Abortion: It's Not So Black and White
April 8, 2015 3:57 AM Subscribe
"From my point of view, I believe all babies go to heaven," King told me when I asked him to explain how both labels fit his viewpoint. "And if this baby were to live a life where it would be abused ... it's just really hard to explain. It gets into the rights of the woman, and her body, at the same time. It just sometimes gets really hazy on each side." Sarah Kliff at Vox on What Americans Think of Abortion
I just kinda wish they'd written it as an opinion piece by a journalist with experience in the field, rather that trying to put these crummy stats around it.
What?
ftfa: I've covered abortion for about eight years now at four different publications
The two take-aways for me are:
Our poll tried something different: it asked respondents to think about women who had decided to have an abortion and how that experience ought to be.
And there, we found agreement. Seventy-two percent want the experience to be comfortable. Seventy-three percent want it to be supportive, and 74 percent want it to be nonjudgmental.
Most Americans (70 percent) think women shouldn’t have to travel more than 60 miles to obtain an abortion. These numbers are higher than those who support the Roe v. Wade decision (68 percent) and much higher than those who think abortion ought to be legal in most or some situations (46 percent).
and
The best statistics say that one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20 — and one in four by age 30. By age 45, one in three American women will have terminated a pregnancy. Twenty-one percent of pregnancies in the United States end in abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 4:27 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
What?
ftfa: I've covered abortion for about eight years now at four different publications
The two take-aways for me are:
Our poll tried something different: it asked respondents to think about women who had decided to have an abortion and how that experience ought to be.
And there, we found agreement. Seventy-two percent want the experience to be comfortable. Seventy-three percent want it to be supportive, and 74 percent want it to be nonjudgmental.
Most Americans (70 percent) think women shouldn’t have to travel more than 60 miles to obtain an abortion. These numbers are higher than those who support the Roe v. Wade decision (68 percent) and much higher than those who think abortion ought to be legal in most or some situations (46 percent).
and
The best statistics say that one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20 — and one in four by age 30. By age 45, one in three American women will have terminated a pregnancy. Twenty-one percent of pregnancies in the United States end in abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 4:27 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
That was some interesting information. I've been aware for a long time a lot of people exist in the grey areas between the absolutist portions of the pro-life and pro-choice camps but even so I am surprised by just how high those poll numbers put that group.
Still, I'm not sure we will be getting any reasonable, compromised legislation out of it. I'm not sure our political system is equipped for that anymore, especially not on an issue where some of the people on the far end of each side of the debate are very, very passionate about the subject and will out-activist and our fundraise the grey area people every time.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:29 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Still, I'm not sure we will be getting any reasonable, compromised legislation out of it. I'm not sure our political system is equipped for that anymore, especially not on an issue where some of the people on the far end of each side of the debate are very, very passionate about the subject and will out-activist and our fundraise the grey area people every time.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:29 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Wow, that was a very interesting article with a unique perspective. It reminds me of the pre-research the qualitative people do - ? Sorry, lab rat here, but there is an early phase of qualitative research that precedes data collection where they go talk to the population of interest to find out what questions to ask in the first place. I like the objective approach of listening to what people actually have to say rather than squishing them into pre-formulated categories. No matter how inflammatory a position appears, people usually make a form of sense when you hear how they got there. It's worth listening, I guess. I like hearing the logic, at least.
Thanks so much for posting this.
posted by Punctual at 4:48 AM on April 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Thanks so much for posting this.
posted by Punctual at 4:48 AM on April 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
> Seventy-two percent want the experience to be comfortable. Seventy-three percent want it to be supportive, and 74 percent want it to be nonjudgmental.
