Why is Men's Support for Abortion Falling?

6.9.25

Click to skip ahead: Stats & Studies highlights a new Gallup poll that shows a growing gender gap on abortion. AED Explains lays out exactly what you need to know about EMTALA & emergency abortions. In the States, news from Montana, Iowa, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and more. In the Nation, anti-abortion groups are pissed off about four Democratic states, a speech about Adriana Smith, and the Times follows around an abortion pill provider for a day. You Love to See It has a short segment about an abortion training workshop—that uses papayas!

---

Stats & Studies

We all know that voters are overwhelmingly pro-choice: Support for abortion rights is the highest it’s been in history (even in red states), and there’s been a marked increase in support for abortion throughout pregnancy.

In fact, 81% of Americans don’t want abortion regulated by the government at all. Why don’t we hear that number more often? Because too many pollsters adopt a conservative framing: they ask respondents when they believe abortion should be restricted, as opposed to if they believe it should be. (Even then, though, the vast majority of Americans are pro-choice.)

So it was with all of that in mind that I looked at the latest numbers from Gallup—which showed a twenty point gender gap in support for abortion rights. The polling group found that while 61% of women identify as pro-choice, only 41% of men do.

That would be troubling enough, but it also appears the gender gap is rapidly widening: it was just 13 points in 2022, and had never topped 10 points before Roe fell.

In other words, men’s support for abortion rights is dropping—just like my stomach when I saw this chart:

Now, it’s possible that some of the men polled support abortion, but aren’t interested in identifying with the ‘pro-choice’ label. But still, I’m alarmed. Especially because Gallup also found that while 32% of women identify as ‘pro-life,’ 54% of men do. That’s a lot of men!

What is it about the end of Roe that made men more anti-abortion? Is it an emboldening of already-held beliefs? Or does it have to do something with growing conservatism among young men?

Take this April poll from PerryUndem: In July 2022 (right after Roe’s demise), just 20% of men ages 18 to 44 said they would not see abortion as a major voting issue in future elections. But by November—when push came to shove—that number jumped to 39%.

One positive development is what’s happening with Democratic men: Gallup reports that in 2020-2021, 66% identified as pro-choice. By 2022–2025, that number had spiked to 85%. So I’m going to hold onto that increase with my last remaining shred of optimism. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

AED Explains: Emergency Abortions

The biggest abortion news last week was that the White House rescinded federal guidance requiring hospitals to provide patients with emergency abortions. Now that we’re a few days out from that announcement, let’s talk about what this actually means for patients, doctors, and the law.

Here’s the most important thing to know: The Trump administration can’t just wish away EMTALA protections. As Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women’s Law Center, put it: “This action doesn’t change hospitals’ legal obligations.”

So if that’s the case—if hospitals are still required by law to provide life-saving abortion care—why did Trump do this? What’s the point?

There are a few reasons. And none of them are good:

To scare doctors out of providing care.
As Payal Shah from Physicians for Human Rights told The Hill, the Trump administration is deliberately trying to cause chaos and confusion. In states with bans, doctors are (understandably!) afraid of civil and criminal charges—in some cases, they’re even being threatened by Republican attorneys general.

So while they know they have to care for their patients and adhere to EMTALA, state bans (and hospital policies) are often scaring them out of providing timely abortions. “For clinicians, there is actually no safe way to navigate this in this moment,” Shah said. “And ultimately, that’s how these laws are designed.”

To signal that Republican-led states won’t be held accountable when women die.
We know women are suffering and dying under abortion bans. Rescinding this guidance is the Trump administration’s way of telling anti-abortion states that the federal government has their backs—and that they don’t need to worry about EMTALA investigations.

The same way they gave extremists a green light to attack clinics by backing off FACE Act enforcement, they’re now telling states they can violate EMTALA with impunity. (You might remember that just last week, a federal investigation found a Texas hospital broke the law by refusing to treat a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. With this new guidance, future investigations like that may not happen at all.)

To push fetal personhood—under the radar.
The Trump administration’s statement didn’t just rescind guidance; it also quietly nodded toward the idea that hospitals should treat both the pregnant person and the fetus as equal patients. That’s a fundamental—and dangerous—shift. As law professor Mary Ziegler noted in a must-read column last week, this language lays groundwork for a fetal personhood standard that could impact every state, not just the ones with bans.

