|
NRL News
PRODUCTIVE PRO-LIFE WORK The Supreme Court’s recent Gonzales v. Carhart decision, upholding the legality of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (PBABA), has been a source of great satisfaction for the focused and hard-working pro-lifers of this country. The reaction to the verdict is not uniformly positive—especially not in the camp of hardcore pro-abortionists. Badly misguided as they otherwise are, they correctly perceive the serious damage done to their cause by Gonzales v. Carhart and by our campaign leading up to it. Hence, their fury and disappointment. It is harder to understand why some “friends” have so angrily denounced us over the PBABA. In view of this “friendly fire,” let’s take a sober look. During the 14 years of intensive debate about partial-birth abortions, the public’s attitude became more pro-life as the abortion debate was re-focused: away from pro-abortion slogans and towards the horrific reality of abortion; the annual number of abortions decreased; and, defending the indefensible, the pro-abortion side was caught in so many lies and deceptions that its credibility greatly suffered. The PBABA effort was capped with the Court’s verdict in Gonzales v. Carhart: a dramatic step back from the “totality” of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Since Gonzales v. Carhart, the supposedly “constitutional” abortion liberty is not quite as absolute and unassailable as it was just a few months ago. In 1973, the Harris polling organization first asked a question about Roe v. Wade (the poor phrasing suggested that abortion had become legal “up to three months of pregnancy” only). The result was that 52% favored the Court decision, while 42% opposed it. The Harris poll has continued to ask the same question over subsequent years. By 1991, the peak of pro-Roe sentiment was reached: 65% favored Roe and only 33% opposed it. In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his instructional paper on his new abortion method, and Roe was favored 61% to 35%. In 1995, NRLC’s Douglas Johnson collaborated with Congressman Charles Canady and others, resulting in the introduction of a bill to ban what the bill appropriately defined as “partial-birth abortion.” And in 1996, Roe was favored only 52% to 41%. The Congressional debate on partial-birth abortions drew unusual public attention. During the Congressional deliberations, “mainstream TV,” however hostile to the pro-life cause, could not resist doing what it does best: showing pictures; and NRLC’s line drawings depicting the execution of a partially born baby were irresistible pictures. Ever since, most people have known what a partial-birth abortion is. And they don’t like it. Gallup polls show that the percentage favoring a ban on partial-birth abortions has steadily risen from 57% in 1996 to 72% in 2007. As the campaign to ban partial-birth abortions unfolded, Roe lost more of its appeal: in 2006, the last year Harris asked the question, only 49% favored Roe, while 47% opposed it. The shifts in public opinion towards the pro-life side are evident in other polling trends. A Gallup poll in 1995 asked people whether they considered themselves “pro-life” or “pro-choice” (labels of limited usefulness). Only 33% identified themselves as “pro-life,” while 56% were “pro-choice.” Over the years, the gap has narrowed: in 2007, it was 45% “pro-life” versus 49% “pro-choice.” A 2007 CNN/Opinion Research poll found 50% “pro-life” and 45% “pro-choice.” Another Gallup polling series gave respondents four choices: abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, illegal in all circumstances, or “no opinion.” In 1993, at the earliest beginning of our campaign to ban partial-birth abortions, the numbers were: 32% for always legal, 51% for sometimes legal, 13% for always illegal, and 4% with no opinion. The results for 2007 are: 26% for always legal, 55% for sometimes legal, 18% for always illegal, and only 1% had no opinion. Note that the “always legal” group has shrunk by about a fifth (6 units), while the “always illegal” group has increased by more than a third (5 units). This change in the percentage of the committed respondents of either the pro-abortion or pro-life persuasion first appeared around 1995, when the partial-birth abortion debate had reached full expression. It has persisted ever since. Experienced poll analysts, such as Gallup’s Lydia Saad and pollsters Christopher Martin and Fred Steeper, have identified the campaign to ban partial-birth abortions as one of the primary reasons for the shift towards the pro-life side. And every clear-thinking pro-lifer will agree that our arduous effort to ban partial-birth abortions was worth it because it advanced the right-to-life cause. The decline in pro-abortion sentiment is also evident in the number of yearly abortions since Haskell’s presentation of his abortion method in 1992. The number of abortions in 1992 was 1.53 million. Had the number of abortions remained unchanged, the total would have been 18.35 million from 1992 to 2003 (the latest year for which estimates are available). In 2003, the actual number of abortions was about 1.29 million abortions. And the most reasonable estimate for the total over the period 1992-2003 is only 16.38 million—or nearly 2 million fewer abortions than might have taken place without our campaign. Anyone who says that our campaign to ban partial-birth abortions did not save lives doesn’t know what he or she is talking about. A pro-life movement that actually wants to accomplish something must fully subscribe to the goal of achieving a cultural change. In practical terms, that means to create a clear, and therefore politically effective, majority for making abortion illegal. To that end we can’t limit ourselves to “preaching to the choir” (much less creating warfare within the choir), we must try to convert the big “mushy” middle. The numbers of abortion came down and the public became more pro-life not because of “friendly fire” within the pro-life movement. These changes were at least in part the result of a well-thought-out and persistently executed strategy. I am talking about pro-life work not blather. I am talking about the ingenuity and diligent labor of the Doug Johnsons and Jacki Ragans and Darla St. Martins and David O’Steens and all the others at NRLC and the NRLC chapters everywhere. I salute you who work, free of rancor, for the delivery of this country from the evil of abortion. |