What % of Americans agree with Todd Akin?

[7,052,770]

I have no idea where he "learned" that piece of misinformation, but I've heard evangelicals say it before.  Does anyone know where they're learning it from (creationist textbooks?)

[Person Man]

I would think no more than 20-25%. That's about the proportion of the fundie population...and its balanced between sanes who actually believe this stuff and moderate fundies. This is up there with latex condoms not protecting against venerial disease.

[Free Palestine]

Too many.

[Likely Voter]

Well polls show that the % of Americans that want to outlaw abortion in all instances (including rape) is only about 17%. So the question is, what % of that small group justify their position using this junk science pushed by Huckabee and his like. Maybe half? Leaving it to less than 10% of Americans...hopefully less

[Mr. Morden]

It's a myth that's been around since at least 1980, but its most adamant modern proponent is Dr. John Willkie:

http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/rape-pregnancies-are-rare-461

a guy whose endorsement in the 2008 presidential primaries was trumpeted by Mitt Romney:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071227112415/http:/www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Endorsement_Willke

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Probably about the same amount that believe there is a link between abortions and breast cancer. Not sure what that would be.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well polls show that the % of Americans that want to outlaw abortion in all instances (including rape) is only about 17%. So the question is, what % of that small group justify their position using this junk science pushed by Huckabee and his like. Maybe half? Leaving it to less than 10% of Americans...hopefully less

     10% tends to be the baseline for any insane proposition. You could probably get 10% of American adults to agree that plaid is a primary color.

[afleitch]

It's another example of a disturbing trend amongst evangelical Christians/right wingers of building a 'faux science'; a body of unscientific work and 'evidence' contrary to scientific opinion that at least sounds 'sciencey' and can be regurgitated at will.

[Vosem]

Too many.

This. The legitimate answer, I think polling has shown, is between 15-20%.

[morgieb]

Probably around 20%.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Probably about the same amount that believe there is a link between abortions and breast cancer. Not sure what that would be.

No, there is peer-reviewed medical evidence for a link between abortions and breast cancer.  Having an abortion leads to an increased risk of breast cancer versus giving birth (though maybe not compared to not getting pregnant in the first place).
What Akin was saying was clearly false.  I had heard it before, but recognized it as BS. People who have heard it before and believed it are probably like 3% of the population.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Probably about the same amount that believe there is a link between abortions and breast cancer. Not sure what that would be.

No, there is peer-reviewed medical evidence for a link between abortions and breast cancer.  Having an abortion leads to an increased risk of breast cancer versus giving birth (though maybe not compared to not getting pregnant in the first place).
What Akin was saying was clearly false.  I had heard it before, but recognized it as BS. People who have heard it before and believed it are probably like 3% of the population.

Breast feeding reduces the risk of breast cancer, so maybe that's the explanation right there.

[Beet]

Probably about the same amount that believe there is a link between abortions and breast cancer. Not sure what that would be.

No, there is peer-reviewed medical evidence for a link between abortions and breast cancer.  Having an abortion leads to an increased risk of breast cancer versus giving birth (though maybe not compared to not getting pregnant in the first place).

Not true.

"Pro-life activists have continued to advance a causal abortion–breast cancer link,[5] and in the United States they have sought legal action to present abortion as a cause of breast cancer when counseling women seeking abortion.[12] This political intervention culminated when the George W. Bush Administration altered the National Cancer Institute website to suggest that abortion might cause breast cancer.[13] In response to public concern over this intervention, the NCI convened a 2003 workshop bringing together over 100 experts on the issue. This workshop concluded that while some studies reported a statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion,[14][15][16] the strongest scientific evidence[17] from large prospective cohort studies[18][19] demonstrates that abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,[20] and the positive findings were considered to be due to response bias.[21]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis

Also, even more damning:

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/MoreInformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer

The only difference between the abortion-breast cancer link claim and Akin's claims are that the former has a greater veneer of respectability than the latter, but both are politically motivated distortions without founding.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Easily 30-40%.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Meh, probably no more than 10-15%

[Marokai Backbeat]

As for the percentage of the population, I can't say, but a great many Republican politicians certainly end with an Akin approach to abortion policy regardless of how low that overall public percentage is.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Honestly, I'd never heard it before - and I've grown up in quite a religious extremely pro-life hosuehold.

[Torie]

It's another example of a disturbing trend amongst evangelical Christians/right wingers of building a 'faux science'; a body of unscientific work and 'evidence' contrary to scientific opinion that at least sounds 'sciencey' and can be regurgitated at will.

