Posted on 08/23/2002 4:10:42 PM PDT by nickcarraway
How pro-life are California voters? What legislative initiatives for the protection of at least some of the unborn and of their mothers in crisis pregnancy situations would they support?
To answer these question, James Holman, the publisher of the Los Angeles Mission, the San Francisco Faith, and San Diego News Notes, commissioned a poll from Zogby International of Utica, New York. The poll, conducted from Thursday, June 20 to Monday, June 24, interviewed 301 likely voters in California to get their response to potential ballot initiatives on abortion, especially ones dealing with minors obtaining abortions. Because of the number of likely voters polled, the poll's margin of error is ± 5.7 percent, with higher margins of error in identified sub-groups distinguished according region, political party, age, education, race, religion, etc.).
The results of the poll are given below.
The poll reveals that a significant majority of California voters support almost all the ballot measures that, in some measure, restrict access to abortion. Since the questions were in regard to ballot measures that could conceivably be passed without violating court decisions on abortion, none of the proposed measures called for direct, across-the-board restrictions on abortion. Thus, the poll gives no direct evidence of whether or not a majority of California voters would support laws enforcing such restrictions.
The poll, though, does reveal some interesting contrasts that hint at Californians' pro-life commitment. While 85 percent of those polled would support a ballot measure calling for parental notification before an abortion can be performed on a minor under the age of 16, the support drops to 71 percent when the age is raised to under 18. Among the sub-groups analyzed, though, Mormons and those listed as "Born Again" would give 100 percent support for both measures, while Catholic support drops from 94.1 percent for the first measure to 86.4 percent for the second. Hispanics (at 88.3 percent), African Americans (100 percent) and Asians (100 percent) give more support to the first proposed measure than do whites (80.9 percent), but all groups fall in their support of the second measure (Hispanics, 75.3 percent; African-Americans, 93.7; whites, 68.6; Asians, 57.4.
Oddly, though a significant majority of those polled support parental notification before an abortion can be performed on a minor, their support drops significantly when tax support is brought into the equation. Only 60 percent of those polled said they would vote yes on a proposition which would forbid taxpayer money for abortions for minors unless at least one parent or guardian was notified before the abortion was performed. Even "Born Again" (72.6) and Mormon (75.9) support weakens with this proposed proposition, nearly equaling Catholic support (71.9 percent), which is generally lower for all the proposed pro-life propositions.
General ignorance of how many abortions the state of California pays for may account, in part, for the decreased support for this restriction on taxpayer funding for abortion. When asked -- "are you aware or not aware that the state of California pays for approximately 10,000 abortions per month for any reason, including birth control?" -- only 25 percent answered that they were aware, while a whopping 74 percent claimed ignorance.
Support among Born Agains, Mormons and Catholics was significant, but not unanimous, for a proposition that most directly restricted abortion across the board. When asked whether they would restrict taxpayer funding for abortions unless they were necessary to save the life of a mother, 71.9 percent of Catholics, 72.6 of Born Agains and 75.9 of Mormons said yes. A large percentage of Hispanics, though, (83.3 percent) said they would vote for such a proposition, while white and African American support stood at 54.6 and 67.8 percent, respectively.
General support drops even further (to 55 percent) for a proposition which would prevent public school teachers and employees from transporting or arranging for minors to obtain abortions without a parent or guardian's knowledge. Again, though all the Born Agains and Mormons supported parental notification for minors, their support weakened for this proposed proposition. Mormon support for this proposition was 77.1 percent; Born Again, 80.7 percent; while Catholic support was an abysmal 58.8 percent. So, it appears, those polled support parental notification, except in situations involving public school personnel.
In the analysis showing the response of sub-groups, the poll also reveals some interesting things. In general, Hispanic and African American support for all the proposed initiatives is higher than white support, with Asians giving them the least support of all. Where this varies is with the proposition that requires parental consent for children under 16 (Asian support, 100 percent); with the proposition requiring a 24-hour waiting period (Asian support, at 65.7 percent, nearly equals white and African American support); with the proposition requiring a 48-hour waiting period, support among all groups drops significantly, by about 20 to 30 percent, from what it was for the 24-hour waiting period, except for Hispanics, whose support drops from 71.4 to only 65.6 percent); and with the proposition requiring that accurate health information regarding abortion be given to pregnant women (where Asian support rises to 100 percent). No group, except the Hispanics, seems much to favor the proposition requiring an independent expert to give a medical opinion of the relative risks of a baby being born alive as opposed to being aborted. While support among the other three groups hovers around 57 to 60 percent, Hispanic support is at 82.4 percent. Nearly 85 percent of both Hispanics and Asians also favor requiring that abortions on babies fully developed enough to survive outside the womb be performed in a hospital in order better to be able to save the child's life if born alive.
