Category: USA

(AP) — While preparing to march in a Saturday morning parade through this fast-growing city’s westside, Democratic congressional candidate Hillary Scholten warned her staff that the area was traditionally very conservative and they should brace for possible booing. 

But the crowd lining Fulton Street to mark the region’s Polish pride was friendly. Only one man bellowed what sounded to the candidate like “Go to hell, Hillary!” as she passed. But he also grinned and flashed a thumbs-up later. 

He’d actually cried, “Give ’em hell, Hillary!” 

It’s been 32 years since a Democrat won the House seat where Scholten is competing against Republican John Gibbs. But, its largest city, Grand Rapids, has turned steadily bluer lately, and redrawn congressional maps have converted it from a district that backed Donald Trump for president in 2020 to one that Joe Biden would have carried instead.

It’s one of 14 U.S. House seats nationwide that are held by Republicans but that Biden would have won under new maps. 

As Democrats brace for midterm defeats that could erase their narrow, five-seat control of the House, a chance to limit the damage may lie in flipping Republican-held seats that voted for Biden to stanch the effect of losses elsewhere around the country. 

Scholten, a former Justice Department attorney and Christian Reform Church deacon, lost the seat to Republican Rep. Peter Meijer in 2020. But Meijer was defeated in his Michigan GOP primary this year by Trump-backed challenger Gibbs, a former software engineer who falsely purports that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. 

Scholten is trying to become the first Democratic woman elected to the House from western Michigan and isn’t counting on more favorable boundaries to get her there, noting that it’s “hard for people to believe in what they’ve never seen before, and we feel that every day.” 

But even Gibbs concedes the new maps have Democrats excited. “In a year where they’re expected to have a very difficult time in the midterms,” he said, “for them, a pickup is something that they’re salivating over.”

The list of GOP-held Biden districts feature three Los Angeles-area seats and one in California’s Central Valley. Others are the territories of Republican Reps. Don Bacon in Omaha, Nebraska, and Steve Chabot in Cincinnati. Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, who represents the moderate swing battleground of Bucks County, north of Philadelphia, faces a similar test. On the other side are a dozen districts that voted for Trump but are held by Democrats. Retirements and redistricting mean many no longer have incumbents running. 

Still, Democrats see high stakes in their efforts to flip seats won by Biden. When House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer recently predicted that his party would hold the chamber, he mentioned such territory in California and Illinois, as well as Bacon’s and Chabot’s districts, and the Grand Rapids race.

Not every incumbent is sweating toss-up races. Chabot says that, during his 26 years running for reelection in southwestern Ohio, he’s “had more challenging races, for sure, than anyone in the House.” But, as he competes for potential crossover voters, Chabot is not emphasizing Trump.

The Social Security Administration is expected to announce its largest annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) increase in 40 years.  The hike, set to be announced on Thursday, is estimated at around 8.7 percent and will help those in the program meet rising costs driven by inflation. 

Between 2010 and 2020, average annual COLAs increased by just 1.7 percent each year, while COLAs have only risen above 8.7 percent three times — between 1979 and 1981 at 9.9 percent, 14.3 percent and 11.2 percent, respectively.  

The COLAs are based on the country’s current inflation rates. In 1980, inflation was above 14 percent yet declined to 3.5 percent in the latter half of the decade; the COLA followed suit, declining to 5.4 percent in 1990.  

Around 70 million Americans receive Social Security benefits. It is estimated that the COLA hike will increase the average monthly retiree check by around $144, according to the Senior Citizens League, a bipartisan advocacy group. 

How is the COLA rate determined? 

The automatic annual adjustments are based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) and have taken place every year since 1975. Prior to that, adjustments were approved by Congress.  

Because the CPI-W is such a broad measure of consumer prices, some have questioned whether the index is the best metric to determine beneficiaries’ needs, the majority of whom are retirees.  

