Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Challenges to Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
Results and the Pro-Life “Increment”
Although the overall election results November 7 were very disappointing, polling clearly demonstrates that many pro-life candidates who otherwise would have been defeated prevailed because of their position on the abortion issue. As has been the case in election after election since 1973, election eve and post-election polling showed that the majority of those who voted on the basis of abortion voted for pro-life candidates. This difference between those who vote for pro-life candidate because of the abortion issue and those who for pro-abortion candidates is known as the pro-life “increment.”
Unfortunately, this pro-life increment was not enough to save other pro-life Republicans who were swept away by the larger anti-Republican tide.
National Right to Life PAC was active and highly visible. As a testimony to the hard work and reach of NRL PAC, a nationwide poll of 800 voters taken by The Polling Company found that fully 22% of voters said that they recalled hearing advertising or receiving information from National Right to Life PAC.
The Polling Company also 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. This yielded a significant advantage for pro-life candidates in contest after contest.
the Gift of Life
Charitable giving is always first about making a difference. For example, when you give to National Right to Life, you’re making a difference by saving lives.
But there are other benefits to charitable giving. Being part of a great movement, feeling positive about helping others live—these are wonderful benefits you get when you contribute.
But there’s another
benefit—financial. That’s right, the tax code has been shaped to encourage
charitable giving. The value of some of the donations you give can be subtracted
from your gross income at tax time, so you pay taxes on a lower net income.
In other words, a charitable gift can help decrease the taxes you pay.
The National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund has a special purpose. Its role is to educate citizens about the life issues. Because it only does educational work, donations to the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund are fully deductible for federal income tax purposes.
While our need for financial support is usually greater in the non-deductible National Right to Life Committee fund (non-deductible because the Committee lobbies to change the law), we recognize that toward the end of the year, many of our members are interested in making a charitable contribution to the NRL Educational Trust Fund, so they can benefit from tax-deductibility.
Be a part of the National Right to Life E-mail List. We are sending out up-to-the-minute alerts that deal with pro-life legislation, breaking pro-life news, and much, much more.
This will not be a daily abortion update, but rather a way to bring crucial, time-sensitive material to our grassroots supporters.
So, don't delay and sign up today!!
The address again is
Vol. 33, No. 11
From the President
It is the days after the election. The Senate and the House of Representatives are under the control of pro-abortion Democrats. And the Democratic Speaker of the House declares confidently on TV that the passage of the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) in the next congressional term is “a done deal.” Worse, the president promises to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act…” But wait, that was the election of 1992.
After the 1992 election, pro-lifers faced the pro-abortion leadership’s trifecta: Bill Clinton, the nation’s first openly pro-abortion president; George Mitchell, the pro-abortion Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate; and Tom Foley, the pro-abortion Democratic Speaker of the House, who so confidently predicted the passage of the infernal FOCA bill.
The “Freedom of Choice Act” would have made unlimited abortion on demand a federal right—properly enacted by Congress and signed by the president. Charges that a phony “right” had been extra-constitutionally imposed by the Supreme Court’s “legislating from the bench” in 1973 would have been moot. With the FOCA passed, it would have been all nice and legal, because “the people” would have spoken through their senators and representatives. And that would have been that. Except, it wasn‘t.
The FOCA never passed. And in 1994, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell abandoned his senatorial career, and Speaker Tom Foley lost his bid for re-election—“the first time a House speaker had been defeated in his home district since … 1862” (The Almanac of American Politics - 2004).
NRL News Archive