So about 1 in 4 people want women to be uncomfortable, unsupported, and judged for this. That's higher than I would have guessed.
posted by anti social order at 5:06 AM on April 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
So about 1 in 4 people want women to be uncomfortable, unsupported, and judged for this. That's higher than I would have guessed.
posted by anti social order at 5:06 AM on April 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
Still, I'm not sure we will be getting any reasonable, compromised legislation out of it.I agree. For instance, nearly 75% of Americans want the experience of having an abortion to be comfortable, supportive, and non-judgmental and believe that a woman shouldn't have to travel more than 60 miles to get an abortion. That's about as close to consensus as you get in the American political system. Yet it is impossible to believe that there will be any reasonable, compromised legislation to ensure those very sensible, mainstream goals about an experience that one in three American women will have in her lifetime.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:13 AM on April 8, 2015 [16 favorites]
So about 1 in 4 people want women to be uncomfortable, unsupported, and judged for this. That's higher than I would have guessed.
Seriously? I'm surprised it's that low.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:27 AM on April 8, 2015 [28 favorites]
Seriously? I'm surprised it's that low.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:27 AM on April 8, 2015 [28 favorites]
So about 1 in 4 people want women to be uncomfortable, unsupported, and judged for this. That's higher than I would have guessed.
posted by anti social order at 8:06 AM on April 8
The thing it can be easy to forget is that slut shaming is something people believe in because they believe it works (for their particular goals, obviously). They think that if only we make the experience of being a sexually active woman unpleasant and uncomfortable then women will stop being sexually active. Otherwise thoughtful and generally caring people think this. It's nonsense of course, but it's how people think. 1 in 4 seems about right to me.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 5:30 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by anti social order at 8:06 AM on April 8
The thing it can be easy to forget is that slut shaming is something people believe in because they believe it works (for their particular goals, obviously). They think that if only we make the experience of being a sexually active woman unpleasant and uncomfortable then women will stop being sexually active. Otherwise thoughtful and generally caring people think this. It's nonsense of course, but it's how people think. 1 in 4 seems about right to me.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 5:30 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Seriously? I'm surprised it's that low.
I'd always had this mental figure that the percentage of absolute assholes was somewhere around 5%. 27% is quite a jump from that, and a depressing one as well.
posted by Mooski at 5:32 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'd always had this mental figure that the percentage of absolute assholes was somewhere around 5%. 27% is quite a jump from that, and a depressing one as well.
posted by Mooski at 5:32 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
...it's not been in any way corrected for the fact that the sample was randomly selected.
What's the concern here, something like accidental over-representation of fringe groups due to the size and diversity of the population? How would you address this, stratified sampling or stay with random sampling but a much bigger n?
(I'm not picking holes, I don't know much about this sort of sampling strategy and I'm genuinely curious)
So about 1 in 4 people want women to be uncomfortable, unsupported, and judged for this. That's higher than I would have guessed.
Given that the other polls I've seen (e.g.) say that around 45% of Americans are against abortion, that's much lower than I would've guessed. Why would you expect people who think abortion is immoral to want it to be a comfortable experience?
It's refreshing to see this sort of study design, acknowledging that people aren't all polarised to one end or the other, and can hold views more nuanced than "the answer is blindingly obvious, and anyone who claims to doubt it must secretly hate [women/babies]".
posted by metaBugs at 5:35 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
What's the concern here, something like accidental over-representation of fringe groups due to the size and diversity of the population? How would you address this, stratified sampling or stay with random sampling but a much bigger n?
(I'm not picking holes, I don't know much about this sort of sampling strategy and I'm genuinely curious)
So about 1 in 4 people want women to be uncomfortable, unsupported, and judged for this. That's higher than I would have guessed.
Given that the other polls I've seen (e.g.) say that around 45% of Americans are against abortion, that's much lower than I would've guessed. Why would you expect people who think abortion is immoral to want it to be a comfortable experience?
It's refreshing to see this sort of study design, acknowledging that people aren't all polarised to one end or the other, and can hold views more nuanced than "the answer is blindingly obvious, and anyone who claims to doubt it must secretly hate [women/babies]".
posted by metaBugs at 5:35 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'd always had this mental figure that the percentage of absolute assholes was somewhere around 5%. 27% is quite a jump from that, and a depressing one as well.
