Earlier this week a friend passed along a story that had run in Sunday's Los Angeles Times. I inadvertently put it aside until earlier today. Headlined, "Liberal groups expect post-election results," it drew the hardly unexpected conclusion that pro-abortion organizations want their pound of flesh.

After all, would anyone not expect Planned Parenthood to promote its death agenda, now that leadership of the House and Senate is in the hands of pro-abortionists? According to Peter Wallsten and Janet Hook, Planned Parenthood "pointed to victories by like-minded candidates in conservative states and a rejection by South Dakota voters of an abortion ban."

This was grossly misleading, but nothing compared to PPFA's eye-popping conclusion: The result of this "should be that Democrats view their causes as mainstream, rather than part of a liberal agenda…"

Talk about blowing smoke. South Dakota's new law, passed last March and immediately enjoined, would have banned abortion unless necessary to prevent the death of the mother. State law allows the citizens to repeal legislation at the ballot box. "Referred Law 6"--as the law was called on the ballot--lost last week 56% to 44%.

But a poll published a little over a week before the election by the Argus-Leader offered clear evidence there was a sizeable majority for a ban, provided there was a clear rape and incest provision.

While that October statewide poll found that 52% of voters would vote to reject the law and 42% would vote to retain the law, it also revealed that "56 percent of those who said they would vote against the ban or were undecided said they would vote for the ban if it had a clear exception for rape and incest, while 32 percent said no and 12 percent were undecided," according to the Argus-Leader. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Planned Parenthood.

And, as we have written a number of times since election night, a more even-keeled analysis of the outcome would draw a much different conclusion than that offered by the largest abortion provider in the United States.

First, approximately six of the new Democrats elected to the House campaigned as pro-life. What that means in practice, only time will tell.

But, second, as we discuss at length in the November issue of NRL News, when it came to single issue voters--those who made their choice based on a candidate's position on abortion--the pro-life candidate typically enjoyed a solid advantage. 

In other words, where pro-life candidates did lose, it was not normally because of their position on abortion, but because of the larger forces which gave control of the House and Senate to Democrats. Indeed, without solid pro-life support, a number of additional candidates would have been swept away.

Abortion advocacy hasn't been, isn't, and never will be a "mainstream" position.

If you have any questions or comments, please write Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.