Misleading abortion poll results

David Farrar has posted  Poll on abortion which repeats some what I thought were misleading poll results, unless you look carefully.

Curia did polling in January for ALRANZ to ascertain views of New Zealanders on whether abortion should be legal in different circumstances.  I thought the results were very interesting with the net level of support (those saying legal less those saying illegal) for each situation being:

  • Pregnant woman likely to die +72%
  • Foetus has no chance of survival +70%
  • Pregnant woman likely to be permanently harmed +70%
  • Pregnancy is a result of rape +65%
  • Pregnancy is a result of birth control failure +31%
  • Pregnant mother can’t afford to have another child +27%
  • Pregnant woman doesn’t want to be a mother +22%

Note that those percentages are “the net level of support (those saying legal less those saying illegal)”, not the actual percentages of responses.

This repeats how the results are displayed on the Abortion Rights Aotearoa in 2017 National Abortion Poll Results. If you click through to the Full Poll Results and Data  you get a different set of numbers:

The level of support for abortion being legal in each situation is:
1. Pregnant woman likely to die 77%
2. Foetus has no chance of survival 76%
3. Pregnant woman likely to be permanently harmed 76%
4. Pregnancy is a result of rape 73%
5. Pregnancy is a result of birth control failure 55%
6. Pregnant mother can’t afford to have another child 54%
7. Pregnant woman doesn’t want to be a mother 51%

The level of support for abortion being illegal in each situation is:
1. Pregnant woman likely to die 5%
2. Foetus has no chance of survival 6%
3. Pregnant woman likely to be permanently harmed 6%
4. Pregnancy is a result of rape 8%
5. Pregnancy is a result of birth control failure 24%
6. Pregnant mother can’t afford to have another child 27%
7. Pregnant woman doesn’t want to be a mother 29%

They follow that with the net results as posted in their Executive Summary and on Kiwiblog, but I think that is not how most people expect to see results and in fact I think appears to understate support for abortion rights.

This seems odd given that the poll was commissioned and published by Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand.

They have a table that gives better clarity.

AbortionPollJan2017

Poll details:

CLIENT: Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand
POLL DATES: Sun 22 to Mon 30 January 2017. The median response was
collected on Thu 26 January 2017.
TARGET POPULATION: Eligible New Zealand voters.
SAMPLE POPULATION: Eligible New Zealand voters who are contactable on a landline.
SAMPLE SIZE: 1,000 respondents agreed to participate.
SAMPLE SELECTION: A random selection of 15,000 nationwide phone numbers.
WEIGHTING: The results are weighted to reflect the overall voting adult
population in terms of gender, age, and area.
SAMPLE ERROR: Based on this sample of 1,000 respondents, the maximum
sampling error (for a result of 50%) is +/- 3.1%, at the 95% confidence level.

 

English admits Kermadec stuff up

Acting Prime Minister Bill English has conceded – sort of – that they way the Government handled to Kermadec sanctuary proposal was deficient. he said “”I think if you did it again you might do it a bit differently”.

RNZ: English admits Kermadec sanctuary could have been handled better

If the government had its time again it would do things differently on the creation of a Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, Deputy Prime Minister Bill English says.

Mr English said there had not been as much consultation as the Māori fisheries entity Te Ohu Kaimoana wanted to see so the legislative process was put on hold while the government considered ongoing negotiations with the Māori Party.

Though it was a government support party, the Māori Party was advocating strong views, so the negotiations were not the government ‘talking to itself’, he told Morning Report.

“Certainly in the nearer future we’ll be … going back over the ground with the Māori Party to make sure everyone understands each other’s objectives and we get reasonably clear about what the trade-offs [are] here.

“But I think in the long run we haven’t come across anyone who doesn’t want this sanctuary to be in place – it’s really the conditions on which it’s in place.”

As a general principle New Zealand has accepted that in the conservation or preservation of land or sea there was some “trimming of rights”.

“I think there’s a case to argue that there could have been a different track for how the issue was discussed with them but I think we’ve all got to deal with reality.

“If we want conservation of and or sea resource for environmental purposes then we’ve got to balance that against property rights.

Mr English said the circumstances meant the government proceeded a bit differently than it usually did, and that had helped create a situation where it didn’t get agreement of all parties concerned.

“I think if you did it again you might do it a bit differently,” he said.

The disagreements might in principle look difficult to resolve but he was confident there would be a way through.

“In practice … we have found in New Zealand solutions to reasonably challenging issues to do with Māori interests and there’s no reason why we can’t in this case.”

That’s fairly long winded but I think it can be summarised as ‘we stuffed up, we’ll try and get it right this time’.

The government is restarting discussions with the Māori Party to see whether it will support the bill.

I expect the will put more effort into doing it right this time.

Kermadec sanctuary stuff up

It looks like Nick Smith and the Government may have really stuffed up on consultation over the setting up of the Kermadec sanctuary.

Maori who had fishing rights (and rights are rights) are unhappy.

The Maori Pary party are unhappy – there’s been talks of threats they might pull out of their governing arrangement with National, \I don’t think they will do that but they could make things quite awkward.

And David Seymour has pulled his support due to inadequate handling of ownership rights.

There looks to be a bit of pre-election year manoeuvring going on, but there are also important principals involved versus a mix of complacency and arrogance from National – third term curse.

Abortion – rights and responsibilities

A thought provoking comment on rights and responsibilities associated with abortion.

Why is it legitimate for a women to unilaterally terminate a pregnancy when the father has zero rights in the matter.

And yet if the woman decides to keep the child, the father is then saddled with 20 years of child support payments? Again with zero rights in the matter.

The accepted answer is that it is the woman who is carrying the child and has all the rights to control over her body. But why then does she not also get to carry all the responsibility for her choice? Why does the father – who has had zero rights in the matter – get to carry responsibility for the outcome as well?

So far the rights of the mother to control her body completely trump any consideration of the father at all. Is that going to be socially and politically sustainable in the long run. And if not – what would a more equitable balance of rights and responsibilities look like?

Source

Marriage rights made simple

Can we have law that reflects this?