National Women's Law Center's junkyard poll

Click to enlarge...

nwlc.jpg

The Weekly Standard blog reported this July 9:

Time's Karen Tumulty concludes her latest column with some rather surprising figures:

On July 6, the National Women's Law Center released a poll of 1k likely voters conducted by the Mellman Group indicating that 71% favor including reproductive services such as birth control and abortion as part of health reform....

This is surprising because a slight majority of Americans think that abortion should be illegal, except in the cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother....

The suggestion that 71% of Americans want their tax dollars to fund abortions through government-run health-care would therefore seem absurd on its face.

According to a February Gallup poll, only 35% of Americans supported Obama's move to rescind the Mexico City Policy, which barred funding to groups that perform or promote abortions overseas. A recent poll conducted for Americans United for Life by the Polling Company showed that 71% of Americans oppose "using tax dollars to pay for abortions..."...

So how did the NWLC manage to concoct a poll showing that 71% of Americans support abortion coverage in a national health-care plan? I suspect the wording the pollsters used was intentionally designed to skew the numbers. Tumulty's wording makes it seem as if the question conflated support for covering birth control and abortion.

A NWLC spokesperson refused to provide the text of the questions polled.... but she did send along this press release, which was apparently all Tumulty needed to confirm her own preconceptions about how much Americans love abortion.

I decided to call the NWLC, too, to also ask for a copy of the actual poll questions. What legitimate organization won't release that basic information?

I spoke with Adrienne Ammerman, and she wouldn't give the questions to me either, and she wouldn't say why. She emailed me a copy of the press release.


Comments:

If the National Women's Law Center won't release the poll questions, I won't give credence to their poll. How juvenile and unprofessional of them.

Posted by: Janet at July 20, 2009 3:01 PM


Makes sense if you combine abortion and BIRTH CONTROL in one category.

Posted by: JP Prichard at July 20, 2009 3:09 PM


JP Prichard,

Of course. They're almost the same thing.

Posted by: Janet at July 20, 2009 3:20 PM


Hmm.. I was being sarcastic but actually there is some truth to that depending on how you look at it.

Posted by: Janet at July 20, 2009 3:21 PM


Oh yes, keeping another person from ever being conceived in the first place is totally the same thing as ripping a human already growing to shreds and violently ripping it from its mother's womb. They're like, identical and stuff.

-.-

Posted by: xalisae at July 20, 2009 3:32 PM


Please excuse my repeating this, but I'm flabbergasted that STIL there is NOT organized PUNCHING of THE crucial point TODAY:

Scientific FACT: an embryo, can be in a lab a few days, put in a RENTED WOMB three months, and the rest of months till birth in an incubator.

This VOIDS the premise "is my body" of Roe-Wade. Why is not grilled to Sotomayor? NOW!!!!!!!

Posted by: Guillermo Bustamante at July 20, 2009 3:42 PM


I'm so confused about this...has the law passed? Does it make everyone in the nation pay for abortion? What?

:(

Posted by: Vannah at July 20, 2009 6:25 PM


NO GOVERNMENT FUNDED BABY KILLING. NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS.

Posted by: TJ at July 20, 2009 6:36 PM


"NO GOVERNMENT FUNDED BABY KILLING. NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS."


lol..you can scream all you want T.J. but, government funded baby killing has been going on for quite sometime...
However, they usually call it collateral damage.

..but, hey, at least there's a chance you'll pay $0.99 for a gallon of gas right?

Posted by: soonerman at July 20, 2009 7:29 PM


Soonerman, you friggin' idiot...

My husband's been over there twice. There was no chorus line of soldiers dancing in oil fields with the caps off while the guys back at the base raped all the women and shot children and puppies in the head for target practice. Your idiotic liberal fantasy about how malevolent US forces are raping the middle east for oil just are not true. His last tour he spent MUCH time with the native Iraqis, and he has told me that they themselves have said that they are thankful for their freedom and grateful to us, because now they do not have some deranged, bloodthirsty, sadistic tyrant gassing whole villages and nobody has to stack the dead children like firewood so they can be moved to mass graves (I was unfortunate enough to actually have seen that footage before my husband's first deployment. He didn't find out about those kinds of atrocities until he actually got there. He's proud of what he did. If you weren't such a complete idiot, you would be, too.)

You are a brainwashed imbecile.

When exactly are we getting .99 cent gas, fella? Last I checked, it was coming up on a month before a near complete pull-out was announced, and my gas is still over 2 dollars a gallon. Gas must be pretty cheap in Braindead Liberal La-La Land.

Posted by: xalisae at July 20, 2009 8:18 PM


soonerman,

There is quite a large difference in the accidental killing of children during combat, something we take measures to avoid, and intentionally killing an unborn human. But you knew that. Using moral equivalency arguments gives the impression that you are unable to defend government funded abortion in and of itself. I'm going to assume this is the case.

Posted by: Janette at July 22, 2009 2:46 PM


Oh yes, keeping another person from ever being conceived in the first place is totally the same thing as ripping a human already growing to shreds and violently ripping it from its mother's womb. They're like, identical and stuff.

Except that as we've already noted here, some "contraception" actually causes an already existing human being to be killed.

Posted by: Louise at July 22, 2009 10:51 PM