Telling people what they think

I’m usually pretty skeptical of public opinion polls, because their results are entirely based on how the questions are framed. And they are usually framed to get particular results, instead of factually designed to take the real public pulse. Most of the time, they don’t ask the right questions.

At the end of July, a news blast went out across the media reporting that voters in South Dakota were turning against the law to ban abortion, according to a new poll. Allegedly.

But that’s not really what the poll revealed. The Associated Press story that was picked up and run almost everywhere was overly simplistic, and betrayed some wishful thinking on the part of….the pollsters?

The Argus Leader newspaper and KELO-TV in Sioux Falls hired Washington D.C. based Mason-Dixon Polling & Research to find out how the state’s residents would vote today on the abortion ban. When the results were in, the Argus Leader reported that

“a new survey shows that more residents of the largely conservative state oppose a ban on the pregnancy-ending procedure than suport it, though that would change if exceptions involving rape and incest were allowed.”

But the new law does have a rape and incest exception. Don’t they know that?

Either they do not, or they are intentionally misleading the public.

“According to the statewide poll…47 percent of voters polled would vote to reject the ban, compared with 39 percent who would vote to keep it. Another 14 percent were undecided…The poll indicated the ban would have broader overall support if it included an exception for cases involving rape or incest. Those undecided or against the current form of the abortion ban were askead if they would favor the proposed law if it included those exceptions. Statewide, 59 percent said they would support that form of an abortion restriction.”

So, let’s take a look at that poll and what it actually revealed.

The question was downright convoluted. And long-winded. People tend to sum up what a question is asking in the first lines of text. Here’s how it was written:

QUESTION: Referred Law 6 on the November ballot is the petitioned referendum on state House Bill 1215. It would prohibit any person, at any time, from providing any medicine or other substance to a pregnant woman for the specific purpose of terminating her pregnancy. However, a person may provide a contraception substance to a woman without penalty prior to the time her pregnancy could be determined by conventioinal medical testing.

It would also prohibit any person, at any time, from using any instrument or procedure on a pregnant woman for the specific purpose of terminating her pregnancy, unless the person is a licensed physician performing a medical procedure to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.

If approved, this law will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the US Constitution. If so, the State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs. If you were voting on this Referred Law today, would you vote:

–“YES” to allow the Act to become law

–or, “NO” to reject the Act?

Results: “Yes” 39 percent; “No” 47 percent; Undecided 14 percent

(IF VOTING “NO” OR “UNDECIDED”) QUESTION: If the Bill allowed for an exception for cases of rape or incest, would you vote “YES” or “NO”?

Results: “Yes” 59 percent; “No” 29 percent; Undecided 12 percent

Before we break this down, I have a question. What’s with that last comment in the original “question” about the likelihood of a court challenge if approved, and the attorneys fees and all? Seems like an inappropriate and irrelevant jab, at best.

So here’s the actual breakdown of the results: 39 percent say they would vote “yes” even if there is no exception for rape and incest. Of the 47 percent who say they would vote “no,” and the 14 percent who are undecided (which is collectively 61 percent of the total), 59 percent say they would vote “yes” if there were a rape exception. And 59 percent of 61 percent of the total is 36 percent of the total. When you add the original 39 percent of the “yes” vote (without an exception) to that just-mentioned 36 percent of the “no” and “undecided” vote with the exception, the total comes to 75 percent.

I had to go back over those numbers a couple of times for it to really come together, but it’s pretty astounding that 75 percent of those citizens would vote “yes” on this law, and yet that AP story ran everywhere with headlines like “Poll: S.D. Voters Against Abortion Ban” (CBS News) and “Most oppose abortion ban” (Argus Leader) and “Poll: Voters leaning against South Dakota abortion ban” (Boston Herald), etc…

The real news here, not covered by any media I know of, is that 75 percent of the voting public in that state want abortion banned. And as pointed out in the earlier post below (“The Choice Debate”), there is a carefully crafted rape and incest exception designed to prevent fraud on the part of abortion clinics, and prevent exploitation of women.

The facts are being exploited here. There’s an interesting comment in that Argus Leader article quoted above. Brad Coker, the Mason-Dixon Polling & Research firm’s managing director, said that the rape and incest exception was the key factor in this referendum. “That’s the hook the opponents can really build their argument on,” said Coker.

“If you’re trying to defeat something that’s on the ballot, you have an easier campaign to run to be successful by raising little seeds of doubt.”

That’s insidious. Tell the people the truth, and let them choose. Or isn’t this about choice after all?