In this light, I decided that I would take a deeper look into a recent poll that was conducted by Gallup that found changing attitudes toward abortion in the US. Gallup’s results showed that for the first time since they began polling the issue 14 years ago,  more Americans identify themselves as “pro-life” than “pro-choice”.  According to this new poll, virtually all movement in public attitudes toward the pro-life position has occurred within the past year.  After reading about these results, I had several questions, including:

1. The dramatic shift in the past year looked a bit odd to me.  Could Gallup expand upon the bottom-line reasoning from their reporting?
2. What was the party breakdown of the poll? It doesn’t mention weighting, but perhaps they did weight. (If I remembered correctly from the Presidential tracking polls in 2008, one of the big differences between Gallup and Rasmussen was that Rasmussen weighted and Gallup did not, leading to more swings in the Gallup tracker.) My concerns here were that a smaller, more extremist Republican tent, could indicate a misleading swing if they were still weighted at their 2008 levels.
3. Relating to #2, I recently read that Gallup had nearly a 50/50 split in Party ID in this poll. Was this correct?
   

Thanks to my former graduate school classmate, Cynthia English, a Gallup writer and researcher, I had the honor of having my questions answered by Lydia Saad, a Senior Editor at Gallup who worked on this poll. Ms. Saad gave very thoughtful answers to my questions and went above and beyond what I expected. Here are some of Ms. Saad’s responses:

• Kevin’s memory is correct; we do not weight our surveys by Party ID. Although some pollsters do it, weighting by Party ID is not the standard in national RDD surveys. Party ID is essentially a political attitude like every other that we measure; and while it is generally stable from one survey to the next, it does change over time and is susceptible to survey-to-survey variation due to the content of a given survey. Weighting by party ID on election polls, for example, can be problematic since it’s asked after the candidate preference ballot, and therefore largely mirrors the ballot. To weight by party ID on these surveys is to essentially weight by the ballot.

• We did obtain a near 50-50 split in leaned party ID on the 2009 May Values survey. Because this was unusual, we did two things to check the validity of the data. We re-ran the abortion questions on the G1K track two days later, and obtained nearly the same results. That survey had a 10-point advantage for the Democrats on leaned party ID. We also did a post hoc reweighting of the data by party ID, using targets giving Democrats/Dem leaners a 14-point advantage (typical of what we’ve been getting on recent stand-alone polls) and re-ran the survey results . (This was for internal analysis only; we are not publishing the reweighted figures.) The figures changed by only 1-2 points in most cases – indicating that the party distribution of the sample did not account for all or even much of the change seen in the abortion trends. However, as noted in point A, we don’t consider the party ID distribution we obtained in the survey “wrong” just because it was different from what we obtain on other surveys. Thus, we stand behind the published figures based on our standard Census-based demographic targets.

• As highlighted in the story, and expanded on in the “bottom line” analysis, the major change in abortion attitudes over the past year was seen among Republicans and independents who lean Republican. Thus, even if we were to hold party ID constant across the two surveys, attitudes would have become less friendly to abortion rights because Republicans moved to the right, while Democrats stayed the same. The question is, why did Republicans become more conservative in their views on abortion? The “pro-life” side has been eager to attribute it to the “success of their efforts” on the issue. I’m dubious about that. Without a high profile “pro-life” campaign over the past year to attribute this to (which I can’t),  I would expect to see that sort of attitudinal change happen more gradually. This was abrupt. The major change that’s happened is that Obama was elected, and since he is “pro-choice” and those views have been forefront in the news over the Notre Dame flap, I think it’s reasonable to hypothesize that this has compelled some.

• The external validation component is very important. We are not alone in showing a shift toward the “pro-life” position (or anti-abortion position, in the case of legality questions). Aside from Gallup, four other organizations have come out with abortion data in recent weeks, and all of them show a more “pro-life” stance than they did in their last measurement in 2008 (all pre-election).