The CPI-W is based on price changes for goods and services purchased by workers. Some experts have proposed replacing replacing the CPI-W with a different measure: the CPI-Elderly. But the CPI-E, which reflects spending patterns of the elderly, would not always result in a higher COLA. The difference between the two measures has also been shrinking in recent years. 

The annual adjustment has received criticism in the past for the lag period between the start of rising inflation and when beneficiaries receive the cushion payments. Others argue the automatic adjustment can result in COLAs larger than the rate of inflation.  

The purpose of the adjustments is to ensure Social Security beneficiaries retain buying power during times of inflation, so individuals with fixed incomes can keep up with rising rents, mortgages and grocery costs.  

However, the large COLA might push some recipients over an income threshold, requiring them to pay income taxes on part of their benefit. Single filers who have a combined income equal to or below $25,000 pay no taxes on their benefits. For joint filers, the threshold is $32,000. 

The majority of Social Security benefits is funded through Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes. Should a recession hit and unemployment rates rise, it could affect future COLAs. Following the 2008 recession, no COLAs were paid in 2010 and 2011.  

Why is it needed? 

The simple reason that a big COLA increase is needed now is the record inflation being experienced in the nation.  

“It’s the highest rate of inflation that retirees and disabled people today have really ever seen,” said Mary Johnson, a Social Security and Medicare policy analyst at The Senior Citizens League. 

The majority of Social Security beneficiaries are retirees and individuals aged 65 or older. 

“When people are retired, if they do not have much in the way of savings—and quite a large percentage don’t—that can make it very difficult when prices increase and they have nowhere to go to meet those rising costs,” Johnson said.  

Data from July show more than half of older women living alone are poor according to federal poverty standards or don’t have enough money to afford essential expenses. That total is lower for men, at 45 percent. 

A large proportion of older beneficiaries’ Social Security payments goes toward health care, housing and food costs.  

Because many medical problems worsen with age, increased costs of care put a strain on retirees’ purse strings.  

In general, older individuals tend to have higher health care utilization rates, while around two-thirds of older Americans consider health care costs a financial burden. 

Although more than 50 million older adults rely on Medicare to cover some or all of their health care expenses, the extra COLA cash coming in each month may not be sufficient to meet retirees’ expenses. 

“Social Security COLA will cushion the impact of inflation and put more money in seniors’ pockets. That’s not to say some won’t continue to struggle,” said Tricia Neuman, the executive director of the Medicare policy program at the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

“Half of all people in Medicare live on incomes below about $30,000 per person. So even with a COLA that’s higher than normal this year, they may continue to struggle with high and rising prices for various things they need on a day-to-day basis, like gas for their cars, rent, food, and other basics, and of course healthcare expenses.”  

Medicare Part B premiums are deducted from Social Security checks, and this year, older beneficiaries on Medicare will see additional financial relief alongside the high COLA.

This is thanks to low uptake of the controversial and expensive Alzheimer’s drug aduhelm, which will lead to lower premiums for beneficiaries.  

Typically, Part B premiums have grown three times faster than the Social Security COLA and marks one of the fastest, if not the fastest, growing costs in retirement, Johnson said.  

Older Americans struggling to pay for high drug prices will also see some respite due to the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which requires Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to lower prices. It puts a cap on out-of-pocket drug costs starting in 2025 and a $35 monthly cap on insulin prices beginning in 2023.  

“But much of that is still to be phased in,” Johnson said. “The price negotiation is going to be only on a limited set of drugs. So there’s still a considerable amount of out-of-pocket spending that older Americans will probably have to encounter for prescription drugs.” 

“The COLA this year should help but doesn’t address more fundamental concerns for seniors living at or near the poverty level, which include a disproportionate share of people of color,” Neuman said.  

The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack at the US Capitol voted to subpoena former President Donald Trump during a public hearing on October 13th. The House Jan. 6 committee voted unanimously to subpoena former President Donald Trump, demanding his personal testimony as it unveiled startling new video and described his multi-part plan to overturn his 2020 election loss, which led to his supporters’ fierce assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Three phrases were echoed over and over again on Thursday by the panel’s nine members, who repeatedly mentioned Trump’s motivation, intent or state of mind — a callout to elements prosecutors would need to demonstrate if they choose to pursue charges against Trump. 

