Challenges Ahead

Elections 2000

NOVEMBER 7, 2000 - - DAY OF DESTINY

By Carol Tobias, NRL PAC Director

It seems as if every four years, pro-lifers are told that this election cycle "is the most important election ever." At some point, this might appear to be little more than hype rather than fact. But let me explain why it is no exaggeration to say that less than ten months from now--November 7--is a Day of Destiny for the pro-life movement.

It simply is a truism that had we not been actively, vocally opposing abortion, the country would have become more and more accepting of the horrible "procedure" that claims the lives of at least 1.3 million unborn babies a year. It is frightening to realize that young adults under 30 don't remember a time when unborn children were protected by law. "Choice," the word that hides the reality of abortion, has always been an "option" for them.

Likewise, if NRL PAC and pro-life volunteers were not actively at work in the political process, countless candidates who oppose the indiscriminate taking of innocent unborn human life would never have won. (I will develop this point below.)

But this is true every presidential election. Why is 2000 pivotal?

Simply because not since 1980 has every facet of our political system rested on the outcome of one election.

When we elect a president we also elect a man who, in this instance, will likely have the opportunity to appoint, at a minimum, two new Supreme Court justices, perhaps three, possibly even four. Three of the four justices likely to be replaced have been either outright hostile to the cause of unborn babies or only occasionally helpful.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who supports Roe v. Wade, is 79-years old. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who opposes Roe v. Wade, is 75. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is 69 and pro-Roe Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 66. Will any or all of them be replaced with appointments made by a pro-life president or by a pro-abortion President Al Gore or Bill Bradley?

And all 435 members of the House of Representative are up for election as are 33 members of the Senate. The composition of the House and Senate is so close that the November 7 election will determine whether pro-lifers or pro-abortionists control Congress. Less than ten months from now, will we have the votes needed to pass legislation that will have save unborn children?

Another huge out-of-the-ordinary consideration is that in 2000, we go through another census count. Because the total number of congressmen and senators can not exceed 435, some states will gain congressional seats and some will lose, based on population shifts. On November 7, most of the state legislators who will draw the boundaries for those districts will also be elected.

Beyond abortion, the answer to another pivotal question may be decided by the outcome. We don't know if the Senate will follow the House in passing the Pain Relief Promotion Act, or if President Clinton will sign it. Should the legislation not be enacted this year, will the new Congress pass it in 2001? It is crucial that our elected representatives stand against the use of federally-controlled drugs to assist suicide.

PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS

There are currently nine candidates running for president in the year 2000.

The two Democrats, Vice President Al Gore and former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley, are strongly pro-abortion. There's not a dime's worth of difference between them.

Both Gore and Bradley support Roe v. Wade. Both support using tax dollars to pay for abortion. Gore and Bradley both oppose the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Both oppose requiring that parents be notified before their minor daughter gets an abortion.

Gore and Bradley both supported the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" that would have codified Roe v. Wade and overturned almost every pro-life law passed by the states. Neither of these men will help protect unborn children in any way.

There are six Republicans seeking their party's nomination. They are former Family Research Council President Gary Bauer, Texas Governor George W. Bush, businessman/publisher Steve Forbes, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, former ambassador Alan Keyes, and Arizona Senator John McCain. Except for McCain, all have strong pro-life positions.

Although McCain has a mostly pro-life voting record, he has consistently voted to overturn a policy of pro-life President George Bush which prohibited the use of federal funding for experimentation using tissue harvested from aborted babies.

However, this summer, McCain also told the San Francisco Examiner that he opposed the reversal of Roe v. Wade "in the short term or even the long term." He said essentially the same thing to World magazine.

Also very objectionable to pro-lifers is McCain's sponsorship of campaign finance "reform" legislation that would place severe and unconstitutional restrictions on the ability of grassroots groups such as NRLC to communicate with the public about the voting records and stands on issues, such as abortion, of members of Congress and other candidates for federal office.

The ACLU, not usually a pro-life ally, also opposes McCain's bill. The ACLU argues that his proposals would unconstitutionally restrict citizens' first amendment free speech rights on all issues.

In addition McCain has recently made comments disparaging the dedication and hard work of grass-roots pro-lifers. While campaigning in New Hampshire, for example, he angered pro-lifers with comments that groups involved in the abortion debate have an "interest" in keeping the abortion issue alive because it helps them raise money. He has also advanced the untrue contention that the pro-life cause fosters violence.

