KELO poll shows it could be a hard "Roe" to hoe for Vote Yes on 6. (get it? Roe, not row... Sorry, bad pun)

The initial results of the KELOland polling on HB 1215 referral vote show that the Vote Yes on 6 people are coming out on the downside in one of the first public benchmarks of how the vote would turn out if held today... Well, if it would have been held on July 24-26:
We surveyed 800 registered voters July 24-26 and asked how they would vote on the referred law.

If today were Election Day, 47 percent of people in our scientific poll say they would vote no and reject the state's proposal to ban most all abortions. Thirty-nine percent would vote yes and accept the new law. 14 percent are undecided.

The margin of error is plus/minus 3.5 percent.
Read it all here. Actually, if it's accurate, that's only 8 percentage points that the Vote Yes on 6 people have to make up. And it begs a big question - are people's attitudes on issues such as abortion as fluid as opinions about candidates? Or are they deep-seated and intractable?

I'd tend to think of things as more fluid, just given the fact that the Campaign for Healthy Families Group has been out there beating the drum longer for how they want the issue to go, and the Vote Yes on 6 Coalition is just getting off the ground.

More polling and information on this in the months to come. Stay tuned.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I don't think that's true, PP - the Vote Yes coalition has been around in one way or another from the very beginning. They introduced the legislation, for pity's sake.
Anonymous said…
The Vote Yes folks may have been around, but they were very slow on the draw. The so-called Healthy Families bunch are organized, focused, and know how to play the media. The Vote Yes people need to get it together -- and they need to get spokespeople other than Mrs. Unruh, who has way too much baggage and who is too divisive.
mhs said…
Not sure I would give much credence to even a very well-run poll for this issue. It crosses every political, moral, etc. spectrum. I'm not sure an 800 voter sample bloc, usually designed for candidate comparisons, is a significant enough statistical sample for the 1215 vote.

Mason-Dixon has been pretty accurate with all the stuff they've done for Argus / KELO over the years, this should be the acid test. The tracking for the vote as the campaigns heat up would be great to see. Hopefully, the media moguls will fork over the dough for regular updates.
Anonymous said…
This is very encouraging for the Vote Yes folks and for life in general. First, the pro-abortionist have been beating the drum and whooping it up like you wouldn't beleive. They made some think the whole state was up in arms over outlawing abortion, and they couldn't even break 50% Remember the bogus polling early on this deal. Sibby called that one.

Secondly, the Vote Yes group just cranked up the bus tour and no media whatsoever yet.

Third, alot of folks are afraid to say they support life because Hilde and his hooligans want to strip churches of their free speech rights and tax status. If the other side would work as hard as it did on the Indian Reservations in 02 and 04 looking for votes as what it does suppressing the votes of church-going folk the poll numbers would be alot more even.
Mike said…
I think many of the comments here are a bit misguided, in a statistical sense that is. Taken at face value, one can consider the yes/no percentages in the poll fairly "hard", i.e. there will not be that much fluidity in regards to the changing of an opinion. Being that it is August and already the "No" vote has 47%, they are in a much stronger position to win. Do the math guys; 3% plus one wins it for the No vote, while 11% is needed for Yes. And to anon 1:43, it rare for something so far out to poll above 50%, for anything.
sd_mom said…
You can hope that these numbers are fluid, but I think you'll find that people have already decided their moral stance on this issue.

If there had been any provisions for rape or incest, I think you would see a whole different set of numbers. But South Dakotans as a whole are compassionate people, and they can't stomach a bill that could cause a young woman more pain and heartache.

Hopefully we will all learn something from this past year. No matter how morally certain you are of your position, it pays to try and come to a meeting in the middle. That way we can all support things that will be good for the state as a whole.
Anonymous said…
With anyother issue I would say that the number could be moved, but I have to agree with others that most South Dakotan's know where they are at on the issue.

The outcome will depend more on who gets their supporters to the poll, then moving the numbers.

It will be very interesting to see how the number compare if the supporters of HB1215 would have included rape and incest.
Anonymous said…
I am tired of people who are opposed to HB1215 pointing to rape and incest. If you opposed HB1215, that's fine. But don't lie about it. There is nothing in the legislation to prevent a crime victim from getting emergency contraception; admittedly it has to be done in a timely manner. The victim chooses whether or not to report it and get help, although understandably there are many reasons why they can't or won't. Either way, once again, the bill doesn't totally prevent it. The Vote Yes people have got to learn to emphasize that.
Anonymous said…
ANON 6:00:

why do people keep pointing to EC as the answer to rape and incest? because it's an easy out to explain away the radicalism that is deeply rooted in 1215.

and they always forget to mention that those who favor 1215 are the same crowd that works tooth and nail to limit, if not ban, access to EC

another way to put it: 1215 supporters who point to EC are full of it
Haggs said…
Anon 6:00,

You're right that there is an allowance in the bill for emergency contraception in cases of rape and incest, but it needs to be taken in context with other factors. Factors like pharmacists who refuse to prescribe emergency contraception and the legislation attempts by the "pro-life" groups to outlaw all contraception.

