krazykitkat (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
krazykitkat) wrote2006-02-05 03:57 pm
krazykitkat) wrote2006-02-05 03:57 pm
Entry tags:
(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).
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).
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
I'm not surprised at their biased polling. That's how the US Congress justified that dumbass ban on partial-birth abortions.
no subject
Personally I'd put someone such as yourself as pro-choice, it's a pretty broad category.
no subject