On the 10/25/2012 Rush Limbaugh Show – Rush stated:
CNN had to pull a story that they had on their website after reader backlash. “Following a firestorm of negative feedback, CNN hastily deleted from its website late Wednesday virtually all mention of a study about the effect hormones have on women’s political preferences. ‘A post previously published in this space regarding a study about how hormones may influence voting choices has been removed,’ a message posted on the website at 8:15 p.m. read. ‘After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN. We thank you for your comments and feedback.’ The study, authored by researchers at the University of Texas at San Antonio, used an ‘Internet survey of 275 women who were not taking hormonal contraception and had regular menstrual cycles’ to mine its data.”
That was the sample group, 275 women not taking hormonal contraception. For those of you in Rio Linda, what that means is they were not taking a pill. Condom didn’t matter. Taking a pill, [sic] regular menstrual cycles, 275. “The results showed that ovulating single women tend to support President Barack Obama because, in the words of lead researcher Kristina Durante, they feel ‘sexier.'” This is the arousal gap. Now, look, Dawn’s in there rolling her eyes. You’re probably getting mad at me. This is a female study conducted by female scientists, conceived by a female. It’s not some man sitting around, “Let’s go get 275 women who are ovulating and having menstrual cycles and they’re not taking a pill, let’s ask them about their political views.” It was a woman doing this.
According to NewsMax:
CNN on Wednesday night deleted its report on the study after reader outrage over the suggestion that women’s votes could be tied to hormones, drawing even more scrutiny to both the study and the network’s decision to write about it.
The study was conducted by Kristina Durante, an assistant professor of marketing at UTSA, whose research centers on how social and physiological factors can influence decision making.
“The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney, by a margin of at least 20 percent,” CNN reported, based on Durante’s study. “This seems to be the driver behind the researchers’ overall observation that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.”
The study included 502 women, asking them questions about their voting preferences. The survey sample focused on women who menstruate regularly who are not taking hormonal contraception. The original study, titled “The Fluctuating Female Vote: Politics, Religion, and the Ovulatory Cycle,” is not linked on the list of Durante’s journal articles.
Research such as Durante’s survey can partially be blamed for women being held back from positions of power over their reaction to hormonal imbalances, said Susan Carroll, professor of women’s and gender studies and political science at Rutgers University.
“There is absolutely no reason to expect that women’s hormones affect how they vote any more than there is a reason to suggest that variations in testosterone levels are responsible for variations in the debate performances of Obama and Romney,” Carroll said.
Although the original post has been removed from the CNN website, and replaced with an apology both for its absence and for the editorial choice to publish it in the first place, the story was picked up by Indiana’s WTHI and other websites across the Internet.