FRC Action, the legislative action arm of Family Research Council, has released the results of a commissioned national survey showing that a clear majority of voters would be less likely to support a candidate who proposes a national health care plan that includes universal abortion coverage. The scientific survey by Wilson Research Strategies asked the following question of 801 likely voters: “If a candidate for the Presidency proposed a national health care plan with universal coverage of abortion at taxpayer expense, would you be more or less likely to vote for that candidate?”
A clear majority of voters (56%) signaled that they would be “less likely” to vote for a presidential candidate proposing universal abortion coverage compared to (31%) who would be “more likely” to support such a candidate. Intensity runs strongest among those opposed to the idea, with 45% indicating they would be “much less likely” to vote in favor of a candidate whose plan forced taxpayers to pay for abortion, compared to 19% who would be “much more likely” to endorse such a candidate. Opposition to universal abortion coverage crossed nearly every demographic including sex, race, region, and age.
Some of the poll’s most interesting findings include the following:
- Independent voters of all ages and sex would be less likely to vote for a candidate that proposed a national health care plan with universal coverage of abortion at taxpayer expense.
- Although a majority of Democrats would support a candidate that proposed a national health care plan with universal coverage of abortion at taxpayer expense, the support is soft at best (51%).
- Resistance to abortion coverage is consistent between both sexes and all ages. Women aged 55 or older are the most opposed to such coverage (59% are less likely to vote for a candidate endorsing it), men of all ages follow in opposition (57% less likely to vote for a candidate endorsing it), and the majority of (51%) of women aged 18-54 are less likely to support such a candidates.
- Widespread disapproval of candidates who support taxpayer-funded abortion coverage spans all but one region of the United States —New England.
Files Available for Download [PDF]
Comments (9)
Didn't Mitt Romney's healthcare plan in Massachussets provide for mandated health insurance with a $50 abortion co-pay? I also saw him taking about taking his plan national. What do you know about this?
January 23, 2008 8:16 PM | Comment Permalink
I am totally against my tax money being used to fund abortions {murder} how could anyone in their right mind kill an innocent baby and force people to pay for it with their taxes. Just remember that God is the judge over this whole earth and people may do a lot of things that are bad - rape, murder, the lists goes on and on but in the end they will not get away with it. God will judge the world. God will judge those that kill innocent babies and yes, he will also judge the government that is making people pay for abortions with their tax dollars. It is blood money and unless they stop all this abortion and repent - turn away from all of their sins and give their lives to Jesus Christ they will all go to Hell. It says it in the word of God. Jesus Christ died on the cross 2,000 years ago for all of us. God proved how much he loves us but people still do not listen to God even though he gave his only son for us to live. If anyone that has had an abortion, is an abortion doctor or nurse, or believes that abortion is alright is reading this now, God says that it is not alright to kill an innocent baby in the Bible and if you give your heart and life over to him and turn from your sins he will cleanse you from all unrighteousness. He can be your Lord and Savior now or your judge in the end and that means the Lake of Fire - Hell for you if you don't turn to Christ.
January 24, 2008 1:16 AM | Comment Permalink
What percentage would support a candidate with a national health care plan that doesn't cover abortions V's those that would NOT support a candidate with a national health care plan that doesn't over abortions?
In other words does a clear majority support universal health care plans?
January 24, 2008 9:44 AM | Comment Permalink
When the survey mentiones abortion coverage, does it mean 'taxpayer coverage of all abortions' or 'taxpayer coverage of abortions when to continue pregnency would endanger the health of life of the woman.' This difference would probably result in a completly different outcome for the survey. If the survey was ambiguous, then its results are meaningless.
I find it quite likely the majority would support using tax money to pay for those abortions that are medically required, and oppose using tax money to pay for elective abortions.
January 25, 2008 1:44 PM | Comment Permalink
Most Americans are not as concerned if a Health Care package includes monies for abortion as they are about finding a way to get or retain Health Care coverage.
January 26, 2008 9:40 PM | Comment Permalink
The president should be providing guidelines (guard rails) against greed at the cost of the publics health, not doing healthcare as a govt run business. ERISA is in place to provide this, but needs the right guidelines. Mike Huckabee sees this in the right light.
He needs your help to make it so, please visit and give of what resource you can.
https://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Contribute.Home&r=6364
January 27, 2008 1:26 AM | Comment Permalink
I'm still waiting to find out if there was any conclusion as to majority or lack of majority support for universal health care coverage.
How many of the respondents would not support universal health care coverage even without abortion coverage?
Unless all the respondents support universal health care coverage to start with (even only if sans abortion) then the figures could be skewed.
There could also be respondents that are pro choice but don't think the state should pay towards it. And there could be people who are pro choice but against universal health care coverage.
Polls can be worded to achieve the desired results. I know Tony Perkins is against universal health care coverage, I remember one of his Washington update posts praying it never comes about. I rather suspect that the FRC concurs.
January 28, 2008 11:44 AM | Comment Permalink
I think that it's wrong to use money raised by taxes to be used for such a thing as abortion. It should be used instead for more noble causes then the payment for infancide. We could use the money to improve water quality, dealing with unemployment problems, civic improvements, job creation, making out boarders secure, and much, much more. I'm sure you all out there can think of other things to do with tax money.
January 30, 2008 12:35 PM | Comment Permalink
"Polls can be worded to achieve the desired results."
This would not be the first time I have seen FRC making use of a deliberatly misleading poll. In my experience, they are completly lacking in intellectual honesty.
February 4, 2008 5:08 AM | Comment Permalink