Have you seen the makeup of Congress and most of the state legislatures in this country? Someone put them all in office.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:35 AM on April 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Have you seen the makeup of Congress and most of the state legislatures in this country? Someone put them all in office.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:35 AM on April 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yeah, I'm surprised at how low that number is, too. There's something that's equal parts hopeful and massively frustrating about this kind of thing in American politics, where when you actually ask people about the details of something they're largely reasonable and show a lot of nuance - this, or the polling that's been done showing the individual components of the ACA are very favorable, or even like that John Oliver/Snowden bit where they framed surveillance reform in terms of dick pics - but people are largely dismissive when it comes to the broad view of the same topic.
And it's so internally inconsistent! I mean:
Most Americans (70 percent) think women shouldn’t have to travel more than 60 miles to obtain an abortion. These numbers are higher than those who support the Roe v. Wade decision (68 percent) and much higher than those who think abortion ought to be legal in most or some situations (46 percent).
What do you even do with that? It reads like abortion NIMBYism.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:40 AM on April 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
And it's so internally inconsistent! I mean:
Most Americans (70 percent) think women shouldn’t have to travel more than 60 miles to obtain an abortion. These numbers are higher than those who support the Roe v. Wade decision (68 percent) and much higher than those who think abortion ought to be legal in most or some situations (46 percent).
What do you even do with that? It reads like abortion NIMBYism.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:40 AM on April 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
The one statistic you need to know to understand the politics of "abortion" in the US is the following: 40% of single mothers in the US are impoverished, who make up about 25% of all households with children.
What abortion rights advocates don't understand that the theocons do is that this stands as a nice demographic marker for a real social and economic catastrophe which is ongoing within US society. Talking about "choice" for men and women with increasingly few choices is whistling past the graveyard. The conservative message: women submit to men, abortion and contraception are wrong, "traditional" families, etc., while an evil fantasy, at least recognizes there is a problem.
The issue is not how you feel about killing babies, it's about the lives of women (who form the foundation of any future society) in the context of a society which is imploding.
posted by ennui.bz at 5:44 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
What abortion rights advocates don't understand that the theocons do is that this stands as a nice demographic marker for a real social and economic catastrophe which is ongoing within US society. Talking about "choice" for men and women with increasingly few choices is whistling past the graveyard. The conservative message: women submit to men, abortion and contraception are wrong, "traditional" families, etc., while an evil fantasy, at least recognizes there is a problem.
The issue is not how you feel about killing babies, it's about the lives of women (who form the foundation of any future society) in the context of a society which is imploding.
posted by ennui.bz at 5:44 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Anyone interested in the murky middle ground of the American abortion debate should seek out Lake of Fire.
posted by belarius at 5:45 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by belarius at 5:45 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Still, I'm not sure we will be getting any reasonable, compromised legislation out of it.
Late-term abortions are already limited. Laws mandating waiting periods, ultrasounds, and TRAP laws are making obtaining abortions more time-consuming and difficult. How much more "compromise" do we need?
posted by LindsayIrene at 5:46 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Late-term abortions are already limited. Laws mandating waiting periods, ultrasounds, and TRAP laws are making obtaining abortions more time-consuming and difficult. How much more "compromise" do we need?
posted by LindsayIrene at 5:46 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
What do you even do with that? It reads like abortion NIMBYism.
They've been trained to think that "legal in most situations" means "economic parasites will have babies willy-nilly because they're screwing all day while you work yourself halfway to death to stay above the creeping financial tide. And then they'll murder those babies for shits and giggles because to them responsibility is for suckers like you."
Maybe that sounds crazy but that is the sincere belief of far too many evangelical fundamentalists (read: everyone I knew before college), and they make up an appreciable fraction of the population.
They don't want to actually hurt anybody or in any way threaten the rule of law (Roe vs Wade sounds very official and legal) which, if you catch them in a moment of total candor, they'll admit absolutely upholds their privilege at every turn.
Basically: it's a combination of identity politics and wishful thinking but not actually being total bastards when forced to empathize with another human.
posted by Ryvar at 5:47 AM on April 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
They've been trained to think that "legal in most situations" means "economic parasites will have babies willy-nilly because they're screwing all day while you work yourself halfway to death to stay above the creeping financial tide. And then they'll murder those babies for shits and giggles because to them responsibility is for suckers like you."
