OK, you are actually correct. This is the first I've heard of this, and I concede that I had this wrong. I've never actually heard of anyone who had this belief before, but clearly there are a significant number out there. But why couldn't you come up with this sort of information earlier in the game? It would have saved us both a lot of trouble. The examples you gave me before didn't prove anything. This one actually does.
However, you've done nothing to show any actual correlation between this minority view and actual abortion laws that are going into affect all over the country right now. It's an unsupported supposition that one has anything to do with the other. Those laws are being crafted and passed by extremists who want to effectively ban abortion, not by extremist who want it legal in situations that supersede the precedents of the past 50 years.
The fact that you have no idea why body autonomy went away in the third trimester according to legal precedent in the past is kind of a problem since it's a fundamental aspect of the discussion of this topic. And, I already told you more than once, under Roe, that was the nation-wide standard that had been in effect for over 50 years. The balancing point between the rights of the developing fetus and the woman was related to trimesters - according to Roe, with some exceptions which have been already noted. The government could regulate but not ban abortion in the second trimester. They were illegal in the third trimester, except for when it endangered the life of the mother. This was the universal standard for the entire nation until Dobbs did away with that and the laws of individual states went into effect.
And as the Gallop story noted, late stage abortions are extremely rare, making up only 1.3% after 20 weeks - and those are universally for the sorts of extreme cases we've already talked about. So saying that abortion rights extremists are to blame for draconian abortion laws is just sort of absurd. Even if 20% believe they should be legal, under all circumstances that's not what is taking place or what was driving these new anti-choice laws. Because under Roe, that wasn't legal and it wasn't happening. These new laws were mostly created as trigger laws before Roe was superseded by Dobbs.
And all that aside, this is not really the sort of "extremism" that Dancova was talking about. As I pointed out in my intitial comment to you, he gave misleading data and said things that are demonstrably false. This is what I called him out for - by providing the actual relevant statistics and showing why his thesis was pointless because it was so off base.
He said that Democrats are losing races because people see them as extremists, and yet, by his own accounting, only 20% of people of any political affiliation believe that abortion should be legal in all cases despite concerns of viability. This is not the reason that Democrats are losing races. That has more to do with things like voter suppression, gerrymandering, the Electoral College, and a failure of Democratic candidates to tackle issues that are important to blue collar voters.
He doesn't like "angry white women" because Dancova is a first class A-1 misogynist who would prefer that all women stay quiet, compliant, and available for sex - not because that is making any demonstrable impact on abortion rights. How do I feel comfortable in making that assertion about him? Because he and I have had many long discussions about the onset of patriarchy 6-9 thousand years ago, and it's his assertion that contrary to significant evidence to the contrary that patriarchy has existed and does exist in all cultures throughout time. He believes that men have the right to control women because that's the way it's always been everywhere (even though that isn't remotely true). He is especially keen on "indigenous" culture where child marriage is the norm and gets indignant that we should not judge what are widely considered to be human rights violations thought a Western lens. When I pointed out once to him that he seemed to have a sort of creepy obsession with this, he didn't deny it. When I opined that slavery is wrong whether or not it was common in some cultures in the past, and that we don't need a "woke" Western lens to judge the inhumanity and basic denial of civil rights inherent in the practice of slavery, he told me I was wrong. That's who we are dealing with here.
So, let's leave Dancova out of this because he didn't make any actual points that were fact-based or even sensible. If you are concerned about the 20% of people who think that abortion should be legal under any circumstances no matter what, then that is certainly your prerogative and something that I very much understand and can support. But until you show me something substantive which indicates that this minority (which I wasn't even aware existed - even though I know a lot about this topic) are somehow impacting current abortion laws, I'm not going to believe it.
Most people just want Roe back - with it's balancing of rights by trimester - and that is born out by the studies you linked me. The fact that we have religious extremists on the Supreme Court and in a wide variety of state legislatures is in no way impacted by the minority 20% of abortion rights proponents. They made their rulings and laws before any of that 20% could have a say and although you may not like them, they are not really the issue in the problems we are facing in this country around access to abortion care.
