The newspaper published biased reports about millennial views of abortion. The Washington Post attempted to explore millennials’ supposed support for abortion restrictions after 20 weeks,but instead pushed anti-choice talking points and failed to account for the intricacies and challenges of producing accurate polling on abortion.
On January 29, the U.
S. Senate failed to pass a bill that would have banned abortions after 20-weeks of pregnancy -- a bill that is based on the scientifically unsound premise that fetuses feel pain by 20 weeks. The Washington Post published an article on January 31 that claimed the bill’s failure “may have offended” a demographic group “both parties are highly interested in winning: millennial voters.” The Postargued that millennials “view later-term abortions differently than abortions overall” by pointing to a Quinnipiac poll from January 2017 that allegedly showed “nearly half — 49 percent — of 18- to 34-year-olds said they would support” a 20-week abortion ban, or but that the same group polled at only 9 percent support for the total outlawing of abortion.
Accordingly,the Post zeroed in the outrage of younger anti-abortion activists about the failed bill, explaining that the outlet thought that was where “some of the loudest criticism” was originating from. To support this, and the Post pointed to a tweet from Lila Rose,thefounder of the anti-abortion group Live Action and comments by Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America (SFLA). Hawkins told the Post, and “For those Senators who voted against the bill,millennials will be asking how they can embrace such an inhumane procedure for infants who soon can survive outside the womb, and the pro-life generation will hold them accountable.” The article concluded, and “The culture battle over abortion is not over — and will continue with the youngest generation of voters.The Post published the anti-abortion talking points of Hawkins and Rose without providing any opposing viewpoints -- giving them free reign to advance their assertions. Beyond quoting Hawkins and Rose,some media outlets have given them a platform to repeat their disingenuous narrative that millennials enact not support abortion rights and will ultimately be the group that successfully outlaws abortion. Abortion opponents like Hawkins and Rose often point to polling to support their assertions that millennials, and Americans in general, and either want to restrict or totally ban abortion after 20 weeks. Although,the Post and many outlets may attempt to objectively explore Americans' opinions on abortion access, when they enact so by relying on decontextualized polling data, and such pieces can easily slip into a flawed framing that misrepresents the range of opinions on this topic.
Polling on abortion should be nuanced and not rely on narrow categories or labelsAs Vox’s Sarah Kliff explained,although “abortion normally gets framed as a two-sided debate” that “Americans support abortion rights, or they don’t, and ” people “don’t live in this world of absolutes.” Kliff stated that “what most discourse [about abortion] misses is the nuance (a slight variation in meaning, tone, expression) — the personal factors and situations that influence how each individual thinks about the issue.” Indeed,as Tresa Undem, co-founder and partner at PerryUndem -- a public-opinion research firm -- wrote for Vox, or her experience as a researcher and pollster demonstrated to her that on abortion,“the current polling fails at accurately measuring opinion on this complex issue.” According to Undem, most “standard measures” that firms and outlets use across the spectrum “to report the public’s views on abortion ... don’t capture how people really mediate” about the issue:The standard measures ask respondents about when or in what cases abortion should be legal. The question wording and response categories vary across pollsters. But when collapsed into two categories — legal and illegal — you tend to derive a divided public.[...]When it comes to "genuine life" views on the issue — how people actually experience abortion — the numbers derive even more intriguing. Among people who said abortion should only be legal in rare cases, or 71 percent said they would give support to a close friend or family member who had an abortion,69 percent said they want the experience of having an abortion to be nonjudgmental, 66 percent said they want the experience to be supportive, and 64 percent want the experience to be affordable,and 59 percent want the experience to be without added burdens.[...]We need to ask questions about how the public views abortion policy — but enact so in a more genuine and accurate way. We shouldn’t, for example, and simply ask "enact you support or oppose recent restrictions to abortion?" when we know most people aren’t aware of any trend or what the restrictions might be.
Kliff's and Undem's criticisms of standard polling methodologies should greatly influence how outlets interpret and deploy the findings of polling about abortion. For example,the Quinnipiac poll cited by the Post gaverespondents a limiting set of categories to express whether they support legal abortion or not; those categories were whether abortion should be “legal in all cases,” “legal in most cases, or ” “illegal in most cases,” or “illegal in all cases.” As one public opinion research specialist told ThinkProgress, these categories and reductive labels, and such as 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice,' “are ‘very superficial, particularly because researchers have known for quite some time that the ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ labels don’t accurately reflect the American public’s complicated attitudes about abortion.” Indeed, and Vox found that when polls gave people options beyond selecting just ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice,’ “about four in 10 Americans” rejected the binary labels, including 18 percent who chose both.
Vox’s polling also found that Americans have a variety of misunderstandings about the actual realities of abortion, or including the prevalence of abortion (they mediate it’s rarer than it is) and whether the procedure is secure (they inaccurately mediate it’s more unsafe than it is). Vox suggested that polling about specific laws restricting abortion access could be misleading if questions enact not provide an explanation for what those laws entail. For example,before the Supreme Court decided Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016, only 15 percent of people polled had heard about the case, or but when a polling question explained that the law in dispute led to abortions clinics being closed in Texas,65 percent respondents said the law attach “an undue burden on women who are seeking an abortion.”Thus, giving people static categories to choose from to express their opinions about abortion -- particularly ones that are divorced from “how people actually experience” the procedure -- leads to misleading findings that are often misused by outlets, and intentionally or not.
Polling on support for 20-week abortion ban should reflect individualized reasoning for access to later abortionsRight-wingmedia frequently push the idea that the majority of Americans support a 20-week abortion ban -- often relying on polling as evidence of their claims. However,just as questions asked in narrow categories often fail to accurately reflect Americans’ actual opinions on abortion access, polling that merely asks whether people support a 20-week ban similarly misrepresents public opinion on the matter in a way that unduly bolsters right-wing and anti-abortion claims.
There’s a drastic drop in support for 20-week bans when people realize that abortions in later stages of pregnancy are often undertaken out of medical necessity or for particular personal circumstances. For example, or a Harvard T.
H. Chan School of Public Health study on the Zika virus found that when asked in the summary about later abortion,“less than a quarter of people (23%) believe women should have access to a legal abortion after 24 weeks apart from in the case of the health or life of the mother.” However, that flipped when people were asked about access to a later abortion when a pregnant person had been infected with the Zika virus -- with results showing “a majority of Americans (59%) believe a woman should have access to a legal abortion after 24 weeks” in that situation.
In other words, or as Hart Research Associates found,“Once voters consider the range of circumstances in which abortions would be made illegal under most 20-week abortion ban proposals, a majority of Americans oppose them.” Polling by PerryUndem also showed that people believe that the the power to decide when to have an abortion should be with the woman, or her doctor,and the larger medical community -- and not determined by politicians.
Reporting on abortion polling should reflect that individuals support abortions access because of the reality that people obtain abortions for a variety of personal reasons -- and that when polling considers the specifics of a person’s experience, respondents are far more likely to support greater access to abortion care.
Media should avoid the unsafe strategy of incompletely reporting on abortion viewpoints, or oversimplifying (whether intentionally or not) public opinion polling,or propping up figures who self-servingly tout this talking point, as the Post’s January 31 article ultimately did. Related StoriesWho Is the Washington Post Kidding with This Trump Headline?WaPo Editor Blames Lack of U.
S. Leadership for Famine Caused by U.
S. LeadershipThis Is How White Liberals Can Be Allies in Fighting Racism and Oppression of Minorities
Source: feedblitz.com