Eric Scheidler

A solid majority of voters disagree with Obama on abortion. So why did they vote for him?

Eric Scheidler
By Eric Scheidler
Image

November 22, 2012 (Prolifeaction.org) - Several liberal commentators and even a few conservatives are gleefully reporting exit polls for this month’s election showing 59% of voters say they believe abortion should be legal in “most or all cases,” a sure sign that the pro-life movement is losing and that the advantage on social issues has swung to Democrats.

That’s one way to add up the numbers, recruiting the 30% of voters who say abortion should be legal in most cases to legitimize the more hard-core pro-choice position that there should be legal abortion in all cases, as 29% of voters polled believe.

But here’s another way to do the math: add that 30% who believe abortion should be legal in most (but not all) cases to the 24% who believe it should be illegal in most cases and the 13% who believe it should always be illegal, and you find that 66% of voters believe abortion should be illegal in at least some cases.

In other words, fully two-thirds of thirds of the electorate holds a position on abortion contrary to that espoused by either President Obama or Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, who will not name a single case in which abortion should not be a woman’s choice.

Most voters actually disagree with Obama on abortion

There are in fact few voters who hold so radical a pro-choice—really pro-abortion—position as Barack Obama.

Among that 29% who say abortion should be legal in “all cases,” how many would say there should be no legal restrictions at all on how abortion facilities operate? Barack Obama doesn’t even want to see Planned Parenthood held accountable for obeying local zoning regulations!

And in exactly what case (or cases) do the 30% who say abortion should be legal only in “most cases” think it shouldn’t be?

We heard a lot this election about abortion in the case of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother—three cases. Throw in cases when the mother is extremely young or in abject poverty, or when the unborn child has some kind of disability—the cases most commonly cited to justify legal abortion—and you’re still not hitting a majority of abortions.

That 30% might actually oppose a majority of the 1.2 million abortions taking place every year in the United States, if only they had the facts.

Speculation aside, we know some of the cases in which 
majorities believe abortion should be illegal:

- When the patient is a minor whose parents have not been informed of or involved in the decision to abort: 71%
- When the abortionist does not give a woman 24 hours to reconsider her choice before she goes through with it: 69%
- When the abortionist does not accurately inform a woman about abortion risks and how abortions are performed: 87%
- Whenever performed using the D & X or “partial birth abortion” procedure: 64%

On top of that, solid majorities believe that abortion should be illegal after the twelfth week of pregnancy—when about 11% of abortions, or over 144,000, are performed.

Again: Barack Obama believes abortion should never be illegal.

Yet 50.6% of voters chose to elected President Obama to a second term.

Voters left in the dark about Obama and abortion

The conclusion to draw, then, is not that voters are becoming more pro-choice, but that they simply do not know how radical President Obama’s position on abortion really is.

And no wonder. Voters were barraged with propaganda from both Planned Parenthood and the Obama campaign calculated to make their radical position appear moderate in contrast with the army of Republican straw men waging a “war on women.”

They pretended that employers opposed to paying for someone else’s contraceptives were trying to entirely block access to contraceptives for everyone.

They answered the charge that Planned Parenthood should lose its government subsidies because of its well-documented pattern of dishonesty and lawlessness and its outsized role in the abortion business and abortion politics with the falsehood that women rely on Planned Parenthood for mammograms.

And in answer to all of that, Mitt Romney had little to say about abortion other than endorsing the “rape, incest or life of the mother” trio of exceptions.

Stage set for pro-life victory—if we make our case

There’s every reason to believe that, had voters really known where Obama and other pro-choice candidates stand, the elections might have turned out quite differently.

Which means that, far from abandoning social issues like abortion, pro-life politicians of both parties should take advantage of what the 2012 exit polls really say about voters and abortion, and speak to that 66% of voters who think abortion should be be illegal at least some of the time.

Our elected officials should be confidently advocating for measures that will accomplish the goal of withdrawing legal sanction from such an unconscionably large number of abortions as are performed every year in the United States.

And as for the pro-life movement, we need to work harder to show our pro-choice friends and neighbors that their views are actually a lot closer to ours than they are to the extreme position espoused by Barack Obama and Cecile Richards.

With the truth on our side and voters real attitudes on abortion predisposing them to be receptive, it’s time to make our case against legal abortion and share the pro-life message at every opportunity.

Reprinted with permission from Prolife Action League

Support hard-hitting pro-life and pro-family journalism.