With alarming messages from the U.S. Secret Service warning of violence and vivid new video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional leaders pleading for help, the panel on Thursday showed the raw desperation at the Capitol. Using language frequently seen in criminal indictments, the panel said Trump had acted in a “premeditated” way before Jan. 6, 2021, despite countless aides and officials telling him he had lost.

Trump is almost certain to fight the subpoena and decline to testify. On his social media outlet he blasted members for not asking him earlier — though he didn’t say he would have complied — and called the panel “a total BUST.”

“We must seek the testimony under oath of January 6′s central player,” said Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the committee’s vice chair, ahead of the vote.

In the committee’s 10th public session, just weeks before the congressional midterm elections, the panel summed up Trump’s “staggering betrayal” of his oath of office, as Chairman Bennie Thompson put it, describing the then-president’s unprecedented attempt to stop Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory.

While the effort to subpoena Trump may languish, more a nod to history than an effective summons, the committee has made clear it is considering whether to send its findings in a criminal referral to the Justice Department.

In one of its most riveting exhibits, the panel showed previously unseen footage of congressional leaders phoning for help during the assault as Trump refused to call off the mob.

Pelosi can be seen on a call with the governor of neighboring Virginia, explaining as she shelters with Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and others that the governor of Maryland has also been contacted. Later, the video shows Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders as the group asks the Defense Department for help.

“They’re breaking the law in many different ways,” Pelosi says at one point. “And quite frankly, much of it at the instigation of the president of the United States.”

The footage also portrays Vice President Mike Pence — not Trump — stepping in to help calm the violence, telling Pelosi and the others he has spoken with Capitol Police, as Congress plans to resume its session that night to certify Biden’s election. The video was from Pelosi’s daughter, Alexandra, a documentary filmmaker.

In never-before-seen Secret Service messages, the panel produced evidence that extremist groups provided the muscle in the fight for Trump’s presidency, planning weeks before the attack to send a violent force to Washington.

The Secret Service warned in a Dec. 26, 2020, email of a tip that members of the right-wing Proud Boys planned to outnumber the police in a march in Washington on Jan. 6. “It felt like the calm before the storm,” one Secret Service agent wrote in a group chat.

The committee argued in its final hearing before the midterm elections that Trump was directly involved in the bid to overturn the 2020 election, with the panel presenting new evidence that Trump knew he had lost but had a plan to declare victory no matter the election result. The panel also showed previously unseen footage of congressional leaders taking refuge amid the violence as the panel detailed Trump’s inaction during the attack. The committee is now working to present a final report by the end of the year on whether to make any criminal referrals to the Justice Department.  

“I think they were trying to hand the Justice Department all the evidence on a silver platter,” said Ryan Goodman, co-director of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law. 

“I do think that it’s very significant information for a Justice Department with much more powerful tools to pursue a full-blown investigation. I do think that they did a very good job of handing that off, and, in a certain sense, showing what a closing argument can look like in a powerful way.”  

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) the committee’s vice chairwoman, noted that while it was up to the Department of Justice to make prosecutorial calls, the panel “may ultimately decide to make a series of criminal referrals” to them. 

“We have sufficient information to consider criminal referrals for multiple individuals and to recommend a range of legislative proposals to guard against another Jan. 6,” she said. 

While all prosecutions require demonstrating someone did something illegal, many of the crimes that would be the most likely fit for Trump’s behavior require an additional element of proving intent. 

“There was considerable information presented yet again yesterday, and some new information presented that is pertinent to ongoing Justice Department investigations,” said David Laufman, who worked in leadership roles in the National Security Division in the Department of Justice (DOJ) and also represented two Capitol Police officers who testified before the Jan. 6 panel.   

“Who in the White House or Trump world knew what and when — that may factor into investigative actions and possibly charging decisions on issues like seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the United States, having to do with the presentation of false slates of electors, conspiracies to obstruct an official proceeding,” Laufman added. 