And, like you mentioned, the fact that many victims of rape and incest are too scared to report the crime until way past 1215's due date.

The reason we keep bringing up the rape and incest issue is because it illustrates how this bill will ultimately hurt women.
Anonymous said…
Anon 6:47 -- but in your uncivil rant, you still don't deny that HB1215 does not prevent a crime victim from getting EC. And by the way, I am not in the same crowd that wants to limit access to EC. It is unfair to put everyone in that category.
Anonymous said…
haggs: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I respectfully disagree, but you presented your view in a respectful manner. Anon 6:47 should take a page from your book.
Anonymous said…
I can see where some people might be afraid to say they'll vote yes on 6 - it's probably because they are afraid of it. There are a lot of us Pro-Lifers that - God forbid - wouldn't want our daughters to have to carry their rapists children to term.
Anonymous said…
The question that needs to be answered is does an unborn baby that has a beating heart have a right to life?

Almost all of the aborted babies have a beating heart, brain waves, and the ability to react to pain. Almost all of the aborted babies have arms, legs and a head.

How can someone say that we have the right to stop a beating heart?
lexrex said…
at the root of being pro-life is the belief that abortion is murder -- i.e., the intentional killing of an innocent, living human being.

to those who make exceptions, what changes in your beliefs when the baby is conceived by rape? is the baby somehow guilty of a crime? is it less than human?

the poll seems to indicate that a lot of "no" votes would switch if there were those exceptions. it would seem to me that they could be persuaded to vote "yes."
Anonymous said…
lexrex,

It's clear your positioin is very much prolife. But you need to think with your mind and not your emotions.

Your in the trap of thinking that your opinion is the only right opinion. That's very dangerous, as people quit listening to those they think as extremist, and that's what you sound like with positions based on emotions.
lexrex said…
anon 10:03, that's all great advice but you really didn't answer the question. you didn't get my point, otherwise you wouldn't have said what you did.

it's because i am thinking with my mind that i believe it's inconsistent to say abortion is wrong, except in certain cases. either abortion ends a human life or it doesn't.

it's because i am feeling with my heart and emotions that i would never suggest a victim of sexual assault to compound that wrong with another wrong.

and of course i think my opinion is the right one. you won't admit it, but you think the same thing about your opinion -- that you are right.
Anonymous said…
Truth be known, I don't think anyone is in favor of abortion. If more effort were put forth addressing the need for an abortion in the first place, far fewer abortions would be necessary. If I thought for a minute that the passage of HB1215 would end abortions, I would vote yes in a heartbeat. Were there abortions before RvW? Absolutely. Will they continue if RvW is overturned? Absolutely. They will merely be forced into back alleys and basements like they were before, putting every woman who receives an illegal abortion at risk, but they will still happen. The vote yes people don't seem to be stepping up to the plate offering any support or compassion for the thousands of abused and neglected children already here. That's the State's responsibility! Yea right. It's easier to foot the bill through a state agency than take on any kind of responsibility to help the "poor defenseless victims" that are already here, walking, talking, breathing, and yes, being abused, mentally and sexually, ignored by unfit parents, or more often and unwed mother. But let's not talk about any of that. Someone else will deal with those problems. This issue is much bigger than HB1215 and the far "religious right".
Steve Sibson said…
Anon 7:16

Great point. Abortion will continue even if illegal. Murder is illegal and it still happens. I guess we should legalize murder. And armed robbery. Its illegal, but it still happens. We should legalize it too. In fact lets only keep the laws that no one breaks. Wow, now that would be grand. There would be no need for prisons. You should give your true identity. We all should find out who this brilliant person is.
Anonymous said…
Sibby,

You are a fool. The preverbial slippery slop argument is ridiculous. Yes, and if we allow the races to mix.....

Take your morality, move to Idaho, form your own seperate country and trade with Iran and the mullahs and leave the rest of us alone.
Jake Mortenson said…
Lexrex,

What anonymous should have said is that he/she doesn't want to create a law FORCING his/her opinion on the citizens of the state. You, on the other hand, want to make a decision for every pregnant couple in the state.

This is really the only reason I am pro-choice. I do think my opinion is right, but do not think my opinion should be law. Still, the tyranny of the majority persists.
Bob Newland said…
"they need to get spokespeople other than Mrs. Unruh"

They HAVE no better spokeperson than Mrs. Unruh, who personifies all the phoniness and conflicting principles of the entire bunch who voted 1215 into being an issue.
Anonymous said…
From anon 7:16 "The vote yes people don't seem to be stepping up to the plate offering any support or compassion for the thousands of abused and neglected children already here. That's the State's responsibility! Yea right. It's easier to foot the bill through a state agency than take on any kind of responsibility to help the "poor defenseless victims" that are already here, walking, talking, breathing, and yes, being abused, mentally and sexually, ignored by unfit parents, or more often and unwed mother. But let's not talk about any of that."

