The new SWS poll on the Reproductive Health Bill shows that the “immorality” and “promiscuity” arguments, as well as the abortion-scare tactics being employed by its opponents, have not gain traction at all. I dare say they are even counter-productive.
Some key results:
1. Fifty percent (50%) of those surveyed do not consider the use of condoms, contraceptive pills and even IUDs as “abortion”, with only 33% agreeing with the position of the Church.
2. Only 15% disagree with the basic premise that there should be a law requiring the government to make available contraceptive methods to the public, with a firm 68% in agreement.
3. Only 25% believe that teaching family planning to the youth would lead to promiscuity. Fifty-five percent believe otherwise.
4. A solid 75% agree that family planning should be taught to the youth, with only 15% disagreeing.
Overall, only 8% are opposed to the RH bill, 21% undecided and 71% in favor. (Though it is questionable whether all of those polled have gone through the entire bill, those who argue that once the people read it they’ll reject it apparently are not doing a very good job.)
Which brings me back to my point: the bill’s opponents should raise the level of the debate. The old arguments are either simply not working, or, worse, are working against them.
Read more about the latest SWS survey in Mahar Mangahas’ column here.
5 responses so far ↓
WillyJ // October 20, 2008 at 3:31 am |
Yes sir, indeed counter-productive.
Some key points:
on # 1. 100% should have agreed! The survey lumped together condoms, contraceptive pills, and IUDs “as abortion”. Even staunch anti-RH advocates say that condoms are not abortifacients. A silly question to begin with.
on # 2. Question lacks precision. Should have been “there should be a law requiring the government to make available contraceptive methods to the public ,funded out of taxpayer’s money“.
on # 3. “would lead to promiscuity“. Wait, let me consult my dictionary on that word.
on # 4. “A solid 75% agree that family planning should be taught to the youth, with only 15% disagreeing.” The actual question is “There should be a law that requires the government to teach family planning to the youth.”. But who is actually against family planning? Even religious advocates are for family planning (NFP). 100% should have agreed.
“…are apparently not doing a very good job”. Count SWS in.
Maddog // October 20, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
I did an analysis of the SWS survey questions too. It looks like we found the same flaws, Willy!
The clincher for me was the description of HB5043 in the last two questions. The Bill sounded absolutely harmless! Nothing objectionable in the description at all. Like you said, who is against family planning per se? Who is against providing sufficient information? The description hardly gives a hint of the very controversial aspects of the Bill. Unless one knew better, the description would most likely elicit a positive response.
In case anyone’s interested, here’s the link:
http://mamador.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/the-deceptive-sws-survey/
pablojohn // October 20, 2008 at 6:05 pm |
Surveys are essentially flawed because they assume that each respondent knows more or less the same as the next about the subject of the inquiry. That’s a fat assumption, and we all know that.
But flawed surveys are bound to figure in the debate, especially since almost all opponents of the RH bill, who dwell on “morals” and “religious beliefs” of Filipinos, never tire of pointing out that the Philippines is 90% Catholic. As if that would pass for a valid argument.
During the interpellations, for instance, Rep. Del Mar advanced the “90% Catholic” argument, so Rep. Lagman began citing SWS surveys. When asked for his own surveys, Del Mar couldn’t cite one. The numbers game is never a good argument, and can oftentimes be a trap.
There’s no question that the SWS survey is flawed. The questions are facile and impossibly general.
But then, this, too, seems to be a trap into which some RH bill opponents have fallen. When priests cavalierly promote the link between contraceptives and promiscuity, for instance, doesn’t that invite a similar cavalier question from SWS, just to prove (or disprove) the point?
(By the way, Willy, no dictionaries required. The SWS survey did translate promiscuity into the rich “makipagtalik nang walang pakundangan”)
I personally attended a sermon where a very respected priest made the argument that contraceptive pills constitute abortion. Doesn’t this specious argument precisely invite a ridiculous survey question from SWS?
I point out the SWS survey precisely to point out that this line of argument is apparently not flying. If, as you say, the RH bill “sounded absolutely harmless” in the SWS survey, then perhaps the bill’s opponents are not doing a very good job in presenting it as harmful. If they had done a better job, the respondents would have seen through the harmless description and disagreed with it nevertheless.
Maybe there is a point to Fr. Caroll’s statement: “Although some church officials like to refer to themselves as pastors, in this case the people are not sheep.”
Maybe, in this debate, fire and brimstone are not working. On the question of whether we should pass the RH bill, maybe a simple “What for?” would do the job.
WillyJ // October 25, 2008 at 11:04 pm |
These 14 Ateneo professors are not helping either. Mga KSP yata.
Maddog // December 5, 2008 at 7:17 am |
Here’s something to counter those 14 professors. A position paper against HB 5043 (“Catholic Alumni United for Life”) has been released. It’s purpose is to speak out against HB 5043 and counter the confusion and falsehoods generated by the earlier position paper released by the 14 Ateneo professors in support of HB 5043.
The paper can be found at:
http://www.phnix.net/Position_Paper_Against_HB_5043.pdf