Top Election Issue for Younger Women Is Abortion, Survey Finds

Abortion has surpassed inflation as the top issue for women under 30 in the upcoming presidential election, according to a new survey.

The survey, produced by KFF, polled 678 female voters from September 12 to October 1. About 40 percent of young women now prioritize abortion, a significant increase from around 20 percent in the same survey conducted last spring.

While inflation remains the leading issue for women over 30 and overall, younger women have shifted their focus to reproductive rights.

I would have thought that American women would also consider the election of a woman as PotUS to be a tremendous boost to their self-confidence that women are as capable as men to be the most powerful person in the world and leader of the free world as has already been proven by women who have led their nations like Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Jacinda Ardern, and others, as well as examples for their daughters that they are capable of such success and not always relegated as not as capable as men. .  

I would have thought that American women would also consider the election of a woman as PotUS to be a tremendous boost to their self-confidence that women are as capable as men to be the most powerful person in the world and leader of the free world as has already been proven by women who have led their nations like Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Jacinda Ardern, and others, as well as examples for their daughters that they are capable of such success and not always relegated as not as capable as men. .

Many do-- and that is increasing over time.

And of course there are many who don't . . .

"And of course there are many who don't . ."

I pity them.

This line of reasoning. . . is also one, again, one of the reasons I supported a relative newcomer to politics like Barack Obama (he did swell too as people adore him after serving and his 'retirement.'). Sometimes people need the DIFFERENCES that can come unexpectedly from other 'talents' sitting all around us. . .but politics is too stupid to let 'try.' Remember this, Barack Obama gave the country great healthcare that is a 'win!' And, Barack's administration policies sheltered the nation through a recession and a rebound (2008-2012). When we don't use the full VARIETY of talent that we have as a nation. . . just because it is safer just to trust and expend the status quo. . . potentially we suffer longer than we should (in ignorance).

If we are as free a nation, bend on MAX liberties (and not just liberties for the 'Select' relative few), then we ought to be open to clearing a path for all good and worthwhile valued persons to serve this nation. 

That is what we have been trying to get through the thick-heads of those who fight against PROGRESS!

Across all age groups, women ranked abortion overall as their third-greatest concern, after inflation and threats to democracy but ahead of immigration.

Currently, 13 states enforce complete abortion bans, while four others restrict abortions to the first six weeks of pregnancy.

The changes have made access to abortion a central theme in Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign against former President Donald Trump.

Harris has positioned herself as a defender of reproductive rights, contrasting her stance with Trump, whose U.S. Supreme Court appointments facilitated the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

A recent Harris campaign ad featured Hadley Duvall, a survivor of child sex abuse by her stepfather from a young age. Titled "Monster," it highlighted Duvall's struggle to access abortion care in Kentucky during a dangerous pregnancy at age 12.

Being from Canada, where abortion has been sensible and acceptable for decades makes me wonder just how backward so many Americans really are.

wonder just how backward so many Americans really are.

I used to wonder as well-- but over time, (unfortunately) I've gotten used to it. After all my two female cousins on my Mother's side are childless cat ladies.

wonder just how backward so many Americans really are.

I used to wonder as well-- but over time, (unfortunately) I've gotten used to it. After all my two female cousins on my Mother's side are childless cat ladies.

Whoops-- my mistake-- one is not actually a "Childless Cat Lady" but rather a "Childless Dog Lady". (But her "Childless Cat Lady" sister makes up for it by having not one but two actual Pussycats! )

Whoops-- my mistake-- one is not actually a "Childless Cat Lady" but rather a "Childless Dog Lady". (But her "Childless Cat Lady" sister makes up for it by having not one but two actual Pussycats! )

P.S: Neither is a Taylor Swift fan (they like her a lot but neither is a giant fan of her music)

LOL   She better keep those "pussies" away from Trump. 

LOL   She better keep those "pussies" away from Trump

Heh!

makes me wonder just how backward so many Americans really are.

There's an olde saying:

There's no cure for "Stuck on Stupid"!

