BCT Editorial – 10/15/06

This page was last updated on October 15, 2006.

Silent majority; Editorial; Beaver County Times; October 15, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“South Dakota abortion vote will not reflect Americans ambivalence on abortion

“South Dakota voters will decide on Nov. 7 whether to accept or reject their state’s ban on virtually all abortions.

“The Associated Press reported the measure, which the legislature passed overwhelmingly in February, would allow abortions only to save a pregnant woman’s life. It makes no exception for other health concerns, or for cases of rape or incest. A doctor performing illegal abortions could face five years in prison.”

[RWC] Here’s a little background the Times likely didn’t want us to know. According to a TV news broadcast I saw last week, abortion is so unpopular in South Dakota, no – that’s right, zero – South Dakota doctors will perform an abortion. Further, there’s only one abortion clinic in South Dakota (a Planned Parenthood office) and an abortionist flown in from Minnesota performs abortions only one day per week.

“An independent poll taken in July found that 47 percent of voters opposed the ban, 39 percent favored it and 14 percent were undecided.”

[RWC] When someone cites “[a]n independent poll” without even so much as naming it, your “spider senses” should start to tingle. Done correctly, a poll could be taken to show a majority of Americans believe the 9/11 attacks were justified. When someone cites a poll and then doesn’t name it or provide full details of how the poll was conducted, I assume it was a “push” poll designed to get a predetermined result.

It may be nothing, but the editorial didn’t specify if the “independent poll” was taken of South Dakota voters. The editorial simply said “voters.”

If we’re going to cite polls, how about a Zogby poll from early 2004? 53% of those polled supported the statement, “Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter.”

Frankly, I distrust most of the abortion polls regardless of which way they go. That said, is there a way to gauge American abortion beliefs? I think so.

Consider this. While no state legislatures have pending legislation to make it easier to have an abortion, The Washington Times (AP) reported “states enacted 52 measures to restrict access to abortion” in 2005.

“If the voters reject the measure, it will be hailed as a pro-choice victory. If the measure passes, it will be celebrated as a pro-life breakthrough. That’s why activists on both sides have become so involved in the campaign.”

[RWC] I find it telling the pro-abortion crowd can’t even admit they’re pro-abortion. Instead, they feel they must hide behind the completely nondescriptive “pro-choice” tag. Oddly, when choice is really the issue, as in school vouchers, smoking on private property, et cetera, these same people suddenly no longer believe in choice.

“However, most Americans are uncomfortable with the all-or-nothing approach to the abortion issue that this ballot measure represents. They would welcome another option because the vast majority of them are deeply ambivalent about abortion.

“Only about one-third of the American people are hardliners - pro-choice and pro-life lumped together - on this issue. The other two-thirds, to varying degrees, have their doubts. They don’t like abortion but they don’t necessarily want to see it banned, either.

“What would happen if South Dakota residents were given the chance to vote for a measure that would allow abortions with the following restrictions: no abortion after the fourth or fifth month of pregnancy; a 48- to 72-hour waiting period between counseling and the abortion; parental notification or judicial review for minors; no federal or state funding for abortions; and access to morning-after pills at all pharmacies?”

[RWC] Rather than address each of these provisions, I’ll pose only one question. Why does a 120-day unborn baby deserve protection but a 119-day unborn baby does not?

“The chances are good that most voters would opt for this measure. That can be seen in the response in July when South Dakota voters were asked if they would approve a ban if it included exceptions for rape and incest. With those conditions, support rose to 59 percent. That’s an impressive 20 percentage points.”

[RWC] OK, if including “exceptions for rape and incest” allegedly increased support to 59%, why did the Times feel the need to throw in abortions up to four or five months, et cetera in its proposal in the previous paragraph? Could it be the Times has a pro-abortion agenda?

“The problem with the abortion debate in the United States is that it is being presented as a stark choice between pro-choice and pro-life when it is not.”

[RWC] True. It’s between pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

“It’s time for America’s silent majority on abortion to make themselves heard. It’s also time for the politicians and the media to start listening for them because they have something constructive to say.”

[RWC] Is “silent majority” the Times new euphemism for “moderates?”