• “PRO-LIFE” V “PRO-CHOICE”
  Gallup Values survey shows a 7 point increase in “pro-life” and an 8 point decline in “pro-choice” (May 08 vs. May 09) SWING=15 POINTS.    Gallup G1K survey shows a 6 point increase in “pro-life” and a 7 point decline in “pro-choice” (May 08 vs. May 09) SWING=13 POINTS.    Fox News shows an 8 point increase in “pro-life” and 6 point decline in “pro-choice” (September 08 vs. May 09) SWING = 14 POINTS.    CNN shows a 1 point increase in “pro-life” and a 4 point decline in “pro-choice” (Aug 08 vs. April 09) SWING=5 POINTS.

• LEGAL/ILLEGAL
  Gallup Values survey shows a 3 point increase in “legal in only a few/illegal in all” and a 4 point decrease in “legal in all/most” SWING=7 POINTS.    Gallup G1K survey shows a 5 point increase in “legal in only a few/illegal in all” and a 6 point decrease in “legal in all/most” SWING=11 POINTS.    Quinnipiac shows a 3 point increase in “always/usually illegal” and a 5 point decline in “always/usually legal.” (July 08 vs. April 09) SWING=8 POINTS.    Pew shows a 3 point increase in “always/usually illegal” and an 8 point decline in “always/usually legal” (Aug 09 vs. Apr 09) SWING=11 POINTS.

Given these responses, I think it is fair to say that Gallup and others are on to something. There does seem to be a change, albeit possibly temporary, in attitudes toward abortion. Given this change, several questions come to mind:

1. Is reporting about abortion with only two binary options the most appropriate way of showing public opinion? What are some other options to polling about abortion?
2. Will this change be permanent or just a temporary blip in public opinion due to reasons that Gallup points out?

As far as reporting such polling results as binary options (”pro-choice” v. “pro-life” or always/sometimes legal vs. always/sometimes illegal), Gallup also thankfully breaks down its legal/illegal question into four categories. Granted, opinion on abortion is probably more nuanced than four categories, but it is encouraging that Gallup offers these details:

• Legal under any circumstance (change from 2008 to 2009):  -6 points
• Legal under most circumstances: +2 points
• Illegal under most circumstances: – 3 points
• Illegal under all circumstances: +6 points

While it is possible and in fact likely that many Republicans who once had a nuanced position on abortion now identify themselves in the extreme given the polarization of the GOP tent and the fear of an “abortion-loving president” from the talk radio set, the movement away from the “legal under any circumstances” category is still a bit  perplexing by the “Republican Party being more extreme” movement theory.  Are there really many Republicans who just one year ago thought abortion should be legal under any circumstance who now are 1.) Still Republicans AND 2.) No longer hold this position?  It’s possible, but definitely not as likely or as easily explainable as the movement toward the “illegal under any circumstances” camp.  Perhaps this cross-tabulation is just random noise, which wouldn’t be surprising since the margin of error is going to be much higher among these subgroups.

What are some other approaches for asking about abortion?

While I commend Gallup for asking about this question in more than a strictly binary fashion, it’s important to point out that there are other possible ways of asking about abortion that could possibly lead to very different baseline conclusions.  Paul Rosenberg does a nice job of summarizing the findings of the General Population Survey (GPS), which gives survey respondents three different abortion scenarios and asks them to indicate whether they think abortion should be illegal in:

1. None of these cases
2. One of these cases
3. Two of these cases
4. All of these cases

Since many people may have a hard time defining exactly what “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are (Gallup admits that it doesn’t necessarily endorse these terms, and hence uses them in quotes), this approach is nice because it conceptualizes the issue in three nuanced situations, ranging in acceptability.  By using this approach, the GPS finds that only 9% of respondents believe that abortion should be illegal in all three given cases.  This is not to say that this bottom-line result is more accurate than other polls, as it is  asking about slightly different things. (It’s also important to note that these numbers are not meant to in any way dispute Gallup’s trend, but rather to show that a different interpretation of baseline values could be made by using a slightly different methodology.)

What does this mean?

The book Myth of a Polarized America further explores some these issues and argues that most of the “pro-choice” versus “pro-life” debate is in fact media driven and that most Americans actually lie somewhere in the middle, holding a nuanced opinion about abortion and other social issues.  In this light, is it possible that media reports that only repeat binary results of such wedge-issue polls encourage the narrative of a divided, polarized America?

