February 14, 2006

YOU'D THINK THEY'D AT LEAST NOTICE THE ELECTION RETURNS:

Polls Distort U.S. Views on Abortion (NewsMax, 2/14/06)

As two vacancies on the Supreme Court opened up last year, a series of polls found that people in the U.S. approve of the Roe v. Wade decision by a significant margin – but these polls distort Americans’ real feelings regarding abortion.

That’s the view of Mark Stricherz, a contributing editor to Crisis magazine, who takes an in-depth look behind the polls in an article titled "A Terrible Misunderstanding.” [...]

[T]he Los Angeles Times framed its poll question more in line with what the Court’s rulings really mean: "Generally speaking, are you in favor of the Supreme Court decision which permits a woman to get an abortion from a doctor at any time, or are you opposed to that?”

The result: Only 43 percent of respondents were in favor. "It was the lowest level of support recorded because the rest of the polls misinterpret Roe and Doe. They view Roe v. Wade as a decision that legalized abortion but restricted the procedure, not one that made virtually all abortions legal,” writes Stricherz.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of respondents in Gallup polls disapprove of abortion when a woman and her partner simply do not want another child or when a pregnancy would interfere with a woman’s career.

Also, polls have routinely found that about two-thirds of respondents oppose legal abortion after the first trimester – and a 2003 CNN/USA Today poll found that 84 percent oppose it in the last three months of pregnancy.

Concludes Stricherz: "If the polls described what the rulings actually did, their results would yield far less public support” for Roe v. Wade.


Posted by Orrin Judd at February 14, 2006 8:18 PM
Comments

Conclusions: #1. truth means less than nothing to those people. Truth is a bourgious affectation standing in the way of the higher truth of the wishes of the Party.

#2. The swine who have spun and propagated these lies over the years bear guilt not just for false witness but for murder also. They shall go to judgement bearing the guilt of their complicity in the death of millions.

Posted by: Lou Gots at February 14, 2006 8:39 PM

100% of babies are against it.

Polls are just another way the Manufactured News Networks lie to us. In fact, much reportage is actually designed so that you'll know less about the subject than when you began reading the article or watching the report.

Posted by: Noel at February 14, 2006 9:56 PM

This is obvious to anybody who looks closely at polls: Americans consistently favor tighter restrictions on abortion but claim to support Roe v. Wade. The simplest explanation is that some people don't entirely understand what Roe v. Wade says.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at February 15, 2006 3:18 AM

Mr. Murphy;

Obviously the public doesn't understand Roe v. Wade, or the campaigns against Justices Roberts and Alito wouldn't have claimed that the two of them would make abortion illegal.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at February 15, 2006 5:25 AM

People, myself included, who may be against women using abortion as a convenient birth control method, may still want no laws enacted which would prevent a woman from seeking medical attention for a life threatening condition.

I know the argument about society needing to protect the fetus, but outlawing abortion won't protect the most innocent among us. This is the one time when Teddy makes sense. Desperate women will take desperate measures.

Posted by: erp at February 15, 2006 10:41 AM

"People, myself included, who may be against women using abortion as a convenient birth control method, may still want no laws enacted which would prevent a woman from seeking medical attention for a life threatening condition."

Give me a break, erp. If you read about Dr. Tiller, he proudly talks about patients flying in from all over the country to get late-term abortions. I've also heard abortionists proudly state that they'll perform an abortion for any reason because 1) giving birth is a "life threatening condition", and 2) raising a child that you decide you don't want would be an affront to one's mental health.

If you have a life-threatening condition, you go to a hospital, not to see Planned Parenthood.

Posted by: b at February 15, 2006 11:25 AM

b. You're making my point for me.

By medical attention I meant from their personal physicians, certainly not planned parenthood or any other for-profit abortion clinic, and I'm very familiar that abortion is being used for birth control by middle and upper class women. Over 25% of the privileged women attending an upscale college where I worked, had at least one abortion during their four year at college. Totally outrageous and the college health center wasn't allowed to inform their parents who were paying the bills.

If conservatives make noises about making abortion illegal, they'll lose a lot of people like me who are basically against abortion except in most exceptional cases, but still don't want laws against it.

Posted by: erp at February 15, 2006 1:23 PM

erp:

No, they won't. You're not going to vote for Hillary just because she'd keep an abortion you're not going to have available.

Posted by: oj at February 15, 2006 1:29 PM

erp-

Do your best to see that the laws in your state comply with your wishes. If they don't and it means that much to you, move or start petitioning your legislators for a constitutional amendment since abortion is not discussed in the constitution we have.

Posted by: Tom C.,Stamford,Ct. at February 15, 2006 2:27 PM

There is a moral trap here.

A serious person games out courses of action before confronting the crises giving rise to moral dilemmas.

If I am carrying a gun, what will I do if I am attacked by one similarly armed, or by one armed with a knife, or by a powerful unarmed assailant? What if I witness another being attacked?

Now as to the unborn. What do I now plan to do if confronted in the future by the inconvenience of a pregnancy not consciously planned?

Posted by: Lou Gots at February 15, 2006 2:53 PM

I'll vote for the lesser of the two evils as I've always done, but I see many people staying home and not voting at all if the choice is between any Liberal and a candidate who promises to make abortion illegal if, in fact, any court would ever overthrow Roe vs. Wade.

Legalize the morning after pill, close down the abortion clinics and make abortion a private medical matter and there will be far fewer abortions. That's about the best we can hope for.

Preventing unwanted pregnancies is the goal and the public schools would do well to make it clear that school children should refrain from sex, the only positively 100% effective birth control method. As for unwanted pregnancies, each family needs to deal with it in their own way. Raising the baby or putting it up for adoption are the options. Half dozen people I know are right now going clear round the globe to adopt. There are probably many more couples who would like to adopt, but don't have the large sums it takes to adopt a baby in a foreign country.

Posted by: erp at February 15, 2006 3:58 PM

erp: Isn't the reason that Planned Parenthood "clinics" exist because so few doctors are willing to perform abortions?

Posted by: b at February 15, 2006 4:54 PM

b. Are you saying that Planned Parenthood is performing a public service by making abortion available on demand? Hardly. They're a profit making organization looking to maximize their investment, ergo they push abortion.

Doctors may not be willing to perform abortion as birth control, but would perform an abortion if there is a danger to the pregnant woman's health.

I think abortion is just another part of the left's drive to destroy the family as is the push for gay and lesbian marriage, single "moms" - gosh I hate that word, day care from age one day and on and on.

Posted by: erp at February 15, 2006 5:30 PM

erp:

No one who would stay home over only that issue is voting GOP anyway.

Posted by: oj at February 15, 2006 5:32 PM

oj. I can't agree that all Republicans want to overturn Roe vs. Wade and make abortion illegal. In fact, a lot of people, women especially, would vote Republican but for their anti-abortion stance.

Posted by: erp at February 15, 2006 8:01 PM

erp:

Yes, but conservatism is male. Married women, with less reason to want an easy way out of pregnancy, vote more conservatively.

Posted by: oj at February 15, 2006 8:21 PM
« THE COURT WILL NOW TAKE ANOTHER BRIEF RECESS | Main | LIKE SWAPPING BASEBALL CARDS WHEN YOU WERE A KID: »