Donate to LifeSite's fall campaign today


Share this article

Advertisement
Rick Perry
Christopher Halloran/Shutterstock
Kirsten Andersen Kirsten Andersen Follow Kirsten

,

Rick Perry: Joan Rivers’ death shows Texas is right to require abortionists to have admitting privileges

Kirsten Andersen Kirsten Andersen Follow Kirsten
By Kirsten Anderson

In the wake of the high-profile death of comedienne Joan Rivers due to complications from throat surgery at an outpatient clinic in New York City, Texas Gov. Rick Perry pointed to the tragedy as an example showing the necessity for his state’s one-year-old law requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as other ambulatory surgical centers.

"It was interesting that when Joan Rivers -- and the procedure that she had done, where she died -- that was a clinic,” Perry said at a Texas Tribune event on Sunday. “It's a curious thought that if they had had that type of regulations in place, whether or not that individual would be still alive.”

Many observers have criticized the governor’s remarks, noting that Rivers’ surgery was performed in a fully licensed ambulatory surgical center by a doctor with admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, as is the current standard for abortion facilities in Texas, but died anyway.  However, the painstaking investigation into what may have gone wrong at the New York City clinic reveals that while all surgery carries risks, ambulatory surgical centers are required to take every precaution to ensure the safety of their patients, in contrast to more loosely regulated abortion clinics, where injuries and deaths are rampant, and often covered up.

While 32 separate medical associations have signed a joint agreement stating that anyone “performing office-based surgery must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, a transfer agreement with another physician who has admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, or maintain an emergency transfer agreement with a nearby hospital,” abortion businesses have fought such regulations tooth and nail, arguing that requiring abortionists to maintain admitting privileges is too burdensome and will cause clinics to close their doors.  

Abortionists have also opposed tougher safety restrictions forcing them to adhere to the same standards as other ambulatory surgical centers, arguing that upgrading their substandard facilities to meet hospital-grade requirements is costly and unnecessary.  But proponents of such regulations point out that the tiny parking lots, narrow hallways, and lack of elevators common to most abortion facilities are serious impediments to getting lifesaving help to women in case of emergencies, delaying paramedics who can’t park their ambulances or maneuver gurneys through such buildings.  In addition, licensed ambulatory surgical centers must have and properly maintain state-of-the-art resuscitation equipment, and train employees in their use – something abortion clinics have repeatedly been cited for failing to do.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
A protester at New York's Foley Square on Feb. 26, 2011 opposes funding cuts to Planned Parenthood in the GOP's budget. Dave Bledsoe / Flickr
Kirsten Andersen Kirsten Andersen Follow Kirsten

,

Teacher fired for protesting Planned Parenthood files $390K lawsuit

Kirsten Andersen Kirsten Andersen Follow Kirsten
By Kirsten Anderson

A pro-life teacher who was fired from his job at a Portland high school after protesting Planned Parenthood is now suing the school district for wrongful termination.

Bill Diss, who worked for eleven years as a math teacher at Benson High School, was escorted off campus in 2013 by a police officer and told not to return.  The school board later voted to fire him.  Diss alleges he was targeted by pro-abortion administrators for his pro-life views, and that his firing was the culmination of six years of progressively increasing tension over the matter.

After five years of positive reviews by administrators, Diss’ relationship with school officials began to deteriorate in 2007, when he protested the proposed opening of a Planned Parenthood headquarters in Portland.  Although the protests happened on his own time, away from school grounds, administrators confronted him after seeing him on television speaking out against the pro-abortion group.

“As the attention mounted, [Diss] was summoned for questioning by Benson High School administrators,” the lawsuit reads. “He was interrogated about his activities by the principal and by an attorney for the District. The activities in question occurred on his own time, not at school, nonetheless he was specifically instructed not to mention the fact that he was a teacher or where he worked when making public statements.”

Five years later, things took a turn for the worse when school officials tried to force Diss to allow Planned Parenthood to make a presentation to his class.  In late 2012, presenters with the Teen Outreach Program (TOP) – a teen pregnancy prevention program run by Planned Parenthood and funded by a federal government grant – showed up at Diss’ classroom unannounced to give a recruitment pitch to students.  No one had told Diss they were coming, so he followed district policy and requested identification.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

When the presenters identified themselves as employees of Planned Parenthood, Diss was surprised and upset. At first, he refused them access, but Principal Carol Campbell demanded they be let in, and told him that the organization would be visiting his classroom throughout the year. Diss, a Roman Catholic, felt that he could not in good conscience participate in these presentations, during which students would discuss their sexual activities and methods of contraception.  He asked to be excused, but Campbell denied his request and told him he had to stay and “facilitate [Planned Parenthood’s] interactions with students,” according to the suit.

