|
Published: October 28, 2008
“If the election were held today”
Polls vary dramatically on how voters feel about Proposition 4
Two polls released within 24 hours of each other last week show a huge difference in voter support for Proposition 4, the family notification before a minor’s abortion initiative. While both polls show the measure ahead, one puts the lead at 19 percentage points, the other at only 2 percentage points.
The first poll, commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, was conducted by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion between Sept. 28 and October 5 and released on Oct. 22. “The initiative holds a 19 percentage point lead among likely voters, 52% to 33%,” said a Knights of Columbus press release.
“The survey shows that Proposition 4 has majority support among women (55% to 31%), Latinos (61% to 27%), those who are married (59% to 25%) and those age 45 or older (55% to 28%),” the release noted. “The initiative also leads among men (49% to 34%). Those opposed include likely voters 18 to 29 years old (52% to 41%). The poll also shows that Proposition 4 leads by double digits in every region of California except the Bay Area, where a plurality of 48% is opposed.”
Pollsters for the Marist Institute interviewed 1,008 registered voters by telephone, of whom 772 were categorized as “likely voters.” Participants were asked: “There will be a number of propositions on the ballot this November. Proposition 4 is the ‘Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy’ Initiative. It would prohibit abortions for minors under the age of 18 until 48 hours after a physician notifies the minor’s parent, legal guardian, or adult family member. It provides for exceptions in a medical emergency. If the election were being held today, would you vote Yes or No on Proposition 4?”
The following morning, the Public Policy Institute of California released a poll of 2,004 “adult residents” (1,186 likely voters) it conducted between Oct. 12 and Oct. 19. The PPIC poll painted a starkly different picture of voter sentiment on Proposition 4 – 46% in favor, 44% opposed and 10% “don’t know.”
PPIC pollsters phrased the question this way: “Proposition 4 is called the ‘Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy Initiative Constitutional Amendment.’ It changes the California Constitution, prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian, or in limited cases, substitute adult relative. It provides an exception for medical emergency or parental waiver. Fiscal impact is potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 4?”
Noted PPIC researchers: “Support has continued to fall short of a majority (47% August; 48% September; 46% today) and the margin of support has declined slightly since last month... Proposition 4 divides Democrats (54% no) and Republicans (61% yes) along party lines, while independents are more opposed than in favor (43% yes, 51% no). Similarly, a majority of likely voters who consider themselves to be politically liberal are opposed (62%), while self-described conservatives are in favor (63%), and moderates are divided (48% yes, 42% no). Since last month, support has declined slightly among parents (51% to 46% today), Latinos (54% to 50%), and whites (48% to 44%). Across regions, likely voters in the San Francisco Bay Area are opposed (56%), while about half in Los Angeles (52%), the Central Valley (52%), and the Other Southern California region (51%) are in favor.”
The PPIC reported that the margin of error “for the total sample” was plus or minus 2%, and for the “likely voters” sample, plus or minus 3%. The Marist Institute put its margin of error at plus or minus 3.1%.
Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:28 AM By Fr. M.P.
Notice the wording of the question to put it in a bad light. What is the definition of a likely voter? A common liberal trick. What is the political bias of the PPIC, and who controls their strings? One must always consider the source today.
|
Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 7:09 AM By Margie
Last weekend, a friend and I took our Spanish Prop 4 leaflets to distribute after a local Catholic mass held in Spanish. These are church-going Catholics and it was news to them. Once it was explained, they were totally in support of Proposition 4 and will be voting yes.
Please, if you get the chance to reach the Spanish community by attending a Spanish mass or finding some Spanish folk, bring the issue of prop 4 to their attention. We need their support and someone is not telling them about Prop 4. Deo Gracias.
|
Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 8:59 AM By Patrick Clark
It is great, after so many years, to see the Knights of Columbus in the forefront of efforts to support Catholic doctrine.
|
Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:24 PM By Elizabeth
And the NO ON PROP 4 people are totally lying..........
The most recent commercial on T.V. is totally bogus!!!!!!!
The devil is a great liar......
|
Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:33 PM By Wynette Sills
It saddens me that all of the Church's energy has focused on supporting Prop 8, while comparatively so very little has gone towards the passage of Prop 4, which is a matter of life and death for thousands of unborn children. While Prop 8 is important, if a human being is not allowed to be born, the parameters of his/her eventual marriage is of moot consequence. The obviously unequal support for these two critical propositions is inexplicable. Please do all you can to encourage a "YES on 4" vote!
|
Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:37 PM By Margie
I am with you on this, Wynette. It does seem the churches are all for Prop 8 and not a word is heard about Prop 4. Prop 4 has already been passed in the majority of states(or something very similar.)