Maybe that sounds crazy but that is the sincere belief of far too many evangelical fundamentalists (read: everyone I knew before college), and they make up an appreciable fraction of the population.
They don't want to actually hurt anybody or in any way threaten the rule of law (Roe vs Wade sounds very official and legal) which, if you catch them in a moment of total candor, they'll admit absolutely upholds their privilege at every turn.
Basically: it's a combination of identity politics and wishful thinking but not actually being total bastards when forced to empathize with another human.
posted by Ryvar at 5:47 AM on April 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
I thought there were a couple of interesting things about this. The first is that she seemed surprised by the results. I don't know if that was sort of a pose that she was affecting for narrative purposes, but I don't think it's anything new to anyone who has been paying attention to this issue. A large percentage of Americans identify as pro-life, but most of them don't want to outlaw abortion or even necessarily put additional restrictions on it. (And people who, for instance, are adamantly against late-term abortions will often change their minds when presented with actual scenarios in which women get late-term abortions.) If you ask people whether they're pro-life or pro-choice, they'll typically pick pro-life if they can only pick one, but many will pick both if that's an option. I've done a lot of political phone-calling and door-knocking for Democrats in a Midwestern swing state, and I can't tell you how often people (typically, but not always, women) tell me that they're going to vote for Democrats because "I'm pro-life on abortion, but I think it should be up to the woman." Pro-life for actual Americans doesn't mean the same thing that it does for the leaders of the anti-abortion movement, and I think that's pretty clear to anyone who has looked at the polling or, you know, talked to a lot of actual people who are not involved in the pro or anti-choice movement.
And the second interesting thing is that she doesn't know of any of her friends or family members who have had an abortion. I'm curious about whether that's typical and whether it varies by, say, socioeconomic factors. I know of three women in my current circle of friends who had abortions in their early 20s, and I can look at their current lives (which involve mature, adult relationships, careers, and wanted children whom they had when they were ready) and know that abortion made that possible. I think that there are some parallels to the gay rights movement: this stuff seems different when it's abstract. Although I suppose that cuts both ways: sometimes people look at people who were born into difficult circumstances and think that being pro-choice means that they think those kids shouldn't exist. It's all very complicated, which I think is the moral of this particular story.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:50 AM on April 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
And the second interesting thing is that she doesn't know of any of her friends or family members who have had an abortion. I'm curious about whether that's typical and whether it varies by, say, socioeconomic factors. I know of three women in my current circle of friends who had abortions in their early 20s, and I can look at their current lives (which involve mature, adult relationships, careers, and wanted children whom they had when they were ready) and know that abortion made that possible. I think that there are some parallels to the gay rights movement: this stuff seems different when it's abstract. Although I suppose that cuts both ways: sometimes people look at people who were born into difficult circumstances and think that being pro-choice means that they think those kids shouldn't exist. It's all very complicated, which I think is the moral of this particular story.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:50 AM on April 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
27% you say? Funny how that number keeps on coming up in US politics.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:54 AM on April 8, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 5:54 AM on April 8, 2015 [15 favorites]
jason_steakums - What do you even do with that? It reads like abortion NIMBYism.
It's uncharitable of me, but it made me think of this bit from the West Wing:
It's uncharitable of me, but it made me think of this bit from the West Wing:
JOSH [...] Because 68% think we give too much in foreign aid, and 59% think it should be cut.posted by metaBugs at 5:58 AM on April 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
WILL You like that stat?
JOSH I do.
WILL Why?
JOSH Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
> A sample size of just over 1,000, though :-/
It's a perfectly fine sample size for a poll.
What I want to know is, who are the people who answered "no" to the "medically accurate information" question?
posted by rtha at 6:00 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's a perfectly fine sample size for a poll.
What I want to know is, who are the people who answered "no" to the "medically accurate information" question?
posted by rtha at 6:00 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Thanks zombieflanders, I need to bookmark that link. I always think of it when the 25-30% number pops up but can never remember where to find it. (All the time, it pops up all the time.)
