Reprinted from the RH Reality Check - Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on May 18, 2007 - 8:45am
RH Reality Check has been watching with interest as the newly formed National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA):
- recruits and instructs members how to use your tax dollars to promote its narrow mono-theological political agenda;
- assembles a board of directors with questionable ethics;
- hires hit men to prepare a media blitz to acquire more taxpayer dollars for failed ab-only programs.
The latest step in NAEA's fledgling efforts to preserve the Bush billion dollar abstinence-only boondoggle, is a poll conducted by NAEA to test messaging for their upcoming media blitz.
Most people only hear the top-line data from polls, the "support for abstinence programs shifts from 40 to 60 percent"
sort of information that Valerie Huber at NAEA is pushing. Without
critical analysis, that data gets repeated and sometimes people who
know better, believe it, like Skip Brown,
the spokesperson for Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA). He said, "By killing this
[ab-only funding], Democrats are going against the wishes of most
parents." What was a shift in a poll suddenly became the will of the
American parent. Not so fast Skippy.
Today RH Reality Check is going to debunk the recent NAEA poll, in
substance and in form, and help Valerie Huber at NAEA and Rep. Pitts'
staff understand why their statements simply are not true.
Borrowing from the analytic resources available at Public Agenda,
an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit public opinion research
organization founded by public opinion guru Daniel Yankelovich and
former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, we'll take a look at several red
flags this poll has.
Step 1. Who conducted and paid for the poll? In
this case Zogby International, a reputable firm conducted the poll, and
NAEA, an organization with an agenda -- preserving ab-only funding --
paid for it. No harm in having an agenda, the only harm comes when you
try to pass off polls as being something that they are not, which
NAEA's Executive Director Valerie Huber is trying to do.
From Public Agenda's advice to journalists on how to cover polls:
Reporting on a survey by a special interest group is
tricky. For example, an environmental group trumpets a poll saying the
American people support strong measures to protect the environment.
That may be true, but the poll may have been conducted for a group with
definite views. That may have swayed the question wording, the timing
of the poll, the group interviewed, and the order of the questions. You
should examine the poll to be certain that it accurately samples public
opinion -- and does not simply push a single viewpoint.
NAEA's poll is clearly crafted for one purpose, test messaging for
media to persuade people that abstinence-only education works. That is
a hard sell when independent researchers have concluded that ab-only does not work, and other research indicates that students exposed only to ab-only are more likely to contract STDs.
Step 2. What questions were asked?
Again, from Public Agenda:
You must find out the exact wording of the poll
questions. Why? Because the very wording of questions can make major
differences in the results. Perhaps the best test of any poll question
is your reaction to it. On the face of it, does the question seem fair
and unbiased? Does it present a balanced set of choices? Would people
you know be able to answer the question?
The most curious part of the NAEA poll is not what is in it, but what is missing: the word ONLY. Take a look at one question:
5. Abstinence Education permits an age appropriate discussion of
contraceptives within the context of promoting abstinence as the
healthiest choice.
In fact, in the entire 27 question poll, never once does the word ONLY, as in abstinence-ONLY-until-marriage, appear. These programs are defined to teach ONLY abstinence.
This question suggests that NAEA supports discussions of
contraception which is false and misleading. To do that would be to
support comprehensive sexuality education, the very evil they will
spend the rest of poll creating.
NAEA's poll can be dismissed on this alone, because if what NAEA is
talking about is educating teens about abstinence as one part of
sexuality education, we could end this debate right now. The fact that
in their own polling, ab-only advocates realize they cannot accurately
portray what they promote underscores the lies upon which this entire
federal program is built.
Step 3. In what order were the questions asked?
From Public Agenda:
Sometimes the very order of the questions can have an
impact on the results. Often that impact is intentional; sometimes, it
is not. The impact of order can often be subtle. In political polls,
campaign consultants often ask a series of questions about various
issue positions of the candidates--or various things that could be said
about the candidates. After these questions are asked, the horse-race
question is asked, usually for the second time in the poll. This second
horse race question is then examined to see if the questions about
issues and positions swayed any opinions. This may be a good way to
test issues. It is a poor way to test the candidates' true standings in
the public's mind.
This is also true of issues.
With NAEA's poll, again, no one is arguing with message testing, a
perfectly valid reason to do a poll, and frankly, we're happy to see
the results. But to pass that off as "this is what American's think
about abstinence-only education" defies credibility. This is what a few
hundred people think when presented with limited information that NAEA
hopes to replicate in a media-campaign, and then hopes will similarly
drive public opinion. This is not public opinion.
In this poll, NAEA asked some leading questions to test (some might suggest push) messages to see if they work on people.
For example, questions 6-10 cite data suggesting that condoms are
not 100 percent effective, that adults don't always use them, and
raises the specter of STD's before asking:
10. Level of agreement - According to the Centers for
Disease Control, in the US, 15 million people get STDs each year and
one quarter of these people are teens. Given the high number of STDs
among teens, do you (agree/disagree) that it is important for schools
to emphasize abstaining from sex?
A whopping 76 percent agreed, after being read four bits of
information about condom effectiveness and STD's, no surprise there.
