krazykitkat | (no subject)

From SMH:

The majority of Australians are opposed to abortion performed for non-medical reasons, according to a new opinion poll.

With federal parliament set to debate the abortion pill RU486 this week, the national poll revealed that 51 per cent of those surveyed were against a woman choosing an abortion for social or financial reasons while 53 per cent opposed Medicare funding abortion in these circumstances.

The survey of 1,200 people, which was carried out by independent research company Market Facts on behalf of the Australian Federation of Right to Life Associations (AFRLA), also found that 78 per cent of those asked oppose Medicare funding of late-term abortions (past 20 weeks of pregnancy) and 67 per cent are against Medicare funding after the first trimester (13 weeks).

Apart from the fact that I'd be very suspicious of the wording of the poll questions, and this seems to contradict the results of most other polls done on the subject, there is a huge glaring problem with the results.

Most abortions for "social" reasons are done well before 13 weeks, while many abortions for medical reasons are done after 13 weeks. Results from CVS would be available not long before the magic 13 week mark, while amnios aren't done till after 13 weeks. Plus virtually all "late term" abortions are done for medical reasons. So the poll results are contradictory and hence meaningless.

ETA:

I just fired off a letter to the SMH:

So, according to the survey carried out on behalf of the Australian Federation of Right to Life Associations, 78 per cent of those asked oppose Medicare funding of late-term abortions (past 20 weeks of pregnancy) and 67 per cent are against Medicare funding after the first trimester (13 weeks), while most (a huge majority of 51%) are opposed to abortion for non-medical reasons. Apart from the fact that this contradicts other polls done on the subject of women's access to abortion, was it pointed out to those being surveyed that most genetic testing, such as Amniocentesis, is carried out after 13 weeks? Would those surveyed force a woman who has just discovered that her baby has a genetic defect that will result in serious impairment, death soon after birth, or still birth, to either go through with the pregnancy or pay for her own termination?

I thought I'd just pick out the most glaring problem. Now let's watch as my letter doesn't get published (once more).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Most abortions for "social" reasons are done well before 13 weeks, while many abortions for medical reasons are done after 13 weeks.

That doesn't matter to the pro-life politicians, if yours are anything like ours. Partial-birth abortions are only done for medical reasons, and yet here in the US, they're now banned.

These guys don't let the truth get in the way, as long as the truthiness is solid.

We haven't got a large pro-life movement, but it doesn't help that the health minister is one. They ignore facts like how in NSW any abortions after about 20 weeks have to be approved by a panel of doctors.

Looking at the questions they asked, they referred to "partial-birth" abortions and how they'd been outlawed in the US. That's biased polling and really has no relevance.

Ours isn't actually a large movement either - there are loads of people (like myself) who don't like the idea of abortion but, at the same time, don't think it's government's place to restrict it or anything like that. Unfortunately, the super-conservatives in control of our government spun it to look like everyone who wasn't completely pro-choice (ie, not in the "middle of the road" camp) was completely pro-life (ie, ban everything ever).

I'm not surprised at their biased polling. That's how the US Congress justified that dumbass ban on partial-birth abortions.

I'd be worried about anyone who did like the idea of abortion.

Personally I'd put someone such as yourself as pro-choice, it's a pretty broad category.

Yeah, I'm pro-choice, as are a great many people in the US. But it's so easy for these little punks of politicians to spin it to look like someone like myself wouldn't mind outlawing everything under the sun.

the national poll revealed that 51 per cent of those surveyed were against a woman choosing an abortion for social or financial reasons
That's hardly a "majority".

A majority is anything over 50%, no matter how tiny :\

That even contradicts the findings of other Right to Life groups. It sounds to me like someone has dumped the "undecideds" in with the "antis".

'Tis a case of, "Please get off my side, you make me look stupid and manipulative."

After looking at the full results and questions, I do wonder about the people they polled. Because when asked if they supported abortion on demand, that is for any reason, 60% said yes (and note the AFRLA aren't advertising that point). Yet then they changed their mind when asked whether on financial/social grounds...do they not comprehend a simple question?

The initial explanation of abortion was also skewed to target the emotions.

Just confirms that you can get a poll to tell you whatever you want it to.

...do they not comprehend a simple question?

Probably not. "Abortion on demand" is also a fairly simply phrase that I think is heard a lot when the subject comes up for debate, and the brain tends to skate over the "for any reason" bit. Then you raise the financial/social grounds, and suddenly the brain switches into "Those damn women! Aborting babies all over the place so they can afford that north coast holiday cottage and a second 4WD! Those damn single mothers, aborting babies all over the place so they'll still have friends and a means of support!" mode.

Or such would be my assumption, based on experience with the pro-life movement. Pro-lifers tend to forget that pro-choicers aren't generally in favour of promoting abortion. The whole stance is so far beyond their comprehension that they can only envision a distorted and caricatured version of the pro-choice mindset.

Yeah, apparently I want every woman to have an abortion at least once just for fun.

I skimmed the full report and they only got 1200 responses out of just over 10000 attempts, just over 5000 of which were people refusing to be surveyed. Makes me wonder how many of those refused when hearing who the poll was being done for. So the sample is going to be skewed from the start.

I'm trying to understand how a poll of only 1000 people can be representative of the population...

I think that's a pretty normal polling sample.

It's still really low to be representative.

Well done. I hope it gets published. This is an important issue and too many of the facts are left out.

I'm not holding my breath.

After looking at the full results and questions, I do wonder about the people they polled. Because when asked if they supported abortion on demand, that is for any reason, 60% said yes (and note the AFRLA aren't advertising that point). Yet then they changed their mind when asked whether on financial/social grounds...I guess if they can't understand a simple question they can't think through the issues and facts completely either.

good letter - i"ll be looking out for it!

It will be a miracle if it's published, I think I'm on the Herald's blacklist.

I can't wait to see what (if any from what you're saying) feedback you _do_ get...

This is the first time I've been on LJ for a while so I only just saw this and I'm fuming right now about the whole aobrtion/RU-486 debate in general, thank-you for writing the letter, if you think you are SMH blacklisted and I'm pretty sure they do it, simply use a psuedonym and mail the letter from work or a surrounding area postcode in future, it has worked for me ;)

And just in general and please excuse the ****ed French but would Tony Abbott please just F**K OFF!!!