Kathryn,
We can never forget that organizations like NOW and AAUW are self-appointed spokesmen for women, and do not represent the views of most women. Here, for example, is a recent Gallup poll on abortion. Those calling themselves pro-life outnumber (slightly) those calling themselves pro-choice.
As the NRO editorial pointed out, NARAL now stands for nothing because people don't like the word "abortion" anymore. I would like to see the results of a poll asking if you were for or against abortion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseyou'll find the results you're looking for at Mona's link.
Legal under certain circumstances: 51%
Legal under any circumstances: 26%
Illegal under any circumstances: 20%
Mona seems to have difficulty with arithmetic if she can't add 51 and 26.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI always thought NARAL stood for the National Abortion Rights Action League.
That's how I will continue to read its acronym.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt did, but NARAL within the past few years adopted the trend of many other organizations that have officially changed their names to their acronyms and dropped the actual words to which the letters referred. Better branding for abortion by dropping the word "abortion," it seems.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIndeed, Rocket. Which is weird when one considers that "abortion" is itself a euphemism for the act that it represents: doctor-assisted in-utero infanticide. But leftists are experts at playing word games. Just look at their recent demands to be called "progressives" rather than "liberals" -- which surely owes to the fact that almost everyone now knows that "liberal" means "junior-grade Marxoid."
I caught a bit of MSLSD's coverage of this whole Komen "controversy" the other day and was amused, as MSLSD was covering it like it was the freaking moon landing or something. I thought leftists favored abortion being "safe, legal and rare." Except for that whole "rare" part. Obviously.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFOR! Four-square!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt would also be worth pointing out that people like Kathryn represent the far minority of women, 20%, who say that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. The mos accurate statement would be "The vast majority of women, 77%, believe abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe NRO can remove the "Pink Ribbon for the Win" article from the top of the page now that they have revealed themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Susan B. Anthony list doesn't even represent the views of Susan B. Anthony.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuselots of people are "against abortion," until they need one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusereality just smacked you people in the face--and in Komen's check book.
and like Colbert says, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Do those who personally call themselves "pro-life" also advocate for making abortion illegal?
Oh wait - the poll tells us. 26% of women say it should be legal under any circumstances, and over half think it should be legal under limited circumstances. With 3/4 of women wanting to keep abortion legal, I am not sure if this poll says what you think it does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am not sure this poll says what you think it does. Mitt Romney believes abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. This is universally - and properly - understood as a pro-life position, yet in this poll people like him fall under the category of "legal under limited circumstances" - which, of course, could just as easily be worded as "illegal except in limited circumstances."
In other words, you cannot add the generic middle group to the "legal under all circumstances" group and claim a combined 75% support for abortion without making some egregiously faulty assumptions.
The error of your reasoning is highlighted when one looks at the results of this same poll when broken down in four, not three, categories:
38% - Legal only in a few circumstances
26% - Legal under any circumstances
20% - Illegal in all circumstances
13% - Legal under most circumstances
4% - No opinion
On that basis, one can conclude that 58% of the public believes abortion should be illegal or restricted to cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, and only 39% believes it should be generally available.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf pro-lifers outnumber pro-choicers, why did Komen reverse themselves today?
Is is because pro-lifers don't put their money where their mouths are?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Those calling themselves pro-life outnumber (slightly) those calling themselves pro-choice."
Mona?
I hope you appreciate that stat will be cited by the very feminists to whom you refer as concrete evidence of a nation-wide increase in domestic violence!
Or, as a rallying cry in their fundraising materials that their message "isn't getting out, and is being overwhelmed by the communications of the Koch Brothers! Thanks in no small part to the Supreme Court!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would like the category, "Illegal with exceptions" added to the three they use. It sounds like the other side of the coin for that middle 50% but it isn't. This would gage public opinion much more precisely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are correct that the three-category wording is problematic, non-neutral, and misleading. Luckily, the poll results are also broken down by four categories (though they still eschewed the "illegal except" wording), which gives a far more accurate picture of public opinion:
38% - Legal only in a few circumstances
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse26% - Legal under any circumstances
20% - Illegal in all circumstances
13% - Legal under most circumstances
4% - No opinion
Maybe so, but this was the worst rollout of a move bound to provoke a fierce counter-attack by anyone in my long memory. By explaining that it's decision was based on a "policy" not to fund organizations under investigation, Komen handed the pro-abortion crowd the argument that it was a "political" move promoted by an ideologically inspired House Majority out to "get" Planned Parenthood. Komen was also clearly totally unprepared for the 100 percent predictable response, having failed to prepare a coherent story, line up supporters, etc. Instead, it flip-flopped and stumbled its way through a couple of days and then capitulated.
Komen thought its "policy" explanation would avoid any appearance of criticizing PPF, but that was a fundamental mistake. The only persuasive explanation would have been that PPF does little to help fighf breast cancer and the money is better spent elsewhere. Critical to making that argument, though, are (1) an announcement that the funds would be switched to X,Y and Z who actually do cancer screenings, especially for women without adequate means and (2) hard facts about PPF's record (or lack of it) in this area.
That plus key supporters ready to talk, a proactive media plan to control the story, and an online social media plan as well would have given them a good chance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood thoughts.
Or, Komen doesn't even make an announcement. They just wait until the next round of grants are to be given out and they don't give one to PP. There's no need to make a big announcement. Obviously, the news will get out, and that's when you simple say "we found recipients who needed the money more" or something like that. I'm sure there are tons of organizations that get grants one year but not the next, particularly in a rough economy.
As you said, bad pr by Komen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder how many donors to Komen were actually aware that money was being funneled to Planned Parenthood? This little episode will shine a light and will probably cause drop off in Komen funding. I know I certainly will not walk again...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt may see a drop-off in individual contributions, but now that they have been successfully brought back onto the plantation, I bet they will see ways of getting taxpayer money instead. One way or another, you will be forced to pay for baby killing in this country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse