Plan B Forum

I had wanted to address this earlier this week in the "rape" thread but I didn't have the time, and since that thread has now gone in different directions, I thought I would start a new one.

Whenever polls are used to measure anything other than "Do you support candidate X or candidate Y" what exactly is asked, and the way in which it is asked, plays a huge role in the results you get. Nothing better illustrates this than polls about abortion, (if I were ever to teach a seminar on polling, I would use polls on abortion as a template to illustrate this point.) And also, once the results are in, you can look at the same polling data and legitimately make vastly divergent assertions about them.

First, here are the polls Scooter posted:

"When the woman's life is endangered"
Legal 88%
Illegal 9%
Depends 1%
Unsure 2%

"When the woman's physical health is endangered"
Legal 83%
Illegal 12%
Depends 2%
Unsure 2%

"When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest"
Legal 83%
Illegal 14%
Depends 1%
Unsure 3%


Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation Poll. July 25-Aug. 5, 2012. N=3,130 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.
"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

Legal in all cases 19%
Legal in most cases 36%
Illegal in most cases 25%
Illegal in all cases 17%
Unsure 3%

Gallup Poll. May 3-6, 2012. N=1,024 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.
"Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

Always legal 25%
Sometimes legal 52%
Always illegal 20%
Unsure 3%


Pew Research Center. April 4-15, 2012. N=1,494 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

Legal in all cases 23%
Legal in most cases 31%
Illegal in most cases 23%
Illegal in all cases 16%
Unsure/refused 7%

And here are a few more:



http://www.gallup.com/poll/148631/Commo ... views.aspx

Now, someone like Sue, can look at these poll results and be technically right claiming:

an overwhelming majority of Americans -- ranging from 75% to 84% over the last 37 years of polling -- believe abortion should be legal. Only a minority, ranging variously from 12% to 22% during that same period, believes abortion should be illegal.

But somebody else could just as easily look at those numbers and say:

"Only 25% or less of the American people support having abortion legal under any circumstances; the vast majority either believe it should be banned, or only permitted under certain circumstances"

And that would also be technically right...

These polls illustrate several things...

First, they illustrate one of the limiting problems of polls; having answers that allow the respondent to engage in a subjective process that isn't measured by the polling. When people are giving answers that have words like "most" or "some" we have absolutely no idea how they are personally interpreting that phrase. Presumably different people mean different things, so it's very difficult to know what's actually being measured there.

However, in looking at these polls there are some things we can say with clarity, and also some logical deductions and inferences that can be made. Here's what we clearly know:

1. There is a large national consensus (80% plus) in favor of having abortion legal in the cases of rape, incest, and risk to the life or physical health of the mother.

2. There is a substantial majority, (64%) that oppose having abortion legal after the first six months of pregnancy, except to save the life of the mother.

3. There is a substantial majority, (71%) in favor of parental consent in the case of minors seeking abortions.

4.There is a substantial majority (69%) that favor a 24 hour waiting period for abortion, and a national consensus, (87%) that women should be informed of possible health risks to abortion.

Now here's what we can logically deduce from these and other results:

A substantial majority of the American people support having abortion legal in some circumstances, but not in others. A substantial majority favor several restrictions. Exactly where those lines are may not be precise, but they must lie somewhere between rape, incest and the the physical health of the mother, (which a large majority support having legal) and late term abortions, (which a large majority opposes.)

So which major party has a platform which supports the views held by mainstream American? The answer, (not surprisingly) is neither one:

Here's the relevant section of the GOP plank:

we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children..

And now the Democrats:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

One provides for no exceptions; the other provides for no restrictions. Both of these positions are held by a quarter or less of the electorate....

Now, I saw boatloads of media coverage for days on end, about the GOP platform and how "out of the mainstream" it was, but barely a word, (I think I may have seen one story on FOX) about the Democratic platform, and how equally "out of the mainstream " it is.

Gee, I wonder why that is?

I'd say it's mostly because the Democratic Party doesn't have helpful idiots talking about "legitimate" rape or "God's plan".

I'd also say it's because the Democratic Party's position isn't so far out there as the Republican Party's position. Most people do support abortion in at least some cases. Meanwhile the Republican Party wants to ban all abortions, no matter what. Which is a bigger turn off for most people, they recognize that women should have some choice in certain circumstances.

Lord Jim wrote:And now the Democrats:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

One provides for no exceptions; the other provides for no restrictions.