Late-term abortions are already limited. Laws mandating waiting periods, ultrasounds, and TRAP laws are making obtaining abortions more time-consuming and difficult. How much more "compromise" do we need?
Yeah, you're absolutely right there. The compromises on this issue have to come almost entirely from the pro-life side.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:03 AM on April 8, 2015
Late-term abortions are already limited. Laws mandating waiting periods, ultrasounds, and TRAP laws are making obtaining abortions more time-consuming and difficult. How much more "compromise" do we need?
Yeah, you're absolutely right there. The compromises on this issue have to come almost entirely from the pro-life side.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:03 AM on April 8, 2015
A sample size of just over 1,000, though :-/ ... And looking at the demographic info on the survey report, it looks like it's not been in any way corrected for the fact that the sample was randomly selected.
These are really weird objections. An N of 1000 is bog-standard for national media polls, and is standard because it hits a sweet spot in sampling where further reductions in the margin of error become less cost-effective.
And while you can always do corrections on the back end, you wouldn't correct for random sampling, you'd correct for departures from random sampling caused by systematic biases in survey response. Perfect random sampling is the platonic ideal you aspire to.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:09 AM on April 8, 2015 [27 favorites]
These are really weird objections. An N of 1000 is bog-standard for national media polls, and is standard because it hits a sweet spot in sampling where further reductions in the margin of error become less cost-effective.
And while you can always do corrections on the back end, you wouldn't correct for random sampling, you'd correct for departures from random sampling caused by systematic biases in survey response. Perfect random sampling is the platonic ideal you aspire to.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:09 AM on April 8, 2015 [27 favorites]
What I want to know is, who are the people who answered "no" to the "medically accurate information" question?
posted by rtha
People who like "crisis pregnancy centers."
posted by agregoli at 6:10 AM on April 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by rtha
People who like "crisis pregnancy centers."
posted by agregoli at 6:10 AM on April 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
FWIW, a n of 1000 is totally fine.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:25 AM on April 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:25 AM on April 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think metaftiler needs a stats/social science 101.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:28 AM on April 8, 2015 [28 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:28 AM on April 8, 2015 [28 favorites]
People think in terms of stories. If you ask them about "abortion" in and of itself, it's icky and scary and probably wrong. Once you mention a woman who may have a frightening or safe experience having an abortion, they can picture that woman and sympathize. She's not some thoughtless slut aborting babies for convenience to them - she has emotions now, she can be scared, unsure, worried, hurt.
posted by Zarkonnen at 6:51 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Zarkonnen at 6:51 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
slut shaming is something people believe in because they believe it works
I think they shame first and argue its utility later.
posted by Obscure Reference at 7:03 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think they shame first and argue its utility later.
posted by Obscure Reference at 7:03 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is why "Safe, legal, and rare" was such a winning slogan/soundbite for the Clinton administration. It perfectly captured most Americans' feelings: "abortion is bad, but it should be available, just don't ask us to be happy about it." People are extremely ambivalent about it and that's why you can manipulate poll results so easily by nudging the wording of the questions.
And, as noted repeatedly above, it's really difficult to get that ambivalent majority motivated enough to support legislation, while vocal minorities are very motivated to do so. A tough problem. I liked the article but I was frustrated that it ended at the point that I see as the start of a meaningful policy debate:
posted by Wretch729 at 7:09 AM on April 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
And, as noted repeatedly above, it's really difficult to get that ambivalent majority motivated enough to support legislation, while vocal minorities are very motivated to do so. A tough problem. I liked the article but I was frustrated that it ended at the point that I see as the start of a meaningful policy debate:
These aren’t the voices that set abortion policy; they don’t vote on laws or run lobbying campaigns. But they do live under those laws — and even though they come from different backgrounds and live in different states and hold different views, they have way more in common with one another than most of us realize.Sure, but then what? Basically her conclusion was the country could have more reasonable abortion laws if the political process was totally different. This nice little fable about how nuanced most Americans' views are is useless in terms of actually finding a path to better legislation. (Though it might be valuable as a way of making more people aware of these nuances and commonalities, not ot mention the important point about how common abortion actually is.)
posted by Wretch729 at 7:09 AM on April 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Someone who is in favour of both forced pregnancy and killing (what they believe are) babies is pretty much a reaver.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:13 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:13 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Basically her conclusion was the country could have more reasonable abortion laws if the political process was totally different. This nice little fable about how nuanced most Americans' views are is useless in terms of actually finding a path to better legislation.
