"Given the sample size, I'd have to say the correlation is fairly unreliable ..."
The report on the study that was conducted says fairly precisely what was correlated; and the methodology appears - to a fairly casual first reading - to be at least to good academic publication standards.
Extrapolating the correlations that were reported to "validate" a particular political and/or social bias - ("Honing one's own hatchet with another's stone" as is very easy to do) - is unreliable, and in this case I'd say that there are significant limitations on any generalizing of the conclusions that were given in the report.
There have been complaints about "politicising" of research in psychology, but I haven't seen a lot of deliberate unexpected bias in the few reports (similar to this one) that I've seen. Reports from authors and agencies with known deliberate bias must of course be discounted, but only the fanatics read them anyway(?).
Different researchers get seemingly contradictory results; but for the most part they seem to be reporting their findings accurately enough. What appears more likely is that the ones that "suit the opinions" of whoever happens to make the decisions are getting published and distributed more prominently that those who get results supporting contrary opinions.
A similar "filtering" of research appears to be happening in other medical research fields, but perhaps with a bit sharper edge to it. "You don't get continuation of grants and/or other funding if your report doesn't support the sponsor's opinions."