5.17.2009

Abortion Poll Roundup

As I noted on Friday, there's been quite a brouhaha over new polls from Pew and from Gallup that suggest a sudden shift towards anti-abortion sentiment in America. The timing of these polls, on the very eve of anti-abortion protests against President Obama's commencement address at Notre Dame, and in the run-up to a probable culture war over the President's Supreme Court appointment, has guaranteed a lot of hype. Most of it has focused on Gallup's findings, since (1) the Pew poll, while showing a shift from the "mushy middle" position leaning pro-choice to the one leaning pro-life, still documented a pro-choice majority, while (2) Gallup trumpeted this headline: "More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time." Them's fightin' words.

Even as anti-abortionists celebrated that headline, some informed criticism of the Gallup findings has pretty clearly shown them to be an almost certain outlier, and highly misleading to boot.

First up, the partisan composition of the Gallup poll sample drew some attention--not surprisingly, since Gallup itself suggested that the "big shift" on abortion was occurring almost entirely among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

Charles Franklin at pollster.com made this discovery and observation:

The latest Gallup (5/7-10/09) poll has party identification tied at 32-32 and caused an immediate howl of "outlier!" in the comments at Pollster.com. In this case, the howl is justified. Compared to all recent Gallup polls (so we compare apples to apples) this latest stands out quite a bit from the rest.


Franklin also deals with the theory that polls which ask lots of questions on "values" issues tend to push the party ID numbers. In polling parlance, this is known as the "question order" effect. In the current case, a significant "question order" effect would imply that the abortion numbers are valid, while the party ID numbers may be emphemeral. But looking at similar Gallup surveys in the past, Franklin deduces that it's never been a factor before, and thus there's no reason to believe it's a factor now.

Thus Franklin concludes:

It is easier to be confident about the outlier status of this poll than to account for why it is so clearly out of line with previous Gallup results. At least we can address the outlier status empirically and with some statistical confidence. They "why" of that status must remain the always true maxim: "Outliers Happen."


So Gallup has published an outlier. But even if you disagree, what does the poll actually show, given the big broad strokes of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" opinions?

At the always-valuable academic site The Monkey Cage, John Sides takes a look at attitudes on abortion policy as indicated in the exceptionally long-range National Election Studies and General Social Survey. The former reinforces Nate Silver's post from last week emphasizing the stable pro-choice majority of abortion polling for a long, long time. And the latter underlines my own argument that all the top-line findings on abortion attitudes disguise high levels of support for exceptions to abortion restrictions that closely track the pro-choice position and the constitutional status quo.

In particular, GSS shows an exceptionally durable 80%-plus level of support for a "health exception," which happens to be the actual flash-point separating pro-life activists from the rest of the population. In other words, lots of "pro-life" Americans consistently, and over decades, favor an exception that pro-life activists adamantly consider a complete repudiation of the pro-life point of view.

So even if the Gallup folks are right (and they almost certainly aren't), that there's now a "pro-life" majority among Americans, it's meaningless in terms of support for a change in abortion policy. That may not get any headlines, but it's worth knowing.

24 comments

Ole Forsberg said...

Hmmmmm...

Pro-life... Does this include the death penalty, ensuring the survival of Social Security, funding AFDC sufficiently, greater support for schools, elimination of wars abroad, etc.? Or is this "pro-life" just an (anti-)abortion term?

hockeynerd said...

Could you write about Gallup, the organization, and its own religion? Has it ever been biased in favor of religion?

What are the numbers?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/17/732510/-Gallup-Abortion-Poll-MSM-Misrepresents-Results-(POLL)

DermottTrellis said...

The abortion issue is sooo yesterday.

WaPo says Supreme Court nominees will be grilled on same sex marriage views, not abortion.

The Republicans fear a gay Roe v. Wade decision.


Same-Sex Unions Supplant Abortion As Social Priority for Conservatives
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/16/AR2009051602363.html?hpid=topnews

John said...

Jolly good point old chap. The "sides" are never as clear cut as they seem, people are naturally happy with a compromise position. So why are we arguing?

Mike in Maryland said...

John said...
. . . people are naturally happy with a compromise position.

Irrational people, or people who hold what others consider to be an irrational position, are not always happy with a compromise position. Look at the argument people are STILL making over contraception - Rome is still against it, even when it is documented that contraceptive devices (especially condoms) SO save lives.

So why are we arguing?

See above.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

nova_middle_man said...

First of all I agree with John.

I regret that I have to come on here again and attack the leftist spew coming out. Using this same logic one can make the argument that most Americans are not Pro-Gay Marriage but are in fact in favor of civil unions. Of course since this viewpoint does not support the leftist cause it is swept under the rug.

If you want to have any credibility you must anaylze all polls instead of spinning ones that favor leftist views and attacking ones that support the other side.

Mike in Maryland said...

"SO save lives" should read "DO save lives"

Damn keyboard is not cooperating today! Or maybe it's the fingers? VBG

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Ellen said...

Nobody has any right to call themselves "pro-life" if they don't grant pregnant women a right to life.

My cousin almost died during her first pregnancy. She only survived because she lost the baby. If she had died, that baby would have died along with her.

DCM in FL said...

Pro-Life is an oxymoron [for poly-morons...] just as hollow as Compassionate Conservative or Military Intelligence...

since most self-described Pro-Lifers support the wars of aggression [and usually desire more wars like the invasions of Iraq] as well as being Pro-death penalty while being anti-immigrant + anti-welfare/safety net = total hypocrites

as I recall, studies show that the pro-life crowd also stands firmly against the ERA so the better tag is they are Anti-Woman

Pragmatus said...

