Subscribe Now!

 

Today's
News & Views

Volume 37, Number 11-12                                                                       www.nrlc.org                                                                                    November/December  2010

NRL PAC Plays Key Role
Opposition to Abortion, Rationing a Major Factor in Election

By David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., National Right to Life Executive Director

Post-election polling has shown that the National Right to Life Political Action Committee and pro-life issues played a major role in what happened at the polls this year and once again provided a margin sufficient to guarantee victory for pro-life candidates in many close races.

The National Right to Life PAC was extensively involved in 122 federal races nationwide, winning 84 of them with 9 still undecided as of the day following the election.

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.

The poll found that 22% said abortion affected their vote and that they voted for candidates who opposed abortion as opposed to only 8% who said abortion affected their vote and that they voted for candidates who favored abortion. This yields a 14% advantage for pro-life candidates over pro-abortion candidates.

This advantage was especially helpful to Republicans since every closely contested congressional race between a pro-life candidate and a pro-abortion candidate involved a pro-life Republican who faced a pro-abortion Democrat. A full 84% of those who said abortion affected their vote and voted pro-life said they voted for a Republican for U.S. House.

Read more...


Phony 'pro-life' groups couldn't save them
Lawmakers who defected from
pro-life side on health care paid a big price at ballot box

Editor's note. The following analysis was submitted by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson to and posted by blogger Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter on November 10, in response to a request for commentary on the November 2 elections.

The first two years of the Obama Administration have been a time of multiple setbacks for the pro-life cause at the federal level. Behind smokescreens of soft, deceptive rhetoric, the Administration has pushed an abortion-expansionist agenda on both domestic and overseas fronts, employing executive powers, nominations, and legislative attacks. The single greatest pro-life setback has been enactment of the massive restructuring law ("Obamacare").

The version originally advanced in 2009 by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Henry Waxman, and other key House Democratic leaders, was loaded with abortion-expansive provisions--until the House corrected those problems by adoption of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment on November 7, 2009. However, that pro-life victory was denounced by President Obama and by key Democratic congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who succeeded in winning Senate approval on Christmas Eve of a bill that contained even more abortion-expanding provisions than the original Pelosi-Waxman bill.

Lacking a single Republican supporter, for many weeks Pelosi was unable to win House approval of this bill--in substantial part because the pro-abortion provisions were recognized and explicitly condemned by a group of Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak (Mi.).

This is not the place to chronicle the many public utterances and acts by members of that group, in which they recognized the gravity of the pro-abortion provisions contained in the Senate bill, or to recount their initial refusals (widely reported at the time) to bow to pressures from the President and Speaker Pelosi to support it. Typical were these statements: Rep. James Oberstar (D-Mn.): "I will not vote for a health care bill that doesn't have the House abortion language in it." (CQ Today, Feb. 25, 2010). Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio): "I will not bend on the principle of federal funding on abortion. ... They are going to have to do it without me and without the other pro-life Democrats" (Cincinnati Enquirer, March 14, 2010).

Read more...


 

 


 

BULK SUBSCRIPTIONS
of NRL News are available!!!
Click here for details

Click here
for an easy way to help your Pro-Life friends and NRL News

ATTENTION:
Be a Part of the NRLC Email List

From the President

Wanda Franz, Ph.D.

NRLC CONTINUES TO BE THE “FLAGSHIP OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT”

By Wanda Franz, Ph.D.

That same day, I also met representatives of National Right to Life. They opposed any research that destroyed embryos. They pointed out that each tiny stem cell cluster had the potential to grow into a person. In fact, all of us had started our lives in this early state. As evidence, they pointed to a new program run by Nightlight Christian Adoptions. The agency secured permission from IVF participants to place their unused frozen embryos up for adoption. Loving mothers had the embryos implanted in them and carried the babies—known as snowflakes—to term. The message was unmistakable: Within every frozen embryo were the beginnings of a child. -- President George W. Bush, Decision Points, Crown Publishers, 2010), p. 115

The above paragraph is a quote from President Bush’s memoir on major decisions of his presidency. In the chapter from which this section is taken he discusses how he came to prohibit funding of new stem cell research that required the destruction of embryos.

The chapter shows that President Bush informed himself carefully on the serious moral issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research. NRLC’s down-to-earth explanation of the humanity of the embryo clearly moved him. There is another thing: NRLC is the only single-issue pro-life advocacy group mentioned in the whole book.

The point I want to make here is this: NRLC truly is the “flagship of the pro-life movement,” as the late Henry Hyde so eloquently said. Pro-life public servants know that they can get sound advice from NRLC’s staff. While some of NRLC’s work is behind the scenes, much of it is out in the public sphere. In any event, it is work carried on with great expertise and on a wide scale. And what does that work require? High-caliber strategists and experts at NRLC’s Washington office, active state chapters, and committed pro-life individuals everywhere—I mean you, dear pro-life reader. We need your support especially now! (I assume your check will be in the mail soon.)

What pro-life educational and political work can do was evident in the recent nationwide elections. How far did the work of National Right to Life and its state chapters reach?

Read Dr. Franz's Entire Column


NRL News Archive

2010
January 2010
February/March 2010

April/May 2010
June/July 2010
August/September 2010
October 2010
November/December 2010

2009
NRL News 2009 Subject Index
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July/August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November/December 2009

2008
NRL News 2008 Subject Index
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July/August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November/December 2008

2007
NRL News 2007 Subject Index
January 2007
February 2007

March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007

July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007

December 2007

2006
NRL News 2006 Subject Index
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006

April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006

December 2006

2005
NRL News 2005 Subject Index
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005

2004
NRL News 2004 Subject Index
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
J
une 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004

December 2004

2003
NRL News 2003 Subject Index
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003

2002
NRL News 2002 Subject Index
January 2002
February 2002
March 2002
April 2002

May 2002

June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002

2001
NRL News 2001 Subject Index
January 2001
February 2001
March 2001
April 2001
May 2001
June 2001
July 2001
August 2001
September 2001
October 2001
November 2001
December 2001

2000
NRL News 2000 Subject Index
January 2000
February 2000
March 2000
April 2000
May 2000
June 2000
July 2000
August 2000
September 2000
October 2000
December 2000

1999
NRL News 1999 Subject Index
January 22, 1999
February 19, 1999
March 15, 1999
April 8, 1999
May 11, 1999
June 10, 1999
July 6, 1999
August 10, 1999
September 14, 1999
October 12, 1999
November 1999
December 1999

1998
NRL News 1998 Subject Index
January 1998
February 11, 1998
March 11, 1998
April 14, 1998
May 7, 1998
July 8, 1998
June 9, 1998
August 12, 1998
September 28, 1998
October 12, 1998
November 17, 1998
December 10, 1998

1997
NRL News 1997 Subject Index
December 9, 1997

Subject Indexes for 1990 - 1996
NRL News 1996 Subject Index
NRL News 1995 Subject Index
NRL News 1994 Subject Index
NRL News 1993 Subject Index
NRL News 1992 Subject Index
NRL News 1991 Subject Index
NRL News 1990 Subject Index