Although recent right-wing extremism may be afoot, it is important to remember that most of those that are pro-life are anything but extremists.  Despite what they may tell pollsters, one can legitimately argue that most Americans hold nuanced views that deserve nuanced reporting that respects the complexities that are inherent in such social issues. Given the apparent sudden change in attitudes, it will be interesting to look at this issue again in five or six months or in a year to see whether this is a short-term blip in response to the first brand-new Democratic President in 16 years or a sudden, sustainable change in public opinion.  The best period to which to compare this recent movement would be 1993, when President Clinton first took office. Unfortunately, 1993 was two years before Gallup began polling this issue.

Bottom Line

I applaud Gallup and others for looking in-depth at these issues and hope that the mainstream media can begin to report such public attitudes and beliefs with the nuance and respectful tone that they deserve.  Like most things in life, abortion does not involve mutually exclusive sets of ideas and values for most individuals.

In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions. I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.

The first governor to sign a same-sex marriage bill, Baldacci touches on the heart of the same-sex marriage debate: The arguments for or against same-sex unions based on morality, religion, tradition, or any other logic is irrelevant. What matters is the law. And the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution that he refers to clearly states “[no] State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Which means that, like it or not, from Baldacci’s perspective, gays and lesbians should be entitled to the right to marry if straight people are allowed to marry.

Over the course of the past several months, four states have legalized same-sex marriage in their states: Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and New Hampshire (Massachusetts legalized gay marriage back in 2004). Recently, both New York and Washington D.C. have decided to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. And now there is talk that New Jersey may become the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage in the coming months.

Throughout this civil rights upheaval,  President Obama and his administration have remained conspicuously mum. According to the New York Times, Obama has said that as a Christian he opposes gay marriage but remains a “fierce advocate of equality” for gay men and lesbians. And so far, he has remained true to that statement by pledging to sign a U.N. declaration, which Bush refused to sign before he left office, that calls for a worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality (the United States was the only western nation not to support the measure). Moreover, Obama has continually recognized qualified persons with same-sex sexual orientations for top level jobs: In his short time in office, he has appointed numerous openly gay officials for executive administrative positions and may be considering two prominent lesbian lawyers to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court.

Although the saying goes that “actions speak louder than words,” his silence is an action that may indicate his political discomfort with gay rights advocacy. During the election, he reiterated that same-sex marriage is an issue that should be decided by the states. And, to a certain extent, he’s constitutionally correct: There is currently no federal marriage license that any straight couple can apply for but, then again, opposite-sex couples who marry in their home state trust that their marriage will be honored no matter which state they travel to or live in. And while there is no federal law regulating straight marriages, the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress regulates same-sex unions. The Act explicitly outlines that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions performed in other states. That is a gross discrepancy.

While Obama has said that he supports a repeal of that legislation and of the military’s “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy, he has remained virtually silent on the gay marriage issue since he took office and has chosen to not comment on the landslide of same-sex marriage laws in recent months. Although this issue may not seem like a priority for the administration when they have an economic crisis and two wars to contend with, it should be a priority for the president since Obama has repeatedly stated that he wants America to rebuild and renew its reputation in the world. In a 2007 article he wrote for Foreign Affairs, he stated:

At moments of great peril in the last century, American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy managed both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation. What is more, they ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world — that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders. […] They used our strengths to show people everywhere America at its best.

Yet, how can those freedoms be realized if America does not follow its own laws and ensure that all of its own citizens receive the same “protection” under the law? If President Obama is going to continue to reiterate that marriage laws should be left to the states, then he should actively pursue a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act since it is a federal measure. So too, if he wants America to “lead by deed and example” then he must show support for states that have passed inclusive marriage legislation and encourage others to do the same. It sets a very bad “example” to have some areas of the country have more “freedoms” for its citizens than others.

Or, Obama could take a cue from his favorite president, Abraham Lincoln. When Lincoln took office in 1861, he viewed slavery as a states’ issue and expressly stated that he had “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists.” However, two years later, he delivered his Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves because it was “an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution.” Certainly, it is thorny comparison between slavery and gay rights and America is not in a civil war where gay marriage is, like slavery was, the catalyst for domestic combat; nevertheless the United States is at a civil rights crossroads that needs to be addressed by the President. Had Lincoln chosen to never take that stand on slavery, decided to put it off until later, or thought he could leave the responsibility on to the next administration, Obama may have never even had a chance to be our president. Obama should take a page from the book of his presidential idol and realize that, regardless of the political risk, he is obligated as America’s national leader to stand up for the rights of all Americans.