“Every piece of connective tissue that reaches Trump or people close to him with regard to those events is going to factor into investigative findings and recommendations by the line prosecutors on these cases.” 

Amid its recap of what it laid out in its prior eight hearings, the panel offered new evidence that Trump acknowledged to aides that he lost the election and further details about the extent to which Trump allies discussed that he should claim victory before all the votes were counted. 

During the hearing, the committee sought to show how much Trump was advised to claim he won the election, something he heard from confidants Roger Stone and Steve Bannon, and in a newly revealed email from conservative activist and Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.  

In the Oct. 31 email – sent four days before the election – Fitton included language encouraging Trump to say, “We had an election today — and I won.” The email also fixates on a faulty deadline, suggesting that Trump say “according to the ballots counted by the Election Day deadline.”  

Election law requires counting all ballots, including absentee ballots, which are often counted after Election Day. Trump’s plan to claim victory came after he repeatedly urged his supporters to only vote in person. 

Former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale also told the committee Trump hatched plans to claim victory on election night as far back as July.  “The evidence presented yesterday was very compelling to show that the false claims of a stolen election were planned even before Election Day. That pre-meditation is very important to proving a conspiracy. The committee has certainly shown some evidence of a conspiracy to defraud the United States,” Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney, told the media,   

The DOJ has assembled a grand jury to hear evidence related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The nod to the Department of Justice in the broader pitch for accountability for Trump comes from a panel whose members and staff are largely attorneys. 

“On a day-to-day level [this investigation has] been conducted by former Department of Justice prosecutors. That has a lot to do with the professionalism and accomplishments of this investigation,” Laufman said.  

“Among the best decisions that [Chairman] Bennie Thompson [D-Miss.] and Liz Cheney made was to facilitate the hiring of former prosecutors who, while dedicated to supporting the committee and its interests, surely, in the back of their minds, in the back of the Select Committee’s minds, are trying to ensure that everything they do could be a potential value to the Department of Justice, and from time to time to maybe gently put their finger in the department’s eyes to try to goad them into at least pursuing logical investigative steps to consider ultimately whether to bring charges against Trump.”

Former US President Bill Clinton said Democrats can retain control of Congress in the 2022 midterms, but warned Republicans will “scare the living daylights out of swing voters”.

The Congress – the House of Representatives goes to the polls to elect all of the 435 members and the Senate is on the ballot for 30 of its 100 seats.

A lot of Mayoral and Gubernatorial posts are up for grabs and both parties are struggling to retain their candidates with the backlash of inflation and MAGA campaign frittering out to save democracy threats sounded by the liberals.

In both houses, the Democrats have a wafer thin majority to pass legislation. In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats are divided 50:50 but the Vice President casts the tie breaking vote to give the Democrats the advantage on passing legislation with a simple majority.

“We could hold both these houses, but we have to say the right things because we know the Republicans can always close well,” Bill Clinton said in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.

He was asked if Democrats, who have seen encouraging signs about their midterm prospects in recent weeks, can break the decades-long trend of the President’s party losing control of Congress in the midterm elections.

“Absolutely, we could hold both these Houses, but we have to say the right things,” Clinton told CNN in the interview, which aired Sunday. “And we have to know the Republicans always close well. Why? Because they find some new way to scare the living daylights out of swing voters about something. That’s what they did in 2021 when they made critical race theory sounds.

“They just scare people,” Clinton said. “And in the end, the breakpoint in American politics is not that much different than the 90s. You still have to get those people, it’s just that there’s so many fewer of them, because as the parties have gotten more ideological and clear and somehow psychically intolerant, they pull more and more people towards the extremes.”

Increased polarisation and partisanship since Clinton held office in the 1990s means fewer persuadable swing voters and fewer willing to cross party lines. The 2020 election, for example, saw record-low numbers of voters splitting their tickets between electors. But still “there’s some people who are hanging on there and trying to think, and trying to understand what’s going on,” the former President said in the interview.

