National Abortion Rights Action League

 

Another bogus NARAL poll on abortion “restrictions”

By Dave Andrusko
In other contexts they are called “push polls,” polls worded in such as way as to push the respondent to give the “correct” (desired) results. In this case, the answers are also “pushed” [distorted] to get the right conclusion.
NARAL bought a poll (sorry commissioned a poll) from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner to come up answers that would allow NARAL to headline its press release, “Poll: Most Voters Say Government Should Not Restrict Abortion Access.

This poll doesn’t merit a long post, except for one response that (not surprisingly) was not elaborated on. Here is the core of the poll:

Now I am going read you some statements about the issue of abortion, and please tell me which one comes closest to your own view.

I believe having an abortion is morally acceptable and should be legal. ………. 23.2

I am personally against abortion for myself and my family, but I don’t believe government should prevent a woman from making that decision for herself. ……….45.5

I believe having an abortion is morally wrong and should be illegal. ……….24.7

(Other) ………. 1.9

(Don’t know/refused) ……….4.8

Total Pro-Choice ……….68.7

Did you get this? Only 23.2% of responses said having an abortion is “morally acceptable.” If NRLC had a poll conducted and found this result, NARAL would be screaming to high heaven.
Alright, back to the rest of the poll. Let me make just three quick inter-related points.
First, obviously, the second option is loaded to get the correct answer.
Second, the conclusion NARAL wants you to draw is that you can add the first two responses together to get the “pro-choice” total. But…
Third, does that follow, even with NARAL’s ladder of logic which is missing (as always) several rungs? 

“I believe having an abortion is morally acceptable and should be legal.” This response, as is the case with the second, begs for a follow up: “But, having said that, would you support [the following limitations]”?
Any poll taken by a reputable firm would find strong majorities for a host of what NARAL would label “restrictions” on “abortion access.” For example, bans on taxpayer-funded abortions; waiting periods before women have abortions; parental involvement; abortions performed only by physicians; requirements that abortion clinics must meet to be licensed; and, of course, laws that ban abortions after babies are capable of experiencing ban, to name just a few.

Have all these voters suddenly metamorphosize into “pro-choicers”? Or, better put, would NARAL want to claim them as “pro-choicers”?

These people are shameless.

Source: NRLC News