Well yeah, of course. It illustrates beautifully the difference between the electorate and the people they elect. The people representing us have a ton to gain from keeping the power structure the same as it currently is. That's a power structure that creates and upholds class privilege, male privilege, and white privilege, and surprise, the people who represent us are mostly rich, white men. The average American has nothing to gain from forcing a woman to put her career on hold so that she can give birth to, and raise, a child. But someone who has privilege on multiple axes absolutely has something to gain from keeping others powerless.
posted by capricorn at 9:18 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well yeah, of course. It illustrates beautifully the difference between the electorate and the people they elect. The people representing us have a ton to gain from keeping the power structure the same as it currently is. That's a power structure that creates and upholds class privilege, male privilege, and white privilege, and surprise, the people who represent us are mostly rich, white men. The average American has nothing to gain from forcing a woman to put her career on hold so that she can give birth to, and raise, a child. But someone who has privilege on multiple axes absolutely has something to gain from keeping others powerless.
posted by capricorn at 9:18 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
And looking at the demographic info on the survey report, it looks like it's not been in any way corrected for the fact that the sample was randomly selected.
I think I misunderstand what you mean by this. On the face of it, a random sample is representative and doesn't need to be adjusted. A stratified random sample does need to be, as does a random sample that has responses missing not completely at random.
When asked whether he identified as pro-life or pro-choice, he didn’t pick one. He picked both.
...
Taken together, about four in 10 Americans are eschewing the labels that we typically see as defining the abortion policy debate.
So if the man on the street can see through the false dichotomy created by our silly nomenclature, why can't our politicians and reporters?
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:30 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think I misunderstand what you mean by this. On the face of it, a random sample is representative and doesn't need to be adjusted. A stratified random sample does need to be, as does a random sample that has responses missing not completely at random.
When asked whether he identified as pro-life or pro-choice, he didn’t pick one. He picked both.
...
Taken together, about four in 10 Americans are eschewing the labels that we typically see as defining the abortion policy debate.
So if the man on the street can see through the false dichotomy created by our silly nomenclature, why can't our politicians and reporters?
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:30 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The people representing us have a ton to gain from keeping the power structure the same as it currently is.
That's true enough, but it seems to me not really to apply all that strongly to the abortion debate in itself. That is, the rich white men in Congress aren't going to get any more or less rich no matter what happens to US abortion laws and the availability of US abortions. The apparent disconnect between people's opinions and US policy is more due to the oddities of the way interest-group politics plays out (the influence of the religious right on Republican Party politics) than to the threat abortion poses to the power structure. That fact is demonstrated pretty clearly by the fact that family planning issues used to be happily embraced by the Republican old guard in the first half and middle of the C20th. It wasn't because they were economic or political radicals back then--it was because the link between the Bible Belt and the Republican Party hadn't been forged yet.
The other reason we see abortion laws and regulations skewing more conservative than general public opinion is because politicians care about an issue based not just on "what do people think" but also on "what do they care sufficiently passionately about that it will change their vote." By that measure, the people who are passionately committed on the abortion issue (pro and con) matter far more to politicians than the people who hold muddled, contradictory opinions. And in conservative states the people who are passionately anti-abortion significantly outnumber the people who are passionately devoted to expanding access to abortion services.
posted by yoink at 12:03 PM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
That's true enough, but it seems to me not really to apply all that strongly to the abortion debate in itself. That is, the rich white men in Congress aren't going to get any more or less rich no matter what happens to US abortion laws and the availability of US abortions. The apparent disconnect between people's opinions and US policy is more due to the oddities of the way interest-group politics plays out (the influence of the religious right on Republican Party politics) than to the threat abortion poses to the power structure. That fact is demonstrated pretty clearly by the fact that family planning issues used to be happily embraced by the Republican old guard in the first half and middle of the C20th. It wasn't because they were economic or political radicals back then--it was because the link between the Bible Belt and the Republican Party hadn't been forged yet.