Republicans face a potential backlash in November after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on abortion rights bringing women electors together. A new WSJ poll shows Democrats gaining ground among independents, young and women voters.

Republicans spent much of the year pummeling Democrats on inflation and hoping to cruise on a “red wave” in the November midterm elections. But the huge swell they once envisioned may end up being more of a ripple instead, the Business Insider said in an analysis.

Part of it may also be tied to recent Democratic victories on their economic and climate agenda, gun safety, and improved healthcare access for veterans.

Some Republican lawmakers have released proposals meant to showcase the party’s support for families in more modest ways, reflecting a conservative reluctance to back a sizable expansion of the safety net. The GOP has staunchly opposed President Joe Biden’s ambitious proposals for childcare, paid leave, and monthly checks to parents. (IANS)

(RNS) — America has long prided itself on being a country where people can choose whatever religion they like. The majority has long chosen Christianity. A new report projects Americans’ future — a future where Christianity, though diminished, persists, while non-Christian faiths grow amid rising secularization.

By 2070, that may no longer be the case. If current trends continue, Christians could make up less than half of the population — and as little as a third— in 50 years. Meanwhile, the so-called nones — or the religiously unaffiliated — could make up close to half of the population. And the percentage of Americans who identify as Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and other non-Christian faiths could double.

Those are among the major findings of a new report from the Pew Research Center regarding America’s religious future—a future where Christianity, though diminished, persists while non-Christian faiths grow amid rising secularization.

Researchers projected possible religious futures for the United States using a number of factors, including birth rates, migration patterns, demographics like age and sex, and the current religious landscape. They also looked at how religion is passed from one generation to another and how often people switch religions — in particular, Christians who become nones, a number that has been increasing in recent years

They projected four different scenarios, based on differing rates of religious switching — from a continued increase to no switching at all.

“While the scenarios in this report vary in the extent of religious disaffiliation they project, they all show Christians continuing to shrink as a share of the U.S. population, even under the counterfactual assumption that all switching came to a complete stop in 2020,” according to the report. “At the same time, the unaffiliated are projected to grow under all four scenarios.”

Currently, about a third (31%) of Christians become disaffiliated before they turn 30, according to Pew Research. Twenty-one percent of nones become Christian as young adults. Should those switching rates remain stable, Christians would make up 46% of the population by 2070, while nones would make up 41% percent of the population.

If disaffiliation rates continue to grow but are capped at 50% of Christians leaving the faith, then 39% percent of Americans are projected to be Christian by 2070, with 48% percent of Americans identifying as nones. With no limit placed on the percentage of people leaving Christianity and with continued growth in disaffiliation, Christians would be 35% of the population, with nones making up a majority of Americans (52%).

If all switching came to a halt, then Christians would remain a slight majority (54%), while nones would make up 34% of Americans, according to the projection model.

Non-Christian faiths would rise to 12–13% of the population, largely due to migration, in each scenario. Migration does affect the percentage of Christians, as most immigrants coming to the U.S. are Christians, said Conrad Hackett, associate director of research and senior demographer at Pew Research Center.

“Still the greatest amount of change in the U.S., we think currently and in the future, will come from switching,” he said.

Researchers stressed the report contained projections based on data and mathematical models, not predictions of the future.

“Though some scenarios are more plausible than others, the future is uncertain, and it is possible for the religious composition of the United States in 2070 to fall outside the ranges projected,” they wrote.

One reason for the decline among Christians and the growth among the nones in the models is age. While Christians have more children than nones, they are also older. Pew estimates the average Christian in the United States is 43, which is 10 years older than the average none.

“The unaffiliated are having and raising unaffiliated children while Christians are more likely to be near the end of their lives than others,” Stephanie Kramer, a senior researcher at Pew, told RNS in an email.

Using mathematical models, Pew has also projected the future of religion around the world. Those models were adapted for different regions, said Hackett. Muslims, for example, he said, tend to have the youngest population and the highest fertility rates, driving the growth of that faith. However, he said, in the Gulf states, migration has brought many Christians from other countries to the region as temporary workers.