Sad to say, there is a lot of truth in the above statement.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Probably about the same amount that believe there is a link between abortions and breast cancer. Not sure what that would be.

No, there is peer-reviewed medical evidence for a link between abortions and breast cancer.  Having an abortion leads to an increased risk of breast cancer versus giving birth (though maybe not compared to not getting pregnant in the first place).

Not true.

"Pro-life activists have continued to advance a causal abortion–breast cancer link,[5] and in the United States they have sought legal action to present abortion as a cause of breast cancer when counseling women seeking abortion.[12] This political intervention culminated when the George W. Bush Administration altered the National Cancer Institute website to suggest that abortion might cause breast cancer.[13] In response to public concern over this intervention, the NCI convened a 2003 workshop bringing together over 100 experts on the issue. This workshop concluded that while some studies reported a statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion,[14][15][16] the strongest scientific evidence[17] from large prospective cohort studies[18][19] demonstrates that abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,[20] and the positive findings were considered to be due to response bias.[21]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis

Also, even more damning:

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/MoreInformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer

The only difference between the abortion-breast cancer link claim and Akin's claims are that the former has a greater veneer of respectability than the latter, but both are politically motivated distortions without founding.

Nothing you pointed to contradicted what I said. I mentioned peer-reviewed medical studies that have found evidence of such a link, which are discussed at length in the wikipedia article. If it was truly "without founding" the NCI wouldn't have bothered to look at the issue, and the cancer.org link wouldn't be talking about the difference in case-control and prospective studies to explain why it does not find a causal link "at this time". That giving birth contributes to a decreased risk of breast cancer is well-attested.

[Beet]

Probably about the same amount that believe there is a link between abortions and breast cancer. Not sure what that would be.

No, there is peer-reviewed medical evidence for a link between abortions and breast cancer.  Having an abortion leads to an increased risk of breast cancer versus giving birth (though maybe not compared to not getting pregnant in the first place).

Not true.

"Pro-life activists have continued to advance a causal abortion–breast cancer link,[5] and in the United States they have sought legal action to present abortion as a cause of breast cancer when counseling women seeking abortion.[12] This political intervention culminated when the George W. Bush Administration altered the National Cancer Institute website to suggest that abortion might cause breast cancer.[13] In response to public concern over this intervention, the NCI convened a 2003 workshop bringing together over 100 experts on the issue. This workshop concluded that while some studies reported a statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion,[14][15][16] the strongest scientific evidence[17] from large prospective cohort studies[18][19] demonstrates that abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,[20] and the positive findings were considered to be due to response bias.[21]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis

Also, even more damning:

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/MoreInformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer

The only difference between the abortion-breast cancer link claim and Akin's claims are that the former has a greater veneer of respectability than the latter, but both are politically motivated distortions without founding.

Nothing you pointed to contradicted what I said. I mentioned peer-reviewed medical studies that have found evidence of such a link, which are discussed at length in the wikipedia article. If it was truly "without founding" the NCI wouldn't have bothered to look at the issue, and the cancer.org link wouldn't be talking about the difference in case-control and prospective studies to explain why it does not find a causal link "at this time". That giving birth contributes to a decreased risk of breast cancer is well-attested.

The NCI looked at it and concluded that it was without founding. That was the whole point of them looking at it. There is also no evidence that little green caterpillars live on Venus "at this time", so the statement "little green caterpillars live on Venus" is without founding.

Also, did you know that voting for Todd Akin increases the risk of breast cancer? It does-- versus breastfeeding (but maybe not compared to never living in Missouri the first place).

[Mechaman]

It depends on what you mean.

In regards to women having biological mechanisms to ward of rape, I'd probably guess at most 1.1%.  If you mean no exceptions for rape or incest, probably about 12-15%.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Probably about the same amount that believe there is a link between abortions and breast cancer. Not sure what that would be.

No, there is peer-reviewed medical evidence for a link between abortions and breast cancer.  Having an abortion leads to an increased risk of breast cancer versus giving birth (though maybe not compared to not getting pregnant in the first place).

Not true.