The survey also indicated that two-thirds of women overall believe the election outcome will significantly impact abortion rights, up from just over half earlier this year. A majority of women preferred Harris' approach, with 90 percent of Democrats supporting her. Fewer than 20 percent of Republican women favored her stance.

Most respondents expressed confidence that Harris would sign a federal law to protect abortion access if Congress passed such legislation.

In my opinion, if Harris loses, it will be because too many women would rather be and want all women to be Handmaidens (as described in Canadian author Margaret Atwood's novel A Handmaid's Tale) rather than have and support rights that are equal to those of men.

It's best left to the states.

in fact, here in Colorado it's on the ballot as Constitutional Amendment 79

It's also on the ballot here in Arizona to amend the State Constitution to allow for abortion. 

Personally however I dislike this return to the 1960's with a patchwork of laws around it. I would rather that Congress (which is the correct body, not the courts) would pass a law on abortion. Find a compromise that everybody can live with and go with that. Yeah, I know that the extremists have taken over Congress and the odds of any sort of compromise on this is very slight. 

That's a more common-sense attitude, Snuffy, but unlikely to happen.

Roe/Casey was the compromise, both figurative and near literal middle ground. But anti abortionists were never satisfied with that. So it's unlikely a federal law to the same effect will be passed. 

You know, Greg, I was born and grew up in a relatively unified nation.  Sure it has provinces and they have individual rights, but anything that's really important is still federal.  So much is made of your individual states' rights and your electoral college system that sometimes I can't understand why your states just don't become individual international countries.

So much is made of your individual states' rights and your electoral college system that sometimes I can't understand why your states just don't become individual international countries.

The Electoral College is undemocratic. It should be abolished ASAP.

It won't be if the GOP can help it.  It already won them a couple of elections even though the nation's majority of votes was contrary. 

Except the USA is not a democracy and it never was, it is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens' ideas and concerns in government.

Contrary to catchy slogans, memes and other slick forms of electioneering, the government of the United States was never intended to be a pure democracy. In fact, most of the institutions today’s activists complain about were designed to thwart the pernicious effects of too much democracy. They’re anti-democratic by design. Rather than flaws that require remedy, these institutions were (and are) essential safeguards for individual liberty.

The Framers knew that in its pure form democracy could be dangerous. The writings of the founding era are replete with warnings of this fact:

• “Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments,” Alexander Hamilton wrote. “If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship.”

• Thomas Jefferson lamented that “a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”

• James Madison argued that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

• John Adams concluded that democracy “never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Despite what many of today’s activists would have us believe, the anti-democratic institutions of the American Republic are just as vital now as they were over 200 years ago.

For example, the Electoral College ensures that individuals elected to the presidency don’t only have the support of the population-heavy coasts, but broad support throughout the entire country. The function of the Electoral College is to respect and represent the states as sovereign entities within our federal system.

Likewise for the Senate. Each state is represented equally in the Senate, irrespective of population, size or prestige. As a check upon democratic extremes, the Senate was even more effective before the unfortunate enactment of the   17th Amendment   in 1913 subjected senators to direct election by voters rather than by individual state legislatures.

Finally, the Supreme Court is perhaps the least democratic institution of all. The court’s members are given lifetime appointments by presidents elected via the Electoral College, subject to no democratic oversight or elections. Justices are called upon to decide cases and controversies according to what the law demands, not according to their personal preferences or the passions and prejudices of the electorate.

The United States is Not a Democracy—and it Wasn't Meant to be One | Pacific Legal Foundation

representative democracy

While I get what is written in the comment. . . it is partially written in error. Look at the quote above. "Representative democracy." Thus, "representative" here is a type of democracy. That is, our country is INDEED a democracy—after-all. 

The fact that persons and officials do not always take the time to use the long version, "representative democracy' does not alter the fact that we are a democracy.

Just want to clear that up!

Yes and no. While it's a type of democracy, it's a clear attempt to ensure that it's not confused with a "pure democracy" because it's not. A pure democracy (or direct democracy) is a form of democracy in which the electorate decides on policy initiatives without elected representatives as proxies. ie, majority rules.

