April 28, 2010

By Dave Andrusko

If there is anything that puts to shame the assurance that swallows will return to Capistrano, it is the appearance of headlines that read something along the lines of "Abortion wanes as issue." And that happens to the headline of an op-ed that ran yesterday in the publication "The Hill," read by Capitol Hill insiders.

Let me explain why it is wrong as a predictor for November 2010 just as it was so many times in the past.

To be specific, the thesis is that "2010 seems likely to mark the end of abortion's prominence as an influential issue in Republican primary elections." Why? Not because there is a lessening of pro-life passion but because the author sees "fewer pro-life voters letting their views on abortion issues influence or control their candidate choices in primaries."

How do we know this? "Polls" are showing changing pro-lifer voting patterns. With data not provided, there is no way to answer--except by history.

The crux of the argument is that other hot-button issues are bumping abortion out of the public's mind (or, put another way, has "sucked all the oxygen out of the room"). Well, there are ALWAYS other powerfully important issues--it's nothing unique to 2010-- whether it is foreign wars, race relations, the economy, health care "reform," or something else.

But this simply hasn't, doesn't, and won't dissuade pro-life voters. That is why the track record of the pro-life "increment"--the advantage a pro-life candidate enjoys because there are more people who vote for a candidate because they are pro-life than people who vote for a candidate because they are pro-abortion--is a perennial bonus.

We have never said abortion is the be-all and end-all of elections. But in close contests, that pro-life increment has consistently carried the day for pro-life candidates.

Two other points (the author talks about a lot of stuff that is either not germane or would take too long to rebut) that he uses to buttress his argument. Pro-lifers are discouraged because we haven't won enough.

Do we want to win early and often? Of course! But only someone not in the Movement could believe that withdrawal from the field is an option for pro-lifers.

We're in the battle, day in and day out.

Moreover, what could not be clearer is that the political terrain is ripe for massive change, including winning back many seats held by pro-lifers prior to 2006 and 2008. And, don't forget, pro-lifers are making serious legislative inroads in the states this year.

His other argument is that pro-lifers will allow other issues to trump abortion because, according to him, some Republicans have not pushed as hard as they could have once elected to office. Therefore, he argues, "the ethical pro-life voter may choose the honest pro-choice candidate, who agrees with the voter on other issues."

If there is one pro-abortion candidate running against another pro-abortion candidate, the "ethical pro-lifer" more likely will vote for neither and help other pro-life candidates. But there is a more relevant challenge, especially presented in primaries, than the false choice poised by the author of the Hill article--voting for an "honest" pro-abortionist over a phony pro-lifer.

Pro-lifers understand that there are no ideal candidates, or very few. Pro-lifers will not throw away their vote by sitting out an election (because the candidate is not ideal), or by voting for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning. Why? Because, as NRLC President Dr. Wanda Franz has often said,

"The point is not to make a 'statement' but a difference--a positive difference."

Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com and read "National Right to Life News Today" (www.nationalrighttolifenews.org).

Part One