Except that Roe v. Wade permits states to impose substantial restrictions on abortion, and so to support Roe v. Wade "strongly and unequivocally" must also mean support of a state's right to impose restrictions that are consistent with the ruling.

So not "out of the mainstream" in the slightest.

So not "out of the mainstream" in the slightest.

I couldn't disagree more....

Any point of view that is rejected by 75-80 per cent of the population is completely out of the mainstream, pretty much by definition....

I think the reason the press hasn't correctly portrayed it as such, (as they have with the no "exceptions" position) is pretty obvious. It's because most of them agree with it. The reality that it represents a fringe view, doesn't even occur to them, because they themselves hold it.

A few observations:

RvW was announced at a time when many states had started permitting abortions, thus they stepped in the middle of an evolutionary process in which the issue was already being resolved - rightly, in my view - in the individual state legislatures. In 1973, someone close to me had an abortion at a hospital in Pennsylvania at a time when they were still outlawed here. Her abortion was "part of a scientific study."

An overturning of RvW would merely throw the issue back to the state legislatures. With a few exceptions, then, it would make no difference in the availability of abortion, whether elective or otherwise. There are only a few states where total prohibition would have any chance of passing (Utah, for one).

There is no current, viable legislative or constitutional proposal ANYWHERE to prohibit all abortions. Indeed, there are as many fringe groups on the left as there are on the right that would outlaw it in all cases, but these are truly the fringes. The "threat" of total abolition is just yet another bogeyman trotted out by the Left to frighten the Chronically Stupid.

Regardless of one's moral beliefs and political positions, when the actual case of an "inconvenient" pregnancy comes up, most people manage to suppress their higher principles and have or condone an abortion. Thus, the number of children born with Downe's Syndrome is a small fraction of what it used to be.

Although one cannot know for sure, I suspect that if a Constitutional Amendment were passed today, saying that as of January 1, 2014, abortions would be absolutely forbidden by Federal law, the number of "unwanted" babies would actually drop from what it is today. People would start taking their reproductive behavior a little more seriously.

The contrast between a couple sharing the excitement of a baby 12 weeks along in the womb, and an elective abortion at the same stage is stark. In one case they know that this is a real person in the womb, and in the other, it is a bit of extraneous, troublesome tissue to be removed, not unlike a facial wart.

It is no wonder that the Democrats are being more and more shrill every day about the "abortion issue." WIth more women unemployed, an increasing income gap, more women on foodstamps, etc., the LAST thing they want to talk about is issues that are of real concern to most women, because by those measures, this Administration looks terrible.

Lord Jim wrote:

So not "out of the mainstream" in the slightest.

I couldn't disagree more....

Any point of view that is rejected by 75-80 per cent of the population is completely out of the mainstream, pretty much by definition....

Did you even read what I posted? To equate supporting Roe v. Wade "strongly and unequivocally" with supporting the right of abortion with no restrictions is simply wrong, because Roe v. Wade retained for states the power to impose substantial restrictions on the right to an abortion.

Scooter, I don't think you're reading the Democratic Party platform language correctly:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

In other words, they support Roe v. Wade and in addition:

"a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

In other words, they are stating support for a "right" to an abortion which they see as absolute, without any restrictions, (which they interpret as "weakening or undermining that right.")

This is clearly not a mainstream view.

So what you are claiming to be the Democratic postion is that they strongly and unequivocally support Roe v. Wade, except that they want to see it completely overturned in order to substitute a regime under which a woman can obtain a legal abortion at any time, under any circumstance. Sure, that would make perfect sense, if only it weren't a perfect contradiction.

Here's the thing, though, Jim. Ask a group of prominent Republican if their platform postion means that a woman cannot get an abortion even in cases of rape or incest, and some of them will say yes. Ask a group of prominent Democrats if their position means that a woman should be able to have an abortion at 8 months and 29 days of pregnancy, for no reason other than she wants one, and no one is going to say yes.

Excellent post, LJ. Here is one statistic that jumps out at me.

Lord Jim wrote: and a national consensus, (87%) that women should be informed of possible health risks to abortion.

There are 13% of people who don't think a patient should be informed of the health risks of a medical procedure before having it done? They shouldn't get to have a counting opinion, just out of principle. Fortunately, the medical world takes care makes this one a non-issue.

dgs49 wrote: Although one cannot know for sure, I suspect that if a Constitutional Amendment were passed today, saying that as of January 1, 2014, abortions would be absolutely forbidden by Federal law, the number of "unwanted" babies would actually drop from what it is today. People would start taking their reproductive behavior a little more seriously.