While African American support remains strong (80.2 percent) for the proposition that would allow women to file lawsuits and to receive adequate compensation for serious physical and emotional injuries resulting from botched abortions, Hispanic support for this measure drops to 48.3 percent. Of Asians, 76.6 percent said they favored this measure, while white support for it was about three percentage points lower than that of Hispanics. [The Bay Area came out stronger for this measure (61.9 percent) than did Los Angeles/San Diego (45.4) and the rest of California (50.9). Does this mean Bay Area folks are more comfortable with the legal system than are other Californians?]
I was puzzled about the poll's contrasts and seeming discrepancies: why, for instance, do those who support parental consent in general not support it when public school personnel are involved? A long-time Sacramento observer of the initiatives process, Robert Smith (not his real name -- he wished anonymity on account of his work), ascribed the discrepancies to what he called the "complexity factor." "If the thing seems to be complex, it seems you get sort of a washout. You think, maybe they didn't understand at the time of the polling," said Smith, who worked with Holman on developing the questions for the poll. "I would think [the number supporting parental consent when school personnel are involved] would be higher, because you think if you want the parents to be consulted, the last thing you want is the teachers undercutting the parents."
But the point of the poll was not to uncover the inconsistencies of California voters; it had a more useful purpose. "The main point of the thing is to explore possible subjects for initiatives," said Smith. "There are some attempts now by the Democrats to do away with the initiative process because, of course, it is sort of an end-run around the legislature. In general, this poll shows that the legislature is leveraged by the Democratic party, which has maintained its hegemony because of its links with Catholics and with Hispanics." The Democrats' aim, continued Smith, is "to put anything Planned Parenthood wants through, or to frustrate even the most minor and reasonable pro-life initiative. According to this poll, that does not agree with the voters taken across the state as a whole. The results would be very different if the voters could vote directly on the issues instead of having to run it through this multi-leveraged system."
Yet, no pro-life initiative -- even a mild one -- has done well in California. And this has not been for lack of trying. According to Smith, many have been the attempts to place a pro-life initiative on the ballot, but not one has made it, mostly because of insufficient funding. One that looked hopeful was the 1999/2000 initiative, "Parental Notification Prior to Termination of Minor's Pregnancy." The initiative would have amended the state constitution "to provide that, except for medical emergency, no abortion shall be performed upon [an] unemancipated minor until the physician notifies [the] minor's parent or legal guardian." It provided for exceptions in extraordinary cases. The statute, said the initiative, "would also permit [an] unemancipated minor to confidentially petition juvenile court for notification waiver based upon clear and convincing evidence of sufficient maturity, physical or sexual abuse by parent or guardian, or that notification is not in minor's best interests; otherwise, the judge shall order notification by physician."
This initiative failed because of lack of monetary support, said Smith, and on account of the malaise of the Catholic Church in California over the issue. Indeed, as the Los Angeles Mission reported in January 2000 [see "Some Will, Mahony Won't," on the web at www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2000/0100cz.htm), some dioceses such as San Francisco and Fresno allowed signature gathering on church premises, but Cardinal Mahony in Los Angeles forbade it. In an October 28, 1999 memo, Monsignor Thomas Fleming, vicar general for Los Angeles, wrote: "parish property should not be used to gather signatures for the purpose of qualifying initiatives for the ballot. While parish groups and individual parishioners can and should be encouraged to engage in such activity on issues that are consistent with the Church's social teaching, the actual collecting of signatures should not take place on parish or school property." Signature gathering, wrote Fleming can be done using public sidewalks, though "parish groups and individual parishioners are strongly encouraged to contact their pastors prior to organizing such activity."
"Planned Parenthood types," said Smith, "have said they do not understand why pro-lifers don't have more initiatives, because with the Catholic Church you could presumably put one on the ballot on a single Sunday. Of course we know that's nonsense because we know the Catholic Church's political action is controlled by radical liberals. And even in the most recent case, Mahony basically killed the parental notification initiative when he said there would be no signature gathering in his diocese.
