PRO-LIFE GRASSROOTS WORK MOVES ABORTION POLLS

It is worth highlighting that in July 1996, coincident with the emergence of a new national debate over partial-birth abortion, Gallup recorded a significant drop in the number of Americans saying abortion should be legal in all cases. Since then, the percentage favoring unrestricted abortions has averaged just 25%, down from about 33% in the previous five years.

Two aspects of this adjustment make it unprecedented. First, it happened quickly, occurring between September 1995 and July 1996. Second, it represents the first time since Gallup began asking its principal abortion question in 1975 that opinion on the issue shifted in a significant and sustained way to the conservative side, rather than to the liberal side.

Given the timing of the shift, it appears that the debate over partial-birth abortion is the cause for this adjustment in public attitudes. It appears that partial-birth abortion became an important factor for Americans to consider when crystallizing their own positions on abortion. Specifically, partial-birth abortion became a widely familiar "circumstance" in 1996 that some people who previously favored "abortion in all circumstances" may have had in mind when they moved into the "only certain circumstances" category. Indeed, a large number of Americans who generally think abortion should be legal in all cases, nevertheless say they favor a ban on partial-birth abortion (57%, according to a March 2000 Gallup poll). Thus, the potential for this issue to move some of these people into the " only certain circumstances" category is clear.

--Gallup Poll Special Reports: "Public Opinion About Abortion
An In-Depth Review" by Lydia Saad
(1/22/2002 at gallup.com/poll/special reports/poll Summaries)

The goal of the pro-life movement is clear: we want nothing less than the full legal protection of the right to life, from conception to natural death. For this to happen we must convince a solid majority of the public to subscribe to that goal. The question from the very beginning of the pro-life movement has been how to do this.

Right after Roe v. Wade was announced in 1973, a direct legislative counterattack by Congress and President Nixon--a federal law guaranteeing the right to life and declaring that the Court had unconstitutionally "legislated from the bench"-- might have caused the Supreme Court to retreat. But that opportunity was wasted; neither Congress nor President Nixon had the fortitude to see through a constitutional impasse. And at the time, the right-to-life movement did not have the numbers and organizational strength it has today.

Now we are left with two approaches to secure the right to life: either the Constitution is amended to guarantee the right to life or the Supreme Court reverses its error and abandons Roe v. Wade and all subsequent rulings affirming or extending the right to abortion on demand. Whichever approach will ultimately succeed, in either case we face the enormous task of moving a substantial majority of the public toward our position. In the one case, we need to convince Congress and a constitutional majority of state legislatures to amend the Constitution. In the other case, we must first generate insurmountable pressure on the Court (which "follows the election returns") to see the error of its
ways and reverse itself and then convince legislators to enact right-to-life laws.

As I said, the task is enormous. But, as with all large and difficult tasks, a sound long-term strategy and breaking up the large job into smaller, interim steps will get us there. We must keep our eyes on the ultimate goal while we work at dismantling the pro-abortion culture piece by piece.

The introductory quote from Lydia Saad's Gallup report, about the effect of the campaign to ban partial-birth abortions, demonstrates that this strategy works. It worked for two reasons. First, NRLC picked the issue carefully, got the facts straight, was scrupulously truthful, and effectively countered the dishonest disinformation campaign of the pro-abortionists. And second, NRLC followed through with a massive grassroots effort to educate the public about partial-birth abortions.

Anyone capable of clear thought and a realistic view of the political and societal landscape could understand the promise of such a strategy. Many other pro-life groups, in fact, joined us in this campaign. Even the pro-abortionists recognized quickly what they were facing.

The pro-abortionists' fears were justified: A sustained reduction of public support for unrestricted abortion from 33% to 25% is significant. If the trend continues, it could signal the end for legalized abortion on demand. Moreover, as Saad's report shows, the percentage of those who characterized themselves as "pro- choice" shrank from 56% in 1995 to 46% in 2001, while the percentage of self-identified pro-lifers increased from 33% to 46% over the same time period.

Interestingly, the poll (August 10-12, 2001) also revealed that 27% of the "pro-choicers" thought that abortion should be legal in only a few cases, while 3% thought abortion should be illegal in all cases. There were some peculiarities on the pro-life side as well: 5% of those under the pro-life label thought abortion should be legal in most cases and 4% thought it should be legal in all cases--obviously, we have work to do.

As noted above, many other pro-life groups followed our lead and pushed for a ban of partial-birth abortion. But some pro-life groups not only refused to join us, but publicly opposed the partial-birth abortion ban legislation because "it does not ban all abortions." That they could not understand the strategic and tactical rationale of the campaign was astounding and regrettable. That they chose to attack NRLC over the issue in public (charging that we were not pro-life) was unpleasant. That they offered no practical alternatives was at the very least, shall we say, "not helpful." That they continue to raise money (and thus divert limited pro-life resources) without a credible strategy to achieve the goals of the right-to-life movement is appalling.

You, my friends, know better. That is why you join us in grassroots work that does indeed move the polls in our direction. You not only "talk the talk," you above all "walk the walk." I salute you.