The US is a representative democracy because we the people elect the representatives (House & Senate) to represent our wishes and needs in government, and those representatives are the ones who craft and vote on laws. The people themselves do not.

As the initial comment I replied to stated that the Electoral College was undemocratic and needed to be abolished, my reply was to show that the US is not a pure democracy, and the majority rules is not something that we have (or IMO want) in this country.

Hope that makes it clear.

As the initial comment I replied to stated that the Electoral College was undemocratic and needed to be abolished, my reply was to show that the US is not a pure democracy, and the majority rules is not something that we have (or IMO want) in this country.

Well, for the sake of arguing. . .  the nation does have a small "d" democratic society with a "representative" topper. Just to be precise. It follows from the fact that two things (or more) can be right at the same time.

The Electoral college is an add-on. Albeit, I get its purpose and usage. However, it does beg the question that such a 'hanger on' methodology to our representative democracy form of government (we can have a representative democracy without "the college") can be a source of ABUSE and manipulation for nefarious, dogmatic usage to SUPPRESS the majority when it seeks to make progress. The aforementioned conduct can't be right for the country in any shape, form, or fashion either.

and the majority rules is not something that we have (or IMO want) in this country.

So who is the "we" who allegedly don't want it?

I just had a thought about America having what is called a "representative democracy" which does NOT mean that EVERY VOTE from EVERY AMERICAN COUNTS.  My son is a Canadian living in Wisconsin and has obtained dual citizenship with America.  He might vote for a Democrat but the electoral college vote might go Republican, which means that his vote does NOT contribute to "The Will of the People". If you ignore the fact that NOBODY can vote in China, officials who are appointed to represent the people of their particular area are the ones who represent their areas to cast their votes at the general assemblies of the CPC in order to pass laws that are produced by the governing officials.  So it is the votes of the representatives that pass the laws, and what the individuals want is meaningless.  I know that the CPC says that Chinese government calls itself a democracy, socialism with Chinese characteristics.  Seems to me that other than individuals voting there isn't much difference in the systems.  Accomplishments, such as eradicating abject poverty, are obviously a lot easier to accomplish without opposition, though. 

I am NOT saying that China has the BETTER system, but from what I've seen and experienced the people here aren't as unhappy with their government as about half of Americans are all any time about theirs.  And I do feel a lot safer here and can live much more comfortably on my meagre Canada pensions here than I ever could in America.  

Seems to me that other than individuals voting there isn't much difference in the systems. 

Individuals (the people; the demos) not voting for their representatives is a monster difference, Buzz.

We are a representative democracy in terms of legislation.   In a representative democracy, the people directly vote for who will represent them in Congress (and the PotUS and VP).   What you described was not a democracy since the people have no say in who will represent them.   Democracy = rule by the people (demos), not rule by appointed representatives.

So it is the votes of the representatives that pass the laws, and what the individuals want is meaningless.  I know that the CPC says that Chinese government calls itself a democracy, socialism with Chinese characteristics.  Seems to me that other than individuals voting there isn't much difference in the systems.  Accomplishments, such as eradicating abject poverty, are obviously a lot easier to accomplish without opposition, though. 

This is an interesting 'state' that you have described for us. Our systems are similar. . .up to a point. U.S. politicians are representatives of the 'will' of the people that they serve. Emphasis on service. Even when those same groupings of politicians 'band' together and vote their own whims and such.

As to removing "abject poverty" off the table, such accomplishments are noble and practical indeed. And potentially is do-able in any society that cares for all, all, all, of its citizenry. Unfortunately, the fact belies such CARE in the United States. Here it is 'buyer' beware (of those whom you elect sometimes).

China, if I understand it correctly, is overwhelmingly Chinese ethnically. The effect that has is to bring about less strife between large groups as most people generally accept that they want similarly for each other.

Here in the United States unfortunately we have different groups that are 'tribal-minded' and that are jockeying (or are thought by some to be doing so anyway) to outmaneuver and even deceive the others. 

Outstanding comment. 

Here in the United States unfortunately we have different groups

That's inevitable in a democracy!

The only way to avoid people having different opinions is to have a dictatorship . . .