I think what both Pew and Gallup were interested in here was—headlines.

The same analysis done in this excellent post could have been (and probably was) done in-house at both of these firms, so they had to know they were throwing logs on the fire with these “results”.

As I have said before, what this country needs is a non-profit, impartial clearinghouse for polls, so that the MSM don’t blindly run with these silly outlier (or push-poll) results the second they come across the wire, that get everybody all inflamed.

PeixeGato said...

What's with all of the abortion-related topics? With all we have going on in this country (and the world) right now to debate, does abortion really rate that high on people's "importance meters"?

But hey, maybe I'm wrong.

C-diddy said...

The media doesn't tell us what to think. It tells us what to think *about*.

This debate is very tired. With all that's going on, why the heck is it the subject of the day? Obviously, powerful influences have made it a hot-topic.

Until a majority of women think they have no right to choose, this has no chance of being a real debate, IMHO. Obama's speech at ND today was a masterful side-step. The whole thing is powerfully irrelevant to the greater issues at hand, and is merely an attempt to distract from the real problems. The old playbook is tattered, but it doesn't mean it doesn't get used.

polls_apart said...

@nova_middle_man:
You said,"If you want to have any credibility you must analyze all polls instead of spinning ones that favor leftist views and attacking ones that support the other side."

I believe that is exactly what Ed Kilgore is trying to do here. Except for your words "leftist views".

He is examining the entirety (or at least a larger selection) of abortion polling. In doing so, he finds that there is little to support conservatives' assertion that the Gallup Poll in particular reflects a sudden actual shift in attitudes regarding the legality of abortion.

At most, the Pew poll reflects a slight shift in Pro-Life / Pro-Choice identification, but does not demonstrate a lessening of support for exceptions to a possible ban on abortions.

Gyrate said...

"Using this same logic one can make the argument that most Americans are not Pro-Gay Marriage but are in fact in favor of civil unions. Of course since this viewpoint does not support the leftist cause it is swept under the rug."

This is almost certainly true at the moment. Which is why gay marriage is not currently legal in most parts of the US.

The difference is that public opinion is slowly but inexorably shifting towards favoring gay marriage, as recent events have demonstrated and as Nate has already pointed out in detail (rather than "sweeping it under the carpet"). It may take another 20 years but the public mood is measurably changing - unlike this poll, where the shift has more to do with the poll itself than overall public opinion.

markymark said...

I think one thing thats happening with abortion is that ordinary people are getting more nuanced views of the issue. I think this especially is an issue where politicians have tended to think more simplistically than voters.

As someone who is morally against abortion, I can see that there is little point in outlawing abortion right now. Its not going to get rid of abortion and its probably going to lead to either doctors breaking the law, or abortion tourism, or women taking huge health risks. None of those are good things. So in the end, safe legal and rare seems to make the most sense at least for the moment.

rich said...

Great post Ed. Thanks.

Michael said...

Love this post and this new poster! Keep up the great work, Ed.

John said...

nova_middle_man, a question for you:

You are passing a building and you notice it is on fire. You can hear a little girl screaming for help. You rush into the burning building and you are confronted with the little girl, crouching down in one corner, and at the opposite end of the building, a tray of a dozen fertilized ova sits on a counter. The fire is spreading and you can only rescue the girl or the tray, but not both.

Which do you rescue? One human life in the form of the terrified child? Or 12 "human lives" in the form of some small bunches of fertilized cells dividing in a tray?

Anybody 100% true to their belief that a fertilized blastocyte is no different than a living human being would have to go for the tray.

Would you?

markymark said...

John,

I think thats precisely the kind of post that is very unhelpful to everyone in the debate.

But your analogy is missing the crucial part of this debate- a womb. A foetus in the womb is plainly different from a collection of cells in a laboratory. Personally I find it quite sad that some on the pro abortion side of the argument seek to make human life so well cold and emotionless.

I'd have a lot more respect for someone who said that abortion is always a tough decision to take but that there are times when it is a necessary decision to take.

george kennan said...

I bet many identified themselves as "pro-life" meaning they themselves are opposed to abortion, even if they think it shouldn't be illegal. That is, they are "pro-choice".

Lord Calvert said...

@DermottTrellis - Republicans don't fear a "Gay Roe v. Wade" decision. They fear a "Gay Loving v. Virginia" decision, which was a 9-0 ruling. Unanimous Supreme Court decisions are exceptionally difficult to overturn, particularly ones as solid as Loving v. Virginia. Today's Republicans, just like the Dixiecrats that they evolved from, want the final decision-making power for marriage placed firmly in the hands of where they believe it belongs...big-government. However the Loving decision was so staunchly opposed to the concept of government as the final authority for consensual marriage that it makes it very difficult for the Republicans to support increased governmental power regarding marriage and still maintain credibility as the party of limited-government, something that hasn't been true in reality for 40 years.

DermottTrellis said...

Lord Calvert, you’d be a terrible Republican - you make entirely too much sense. :)

”Gay Loving” v. Virginia LOL

Bodhisagan said...

The most unfortunate part of this type of media (polls drawn up like this etc.) is the role it plays in the culture wars. As was stated earlier, most Americans take a nuanced position on this topic and don't fall clearly into either camp. Both camps state that one needs to choose sides and the media often helps push this. Sadly, most posters fall for it too. Putting up straw men and knocking them down instead of really understanding the other side. I'm glad I have friends on both sides of the fence and simply hate it that the powers that be won't allow for a middle ground, when most Americans have chosen it already.

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,