But does "emphasize abstaining from sex?" equate to support of
abstinence-only funding? No. Respondents in the poll were not able to
consider that the American Medical Association
suggests comprehensive sexuality education is more likely to delay
sexual activity, prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies and give
students a better sense of self-respect than does ab-only education.
Now check out these question pairings, recalling the effect that ordering questions has:
12. Do you (agree/disagree) that promoting different
forms of sexual activity in sex education classes, such as showering
together and mutual masturbation as alternatives to intercourse
encourages sexual activity among teens?
13. Do you (agree/disagree) that being sexually abstinent is best for your child's health and future?
Not surprisingly after thinking about little Johnny and Jennie
showering together and learning about masturbation, 78 percent of the
parents said abstinence was a good idea. Then there is this one:
15. Do you (agree/disagree) that sex education classes
should let your child know about the potential negative emotional
consequences such as worry, regret, and guilt that can occur as a
result of becoming sexually active?
16. Do you (agree/disagree) that it is important that your child wait to have sex until they are married?
One sure way to get parents to say overwhelmingly that their kids
should wait until marriage to have sex is to first conjure an image of
their own regrets, the miserable guilt-ridden failed relationships
past, and potentially present.
And then after that duo, the killer question:
17. Do you (agree/disagree) that the importance of the wait to have sex message in Comprehensive Sex Education
ends up being lost when some of these programs demonstrate and
encourage the use of condoms and other forms of contraceptives?
Most respondents were probably still lost in the guilt and
depression of their own lives, or trying to walk the cordless phone
through the house to see if little Johnny and Jennie were showering
together to accurately process a complex question. Predictably, NAEA
gets the result they want, more than half the respondents now doubt
proven comprehensive sexuality education programs promoted by public
health experts.
After asking a confusing question they lob the softball over the plate, ready for an emotional response:
18. Do you (agee/disagree) that Sex Education classes in
public schools should place more emphasis on promoting abstinence
rather than on condom and other contraceptive use?
59 percent respondents strongly agreed. But they didn't stop there,
they kept pushing the emotional buttons even harder with questions that
claim that comprehensive sexuality education spends only five percent
of the time discussing abstinence. The questions suggest more time is
spent promoting flavored and colored condoms, "alternative lifestyles",
models of male genitalia, and raising the specter of disease, teen
pregnancy, and more broken lives and hardships.
Alternating with these questions about the alleged evils of comprehensive sexuality education were questions like this:
25. If you knew that typical Abstinence Education
Courses teach teens about increasing their self-worth as a method for
reducing premarital sexual activity, would you be (more likely/less
likely) to support teaching Abstinence Education in place of
Comprehensive Sex Education?
Alternating dark and foreboding questions with fluffy happy images
about a child's self-worth and associating that with abstinence-only
education probably pushed poor mom and dad over the edge. They too were
now likely contemplating how to explain to their spouse that they were
choosing abstinence.
Again, its important to keep in mind, comprehensive sexuality
education has done something ab-only has not, actually delivered
results on delaying sexual activity and teaching self-respect and
responsibility. Those facts were conveniently left out of NAEA's poll
and will not make it into their media-blitz.
By the end of the poll, the beleaguered, guilt-ridden parents were ready to support "abstinence education" (absent the ONLY)
as portrayed in this poll. This gave Valerie Huber the ammunition to
misinform Skippy with the notion that this is really what Americans
think.
Her media team knows better, so they are busy gathering foreboding
music, the grainy black and whites, the chilling deep voiced male
announcer that will drive fear into the hearts of parents everywhere.
They'll also have some soft fluffy ads, with lots of pastels and a
gentle female voice talking about protecting teens, teaching
self-respect, and raising our kids better. Yummy!
If ONLY any of what they preach and attempt to teach were based on reality.
Step 4. What other polls have been done on this topic?
From Public Agenda:
Do they say the same thing? If they are different, why are they different?
The polls listed below are different because they were done by
independent research or media organizations in an attempt to measure
public opinion, not influence it.
- 82 percent support comprehensive sexuality education .... the University of Pennsylvania.
- 15 percent support ab-only ... Kaiser Family Foundation and NPR.
- 58 percent do not believe abstinence programs are effective at preventing HIV; and,
- 65 percent do not believe abstinence programs are effective at preventing unintended pregnancies ... The Harris Poll.
While we appreciate knowing where NAEA and Creative Research
Concepts (makers of the infamous swift-boat ads) are heading with their
expensive, politically motivated misinformation campaign, what this
poll represents is definitively not what American parents think.
Given people's real world understanding of sex, their reality-based
concerns for their children, the dissembling of the Bush Administration
and the mistrust in anything or anyone associated with it, NAEA has a
tough message challenge ahead of them. Reality is simply not on their
side. NAEA could follow this message-testing to the letter and put
millions into media, and not move public opinion one bit.
People are ready for reality and authenticity in their politics, and that simply is not what NAEA's poll is pushing.
If ONLY they told the truth in their poll,
they would know this too. But as the saying goes: Garbage in? Garbage
out. It's time to take this garbage out.