"If the Catholic bishops were serious, much could be done. Mahony can spend $250 million to put up a monstrosity. A local bishop can raise some $50 some million," said Scott.
The barriers to put an initiative on the ballot are formidable. According to an article, "What California Citizens are Proposing," on the website of the Capitol Resource Institute, the state of California has two kinds of initiatives -- statutory revisions and constitutional amendments. The former merely establishes a new law; the latter alters the fundamental charter of the state and is, consequently, much harder to repeal. But whether statutory or constitutional, an initiative proposal must be submitted to the state attorney general, who works up an official title and summary for it. The attorney general then forwards it to the secretary of state, who clears it for circulation. In order to qualify for the ballot, a statutory initiative must garner the signatures of five percent of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election, and a constitutional initiative must garner eight percent. In current numbers, that means 419,210 signatures for the former and 670,816 for the latter. Since these signatures must be those of registered voters, those proposing the initiative must actually gather far more signatures than the required number to make up for the inevitable unusable signatures.
Another barrier is the timeframe. According to Smith, an initiative has only 150 days after approval by the secretary of state to obtain the required number of signatures. The 150 day timeframe, said Smith, is "a big barrier, because it's very tight. It basically means that you have to get signatures roughly at the rate of 5,000 a day. That's hard to do unless you have major cooperation." The cost to obtain the signatures, too, is usually formidable, since professional signature gatherers, who are usually used, charge anywhere from 75 cents to $1.50 per signature. The goal for the 1999 parental notification initiative was at least one million signatures. This means, at 75 cents a pop, initiative proponents must spend $750,000 for signature gathering alone.
Smith said that James Holman and he "were thinking about a new approach" to the initiative process -- and that's where the poll comes in, which identifies what initiatives could actually pass in an election. Generally, a poll should show that an initiative has at least 70 percent support, since a strong opposition during an election will probably whittle down support. Thus, the poll helps identify which initiatives are viable and which are not.
But how trustworthy is the poll? Is a survey of only 301 respondents very reliable? Wouldn't it have been better to poll a larger number -- say 600, or 1,000? "There are very many variables which are determined [in assessing the number polled] in a target audience," a representative from Zogby told me. "For instance, the issue, the desired margin of error that you are looking for, the desired confidence level -- that's determined on a per client basis and on whether it is representative of the target audience. For the most part, there is no major difference when you increase the sample size, if x is the appropriate number."
Holman told me that Zogby gave him "a sort of sliding scale -- I could poll 600 people and get within a two percent margin of error, or I could get a sample within a five percent margin. Five percent seemed accurate enough because I was trying to get an impression rather than the exact number of votes that would be required. The public's response is all so susceptible to the winds of change that I thought it would be stupid to try to get within one or two percent.
"Zogby claims that their technique is so sophisticated that they can get that kind of accuracy," continued Holman. "Their technique can be so sophisticated with computers that they can get a very good sampling of all major groups. They get the right number of people from northern California, the right number from Southern California, the right number of blacks, and so on. They seem to have a pretty good record -- that's why we went with Zogby. They've been closer on the last two presidential elections, for instance, than anyone else."
Besides the poll, Holman's "new approach," said Smith, is to "try to set up a mechanism to put initiatives on the ballot as efficiently and cheaply as possible, but guaranteed. No launching until you have the means at hand to put it on the ballot. The idea would be to have maybe two at once, but to try to put them on regularly so you get by this total control of the legislative process by the San Francisco libertines. And you put some of these before the voters, maybe even ones you are not sure will pass, to provoke debate. Relatively speaking, there is no debate anymore -- it's just a closed system now."
Despite the initial costs, Smith says that it is "relatively inexpensive" to get the pro-life issues before the public by ballot initiatives. "Among other things," he said, "at state expense they send out this ballot pamphlet, and it has arguments pro and con, rebuttals, and all that information is distributed to 12 million people. Well, suppose it takes one million dollars to put it on the ballot -- you can't make a mailing to 12 million people for one million dollars. It's ten cents a person. So you get a lot of bang out of a ballot initiative, even if it doesn't pass -- compared to the other worthless things that have been done over the years by the poor manipulated pro-life people."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.