The evidence we have suggests otherwise. When abortion began to become legal in the 60's and then nationally in 1973, the birth rate went from a high in 1957 of 25.3 births per 1,000 (or about 4.3 million), through a gradual reduction in the 1960s to a range of 17-18 per 1,000 people, to a significant drop of 14-15 per 1,000 in 1972-73 as those laws became effective. It stayed in the 14-15 range until the "baby echo" surge in the late 80s made it to 15-16 per 1,000 and then eased off. The rate of births have never come close to those pre-Roe, even with the 80-90s surge in births. If the rate dropped due to abortion being legal, it follows that it would likely rise due to it becoming illegal. The current amount of responsible reproductive behavior is about as high as it is going to get among those who care about that sort of thing due to infectious diseases and a much more relentless child support system.

Long Run wrote:There are 13% of people who don't think a patient should be informed of the health risks of a medical procedure before having it done?

Perhaps they have in mind some of those "education" requirements in some states where the law mandates both form and content, often exaggerating exceeedingly rare risks, and not comparing those risks to the corresponding risks of pregnancy.

I wonder if those 87% would agree with a law requiring every pregnant woman to be informed that a first trimester abortion carries less risk than carry a baby to term.

This one jumped out at me:

Do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals?
[...]
A law which would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure
conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as a "partial birth
abortion," except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother....................Favor 64%........Oppose 31%

In other words, if you call it something else--which all, you know, actual DOCTORS actually DO--rather than a name which the "pro-life" lobbyists made up to make it sound worse, then the statistic might be quite different, (Especially if the respondent to the poll were informed of some possible serious medical consequences to a woman other than death which might occur and cause an OB/GYN to recommend an intact D&X--which is the actual medical term, BTW.)

Long Run, I'm not sure you are talking about the same thing that I am. I said, "unwanted babies," which dies not equate to the birth rate.

Furthermore, the late 60's and early 70's were a time of dramatic changes in behavior patterns due to the ready availability of The Pill (as opposed to condoms) for just about everyone.

Right now, it is virtually possible to decide, with certainty, whether you want to conceive or not, and yet masses of women do not seem to take it seriously, knowing that if "something happen" it can be corrected quickly at the local Planned parenthood clinic. Take away that option and peoples' behavior will change.

I would guess.

ONE ASPECT OF THE DEM PLATFORM that has not been pointed out yet here is the phrase, "...regardless of ability to pay..." This implies, of necessity, payment by the taxpayers. This is huge, and relegates this particular plank to the fringe. Not many Americans would sign on to government subsidized abortions at will, for any reason. If you are going to take my tax dollars to pay for abortions, then I should get to pick which ones I pay for.

[quoteIf you are going to take my tax dollars to pay for abortions, then I should get to pick which ones I pay for.][/quote]

We tried that for wars from vietnam on, and it didn't work then either. Allowing taxpayers to regulate exactly hwere their taxes go and/or what they pay for negates the government. Helll, if I wanted to rob a bank, I wouldn't want to pay for police.

dgs49 wrote:There is no current, viable legislative or constitutional proposal ANYWHERE to prohibit all abortions. Indeed, there are as many fringe groups on the left as there are on the right that would outlaw it in all cases, but these are truly the fringes. The "threat" of total abolition is just yet another bogeyman trotted out by the Left to frighten the Chronically Stupid.

So what you're saying is that the Republican Party is a fringe group since one of their main platforms is a ban on all abortions.

If I ever want someone putting words in my mouth, I'll insist that the person have a three-digit IQ.

Penis

dgs49 wrote: If I ever want someone putting words in my mouth, I'll insist that the person have a three-digit IQ.

In other words you have no response to my post and instead choose to insult me again.

You should probably consider that people have access to the internet and can make fun of your lies when you choose to blatantly disregard reality.

The Republican Party platform calls for a ban on all abortions. This isn't a fantasy. It's not a scary story by the "left". It's the simple truth and you're trying to brush it away as if it doesn't exist.

So when you say fringe groups are the ones calling for bans on abortion, that means you are, by your own definition, saying that the Republican Party is a fringe group since it is also calling for a ban on all abortions.

I just found out Grim Reaper has a four digit IQ.

NBD. dgs has four digits. 98.67