November 11, 2010

Please send me your comments!

By Dave Andrusko

Good evening, and thanks to all our readers for taking time to read Today's News & Views and pass it along. Part One summarizes a brilliant analysis of the election outcome for pro-lifers. Part Three provides more information about the impending move of abortionist Leroy Carhart. Over at National Right to Life News Today (www.nationalrighttolifenews.org), there's lots. We begin by talking more about President Bush's new book. Good news: Donald Berwick--dubbed by NRLC as Obama's "Rationing Czar--will testify next week before the Senate Finance Committee. Wesley Smith deconstructs a pro-rationing editorial. We also remind you about the upcoming NRLC Strategy Conference. Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha.

Seven of the thirteen HOUSE Democrats who stood by as pro-abortion President OBAMA signed a phony executive order on abortion were defeated November 2. An eighth SUDDENLY retired and was replaced by a pro-life Republican.

If you are a pro-lifer and want to know what really happens in elections, come to NRLC. Our PAC first does a tremendous job of electing pro-life candidates and our Federal Legislative Department then carefully explains how those changes may play out in the next Congress.

Part One today comes from NRLC's Media Relations Department. It does a superb job of highlighting many of the most important conclusions drawn by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson in an analysis solicited by a blogger for the liberal National Catholic Reporter.

If EVER there was an example of "be careful what you ask for," this would be it.

The blogger has little patience for single-issue pro-life organizations--NRLC being the most prominent--and if an Internet post could somehow convey the sounds of teeth-grinding, we've had heard it.

Johnson lays the foundation for his analysis of the 2010 election by debunking many of the myths that surround Obama and ObamaCare and by carefully outlining the behavior of "pro-life Democrats" who voted for ObamaCare, many of whom lost their seats a week ago Tuesday (see http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/q-election-analysis-douglas-johnson-national-right-life-committee).

You can summarize the results in a variety of ways. First, in the House, the number of "pro-life Democrats" who eventually folded on ObamaCare and were defeated (at least a dozen). Second, Democrats who never--or virtually never-- voted pro-life who were replaced by strong pro-life Republicans (upwards of 40). Net shift, depending on the issue ("40 to 55 votes," according to Johnson).

How about the Senate? Again depending on the issue, the net shift is between four and seven. And it is very important to remember that "No senator is being replaced by a successor who has a weaker position on abortion."

As I have written repeatedly since November 2, there is a fierce battle ongoing to measure the impact of ObamaCare on the slew of Democrats who were unceremoniously ejected, some of whom had been in Congress for multiple decades. Pro-abortion Democrats have a huge vested interest in persuading the media, the general public, and themselves that they paid no price for voting for ObamaCare. But they did, in a major way.

NRLC asked the Polling Company to inquire of voters, "Did the issue of funding for abortion in the Obama health care law affect the way you voted in today's election?" Even before you hear the breakdown, you know ObamaCare played a key role because 31% said yes, it had.

In theory, it could have been a boon for supporters of the law. It wasn't. Of this 31% of electorate, only 4% said they voted for candidates who favored that law. A whopping 27% said they voted for candidates who opposed the health care law.

Take a few minutes and go to http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/q-election-analysis-douglas-johnson-national-right-life-committee. There you can read Johnson's full analysis, including "The take-home lesson, for lawmakers in both parties," which "could hardly be clearer: If you vote against the pro-life position --as defined by the mainstream pro-life groups -- on a major abortion-related public policy issue, you will be held accountable by a substantial bloc of the electorate."

Part Three
Part One