"Pro-life activists have continued to advance a causal abortion–breast cancer link,[5] and in the United States they have sought legal action to present abortion as a cause of breast cancer when counseling women seeking abortion.[12] This political intervention culminated when the George W. Bush Administration altered the National Cancer Institute website to suggest that abortion might cause breast cancer.[13] In response to public concern over this intervention, the NCI convened a 2003 workshop bringing together over 100 experts on the issue. This workshop concluded that while some studies reported a statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion,[14][15][16] the strongest scientific evidence[17] from large prospective cohort studies[18][19] demonstrates that abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,[20] and the positive findings were considered to be due to response bias.[21]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis

Also, even more damning:

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/MoreInformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer

The only difference between the abortion-breast cancer link claim and Akin's claims are that the former has a greater veneer of respectability than the latter, but both are politically motivated distortions without founding.

Nothing you pointed to contradicted what I said. I mentioned peer-reviewed medical studies that have found evidence of such a link, which are discussed at length in the wikipedia article. If it was truly "without founding" the NCI wouldn't have bothered to look at the issue, and the cancer.org link wouldn't be talking about the difference in case-control and prospective studies to explain why it does not find a causal link "at this time". That giving birth contributes to a decreased risk of breast cancer is well-attested.

The NCI looked at it and concluded that it was without founding. That was the whole point of them looking at it. There is also no evidence that little green caterpillars live on Venus "at this time", so the statement "little green caterpillars live on Venus" is without founding.

Also, did you know that voting for Todd Akin increases the risk of breast cancer? It does-- versus breastfeeding (but maybe not compared to never living in Missouri the first place).

The NCI did not say there was no evidence. 

Your attempt at analogies make no sense.

[Beet]

Probably about the same amount that believe there is a link between abortions and breast cancer. Not sure what that would be.

No, there is peer-reviewed medical evidence for a link between abortions and breast cancer.  Having an abortion leads to an increased risk of breast cancer versus giving birth (though maybe not compared to not getting pregnant in the first place).

Not true.

"Pro-life activists have continued to advance a causal abortion–breast cancer link,[5] and in the United States they have sought legal action to present abortion as a cause of breast cancer when counseling women seeking abortion.[12] This political intervention culminated when the George W. Bush Administration altered the National Cancer Institute website to suggest that abortion might cause breast cancer.[13] In response to public concern over this intervention, the NCI convened a 2003 workshop bringing together over 100 experts on the issue. This workshop concluded that while some studies reported a statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion,[14][15][16] the strongest scientific evidence[17] from large prospective cohort studies[18][19] demonstrates that abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,[20] and the positive findings were considered to be due to response bias.[21]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis

Also, even more damning:

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/MoreInformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer

The only difference between the abortion-breast cancer link claim and Akin's claims are that the former has a greater veneer of respectability than the latter, but both are politically motivated distortions without founding.

Nothing you pointed to contradicted what I said. I mentioned peer-reviewed medical studies that have found evidence of such a link, which are discussed at length in the wikipedia article. If it was truly "without founding" the NCI wouldn't have bothered to look at the issue, and the cancer.org link wouldn't be talking about the difference in case-control and prospective studies to explain why it does not find a causal link "at this time". That giving birth contributes to a decreased risk of breast cancer is well-attested.

The NCI looked at it and concluded that it was without founding. That was the whole point of them looking at it. There is also no evidence that little green caterpillars live on Venus "at this time", so the statement "little green caterpillars live on Venus" is without founding.

Also, did you know that voting for Todd Akin increases the risk of breast cancer? It does-- versus breastfeeding (but maybe not compared to never living in Missouri the first place).

The NCI did not say there was no evidence. 

Your attempt at analogies make no sense.

It's an unfounded assertion. What's the problem with that? You're like someone who tries to say, 'there is evidence that the world is flat because when I walk from my front yard to my back yard the land is roughly flat to me.' Hence, there is evidence that the world is flat! And then when someone tries to say, 'the world is actually round', you say 'nothing you said contradicted anything I said. I just said there was evidence!'

It's one of the most inane, weaseling things a person can possibly do. Absolutely emblematic of the ways that the pro-life movement attempts to undermine women ,without seeming to. Anti-choice shops are 'crisis counseling centers', mandatory propaganda or shaming is 'the right to know', how Todd Akin answered a question about women who are raped without, in the end, addressing them. It's a patronizing attitude that is almost worse than the position being advocated, because if pro-lifers really respected women as they claim to, all of this manipulative rhetoric wouldn't keep popping up.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Beet, I don't think it's manipulative to insist that statements about scientific evidence be precise. 

And you should look into sometime what those "anti-choice shops" do to help women through difficult situations.

[LiberalJunkie]

15% do according to CNN