“Young Americans are now less likely to become or remain Christian…and more likely to become of remain unaffiliated” Graphic courtesy of Pew Research Center

The current report takes advantage of the amount of data collected about the U.S. religious landscape. Researchers also looked at intergenerational transmission for the first time, said Kramer.

“The variables we use to study that were: What is the mother’s religion? And what is the teen’s religion,” she said. “If that was a match, we consider the mother’s religion transmitted.”

Researchers also looked at a relatively new trend of disaffiliation among older Americans. Sociologists have long focused on younger people, who are most likely to switch religions. But in the U.S. and other countries, older people are also starting to switch at growing rates.

“It’s not as large scale, but it’s still significant,” said Hackett. “And it’s contributing to the religious change that we have experienced and that we expect to experience in the years ahead.”

Hackett said that the projections do not show the end of Christianity in the U.S. or of religion in general, which he expects to remain robust. And most nones, while claiming no religion, do not identify as atheists.

Kramer said the U.S. appears to be going through a pattern of secularization that has happened in other countries, though “we may be a bit behind,” she added.

Other factors outside the model — such as changing immigration patterns and religious innovation — could lead to a revival of Christianity in the United States, according to the report. But none of the models shows a reversal of the decline of Christian affiliation, which dropped from 78% in 2007 to 63% in 2020, according to Pew research.

In the report, researchers note that “there is no data on which to model a sudden or gradual revival of Christianity (or of religion in general) in the U.S.”

“That does not mean a religious revival is impossible,” they wrote. “It means there is no demographic basis on which to project one.”

Ahead of the Trend is a collaborative effort between Religion News Service and the Association of Religion Data Archives made possible through the support of the John Templeton Foundation. See other Ahead of the Trend articles here.

US life expectancy has fallen to the lowest level seen since 1996, continuing a steep decline largely driven by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Government data showed life expectancy at birth now stands at 76.1 compared to 79 in 2019. That is the steepest two-year decline in a century.

Covid-19 was the main contributing factor, according to US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention data.

Life expectancy of Native Americans and Alaska Natives fell by two years.

According to the provisional data, life expectancy fell by 2.7 years between 2019 and 2021.

The statistics show that Covid-19 accounted for 50% of the decline between 2020 and 2021. Between 2019 and 2020, the pandemic contributed to 74% of the decline.

Unintentional injuries – a term which also includes drug overdoses – reached record highs in 2021 and contributed to 15.9% of the decline.

Deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis and suicides were also significant contributors.

The fall in US life expectancy was particularly pronounced among Native Americans and Alaska Natives.

Since 2019, life expectancy among this demographic has dropped by 6.6 years, more than twice that of the wider US population.

The CDC statistics also highlight stark differences in life expectancy between men and women. For men, life expectancy fell by about a year to 73.2 in 2021 while women’s life expectancy fell by 10 months to 79.1

A separate set of 2020 data released last week also showed significant geographical differences across the country. Life expectancy in Hawaii is the highest at 80.7, compared to 71.9 years in Mississippi.

Life expectancy in the US is among the lowest of developed nations around the world.

In the UK, for example, life expectancy stood at around 79 for men and 82.9 for women in 2020 after it fell for the first time in 40 years.

According to the latest available statistics from the World Bank, Hong Kong and Japan have the world’s highest life expectancies at around 85 followed by Singapore at 84.

Life expectancy in countries including Switzerland, Australia, Norway hovers at around 83. (Courtesy: BBC.COM)

A majority of Americans disapprove of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, which had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years. Public support for legal abortion remains largely unchanged since before the decision, with 62% saying it should be legal in all or most cases.

Nearly six-in-ten adults (57%) disapprove of the court’s sweeping decision, including 43% who strongly disapprove. About four-in-ten (41%) approve of the court’s decision (25% strongly approve).