What saddens me is that the very teacher's union that I belong to is against Prop 4 and Prop 8. Have they gone totally mad?
|
Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:09 PM By Laurette Elsberry
Margie and Wynette can see what has happened: There is little publicity about Prop 4 because most of the money is going to Prop 8 and many, many Catholics and others are not aware of Prop 4. I would urge everyone to look at www.YESon4.net to find out what this proposition is all about. Also, there are some great YouTube videos available. Search for "Proposition 4 and the African American Community", and the videos under "FriendsofSarah", a YouTube channel.
|
Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:59 PM By Maria C
More good news, my teenage daughter has been promoting Yes on 4 at her school and educating the kids about it. Hopefully they will talk to their parents and get the word out. Yes on 4, very important for our daughters! God bless us all during this election. We place our trust in our Lord!
|
Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:53 PM By JLS
Wynette Sills, here is the explanation, as I see it: Prop 4 has supporters from both liberal and conservative camps. Also, it is not a root solution to abortion. On the other hand, if Prot 8 is defeated, the persecution will begin ... These two props, 4 & 8, vary in political gravity. Both are necessary, but strategically, 8 decides whether fatherhood should be outlawed or promoted. If 4 is defeated, it is a political wound to fatherhood, but if 8 loses, then it is political death for fatherhood. Whereas Prop 4 has to do with murder; Prop 8 has to do with the first three Commandments, a more serious sin than murder. Although both issues, abortion and fatherhood, are root issues, as the Church teaches the intrinsic immorality of both the sin against the Holy Spirit (the direct attack on God's primacy) and abortion, one of these is not forgiveable, and the other is. It would be nice for one of the bishops, or the Pope, to clarify this question that you've posed.
|
Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:06 PM By lionel
Prop 8 and Prop 4 illustrate that we are at war with secular progressives. If Catholics were able to organize just a fraction of our numbers, as the Mormons have on
Prop 8, then Prop 8 and Prop 4 would have double-digit leads. When will Catholics wake up and fight for our
rights? Example: all over LA Catholic schools are being rented out as charter schools. Charter schools are basically parochial schools without God, invented for the very purpose of avoiding vouchers. If Catholics demanded vouchers we could keep our schools open.
|
Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:46 PM By Sadie
Am I the only Catholic who lives in a liberal area and who is NOT afraid of a separation of church and state? What has happened to you?
|
Posted Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:18 AM By Sonja
Sadie, these people are lost. "Hate The Sin, Love The Sinner" is what they keep saying. But they seem to HATE everybody who does not march in step to their robotic beat. The most horrific thing is they claim to speak for Our Lord. This would be funny if it weren't so serious.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:17 PM By Anne
Sadie and Sonja, I don't get it. What is so deplorable to you about wanting a parent or safe adult in a child's life to know that the child is undergoing a serious life choice and a serious medical procedure? How does that equal "hate" to you, and what does it have to do with judging? And if you really know the Lord Jesus, do you really believe that He considers the child's parent her enemy, but the State and the abortionist her friend? God is love, and so are we who live in Him. There is no hate involved...I love that girl whose body, emotions and soul deserve the counsel and care of someone who knows and loves her. The father of the child within her, and the clinician, have their own vested interests and cannot be that person. And note: this is not a law of parental CONSENT, but only of parental NOTIFICATION. This is as common sense as a common sense law gets.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:58 PM By Kevin
Sonja, Ironically your hate is making you see hate where it just isn't there. I suspect it is because everyone doesn't march in step to your robotic beat.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 29, 2008 7:24 PM By JLS
Anybody thought of taking a poll of children as to whether they'd prefer homosexuals or actual parents? I'd put such poll results at about 98% in favor of actual parents, and against contrived phoney as a three dollar bill parents.
|
Posted Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:16 AM By Dai Yoshida
Sadie: Separation of Church and State means there will be no official religion thus preventing the civil authority from usurping the Church authority, not the other way around. You need to study history. Our founding fathers were former English subjects. Google "Act of Supremacy"
|
Posted Thursday, October 30, 2008 3:39 PM By Kay
The Constitution places religion almost wholly outside the reach of government. The Constitution delegates no power to government over religious affairs, and that the First Amendment explicitly prohibits the government from establishing or controlling religion. The effect of this arrangement is to leave Americans free to worship, believe, and support religion as they see fit. Additionally, separation deprives government of its ability to coerce adherence to religion, or to compel the support of religion against an individual's will.
|
Posted Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:15 PM By JLS
The Constitution's Establishment clause originally had to do only with national government, not state governments, many of which had official state religions.
|
Posted Thursday, October 30, 2008 11:15 PM By JLS
When the U.S. Constitution was ratified, 9 of the 13 states/colonies had state Churches. Only Penn, Rhode Island, and two others did not. The last state church disestablished in Massachusetts in 1834.
|
Posted Friday, October 31, 2008 5:55 AM By JLS
Kay, do you really believe that God sees all religions are equal competitors in the marketplace of freedom?
|
Posted Friday, October 31, 2008 1:57 PM By Kay
Thomas Jefferson: We have solved by fair experiment the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries (Letter to the Virginia Baptists, 1808).
