The headline happened to be for a story in Sunday's Washington Post, but the thoughts expressed could be found in story after story following the pasting pro-abortion Democrats took November 2.
"GOP's gains ready to propel social issues back into spotlight" blared the headline accompanying Sandhya Somashekhar's November 21 story. I will talk about the substance of the story in a moment, but the story's preface is equally, if not more, important.
Nobody disagrees that the mid-term elections were "economy-centric," so long as you don't come up with the part of the sentence that preceded that phrase: that "Social issues barely rated." That is flatly wrong.
NRL PAC was extensively involved in 122 federal races nationwide--and won 84 of them with nine still undecided as of the day following the election. The abortion issue and abortion funding in ObamaCare were crucially important in tight races (of which there were many). What do we base that on?
Our polling found that 30% said abortion affected their vote. Of that figure, 22% said they voted for candidates who opposed abortion as contrasted with only 8% who said they voted for candidates who favored abortion. This yields a 14% advantage for pro-life candidates over pro-abortion candidates.
Then there was the response to the question, "Did the issue of funding for abortion in the Obama health care law affect the way you voted in today's election?" 31% of voters responded in the affirmative .
How did that 31% break out? 27% said they voted "for candidates who opposed the health care law," and 4% who said they voted "for candidates who favored the health care law." Put another way, 87% of the voters who said the issue mattered, voted in accord with the NRLC position.
And this was made possible because people HEARD NRL PAC. Our involvement and national reach was reflected in the post-election poll conducted by The Polling Company which found that 24% of voters recalled hearing or seeing advertising from, or receiving information from, National Right to Life. One-quarter of the population heard the truth--very impressive, wouldn't you say?
Okay, a lot of preliminaries, but crucial to understanding stories like the one written by the Post's Somashekhar. Pro-life votes were essential to the victories of pro-life Republicans at the federal level AND at the state level.
And contrary to the impression left in stories such as these, these candidates are perfectly capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time: fighting to right floundering state economies and passing protective abortion legislation that could not have been enacted November 1.
We know for a fact that state legislatures dominated by Democrats (who are overwhelmingly pro-abortion) make passage of pro-life legislature close to impossible. But the numbers have radically shifted, virtually reversing what was the case prior to the elections. As Somashekhar observes,
"Before the midterm elections, Democrats controlled 27 state legislatures outright. Republicans were in charge in 14 states, and eight states were split. (Nebraska, which has a single legislative chamber, is officially nonpartisan). Today, Republicans control 26 state legislatures, Democrats 17, and five have split control. In New York, officials are still determining who is in charge in the state Senate. Republicans control more legislatures than they have since 1952."
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to LIfe
Publish Date: November 23, 2010