Partisan differences on the legality of abortion have widened in recent years, and Republicans and Democrats are sharply divided in their initial views of the court’s decision.

About eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (82%) disapprove of the court’s decision, including nearly two-thirds (66%) who strongly disapprove. Most Republicans and Republican leaners (70%) approve of the court’s ruling; 48% strongly approve.

The new survey by Pew Research Center, conducted among 6,174 Americans between June 27 and July 4 on the nationally representative American Trends Panel, finds that most women (62%) disapprove of the decision to end the federal right to an abortion. More than twice as many women strongly disapprove of the court’s decision (47%) as strongly approve (21%). Opinion among men is more closely divided: 52% disapprove (37% strongly), while 47% approve (28% strongly).

The court’s decision to overturn Roe gives the states the authority to set their own abortion policies. These laws vary widely, and in several cases, state laws that prohibit or place tight restrictions on access to abortion are currently facing legal challenges.

The survey finds that adults living in the 17 states where abortion is newly largely prohibited (or where prohibitions are set to take effect soon) are divided in opinions about the court’s decision to overturn Roe: 46% approve of the court’s decision, while slightly more (52%) disapprove.

Opinion also is divided among adults in the four states that have new gestational restrictions on abortion in effect (or set to soon take effect) but have not prohibited it outright: 52% in these states disapprove of the court’s decision, while 47% approve. The balance of opinion is similar in the nine states where the status of the state’s abortion laws are uncertain (in which further action may be taken in the near term by state governors, legislatures or public referendum).

In the 20 states (plus the District of Columbia) where abortions are legal through at least 24 weeks of pregnancy, 65% disapprove of the court’s decision, including half who strongly disapprove. About a third of adults in these states approve of the court’s decision (34%), with just 19% strongly approving.

The survey finds that a majority of adults nationally (62%) say abortion should be legal in all (29%) or most cases (33%); 36% say it should be illegal in all (8%) or most cases (28%). These views are little changed since March.

The partisan divide in abortion opinions remains wide. In the new survey, 84% of Democrats say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared with 38% of Republicans.

While the share of Democrats who favor legal abortion in either all or most cases has changed only modestly since March (from 80%), there has been a 7 percentage point increase in the share of Democrats saying abortion should be legal in all cases, from 38% to 45%; currently, a larger share of Democrats say it should be legal in all cases than say it should be legal in most cases (45% vs. 38%).

There has been virtually no change in Republicans’ views since earlier this year; a 60% majority say abortion should be illegal in most (48%) or all cases (13%).

Majorities in many demographic groups disapprove of decision to overturn Roe v. Wade; clear majority of White evangelicals approve

Americans’ opinions about the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – which ended the long-standing federal guarantee to abortion – differ widely by race and ethnicity, age, education, and religion.

Majorities of Asian American, Black, Hispanic and White adults disapprove of the decision, but opposition is most pronounced among Asian (72% disapprove) and Black adults (67%). Smaller shares of White (55%) and Hispanic adults (56%) disapprove.

The youngest adults are more likely than older people to disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion. About two-thirds of adults under the age of 30 (69%) say they disapprove of the decision – including 55% who strongly disapprove. While 60% of those ages 30 to 49 also disapprove, those 50 and older are divided (51% disapprove, 48% approve).

Two-thirds of adults with a postgraduate degree say they disapprove of the Court’s decision, with a majority (55%) saying they strongly disapprove. Nearly six-in-ten adults with a college degree or some college experience (60% each) say they disapprove of the decision. Among those with a high school degree or less, views are nearly evenly divided: 48% approve and 50% disapprove.

Among religious groups, 71% of White Evangelical Protestants approve of the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion, including a 54% majority who strongly approve. Just 27% say they disapprove.

By contrast, White Protestants who are not evangelical are more divided in their views. About half (47%) say they approve of this decision, including 28% who strongly approve. A similar share (52%) say they disapprove, including four-in-ten who strongly disapprove. Catholics are similarly divided: 48% approve of the decision and 51% disapprove.