REFORM PARTY

The Reform Party, founded by Ross Perot, will also be a player in the elections this time around. Because of Perot's past efforts, the party will receive approximately $13 million in federal tax money to help its candidate. At this time, only pro- life columnist Pat Buchanan is a declared candidate, although pro-abortion New York developer Donald Trump has expressed interest in running for the Reform Party presidential nomination.

While the Reform Party is the strongest third party now, it is currently on the ballot in only 21 states. As part of the nominating process, each candidate has to go through the process of trying to get the party on the ballot in the other 29 states.

Since there are 539 electoral votes, in order to win the presidency, a candidate must win enough states to secure 270 electoral votes. In a recent interview, Michael Medved asked Pat Buchanan if he had "bothered to do the math" to find out which states he needs to win to reach the threshold number of 270.

When Buchanan replied in the negative, Medved said, "I've gone down the list and I've assigned to you every state you could even conceivably carry--the solid South, even states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois." Buchanan asked, "You can't get up to 270?" to which Medved replied, "Not even close."

There are some pro-lifers upset with both the Democratic and Republican parties, but that does not change the fact that they are the only game around. No third party is strong enough to win a nationwide race. It may happen some time in the future but not in 2000.

The inescapable conclusion is that, for those who truly care about protecting unborn children and stopping the killing of 1.3 million babies every year, it is simply not an option to support a third party candidate for president. The next president will be a Democrat or a Republican.

Pro-lifers who support a third party candidate split the pro- life vote, thus increasing the likelihood that Al Gore or Bill Bradley ends up in the White House.

Does this exaggerate the pro-life movement's significance? Not at all. Past elections have shown that a united pro-life movement can have a tremendous impact.

A 1998 post-election poll by Wirthlin Worldwide showed that 22% of all voters said abortion affected the way they voted. Of this nearly one-quarter of the electorate, 59% (13% of all voters) voted for candidates who oppose abortion while 41% (9% of all voters) voted for candidates who favor abortion.

In a 1996 post-election Wirthlin Worldwide survey, 12% of the voters said abortion was one of the two most important issues in deciding their vote. Of those, 45% voted for Bob Dole compared to 35% who voted for Bill Clinton. In a Los Angeles Times exit poll, 14% of Dole voters cited abortion as one of the two most important issues, compared to 7% of Clinton voters. In the 1996 Wirthlin survey, 13% of all women cited abortion as one their most important voting issues. Contrary to myth, 50% voted for Bob Dole compared to 39% who voted for Bill Clinton. A Los Angeles Times nationwide exit poll found that 11% of women considered abortion one of the two most important issues in determining their vote. The advantage for Dole was even greater. Of those women, 54% voted for Bob Dole, while only 40% voted for Bill Clinton. A 1994 post-election poll conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide showed that 26% of all voters stated that abortion affected their vote18% voted for candidates who oppose abortion while 9% voted for candidates who favor abortion. [The numbers do not add up because of rounding.] Figures from a 1992 exit- poll conducted by Voter Research and Surveys show that pro-life President George Bush had a sizable advantage over pro-abortion Bill Clinton among those who cast their ballot based on a candidate's position on abortion. Thirteen percent of all voters listed abortion as one of the top two issues which mattered most in deciding their vote. Of those, 55% voted for Bush and 36% voted for Clinton. In the 1988 election, USA Today reported that George Bush held an advantage among those who voted on abortion: "Despite all the TV ads and speeches on prison furloughs and the Pledge of Allegiance, few voters cited those as key issues. The No. 1 issue: abortion, cited by nearly a third of voters interviewed by ABC News. And those who cited abortion went for Bush." What can we conclude from this? In a close race, pro-lifers can make the difference between winning and losing.

Not only is this election cycle of tremendous importance, it is very unusual. The race for the presidency began almost a year earlier than normal. Public interest, as measured by public opinion polls was very low in early 1999, went up some over the summer extending into the fall, and then dropped slightly in the last two months, according to published reports.

What that tells us about turnout--if anything--is unknown but it does suggest there may be more room than customary for pro- lifers to have a major impact in close elections.

We can say for sure that there is a lot of work to do this year. The November 7 election, less than 10 months away, will determine the fate of unborn children for possibly the next 30- 40 years.

Our nation has lost almost 40 million unborn children in the last 27 years. We have the opportunity to change the future of this country and stop the killing.

Can we do anything less than seize this great opportunity with all our might?