By the way: If you haven’t any doubt that this is about advancing fetal personhood, just take a look at the reaction from anti-abortion groups: Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the White house was “stopping Biden’s attack on emergency care for both pregnant moms and their unborn children.” And Ingrid Skop, the wackadoo anti-abortion OBGYN, said the decision was “welcome news for both of my patients—a pregnant woman and her unborn child.”

Yikes.

“The way that I conceptualize it is that, yes, if I didn’t intervene, often, this pregnancy would continue. This is a potential life that I am taking part in ending, and I am completely comfortable with that, because the life of the pregnant person and their needs are always more important to me.”

Dr. Diane Horvath, medical director of Partners in Abortion Care in Maryland, quoted in The Guardian

In the States

Let’s start with some good news: The Montana Supreme Court has ended a years-long legal battle between abortion rights advocates and Republican lawmakers—ruling that three different abortion restrictions violate the state constitution. (You can read the full opinion over at KTVH.)

The court struck down a 20-week ban, a mandatory ultrasound law, and legislation that banned telehealth abortions, imposed a 24-hour waiting period, and added other onerous requirements.

A little context: Abortion has been protected under Montana’s constitution since 1999. But ever since the end of Roe, Republicans have been on a mission to restrict abortion regardless. Gov. Greg Gianforte and Attorney General Austin Knudsen, in particular, have been desperate to get women’s bodies under their short, stubby thumbs.

Two things from the Court’s opinion really stood out to me:

First, the justices rejected the idea that fetal ‘viability’ can be defined by a fixed number of weeks—emphasizing that those decisions can’t be made by politicians. Second, the court called out Republican hypocrisy around mental health—writing that their standard “suggests that a person’s mental health matters to the State only to prevent abortion, not as a valid reason to obtain one.” Whew!

Martha Fuller, president of Planned Parenthood of Montana, praised the ruling, saying it “further protects what Montanans need and deserve: legal access to compassionate, timely abortion care, free from government interference.”

Unfortunately, none of this means the fight is over in Montana. The Montana Free Press reported today that a conservative group is now trying to overturn the abortion rights amendment that voters passed just this past November. The Montana Family Foundation has filed a challenge with the state Supreme Court, claiming that the ballot measure’s text wasn’t properly disclosed to voters. I’ll keep you updated on where that fight goes.

Meanwhile, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a ‘Baby Olivia’ law on Friday, mandating that public schools show middle and high school students an anti-abortion propaganda video. The law goes into effect next month.

Abortion, Every Day has been tracking the spread of ‘Baby Olivia’ legislation for over a year now. Proposed under the guise of teaching students about fetal development, these laws force students to watch a video produced by the radical anti-abortion group Live Action. The goal is to indoctrinate children as early as possible—seeding disinformation about pregnancy and abortion, and building up the next generation of conservative voters.

Interestingly, once the public started catching on to the true intent of these bills, some states (including Iowa) stopped name-checking Live Action’s video directly. Instead, they outline very specific requirements for a video—ones that just so happen to match ‘Baby Olivia’ exactly.

I used to suggest that abortion rights and sex ed groups fight back by creating their own video—one that met the law’s technical requirements, but actually shared accurate information. But Republican legislators have shut that door, too: Iowa’s law, for example, bans any materials from groups that so much as mention an organization that provides or supports abortion.

‘Baby Olivia’ bills have already been passed in Tennessee, North Dakota, and Idaho—and are being considered in Indiana, Florida, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia. (Did I miss any??)

The Louisiana Senate has passed the two nightmare anti-abortion bills I warned you about a few weeks ago: First up, there’s HB 425—which would broaden the definition of ‘coerced’ abortion, most notably around “extortion.” Under this legislation, a parent who refuses to pay for college for their pregnant teen—or a roommate who wants to end a lease with their pregnant friend—could be guilty of ‘coercion.’

Then there’s HB 575, which would expand civil liability around abortion. The bill would allow patients to sue for at least $100,000—plus damages for emotional distress and attorney fees. Who could they sue? Anyone accused of "administering, prescribing, dispensing, distributing, selling, or coordinating the sale for an abortion-inducing drug to a person in this state.”

Republicans say they’re targeting out-of-state providers who ship pills into the state. But given that blue state providers are protected by shield laws, this legislation would most likely impact Louisiana doctors providing legal emergency abortion care. For example, if a miscarrying woman was given abortion pills to prevent her from getting an infection—that patient could later sue, claiming that it wasn’t necessary.

