If you like being on the prevailing side, last night was just the tonic. If you ever questioned the impact of the abortion issue, what happened in voting for the House of Representatives Tuesday evening should dispel that forever.
There are lots of ways to measure the impact of the abortion issue. One way is to tabulate what people said about how the issue affected their vote. Another is to gauge how NRL PAC did in the tough races--especially head-to-head again EMILY's List, a pro-abortion with tons of money and a commitment to electing only the most hard-core pro-abortion female Democrats.
Let's do the numbers.
Thirty percent of voters said that abortion "affected" their vote, according to a poll conducted by the polling companyTM inc. Of that category, 22% of all voters voted for pro-life candidates, while only 8 percent of all voters voted for pro-abortion candidates. That gave pro-life candidates a net pro-life advantage of 14 percent. This is the kind of advantage that is invaluable in tough races.
National Right to Life PAC supported 285 federal candidates nationwide. Of those, 82% (235) won their races. In the most competitive races, National Right to Life PAC actively worked in 122 federal races nationwide. Of those, 74% (84) won, and nine elections are still undecided. The PAC did this while being vastly outspent.
There were many reasons National Right to Life's political action committee fared so well. The poll conducted by the polling companyTM inc found that 24% of voters recalled hearing or seeing advertising from, or receiving information from National Right to Life.
Speaking of those highly competitive races, 20 were against candidates supported by EMILY's List. The pro-life candidate supported by National Right to Life PAC won in fourteen of those twenty races (70%).
Then there is the issue of ObamaCare and abortion funding.
Twenty-seven percent of voters said abortion funding in the health care law affected their vote--and they voted for candidates who opposed the health care law--as opposed to only 4% who said abortion funding in the health care law affected their vote--and they voted for candidates who favored the law.
National Right to Life has also repeatedly pointed out that the Obama Health Care Law, if allowed to go into effect, will mean massive rationing of health care including the rationing of life saving treatment. The public agrees and clearly showed last night that they oppose rationing.
Forty-four percent of voters said rationing in the health care law affected their vote and they voted for candidates who opposed the health care law while only 10% said rationing in the health care bill affected their vote and they voted for candidates who favored the Obama Health Care Law.
As we look ahead, it is significant that 54% said they oppose the health care law (44% strongly) while only 39% favor it (26% strongly).
[You can find more details by reading the press statements of NRL Political Director Karen Cross and NRLC Executive Director David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.] Finally, there is the important question of public attitudes. The poll revealed that a majority continues to favor allowing abortion only in very rare circumstances.
Fifty-three percent would allow abortion at most in cases to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest as opposed to 41% who would allow abortion regardless of the reason. However, 25% of those who gave a pro-abortion response would allow abortion only in the first three months while the current policy under Roe vs. Wade allows abortion essentially throughout pregnancy for any reason.
Dr. O'Steen said it all when he told a press conference, "Post-election polling has shown that pro-life issues played a major role in what happened at the polls yesterday and provided a margin sufficient to guarantee victory in many close races."
Contact: Dave Andrusko