The other reason we see abortion laws and regulations skewing more conservative than general public opinion is because politicians care about an issue based not just on "what do people think" but also on "what do they care sufficiently passionately about that it will change their vote." By that measure, the people who are passionately committed on the abortion issue (pro and con) matter far more to politicians than the people who hold muddled, contradictory opinions. And in conservative states the people who are passionately anti-abortion significantly outnumber the people who are passionately devoted to expanding access to abortion services.
posted by yoink at 12:03 PM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
> So if the man on the street can see through the false dichotomy created by our silly nomenclature, why can't our politicians and reporters?
Because that's not what gets you votes/clicks. It's not "can't", mostly, it's "won't."
Also, is Mr. Man on the Street a registered voter? Does he go to the polls? Whom does he reward with his vote? When there's a bill in the state legislature that would do something about abortion access that he disagrees with, does he call his representative? Send an email? Show up for lobbying days that are often organized by advocacy groups?
posted by rtha at 12:25 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Because that's not what gets you votes/clicks. It's not "can't", mostly, it's "won't."
Also, is Mr. Man on the Street a registered voter? Does he go to the polls? Whom does he reward with his vote? When there's a bill in the state legislature that would do something about abortion access that he disagrees with, does he call his representative? Send an email? Show up for lobbying days that are often organized by advocacy groups?
posted by rtha at 12:25 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mooski: "Seriously? I'm surprised it's that low.
I'd always had this mental figure that the percentage of absolute assholes was somewhere around 5%. 27% is quite a jump from that, and a depressing one as well."
Have you not been on the internet that long? Or watched the polls and voting results in the US? I'm sure there's variance, but I'd estimate in a decently "civilized" country with modern amenities and social mores, we might see 5%-15% assholes, and a country fighting its own reactionary history of slavery, racism and anti-women attitudes to be, oh something like 25%-50% assholes. Of course, this is on a socio-political level. My mom is a saint in person and does a lot of things for a lot of people, but on a political level she's an asshole :( Not like a tea party hatemonger, but some of that bullshit does come out of her mouth (in particular words like "immigant" and "muslim" come out with a particular sort of venom that I'm unaccustomed to).
posted by symbioid at 12:41 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'd always had this mental figure that the percentage of absolute assholes was somewhere around 5%. 27% is quite a jump from that, and a depressing one as well."
Have you not been on the internet that long? Or watched the polls and voting results in the US? I'm sure there's variance, but I'd estimate in a decently "civilized" country with modern amenities and social mores, we might see 5%-15% assholes, and a country fighting its own reactionary history of slavery, racism and anti-women attitudes to be, oh something like 25%-50% assholes. Of course, this is on a socio-political level. My mom is a saint in person and does a lot of things for a lot of people, but on a political level she's an asshole :( Not like a tea party hatemonger, but some of that bullshit does come out of her mouth (in particular words like "immigant" and "muslim" come out with a particular sort of venom that I'm unaccustomed to).
posted by symbioid at 12:41 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Some quick thoughts on a sample size of 1,000. While 1,000 is a pretty decent sample size for asking any particular policy question, it will quickly become too small if you want to do the following
1-ask lots of different questions
2-Split the population by subgroups
So a 1,000 random sample of the population will probably be able to give you a headline figure of "x percentage of people think this about something" but if you want to go on and add more and more conclusions you're increasing the chance of being "wrong" (of course it would be nice in general to have error bars even in the simplest case, but that is apparently asking too much).
It's also extremely likely that there was a large amount of non-response to this question (because that is always the case). Pollsters will almost always adjust/weight to control for this, so that's probably happening in the background. You will also need to control for your sampling frame: i.e. the proportion of the population you are actually able to reach via your sampling method. If you call landlines, well not everyone actually owns a landline/has a listed phone number.
