Un nouveau sondage national mené par Harris Interactive à la demande de la Conférence épiscopale américaine (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops – USCCB) du 10 au 12
décembre dernier et rendu public le 30 de ce même mois, confirme les résultats du sondage commandité par les Knights of Columbus, réalisé du 24 septembre au 3 octobre dernier, et dont il a
été parlé ici.
Une écrasante majorité d’Américains est hostile à l’avortement à la demande.
Ce sondage réalisé auprès de 2 341 adultes a donné des réponses dignes d’être remarquées selon Deirdre McQuade du secrétariat des activités pro-vie de l’USCCB. En voici les
résultats principaux :
– 95 % des sondés sont favorables aux lois garantissant que les avortements soient pratiqués par des médecins diplômés ;
– 88 % sont favorables aux lois exigeant un « consentement informé », c’est-à-dire exigeant de ceux qui pratiquent l’avortement d’informer les femmes des risques potentiels physiques ou
psychologiques et des alternatives à l’avortement ;
– 76 % sont favorables aux lois garantissant aux médecins et aux infirmières la clause de conscience, c’est-à-dire les protégeant de l’obligation de procéder à un avortement ou de le conseiller
si leur conscience le leur interdit ;
– 73 % sont favorables aux lois exigeant le consentement parental dans le cas d’avortements demandés par des mineures ;
– 68 % sont défavorables aux lois autorisant l’avortement par naissance partielle (c’est-à-dire le meurtre d’un enfant vivant en train d’être accouché par la mère) ;
– 63 % sont favorables aux lois interdisant l’utilisation de fonds publics pour l’avortement ;
– 38 % ne sont favorables à l’avortement qu’en cas de viol, d’inceste ou de danger pour la vie de la mère ;
– 11 % des sondés sont hostiles à tout avortement, même en cas de viol, d’inceste ou de danger pour la vie de la mère.
Il y aurait beaucoup de commentaires à faire sur ces résultats, mais la synthèse qu’on peut en avancer c’est qu’il n’y a moins d’un américain sur dix à être favorable à l’avortement à la demande
et à n’importe quel stade de la gestation – c’est-à-dire à ce que dispose l’arrêt Roe vs. Wade –, un résultat parfaitement cohérent avec celui du sondage des Knights of Columbus :
0,8 sur dix.
Concernant le financement par des fons public, la question dépasse l’objet, libéralisme oblige.
2 341 sondés, ce n’est pas représentatif, méfiance…
Bien à vous
Hum, c’est plutôt bien comme échantillons. La majorité des sondages qui sortent dans les grands journaux sont faits avec moins que ça… L’autre question est bien celle de la méthode d’échantillonage.
C’est deja bon signe!
68 % d’opinions favorables à l’avortement par naissance partielle, qui est particulièrement atroce, semble en contradiction avec le reste du sondage, plus modéré ? N’y aurait-il pas une erreur dans la rédaction de la phrase ?
She wants to keep birth down, right? She’s for worldwide contraception. Snerdley, listen to this, now. The rest of you, look at me. She wants worldwide contraception — by the way, this guy, Obama, is racing to the left with these executive orders, just as we knew he would, this guy is sprinting to the left. He signed two or three more this morning in the East Room. We’re going to get to all this as the program unfolds before your eyes and ears today. But if she wants fewer births, I have the way to do this, and it won’t require any contraception. You simply put pictures of Nancy Pelosi — for example, the picture that Drudge has of Pelosi right now on his website, put pictures of Pelosi in every cheap motel room in America today, that will keep birth rates down because that picture will keep a lot of things down, if you get my drift, Dawn.
RUSH: All right, let’s do audio sound bites 11 and 12. Nancy Pelosi: Contraception is Stimulus. Funds for family planning, which is abortion all over the world, this is an executive order of Obama’s that he is reversing from the Bush administration. We refused to fund all these abortion groups worldwide. Obama is now doing it in his mad dash to get as far to the left as quickly as possible with executive orders. Stephanopoulos said to her yesterday, “We also heard from Congressman Boehner coming out of the meeting today that, again, a lot of that spending doesn’t even meet the same test that you just talked about right now, hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?”
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduced costs, it reduced costs. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crisis now, and — and part of it, what we do for children’s health, education, and some of those elements that are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those — one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, is — will reduce cost to the state, and to the federal government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies, no. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.