Thanks TiG, I stand correctly.  IMO what the big difference is that in America it is better to have half of the people happy most of the time than to have most of the people happy all of the time. 

Our theoretically great system has devolved into a very divisive mess replete with disinformation.    What we are experiencing now is an abomination of what our framers created.

“…replete with disinformation.”

It is now, more than ever, incumbent upon all of us to have the patience and the desire to distinguish fact from fiction and to understand that most of what we see and hear has been distorted to fit an ideology.

It is easy and comfortable to live in an echo chamber. But to lean on an idiom too often abused…’freedom isn’t free’…and frightening when the potential results of our collective decisions are free from individual thought. 

Here in the United States unfortunately we have different groups that are 'tribal-minded' and that are jockeying (or are thought by some to be doing so anyway) to outmaneuver and even deceive the others. 

As I said, IMO or for those who don't know the acronym, 'In My Opinion' which means me myself. Should be simple to understand.

So that there's no misunderstanding,  WE DO NOT HAVE A MAJORITY RULES TYPE OF GOVERNMENT AND IN MY OPINION IT SHOULD NOT EXIST IN THIS COUNTRY.  Hope it's clear now.

"Thanks TiG, I stand correctly." 

I knew this day was coming.  Not only am I having trouble reading the normal font on NT and have to use a magnifying glass (which is why I, and some sympathetic members realize that and increase it one level to 14 pt).  BUT, I'm missing words that I write wrongly.  I didn't mean "I stand correctly" although I do, I meant to write "I stand corrected".  You will all have to forgive me, cause approaching the age of 88 is obviously taking its toll, and I'm not an Oldsmobile.  But then, even the Oldsmobiles reached their end, even the Super ones. 

Buzz, a lot of us use or spell the wrong word.  It is quite common. Just carry on as normal. 

We understand. I am not in my eighties and I make 'mountains' of errors in my comments which I notice on reading them back! My biggest annoyance? It's when I leave off the closing parenthesis (I do that alot too)! When you all see that happen - missing " ) " - just know that I am 'kicking'  myself (well, not really but y'all get the point) for it once I catch on that I did it! 

"Our theoretically great system has devolved into a very divisive mess replete with disinformation. What we are experiencing now is an abomination of what our framers created."

Yes, so I have noticed, and I attract a lot of derision on NT for saying so.  How sad it is for me, because of all the years during which I spent such happy times all over the USA, all the places I've travelled to and loved, the golf condo in Florida I shared with my brother that we inherited from our parents, so many festivals I attended, so many wonders I enjoyed, so many iconic places I toured, so many good people I met.  And now.....  Well, at least there still are the good people on NT with whom I can communicate.  

"The only way to avoid people having different opinions is to have a dictatorship . . ."

Even in a "dictatorship" people are free to openly discuss different opinions other than political ones.  What seems to be a problem in some countries is that so much time and effort are spent over differing political opinions, it is more of a detriment than a benefit for the good of society. 

Thanks for your understanding JR.

Join the club.  I've done the missing "closing parenthesis" too, as well as the closing " " " quotations. 

It's best left to the states.

Why?

If something deserves to be legal, it should be legal throughout the country.

And if it should be illegal, it should be legal everywhere.

Do you think murder should be legal in some states-- but illegal in others?

Should citizens be required to pay income tax in some states-- but not in others?

How about robbery?

Do you believe that lynching should be illegal in some states-- but perfectly OK in others?

Do you think that drinking (even mere possession) of Alcoholic beverages should be OK in some jurisdictions-- but illegal in others?

Do you actually think that sexual exploitation of young kids should be illegal in most states-- but legal in others?

omething deserves to be legal, it should be legal throughout the country.

The whole point of our government is federalism. 

If you want to get rid of state and local government, you might as well call a new Constitutional convention. 

And what you didn't say, is that if abortion is illegal, it should be illegal everywhere, and the SCothUS has done its best to accomplish that. Well, let's face it Krishna, America means freedom, so if people are unhappy with the State they live in, let them move to a State where they like the laws.  Let them eat cake. 