|
Posted Friday, October 31, 2008 3:49 PM By kay
"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
|
Posted Friday, October 31, 2008 7:33 PM By JLS
kay, I prefer what Jesus teaches over what Jefferson spouted. "Go into all the world proclaiming the Gospel and discipling the nations". I would say that the One Who created all things has the right to dig into and correct the opinions of others. Thus, His institution, the Catholic Church, has not only that right but that obligation ... and, She has the power to do so. kay, your reliance on man's opinion that we all have a right to privacy bodes ill, especially for the 40million aborted babies in this nation. May you see the light of Christ rather than that of the Enlightenment.
|
Posted Saturday, November 01, 2008 12:42 PM By Dr. Morrow
For over a year I have been trying to get a recant on the"No" endorsements to Props 73 & 85 by the leaders of my United Teachers, Los Angeles Union. Years earlier, because of (leadership directed) pro abortion positions taken, a referendum vote by the general membership resulted in a 7011 to 2145 policy decision that the Union would remain strictly neutral with respect to abortion. Recent letters to the (UTLA President) Newspaper Editor were not acknowledged, and other communication seemed useless. Moreover, after the leadership recently endorsed a "No" vote on 4, the President said this wasn't about abortion but about privacy and notification, and the membership has changed since the referendum vote. Therefore, I've asked him both privately then publickly to put his justification in print and/or apologize to the general membership. He said he would consider it for the next issue.
|
Posted Saturday, November 01, 2008 4:08 PM By Victoria G.
OH, JLS, Kay quoted Thomas Jefferson because he is one of the founders of our Democracy. When people compliment you on some of the things you write, you don't say, "Pay no attention to what I write. Only read the words of Jesus Christ".
|
Posted Saturday, November 01, 2008 9:59 PM By JLS
Victoria G., yes some of the Signers were instituting democracy, but others were instituting a republic. On your second comment, it suggests that you really do not comprehend the unity with God which marks the Christian. What I write and what Jesus says often have a unity. Recall, hopefully, that the Apostle John said that much than the compilation to date in his time would be noted. How do you imagine that such a thing would come about? Do you see Christians as distinct from Christ, or unified with Him? If unified, then how do you determine what I or any other Christian says is of Christ or not? In other words, I'm wondering why you continue to polarize people from God.
|
Posted Saturday, November 01, 2008 10:04 PM By JLS
Dr. Morrow, how about retaining a law group to go after the apology you requested? The situation you describe sounds like a good one. Hope you can whittle down the Godless liberals a bit. Since they build their thrones on sand, it's not that hard to push them over.
|
Posted Sunday, November 02, 2008 1:29 AM By Kay
"An equal application of law to every condition of man is
fundamental." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807.
|
Posted Sunday, November 02, 2008 5:58 AM By JLS
Victoria G., I misunderstood your post and replied in my typically biting manner. My apologies!!! Now that I understand it, I still have a comment. Issue can be taken with Founding Fathers, since much of their work opposes the Church. This Deism schtueck in kay's quote of Jefferson is one of these ... Deism's nature is to relegate God to His "farm" up in Heaven, and dissociate from Him. The offshoot of this is demonstrated by figures such as Henry Thoreau and the "environmental" movement exemplified today by the dishonesty of algore. That's what "minding one's own business" leads to, fantasy. The Great Commission is what the Church is about, not isolating Herself from the world ... which would lead only to fantasy and such nincompoops as ted kennedy, john kerry, nancy pelosi, barney frank, joe biden, arnold schwartzeneger, and that ilk of imposters: from whence is derived the new messiah barack obama and his farakan express.
|
Posted Sunday, November 02, 2008 1:15 PM By Kay
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
|
Posted Sunday, November 02, 2008 4:12 PM By Kay
JLS, you forgot to put President JFK on your nincompoops list. JFK: For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been -- and may someday be again -- a Jew, or a Quaker, or a Unitarian, or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril. Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice, where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind, and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
|
Posted Sunday, November 02, 2008 4:51 PM By Mark from PA
I remember how the dear 80 year old nun that taught me 5th Grade loved JFK. I remember praying for him in school. It meant so much to have one of our own for President. We all loved him and were devestated when he was killed. Politicians are not saints but I think most of them do have a love for our country. I may not agree completely with any of them but do give them my respect.
|
Posted Sunday, November 02, 2008 7:38 PM By RR
Mark from PA: How can you respect any politician who is in favor of abortion? How do you think they love their country when they are allowing the killing of the most innocent people in the world; the unborn. These innocents, in their mother's womb, which should be the safest place in the world, being allowed to be ruthlessly killed and dying horrible deaths. Yeah, let's give them respect. NOT!!!!!!!!
|
Posted Monday, November 03, 2008 1:02 PM By Kay
The Berry Goldwater quote - (The Godfather of Conservatism):
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
.....
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.... I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?... I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
- Barry Goldwater, (1909–1998), five-term US Senator, Republican Party nominee for President in 1964*, Maj. Gen., US Air Force Reserves, author of The Conscience of a Conservative.
|
Posted Monday, November 03, 2008 1:59 PM By JLS
Barry Goldwater did not invent conservatism, which went its way several centuries ago in this nation.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|