|
NRL News
WE HAVE
ACHIEVED A LOT, NOW WE MUST DO MORE The last election was a disappointment, because economic concerns swamped all other issues confronting the electorate. However, the pro-life volunteers for NRL PAC and the political action committees of NRLC’s state affiliates did their job providing election information to voters. In a post-election poll commissioned by NRLC, 34% of respondents said their vote was affected by the abortion issue: 25% voting for pro-life candidates and 9% voting for pro-abortion candidates, making for a “pro-life difference” of 19%. Post-election defeatists, directing their anger at NRLC (because our legislative activity “still hasn’t outlawed abortion after all these years”), have a fundamental misunderstanding about Roe v. Wade: In 1973, the Supreme Court did not “legalize” abortion, it constitutionalized it. That means that Roe v. Wade must either be overturned by the Supreme Court itself or nullified by a constitutional amendment. The first realistic goal for pro-lifers is to elect presidents and senators willing to appoint and confirm Supreme Court judges who respect the Constitution and are willing to reverse the extra-constitutional Roe v. Wade decision. We have not yet fully realized the goal of an anti-Roe majority on the Supreme Court, but most observers believe we are a lot closer now than we were in 1973 when the decision was imposed by a 7 to 2 pro-abortion majority. The Obama presidency threatens to cause a delay in this quest, but true pro-lifers don’t give up. The second, equally urgent, goal for pro-lifers is to change women’s attitudes about abortion and make abortion less likely. On this front, we have made great progress. The statistical measure for the “popularity” of abortion is the abortion rate, the number of abortions per 1,000 women of child-bearing age (15-44 years). The abortion rate rose rapidly after the 1973 Roe and Doe decisions. It peaked in 1980-81 at 29.3 and thereafter went into a steady decline. By 2005, the abortion rate was down 33% to 19.4—the same level it had in 1974. The decline would have been even more dramatic had it not been for a disturbing increase in repeat abortions, which amounted to nearly 47% of all abortions in 2005. While the abortion rate decreased, the number of women of child-bearing age increased by 16%. Thus, the yearly number of abortions peaked later, at 1.6 million in 1990, and since then decreased 25% to 1.2 million in 2005—about the same level it had in 1976. Had the abortion rate not decreased from its peak value in 1980/81, but simply stayed the same, there would have been 50% more abortions in 2005: 1.8 million, instead of the actual 1.2 million. Thus, in 2005 alone, the attitudinal change expressed in a lower abortion rate meant that 600,000 lives were saved. Based on the steady increase in the number of women of child-bearing age and the simultaneous decrease in the abortion rate, the number of lives saved from abortion since 1980 is about 9 million. Pro-lifers should rejoice at this number! Our pro-abortion opponents explain the lowered abortion rate by an increase in the use of contraception and a decline of the number of abortion providers. The change from steep rise to decline in the abortion rate would have required an equally sudden change in contraceptive practices—which is not likely. Moreover, an increased use of contraception is at odds with the significant rise in repeat abortions—instead of contraception, many use abortion as birth control. As to the decline in the number of abortion providers, let’s not forget what really was going on: a consolidation of the abortion industry, with Planned Parenthood emerging as the dominant industry behemoth. No, the most likely explanation for the decline of the abortion rate lies in the work of the right-to-life movement and women’s own re-evaluation of abortion: The pro-life movement had organized itself and gained “critical mass” by 1980. Many women who had had abortions joined the right-to-life movement. The abortion issue became a motivating force for social conservatives in the campaign that made Ronald Reagan president. Not surprisingly, large numbers of Protestant pro-lifers joined NRLC. Since that pivotal election, the abortion issue has been a significant aspect of political campaigns. NRLC and its state affiliates became increasingly adept at launching educational and legislative campaigns. The very process of discussing these initiatives helped the public see through the rhetorical fog of so-called “choice” and re-focused its attention on what actually happens in an abortion, namely the death of an innocent child. Specifically, NRLC defeated pro-abortion legislation, such as the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA), and secured the passage of legislation promoting the right to life. Among the latter are the Hyde Amendment, preventing the spending of federal funds for abortions (thus making abortion less likely), and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The educational impact of these campaigns was enormous. NRLC’s efforts on the national level were enhanced on the state level. Our affiliates were able to pass, for example, 23 women’s-right-to-know laws, 28 laws requiring parental involvement in the abortion decisions of their minor daughters, and 11 laws enabling women to see ultrasound images of their child in utero. To these factors we must add the widespread use of ultrasound imaging during pregnancy. What pregnant women nowadays see in utero is not “a cluster of cells,” or “a blob of tissue,” or “potential life,” but a baby—their baby! President-elect Obama promised before the election to (1) appoint only justices and judges who support Roe v. Wade and (2) sign a resurrected FOCA. FOCA threatens to undo all our educational legislative work that helped bring about the positive attitudinal change on abortion. And this time, keeping FOCA from becoming law will take an enormous effort. Any “assurances” from the Obama camp that the initial focus will “only” be on overturning the pro-life directives of President George W. Bush (which is bad enough) and not on FOCA should be taken with a grain of salt. President-elect Obama’s pro-abortion followers want to put an end to the efforts of pro-lifers—and FOCA is their tool. Be ready to fight the Freedom of Choice Act once again. And get organized. |