(Other reports in this issue of NRL News [pp. 1 &10] give you a rundown on the election results. My comments here won't deal with the specifics covered in these reports.)
As in previous elections, voters who considered abortion an overriding issue favored pro-life candidates on November 3. This "pro-life advantage" again made the difference in close races. But here is an important point to consider.
While the polls (at least those looking at the specifics of the issue) continue to show that a majority of Americans rejects abortion on demand-that same majority is not yet translating this position into consistent votes for pro-life candidates. That is why the "pro-life advantage" is most clearly visible in close races, where the candidates-except for the position on abortion-are evenly matched.
If abortion actually became the overriding and motivating issue for the majority of citizens who continue to reject abortion on demand, it would lead to overwhelming pro-life majorities in Congress and most state legislatures.
Our pro-abortion opponents, of course, know that too. Their goal all along has been to prevent the electoral pro-life giant from becoming a dominant force in elections. Their strategy is twofold: detract the electorate from the horrific reality of abortion ("It's the economy, stupid" was the Clintonites' guiding "principle" in 1992) and make pro-life candidates unwelcome in the political arena (if there are no pro-life candidates to vote for, the pro-life majority is a toothless tiger).
Hence the scare stories about Social Security, but nothing about the demographic disaster that abortion on demand is creating for the system. Hence the clamor about health care, but nothing about rationing of care and the threat of involuntary euthanasia. Hence the glorification of "moderate"-that is pro-abortion-Republicans. (With the leadership of the Democratic Party firmly in the hands of pro-abortionists, transforming the Republican Party into a friend of the abortion industry would deny pro-lifers the political leverage they now enjoy.) Hence, also, the persistent demand for campaign finance "reform" that would shut down the independent information channels now serving the pro-life movement and deny us effective participation in the marketplace of ideas.
Actually, aside from capturing the Democratic Party leadership, our pro-abortion opponents have had to fight a rearguard action in recent years. (It was foremost NRLC's hard work and sound tactics that put them on the defensive.) Their credibility has suffered enormous damage in the debate over partial-birth abortions, and support for the extreme pro-abortion position has significantly eroded.
The fact remains, though, that the pro-life majority in the country has not yet been fully galvanized into consistently effective political action. Great progress has been made over the last few years. Increasingly, voters reward competitive pro-life candidates with the winning "pro-life advantage," but the right to life has not yet become the overriding motivating issue for the electoral majority on election day.
The "reality check" for pro-lifers consists in realizing once again how much work we have to do. Our goal is to arrive at the point where the majority of the population who want to end abortion on demand will consistently vote according to their convictions. However we get there, this is certain: It will take a lot of work, prayer, perseverance, and faith in the righteousness of our cause.
My point is not to blame hardworking pro-lifers for the fact that the pro-life majority has not been fully mobilized and that the right to life is not yet firmly secured.
It isn't pro-lifers who initiated the abortion holocaust in the first place. We are not the ones offering killing by "choice" to solve personal or societal problems. We are not the ones redefining killing-be it in the form of abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, or assisted suicide-as a health care "option." We are not the ones promoting abortion on demand throughout the world with your hard-earned money. We are not the ones proposing to muzzle pro-life speech in an election in the name of campaign finance "reform."
No, we did not create these problems-but we must face them. How else can we live with ourselves and sleep at night?
The wrong approach to the problems posed for us by the pro-abortionists is to withhold votes from pro-life candidates in order to send them a "message." Pro-abortionists love such "messages"; they increase their numbers in Congress and elect the Bill Clintons of this world to the presidency.
The point is that we must engage in constructive work so that our efforts bear fruit. Our opponents, of course, will attempt to make as much work as possible for us and frustrate our efforts at every turn. We better be up to the task. Fortunately, we are right and they are wrong-dead wrong.
One problem is that their financial resources vastly exceed ours. As Mr. Kenneth Hausmann of Greater Austin Right to Life recently observed, "They make money on every life they take; we spend money on every life we save."
The good thing is that this is one of those cases where spending money may save not only someone else's life but also your soul. Let's be plain about this: I'm asking you for a "reality check" of a special kind, drawn on your bank account. Send the pro-abortion millionaires a message: They are not going to win. Not when thousands of pro-lifers do what you do: Making your "reality check" a big one and mailing it today.
God bless you!