Even if the doctor ultimately wins that court battle, they’ve been through legal hell—and might be less likely to provide abortion pills the next time they have a miscarrying patient at risk of infection.

In other words, it’s a fucking mess. To learn more about this legislation, consider listening to this episode of the Seriously?! podcast with Michelle Erenberg and Ellie Schilling of Lift Louisiana.

Finally, some good news: two Pennsylvania lawmakers want to pass a shield law that would protect abortion patients and providers. Sens. Amanda Cappelletti and Judith Schwank are seeking to codify the protections outlined in an executive order signed by former Gov. Tom Wolf—which prevents state agencies and officials from cooperating with out-of-state abortion investigations.

The pair also want to protect providers’ home addresses and patient medical records. In a memo announcing their intention to introduce a package of bills, the state senators write, “While we cannot prevent other states from criminalizing abortion, we can protect individuals seeking and providing reproductive health services in the Commonwealth.”

Quick hits:

• How Missouri Republicans are weaponizing anti-trans bigotry—against kids, no less—to ban abortion;

• NJ Spotlight News shares where the New Jersey gubernatorial candidates stand on abortion rights;

• NPR looks at different interpretations of Georgia’s abortion ban as it relates to Adriana Smith;

• And Michigan Democrats are moving to codify state-level FACE Act protections.

In the Nation

The New York Times published a big piece today, “A Day With One Abortion Pill Prescriber.” Delaware nurse practitioner Debra Lynch—a Queens, New York native, so I like her already—ships abortion medication to patients in states with bans.

Given that Republicans are targeting blue state providers—Louisiana is trying to extradite a New York doctor as we speak—it’s a brave thing to come forward publicly under her real name. But as Lynch told Times reporter Pam Belluck, she believes that showing that she’s “an actual real live human” might help some patients feel less afraid.

I really appreciated the inside look at Lynch’s operation—including how she takes extra “unconventional” steps to protect patient privacy. For example, she doesn’t send copies of the prescriptions with the medication, because patients are concerned about having their names attached to the pills. (California is advancing a bill right now that would allow both providers’ and patients’ names to be kept off prescription labels for abortion pills.)

More from the Times:

“Her service keeps prescriptions and other records for patients in paper files offsite, she said. To give patients additional ‘plausible deniability,’ she said, she sends receipts with a medical code for a urinary tract infection consultation, one of the conditions the service treats, along with written information about U.T.I.s. She doesn’t ask patients in states with abortion bans or restrictions to provide identification like a driver’s license.”

The whole piece is worth a read, though you can be sure that anti-abortion organizations are going to lose their collective minds over it.

Speaking of anti-abortion bitching: these groups are not happy about the four states petitioning the FDA to lift unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone. Last week, Democratic attorneys general from New York, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts argued that the current rules around the abortion medication aren’t justified “by science or law,” especially in pro-choice states.

Anti-abortion organizations claim that Democrats are trying to undo “safety” precautions for the medications. Sorry, I can’t bring myself to link to them—but the short version is that they’re trying to paint pro-choice politicians as abortion-crazy maniacs who don’t care about women’s health or lives. Which is…ironic.

For more on the move to lift those mifepristone restrictions, read Carrie Baker at Ms. magazine.

Finally, take a few minutes today to watch U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley speaking about Adriana Smith, the Georgia woman whose body is being forcibly kept alive because she was 9-weeks pregnant when doctors declared her brain dead.

“Mr. Speaker, from the days of enslavement Black women’s bodies have been subject to medical abuse, assault, and degradation in this country.

We are more likely to die in childbirth. We are routinely denied medical care. We are dehumanized. And like the case of Adriana Smith, our bodies and our dignity are desecrated in death.

This is cruelty. The latest episode in a long history of the experimentation and exploitation of Black bodies.”

Quick hits:

• Melissa Murray was on MSNBC this weekend, talking about the criminalization of pregnancy loss;

• CBS News on the FDA’s coming ‘review’ of mifepristone;

• And CNN takes on Republicans’ attacks on democracy and attempts to stop voters from having a direct say on abortion rights.

You Love to See It

Take a listen to this terrific short segment from KALW. Reporters sat in on an abortion training workshop where attendees learned manual uterine aspiration (MUA) abortions on papayas. With bans making abortion training harder to come by—and an older generation of providers aging out of the field—programs like this are vital. I’m also so grateful to young healthcare providers who are going out of their way to learn how to perform abortions: