonymous
>>1272892 >By the way, even bringing up Truman is fucking insane. No it's not, because the one retard was saying because the sample size was a calculated group, it couldn't be right. Truman's election is proof that larger samples is not better.
Anonymous
>>1272897 >because republican voters aren't dumb enough to fall for propaganda Literally everyone is dumb enough to fall for propaganda, you inbred baboon.
>>1272899 >so you think 538, a website named after the electoral college was too retarded to factor in the electoral college? 538 isn't a polling body. What are you even talking about? Most polls had Hillary more popular than Trump. She won the popular vote. The fuck are you bringing up 538 for? Are you talking about that fucking model they did where they projected who would win based on state polling? Cause 1, that wasn't a poll, and 2, state political polling is far less developed than national polling. Not even I would defend all state political polls. Those models are a lot rougher. If you don't properly weight who you ask what where, you'll fuck yourself and state polling has simply been around for less time, been done less often per state, and gotten less development and focus than national polling.
Anonymous
>>1272912 >Literally everyone is dumb enough to fall for propaganda, you inbred baboon. nope, only city cucks
>538 isn't a polling body. What are you even talking about? Most polls had Hillary more popular than Trump. She won the popular vote. The fuck are you bringing up 538 for? so you are saying all polls are fucking useless? 538 is specifically trying to measure the EC, because that is what matters and all the polls were wrong in 2016
Plus clinton's popular vote MoV was less than her MoV in california and california lets illegals vote
Anonymous
>>1272907 >because the one retard was saying because the sample size was a calculated group, it couldn't be right. Literally nobody in this thread has said that.
>Truman's election is proof that larger samples is not better. Truman's election is proof that polls held weeks apart can have slightly different results.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1272913 >538 is specifically trying to measure the EC, 538 is not a polling body and did not take measurements.
>Plus clinton's popular vote MoV was less than her MoV in california and california lets illegals vote In local school board elections. What school board was Hillary running for?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1272914 How else would you imply this?
>>1272710 The polling methodology was still wrong for Truman as well.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
The issue of abortion rights is a good litmus test for whether or not you're a total retard-- if you are indifferent to or support male genital cutting or coerced vaccination but you got up in arms over the Roe v. Wade ruling from the Supreme Court exactly when you were instructed to by mainstream media and Democrat talking heads, your IQ is no higher than 80.
sage
Quoted By:
>1272428 >A haploid cell is a person.