RUSH: Do you understand what you just heard here? Contraception does what? Contraception produces fewer human beings. Nancy Pelosi is suggesting that fewer human beings is an economic stimulus. Now, this is different than saying what Paul Ehrlich said, that we’ve got a population problem. He was dead wrong about it, by the way, but all the left-wing environmentalist wackos are suggesting that we’ve got an overpopulation problem, too many people that can’t be fed. That’s not the problem. The problem is the unequal distribution of capitalism around the world. It is a majority distribution of communism and socialism that starves people in more ways than just food. But this is even more sinister, ’cause it’s related to the stimulus plan.
RUSH: Nancy Pelosi says “family planning” is now economic stimulus. “Family planning” equals abortion, folks. Abortion is economic stimulus. Abortion reduces costs to the states, which are in terrible budget crises now. We will have fewer children to worry about their health, their education. We just have more abortion, and this reinstitution of worldwide funding of abortion groups that Obama has made is being promoted and sold by Nancy Pelosi as good for the economic stimulus bill. Now many of us tried to point out the extreme abortion views of Barack Obama during the campaign. And, of course, we cited the facts of his support for an extreme piece of legislation in Illinois — and the federal legislation, by the way — which would not save the life of a baby that survived an abortion.
Because the original intent of the mother was to abort the baby, we wouldn’t embarrass the doctor. So no resuscitation for babies which survived abortion, and Obama voted for it purposely twice. They tried to cover for him on it. Now Nancy Pelosi is suggesting that abortion can help our nation’s economic recovery. Not by creating jobs, but by creating fewer people that the government has to pay benefits to! The strange thing about this is that it really makes no sense from the Democrat perspective. We have too many unsold cars on the lots. We have too many unsold houses on the market. We have aborted a million potential customers for these houses and cars per year since 1973. The average number is 1.2 million abortions a year. Most of those are Democrats that are having these abortions.
What we need right now is customers. What the Democrat
s would love more than anything right now is more voters. Nancy Pelosi has just said that human beings harm the economy. Human beings harm the environment. This is more than just liberal ignorance, folks. We need to abort and “contracept,” in Nancy’s view, because too many of the poor are totally dependent on the state and federal governments? Isn’t she admitting in the process…? Yeah, you say, why not expand the programs then? “We’re outta money! We’re running a trillion dollar deficit.” She’s admitting we cannot expand any more federal programs. We don’t have the money. We need fewer people. This is astounding, folks! It’s astounding. This is outrageous. I do not mean to overdo this. Here’s the second sound bite, if you need to hear it. Stephanopoulos, he didn’t get it. He said, “There were no Republican votes in the Appropriations Committee, no Republican votes in the Ways and Means Committee. Is the bipartisan effort that President Obama has called for, is it there?”
PELOSI: Well, the — because the Republicans didn’t vote for it doesn’t mean they didn’t have an opportunity to. President-elect Obama at that time on January 5th had our first bipartisan meeting — House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans — and some ideas that were put on the table by the Republicans at that time were contained in the mark — the bill that we wrote. And now, uh, this morning, they had some more suggestions, which we will review, and see if they create jobs, ah, uh, er, ah — and turn the economy around, and do so in a cost-effective way.
RUSH: I’ll tell you, this woman is… I just… I can’t… There’s just no brain there. There just is not a brain there, and here again, you hear how she defines bipartisan. Well, the Republicans were in the meeting. Republicans were in the meeting, and if they have any ideas, we’ll… They’re not going to listen to any Republican ideas! Bipartisanship is when Republicans cave to Democrat ideas. I have proposed, mere moments ago, the only genuine bipartisan proposal, stimulus proposal that would solve this recession. I alone. It’s very simple. You take a look the trillion dollars, which is what Obama wants to spend. What is bipartisanship? Well, 54% of the American people voted for him. So he gets 54% of the trillion to spend his way on infrastructure, abortion, whatever he wants to spend it on. Forty-six percent voted against Obama. So, those 46% get $460 billion of the one trillion in tax cuts.
Now, we can break down what kind of tax cuts later, but primarily capital gains and corporate, maybe some real estate tax cuts. The point is, we have a side by side way of measuring which plan actually revives the economy the sooner — and we know which plan that would be. You could do tax cuts with a stroke of the pen. These guys still can’t figure out how to spend the money they want to spend because it’s a porkulus bill, but I don’t want to get off track about that now. Her definition of bipartisan is Republicans in the meeting. My definition of bipartisan is, “Okay, we got 46% of the vote. That means 46% of the people disagree with what the president wants to do. He’s president of all the people. Let us have $460 billion of the stimulus to do it our way. You do it your way. We’ll do it at the same time. Bipartisan!” He gets the majority, and he gets his name on the bill. He’s the president.
well its soo good to see this information in your post, i was looking the same but there was not any proper resource, thanx now i have the thing which i was looking for my research.