Obama has continually said that he wants his presidency to speak to and for all Americans. In his famous Democratic nomination acceptance speech, Obama evoked Martin Luther King and reiterated that “now is the time” for the United States to rebuild and renew:

[I]n America, our destiny is inextricably linked, that together our dreams can be one. “We cannot walk alone,” the preacher cried. “And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.”

Indeed, we cannot turn back and now is certainly the time.

The Issue

The PHC estimates that there to be about 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States.  In 2004, 49% of illegal immigrants were high school dropouts as opposed to 21% for legal immigrants and 11% for natives.  Low education often leads to low-skill jobs and low pay and thus an inability to climb the economic ladder of success and pay a higher share of taxes.

In addition, legal taxpayers are paying for many illegal immigrants health care bills. Since many illegal immigrants are below the federal poverty line, they often have to rely on social services such as uncompensated health care which is predominantly funded by cost-shifting to legal taxpayers with insurance. In Texas, the state controller estimated that illegal immigrants cost hospitals $1.3 billion in 2006. In California, a 2004 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform put the state’s annual cost at $1.4 billion. In Colorado and Minnesota for 2005, the costs were estimated to be $31 million and $17 million respectively.

Although some illegal immigrants do pay taxes to the government, the Census Bureau found in 2002 that households headed by illegal immigrants used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes.  According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the total K-12 school costs for illegal immigrants costs the nation nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born to illegal immigrants were added, the costs go up to $28.6 billion.  This is problematic at a time when states are cutting public school budgets and laying off teachers, students are often overcrowded in classrooms, and some schools are even thinking of changing the five day school week to four days due to lack of funds.

Possible Solutions

One possible solution to decrease illegal immigration is to make it simpler to enter and stay in the U.S. legally. Currently, the estimated waiting period to get a Permanent Residency Card is three years. On average, a person has to stand in government lines for a total of 45 hours to obtain a Permanent Residency card.  There either has to be less paperwork or more people need to be hired to move the paperwork in the process.

In order to stop the flow of illegal immigration, it must be physically impossible for illegals to enter the U.S. And in order for that to happen, the borders must be secured with precision. All United States borders must be secured with manpower trained to inspect and detect illegal immigrants. The government must make it a priority for the safety of its citizens to secure all borders. As such, there needs to be more funding and training for Homeland Security.

1848 or 2008? Things aren't always as they seem.

Additionally, anyone applying for a visa should be screened for criminal history in their native country before receiving a visa. Foreigners with temporary visas should be fingerprinted, with the information saved in computers, to be checked if they are overstaying their permitted time period. Once an illegal immigrant is identified, deportation must be carried out in an efficient, yet fair manner. It is therefore necessary for better cooperation between federal and state government agencies. In addition, foreign diplomacy must be culturally sensitive and humane.

For those illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. and are identified, there should be a priority list of who gets deported first based upon criteria such as knowledge of the English language, whether there is an economic need for their services, how long they have lived in the U.S., and how many family members are currently citizens.

Amnesty should be granted to some illegal immigrants because of the fiscal and logistical constraints to mass deportation. If it saves time, resources, and money to keep many illegal immigrants in the U.S. as opposed to deporting them,  then they should be permitted to stay in the U.S. These illegal immigrants would be given temporary amnesty and the opportunity to file for legal permanent residency as long as they met a certain predefined set of rules. In Britain, the Institute for Public Policy Research found that it would save Britain $4.7 billion pounds in deportation costs and raise $1 billion pounds in taxes if they did not deport their illegal immigrant population (assuming they had the ability to do so).  The Center for American Progress estimates that it would cost $41 billion to deport the over 10 million illegal residents in the U.S.

The U.S. needs to make it a priority to prevent illegal immigration and encourage legal immigration. In order to do this, the government must increase intelligence, border security, investigation, outreach, and interstate and foreign diplomacy. It must be evident that coming to the U.S. illegally is a disadvantage and that entering the U.S. legally makes one deserving of public benefits. By doing so, the U.S. will improve its fiscal status during times of economic hardship for all its legal citizens who are currently not receiving the full benefits of their hard earned fiscal contributions to their country.