About two-thirds of Black Protestants (68%) disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision, including roughly half (48%) who strongly disapprove. About three-in-ten (29%) say they approve of the decision.

Similarly, a large majority of religiously unaffiliated adults (77%) disapprove of the court’s decision, with 63% saying they strongly disapprove. About two-in-ten (22%) approve.

Adults who are not married or living with a partner are 10 percentage points more likely to say they disapprove of the decision than those who are married or living with a partner (64% vs. 53%, respectively).

While women (62%) are more likely than men (52%) to disapprove of the Supreme Court decision on abortion, the gender gap varies by race and ethnicity. Among White adults, a 62% majority of women disapprove of the court’s decision, compared with 47% of White men. By contrast, comparable shares of Black men (66%) and women (69%) and Hispanic men (59%) and women (54%) disapprove.

While Republicans and Republican-leaning independents approve of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, there is variation in the extent to which subgroups of Republicans – particularly by gender and age – approve of the decision.

Among Republican women, 63% approve of the decision, while 36% disapprove. By comparison, 76% of GOP men approve and 23% disapprove. Roughly eight-in-ten Democratic and Democratic-leaning men (83%) and women (81%) disapprove of the decision.

A slim majority (56%) of Republicans under the age of 30 approve of the court’s decision, while 43% say they disapprove. Older Republicans are more likely to approve of the decision. Among those ages 30 to 49, 64% approve, while 35% disapprove. And nearly eight-in-ten Republicans 50 and older (78%) approve of the decision, while just 22% disapprove. Sizable majorities of Democrats across all age groups – 80% or more – disapprove of the decision.

However, while large majorities of White, Black and Hispanic Democrats disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion, opposition is higher among White Democrats (89% disapprove) than among Black (74%) or Hispanic Democrats (69%).

Americans’ views of abortion

The wide differences in support for legal abortion across race and ethnicity, educational attainment and religious groups are little changed since earlier this year.

About six-in-ten Americans (62%) say abortion should be legal in all (29%) or most (33%) cases. Around a third of the public (36%) says abortion should be illegal in all (8%) or most (28%) cases.

Two-thirds of women (66%) say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, compared with a narrower majority (57%) of men.

About seven-in-ten Black (71%) and Asian (78%) adults say abortion should be legal in most or all cases. Smaller majorities among White (60%) and Hispanic (61%) adults also say this.

Younger adults are more supportive of legal abortion than older adults. Seven-in-ten adults ages 18 to 29 say abortion should be legal in all or most cases (including 41% who say it should be legal in all cases), as do 64% of those 30 to 49. Among those 50 and older, 57% say abortion should be legal in at least most cases.

Americans with postgraduate degrees are particularly likely to say abortion should be legal in at least most cases; 72% say this, as do 65% of those with college degrees and an identical share (65%) of those with some college experience but no degree. Adults with a high school degree or less education (55%) are the least likely to say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

There are wide gaps across religious groups in views of abortion. An overwhelming share of religiously unaffiliated adults (83%) support abortion being legal in all or most cases, as do six-in-ten Catholics. Overall, Protestants are divided in their views (48% legal in all or most cases, 50% illegal in all or most cases): About three-quarters of White evangelicals say abortion should be illegal in all (20%) or most cases (53%), while majorities of Black Protestants (71%) and White non-evangelical Protestants (61%) take the position that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Americans who are married or living with a partner are somewhat less supportive of legal access to abortion (59%) than those who are not married or living with a partner (67%). There is a similar gap between parents and people who do not have any children (67% of non-parents say abortion should be legal in all or most cases vs. 59% of parents).

About three-quarters of conservative Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (73%) say abortion should be illegal in all (16%) or most (56%) cases. By contrast, a majority of moderate and liberal Republicans (60%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

About three-quarters (77%) of conservative and moderate Democrats say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do roughly nine-in-ten liberal Democrats (92%). However, liberal Democrats (59%) are much more likely than conservative and moderate Democrats (34%) to say abortion should be legal in all cases.