OK, you want to talk about it, then tell me, do you really feel it is more compassionate to systematically dismember an unborn child than to give him or her a shot at a life that might not be all roses?

Of course, you're completely failing to mention that children may be given up for adoption.

Also, there is the Safe Havens program here in SD, too. Parents who come to feel that they are not able to provide the care their newborn needs can place their child in the care of a number of individuals who will ensure that their child does get the appropriate nurturing.

We needn't always look to abortion as the "quick fix" to an unplanned pregnancy. There are plenty of other options.
Anonymous said…
I got a phone call from a 'Precision Research' poll tonight. Question 1, "How will you vote on the tobacco tax iniative?". Question 2, a push poll inquiry about the 1215 referendum. The push poller kindly described every single restriction in the new law, and then asked if I would vote for it. I have to admit, there were some on the list I didn't even know were in the ban. I told them I would vote against it. And then came the follow-up, How Do You Define Your Beliefs? The four choices, paraphrased, included the following: 1) All abortions legal 2) some abortions legal 3) very few abortions legal 4) no abortions legal.

I refused to answer that one, and just felt icky after that call, like I had been used.
Anonymous said…
Used, like Gov. Rounds was in being cornered to sign 1215? Used, like most moderate or reasonable Republicans in the legistlature who were cornered to sign 1215? Hell, hath no furry like a nut scorned and that's what led to 1215s passing. Nothing more.

By, the way? How much is in that defense fund now? Has Brock, Leslee, Alan, Lee anyone who stood up and cried for the law contributed???? PP?????
lexrex said…
jake, those who don't legislate their morality will have their morality legislated by others.

you're trying to legislate your opinion just as much as i am. your opinion is that killing unborn children be allowed. mine is that it should not be allowed. you think women have a right to abort their babies. i do not.
Anonymous said…
No one should have the right to take the life of another, whether it be an enemy, an ex-lover or one's own innocent unborn child.

There are plenty of options available to help a pregnant woman give her baby the gift of life. I don't know if you've tried to adopt a child or not, but it is almost impossible to adopt because there are no babies. Most of them have been aborted. Why should those innocent babies have to suffer dismemberment and execution to make life easier for the woman who is carrying them?
Jake Mortenson said…
lexrex: "jake, those who don't legislate their morality will have their morality legislated by others."

So THAT's where your coming from. I see now. Your view of government is "force your will on others before they force it on you". That is SAD. How about you try to stop the government from deciding such issues instead? Wait, because you want to tell others how they should live, think, and feel...

"you're trying to legislate your opinion just as much as i am. your opinion is that killing unborn children be allowed. mine is that it should not be allowed. you think women have a right to abort their babies. i do not."

I am not trying to legislate (force) my opinion of whether or not pregnancies should be carried to term on everyone else. YOU, on the other hand, want to make the decision for every single couple whether or not they have to carry a pregnancy to term. I am letting parents decide for themselves whether or not a mass of cells with no central nervous system is truly an "unborn child".
K said…
OK, you want to talk about it, then tell me, do you really feel it is more compassionate to systematically dismember an unborn child than to give him or her a shot at a life that might not be all roses?

In many cases, yes. Absolutely.
PP said…
K, would you care to define "a life that might not be all roses?" where in your opinion, the child would be better off dead?

I generally stay out of the issue, but that statement just strikes me wrong.

Because as soon as I read it, the story of Frank McCourt came to mind.

McCourt's father, an alcoholic, was often without work, drank up what little money he earned and eventually abandoned the family altogether. Three of the seven children died of diseases aggravated by malnutrition and the squalor of their surroundings. Frank McCourt himself nearly died of typhoid fever when he was ten. His childhood was spent living in a small space in an entire block of houses sharing a single outhouse, ground floor dwellings flooded by constant rain, and a home infested with rats and vermin.

After quitting school at 13, Frank McCourt alternated between odd jobs and petty crime in an effort to feed himself, his mother, and four surviving brothers and sisters.

Yet, somehow he managed to survive, and later in his life won a pulitzer prize for his autobiography, Angela's Ashes, and he continues to teach and tell stories.

His drive to achieve sprung from "a life that wasn't all roses," as many other success stories in our country did.
K said…
And for every Frank McCourt, there are millions of children in this world who suffer and never find relief or success. Children who were unwanted and will tell you they wish they'd never been born. We tend to value quantity over quality in this country and for some people, I'm sure it absolves them of guilt to think they've done the right thing just to ensure that a child be born. Then they don't have to worry about the life they'll have afterward.

Do I think I have the right to judge whether a child will have a good life or not? Absolutely not. But if a mother believes she cannot give her child the life it deserves, I believe abortion is a completely moral choice.

Interestingly, Frank McCourt's brother Malachy (an actor and writer) is running for Governor of NY on the Green Party ticket. He's pro-choice. Perhaps his childhood contributed to how he feels about that issue, perhaps not. But it certainly hasn't changed his mind and it won't change mine.

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over