| Editorial
Abortion
and Presidential Politics
By Mary Hahn Beerworth
 The
Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion throughout
pregnancy in every state was originally touted as the "final word on the
subject." The pundits could not have been more wrong. Instead pro-lifers
have relentlessly pursued accurate information about a candidate’s position
on abortion and today abortion continues to be a significant factor in
political contests from local government to the highest elected official
in the land – the president of the United States.
In election after election
since 1973, the majority of those polled who cast their vote on the basis
of abortion have voted for the pro-life candidate. The difference between
those who vote for pro-life candidates because of the abortion issue, and
those who vote for pro-abortion candidates, is referred to as the pro-life
"increment."
In 2006, a nationwide poll
of 800 voters found that 36% of the voters said abortion affected their
vote. Of those, 23% said they voted for pro-life candidates while only
13% said they voted for pro-abortion candidates. The pro-life "increment"
brought, in some races, as much as a 10% advantage for the pro-life candidate.
In 2006, the National Right
to Life PAC went head-to-head with EMILY’s List in 18 House races. EMILY’s
List is a high profile PAC that works to support only those female Democrat
candidates who support abortion rights (www.emilyslist.org).
The candidates supported by the National Right to Life PAC won 14
of the 18 races - despite the fact that EMILY’s List raised $46 million
for the election - about 10 times more than the National Right to Life
PAC.
EMILY’s List will be getting
an assist in the 2008 election cycle from the National Abortion Rights
Action League (NARAL) and Planned Parenthood. Both radical, pro-abortion
groups plan to separately raise $10 million in order to mount the most
aggressive campaign in history. While their combined efforts will be outwardly
aimed at preserving the so-called "right to abortion" from extinction,
for Planned Parenthood’s abortion-on-demand empire, the next election could
be dire – or at the very least a threat to their "business as usual."
According to an ABC News
report, "abortion-rights groups are planning to spend unprecedented sums
on voter outreach and education in this fall's elections, as they broaden
their electoral targets in an effort to change the make-up of the House
and Senate."
And according to the same
report, conservative groups are watching. "Planned Parenthood is defending
itself against a range of civil and criminal complaints in several states,
and critics charge that the organization is trying to buy influence in
Congress," the ABC News report continued. In fact, Planned Parenthood is
facing over 100 criminal counts against them on allegations of falsifying
documents and other charges in Kansas to say nothing about numerous charges
and allegations in other states. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4528041&page=2)
So, where do the 2008 presidential
candidates stand on abortion?
Hillary Clinton:
Hillary Clinton has earned
a 0% pro-life rating from the National Right to Life Committee and a 100%
rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. Clinton has consistently voted pro-abortion
on every issue including partial-birth abortion, parental notification,
taxpayer funding of abortion and more.
Clinton is a co-sponsor of
the so-called Freedom of Choice Act or FOCA – a piece of federal legislation
that would keep abortion legal throughout pregnancy even if Roe v Wade
should be overturned. The legislation would also nullify all federal
and state limitations on abortion – all parental notification laws, abortion
clinic regulations, the ban on partial birth abortion and more. In addition,
the Freedom of Choice Act would invalidate laws that protect doctors and
nurses who decline to participate in abortions.
Barack Obama:
Barack Obama has a 0% rating
from the National Right to Life Committee and a 100% rating from NARAL
Pro-Choice America. Obama consistently votes pro-abortion on every issue
including partial birth abortion, parental notification, taxpayer funding
of abortion and more.
Like Clinton, Barack Obama
is also a co-sponsor of the so-called Freedom of Choice Act – again FOCA
is a piece of federal legislation that would keep abortion legal throughout
pregnancy even if Roe v Wade should be overturned. The legislation
would also nullify all federal and state limitations on abortion – all
parental notification laws, abortion clinic regulations, conscience protection,
the ban on partial birth abortion and more.
Both candidates in the Democratic
Party take radical positions on abortion, have pro-abortion voting records
and are beholden to pro-abortion special interest groups.
But there is one significant
difference between Obama and Clinton.
When Barack Obama was a member
of the Illinois Senate he spearheaded the defeat of a bill to prevent the
killing of preterm, living breathing babies who have survived an abortion
and who, in some cases, are being thrown into medical waste bins to die.
When the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was passed by the US Congress,
there was no opposition – no opposition by Hillary Clinton and none from
NARAL. Yet in 2001, Obama spoke on the floor of the Illinois Senate against
passage of identical language.
John McCain
John McCain was elected to
the United States Senate in 1986, after serving two terms in the U.S. House,
and The National Right to Life Committee has given McCain an 83% pro-life
rating. (http://www.nrlpac.org/pdf/candidates_08.pdf)
John McCain has a 0% rating
from NARAL.
John McCain on abortion
taken from his official website:
John McCain believes
Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president
he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the
business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be
restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question
to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be
decided by judicial fiat.
However, the reversal of Roe
v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion.
Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be
one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring
her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her
needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous
work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by
strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that
provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue
and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies
of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary
to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted,
"At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change,
we must engage the debate at a human level."
Mary Hahn Beerworth, Executive
Director, Vermont Right to Life
For more information on
pro-life issues and events, visit www.vrlc.net
# # # # #
|