So while 1,000 is indeed a standard number and nothing to be instinctively distrusted, it's worth having these disclaimers in the back of your head, as articles of this type will rarely present those for you. One tough thing about being a statistician is you do some work and then present your work with nice error bars and hedging and a clear description of your methodology, and the final presentation just has the number by itself.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 1:47 AM on April 9, 2015
1-ask lots of different questions
2-Split the population by subgroups
So a 1,000 random sample of the population will probably be able to give you a headline figure of "x percentage of people think this about something" but if you want to go on and add more and more conclusions you're increasing the chance of being "wrong" (of course it would be nice in general to have error bars even in the simplest case, but that is apparently asking too much).
It's also extremely likely that there was a large amount of non-response to this question (because that is always the case). Pollsters will almost always adjust/weight to control for this, so that's probably happening in the background. You will also need to control for your sampling frame: i.e. the proportion of the population you are actually able to reach via your sampling method. If you call landlines, well not everyone actually owns a landline/has a listed phone number.
So while 1,000 is indeed a standard number and nothing to be instinctively distrusted, it's worth having these disclaimers in the back of your head, as articles of this type will rarely present those for you. One tough thing about being a statistician is you do some work and then present your work with nice error bars and hedging and a clear description of your methodology, and the final presentation just has the number by itself.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 1:47 AM on April 9, 2015
That's true enough, but it seems to me not really to apply all that strongly to the abortion debate in itself. That is, the rich white men in Congress aren't going to get any more or less rich no matter what happens to US abortion laws and the availability of US abortions.
I mean, I agree with you there, but convincing the uber-privileged that privilege isn't a zero-sum game is going to be a tough one.
posted by capricorn at 7:11 AM on April 10, 2015
I mean, I agree with you there, but convincing the uber-privileged that privilege isn't a zero-sum game is going to be a tough one.
posted by capricorn at 7:11 AM on April 10, 2015
FTA:
posted by Lexica at 4:25 PM on April 11, 2015
"I guess if you’re raped or in a desperate situation, then abortion would be the way to go," she says. "But if you’re just being careless and irresponsible, then I don’t think it’s the right decision."This attitude always baffles me. Okay, you think she's careless and irresponsible, so you want to force her to go through pregnancy (trusting her to be responsible enough not to do things that would endanger the baby) and then be responsible for the survival and well-being of a tiny, vulnerable human being?
posted by Lexica at 4:25 PM on April 11, 2015
"I guess if you’re raped or in a desperate situation, then abortion would be the way to go," she says. "But if you’re just being careless and irresponsible, then I don’t think it’s the right decision."
Slut-hating, pure and simple.
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:06 PM on April 12, 2015
Slut-hating, pure and simple.
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:06 PM on April 12, 2015
This attitude always baffles me. Okay, you think she's careless and irresponsible, so you want to force her to go through pregnancy (trusting her to be responsible enough not to do things that would endanger the baby) and then be responsible for the survival and well-being of a tiny, vulnerable human being?
The attitude they have is more that in a case where a woman chooses of her own free will to have sex she should be open to the possibility it might result in a pregnancy she will have to be responsible for. It's what we expect of men, so it's appealing from a pro-life perspective to see it as infantalizing women to not expect the same from them, but it ignores the much greater impact of pregnancy on a woman's body and health and many other factors that establish the comparison is complete bunk.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:13 PM on April 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
The attitude they have is more that in a case where a woman chooses of her own free will to have sex she should be open to the possibility it might result in a pregnancy she will have to be responsible for. It's what we expect of men, so it's appealing from a pro-life perspective to see it as infantalizing women to not expect the same from them, but it ignores the much greater impact of pregnancy on a woman's body and health and many other factors that establish the comparison is complete bunk.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:13 PM on April 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older The Beautiful and the Ugly | Stuck in Seattle Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
And looking at the demographic info on the survey report, it looks like it's not been in any way corrected for the fact that the sample was randomly selected.
Ah, it's an interesting enough piece, I just kinda wish they'd written it as an opinion piece by a journalist with experience in the field, rather that trying to put these crummy stats around it.
posted by aosher at 4:14 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]