Here is the announcement of the study's birth.
The study titled A Statistical Analysis on the Effectiveness of Abortion Victim Photography in Pro-life Activism was commissioned by the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR). The CCBR developed a survey — administered by the independent company Blue Direct — which targeted the population of geographic areas in which CCBR campaigns had been run using abortion victim photography. With a sample size of more than 1,700 respondents, the survey results are sufficient to gauge public opinion within a five-point margin, the study claims.
Link to PDF for them's as like to look for themselves.
'Nuff said there.
The independent company mentioned in the LieShite quote is Blue Direct.
It's based in Alberta and it pitches itself thus:
As a results oriented company, we’ll work with you while continuously testing and tweaking what we’re doing to ensure you get the best results.I read the "study" (twenty minutes I'll never get back). My eyes were already crossed by the biased language and idiosyncratic categories when I got to page 20 and saw this table.
First, just try to make any sense of that. "Cultural impact" is a thing? Not in any sociology textbook I can find. Also "cultural impact" heading has some numbers, but the footer has some other numbers.
"Pro-life percentage points gained"? Is that like IQ points lost trying to make sense of this scientifically and statistically illiterate word salad?
And the "points gained" is 1.20% and the MOE of the study is acknowledged at 5%?
The take-away: This is why Real Science™ requires peer review.
The conclusion: Come back, Fetal Gore Gang, when you can get this kind of crap published in a real scientific journal.