Well, let's face it Krishna, America means freedom, so if people are unhappy with the State they live in, let them move to a State where they like the laws

Let me point this out. If people have to leave their hometown, home, job, and state  in order to find the same or similar in another state-that can create a problem. Because as we see, for instance, people are already moving and 'sheltering' in the larger states (which can 'bust at the seams') for health reasons. It causes supply/demand issues when populations are too dense to function properly. It is better if states understand this and permit more freedoms inside their respective borders. 

After all, this is the United States. . . we SAY freedoms abound here. Thus, it makes less sense for restrictions, restraints, outlawing, and suppression of freedoms to occur! If a policy (abortion) is causing no true harm to another LIVING person (outside of the womb), then it should not be a crime. 

Our big cities are 'overfull' with mass amounts of the nation's citizens. Relatively speaking, our towns and small cities are 'emptying' out as people migrate to find freedoms denied them where they were born (and wished to stay-but are ran out)!

Because as we see, for instance, people are already moving and 'sheltering' in the larger states (which can 'bust at the seams') for health reasons. It causes supply/demand issues when populations are too dense to function properly. It is better if states understand this and permit more freedoms inside their respective borders. 

The most crowded states (population density) are NJ, RI, MA and CT.  I don't think that they are seeing excessive migration there.

Our big cities are 'overfull' with mass amounts of the nation's citizens. Relatively speaking, our towns and small cities are 'emptying' out as people migrate to find freedoms denied them where they were born (and wished to stay-but are ran out)!

Cities with population decline include San Francisco, Santa Ana, Glendale, San Jose Pasadena, East LA, Detroit, ST. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, New Orleans, Jackson, Birmingham, Aurora, Union City, NYC, Boston, Ann Arbor, North Miami, Chicago, Philly, etc.

Yep.  "Different strokes for different folks" but if those different strokes are not available where a person needs them they might prefer to move to where those strokes are available.  For example, it would be my preference to live in the country, at my age and level of ability and physical condition it is important that I live not far from a major hospital and easy access to whatever I need.  I have said here that I would have loved to have lived in the rural mountains of Sichuan province of Sichuan where the massive earthquake killed thousands, to teach the young kids there who had never even SEEN a white man before and when we visited a school there the kids lined up to get my autograph - my heart went out to them, but it was so remote and so far from the facilities I need to be close to, it was not to be.

The point being. . . .

That your assumptions about moving and cities seems wrong.

That comment missed the immediate point!

Let me point this out. If people have to leave their hometowns, homes, jobs, and states  in order to find the same or similar in another state-that can create a problem. Because as we see, for instance, people are already moving and 'sheltering' in the larger states (which can 'bust at the seams') for health reasons. It causes supply/demand issues when populations are too dense to function properly. It is better if states understand this and permit more freedoms inside their respective borders. 

That counterpoint brings up the normal ebb and flow of population increases and decreases and is besides the larger point!

But, I am getting quite comfortable with some conservatives supplying information that is off-point rather than EVER choosing to be on-point. These 'soulless' discussions are a bane on these boards. In my opinion, it is disgusting.

We might as well pretend we are 'robots' and hopeless resolve that nothing really matters. . . to robots! That would include conservative policies too—they don't matter either. . . to robots.

That counterpoint brings up the normal ebb and flow of population increases and decreases and is besides the larger point!

How is it besides the larger point?  You claimed that today's environment was causing people to move to already over crowded states and big cities when the reality is very different.

But, I am getting quite comfortable with some conservatives supplying information that is off-point rather than EVER choosing to be on-point. These 'soulless' discussions are a bane on these boards. In my opinion, it is disgusting.

What would be an example of an "on-point' comment?  What was 'soulless' about my comment and why do you find it disgusting?

We might as well pretend we are 'robots' and hopeless resolve that nothing really matters. . . to robots! That would include conservative policies too—they don't matter either. . . to robots.

Robots...huh?

in fact, here in Colorado it's on the ballot as Constitutional Amendment 79

An amendment to the state Constitution?

(Or to the U.S. Constitution?)

State Constitution.

Abortion restrictions lose elections

For the good of the women of America, let's hope that happens.