OK, now, with this scenario in mind, how many religiously conservative people out there would consider voting Democrat some of the time? Notice that I didn’t include the gay marriage debate here, as I believe that that is being sorted out at the state level, which doesn’t seem to be bothering people as much as the abortion issue does at the federal level. I also didn’t include the stem cell research controversy, seeing as more and more scientists are coming out and stating that they have found other ways to extract viable stem cells without having to “terminate” embryos. With all of these things in mind, I really wonder what kind of a platform the Republican Party would have left. Lower taxes? Less government? More aggressive foreign policy? NRA? I don’t know how it seems to you, but none of those positions carries nearly the moral weight that abortion does. I almost can’t help but wonder what this country’s politics would have been like over the past 40 years or so without the constant skirmishing brought on by Roe v Wade. Maybe the Democrats would have held more power over those years, and then the issues of alternative energy and the Iraq War would never have come up. I almost feel like the abortion issue is the trump card for the Republican Party. Whenever the Democrats come up with other, viable ideas for policy, the Republicans remind morally observant voters in a timely manner that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for abortion. Hell, I’m pretty sure that President Bush rode that fear tactic all the way to the White House in 2000 and 2004.

I’m not bringing up this conjecture to mock religious conservatives for voting their consciences about abortion. That’s not my place at all. But I am angry at the Republican Party for turning so many unrelated issues, like the environment and health care, into debates about abortion. It’s like an abortion “tag” has been permanently attached to the Democrats, so that even saving the environment from degradation has been tainted by the their take on abortion. I even sometimes wonder if I should be angry at the Democrats, as if their insistence on universal, federally-funded abortion rights has been driving a wedge into this country and crystallizing opposition against them. I almost want to ask the Dems: Why not give a little rhetorical ground on the whole abortion debate, thereby taking the wind right out of the sail of your opponents and allowing for a more even-keeled political debate to take place in this country? What’s so terrible about letting the states decide this issue?

So let me get this straight – because she respects a law that she doesn’t agree with , she’s a hypcrite? She is simply showing an ability to respect a law, even though she disagrees with it.  And make no mistake about it, in the state of Alaska a teenager does not need parental consent for an abortion.  The decision on whether or not to keep the baby was Bristol Palin’s, and Bristol Palin’s alone.

Honestly, instead of running down Palin for hypocrisy, we should be praising her for this particular decision. Allowing her daughter to make her own decision indicates that she is someone who, if for some reason was to become President, would govern by the rule of law and not by her personal beliefs that may be contrary to the law.  The first sign of a good leader is someone who’s willing to enforce the law, even if they do not agree with that law.

And let’s be realistic here – our political system is inherrently slow and plodding.  The founders wanted political change to be slow. Hence, they set up a bicameral legislative system with an exutive who possesses veto powers and a court which can declare laws unconstitutional.  Change is slow to come by, so it’s always refreshing to see someone who will respect a law they disagree with. In my opinion, chances of actually changing such a law are, in all honesty, pretty slim.

The hypocrisy is clear: Palin wants her own daughter to have a choice, but she does not want to allow every other women in the country to have that same choice. The government will decide what is best for every other woman. In a United States governed the way Palin would prefer, Bristol would not have that choice. There would have been no choice. Bristol could have had the baby or broken the law and had an abortion illegally.

Even more germane is the fact that the Republicans have chosen to make the issue of abortion — and personal morality in general — a central plank of their platform. Since Palin is in serious danger of not practicing what she preaches, especially when what she preaches is an issue of public policy, those elements of her private life that reveal hypocrisy are fair game for criticism.

By the by, the only reason Bristol is not having an abortion is due to her mother’s national prominence. Ask anyone who has gone to a high-end, private girls’ school: they don’t have babies. They have abortions. Rich parents, even those whose daughters go to Catholic school, don’t let their daughters have babies while they’re teenagers. They quietly send them out to have abortions before anyone discovers that the daughters are pregnant. For Bristol to have an abortion now would have been the most hypocritical thing anyone could have done.