“Because (Diss) expressed his opposition to the activities of Planned Parenthood at Benson High School, he became a target of” the administration, the suit reads. “They launched a full-scale assault on the plaintiff as a teacher. He was observed and evaluated on the most minute aspects of his teaching.”  He was ordered to stop drilling deficient students on their multiplication tables and factors, calling it “repetitive,” and one administrator demanded he stop using the words “God Bless” in all of his communications with staff, students and parents.

He was later accused of “unprofessional, intimidating and/or harassing behavior” by school officials over comments students said he made in opposition to Planned Parenthood, including his assertion that “they kill over a million babies every three years.” It was this allegation that district officials would ultimately use to justify his firing.

Diss is seeking $90,000 in backpay and benefits, and an additional $300,000 for emotional distress.  He is being represented by attorney Rebekah Millard of the Life Legal Defense Foundation.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Gabriele Kuby

,

Genderism – a new ideology destroying the family

Gabriele Kuby
By Gabriele Kuby

Editor’s Note: The following address by German author and social commentator Gabriele Kuby was delivered earlier this month in Moscow at the International Forum on Large Families and the Future of Humanity.

We are witnessing an astonishing historical shift.

More than a hundred years ago, Marxism declared the relationship of man and woman in monogamous marriage as “the first class antagonism” in history. This “class-conflict” had to be overcome by destroying marriage and the family. So in 1917, Alexandra Kollontai, the first woman commissar of the Bolshevik Central Committee, set out to put this into practise through the exercise of revolutionary power:

  1. A law for the dissolution of marriage
  2. Legalization of abortion
  3. Sexual freedom for youth
  4. Legalization of homosexuality
  5. Integration of women into the production process, and
  6. Bringing up children in collective state institutions.

But even Lenin soon realized that this was creating social chaos. And he repealed some of these revolutionary measures.

Yet the same agenda eventually migrated to the West. It had its breakthrough with the student rebellion of the 1960s, which swept through European countries with slogans like these:

Battle the bourgeois nuclear family!

If you sleep with the same one twice, you’re a slave of bourgeois vice!

Make love not war!

This movement was fuelled by Marxist philosophers, particularly of the Frankfurt School in Germany. In their view, sexuality was to be liberated from restrictive morality – even from the taboo of incest. Sex between children, as well as sex with children, was to be allowed in order to create a “society without oppression”.

During the 1970s, marriage laws and sexual criminal laws were revised in Western countries. Pornography, abortion, and homosexuality – in this sequence – were legalized, and obligatory sexual education was introduced in schools. And during the last decade, the collectivization of bringing up small children – formerly seen as a communist aberration – has been imposed on families by EU measures. This destroys the very source of human love, which is the relationship between mother and child.

Ironically, the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries were, so to speak, “protected” by communist dictatorship from the implementation of these ideas, which had originated in Marxist ideology.

Today things have shifted even further: The radical feminist movement and the homosexual movement merged and gave birth to the gender ideology. One of its trailblazers is the philosopher Judith Butler, a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation and a proclaimed lesbian, who in 1990 published the book, Gender Trouble – Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.

Gender theory proclaims that our “social gender” is independent of our biological sex, so that we can “choose” whether we want to be a man or a woman.

At the policy level, this ideology becomes “Gender Mainstreaming,” which promotes:

  • Subversion of the identity of man and woman by destroying “gender-stereotypes” – beginning in kindergarten; and
  • Deregulation of normative standards of sexuality: Any kind of sexual practice – be it lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender (LGBT) – has to be accepted by society as equivalent to heterosexuality. And this must be taught to children in school.

It has taken only 20 years for gender theory to become the ruling ideology of the West. At most universities, the new field of “gender studies” has been firmly established. In my native Germany, we have almost 200 women professors in that new field of so-called “science” – which really is nothing more than the ideological agenda of radical feminism and the homosexual movement combined. And students now must adhere to this ideology – just as their predecessors had to adhere to Marxist ideology under communism.

What Alexandra Kollontai could not achieve under a communist dictatorship has now become the global policy of the United Nations and the European Union. But the underlying agenda is disguised with words that abuse the great values of Christian culture: freedom, justice, tolerance, and human rights.

Central and Eastern European nations have now begun to realize that membership in the European Union has its costs. It not only brings them new economic possibilities but also the enforced destruction of their own value system – which, for many centuries, has served as the foundation of marriage and family.

In pursuit of their agenda, the UN and the EU work with an international network of political stakeholders, billionaire foundations, the mainstream media, and global NGOs like the International Planned Parenthood Federation and ILGA, the homosexual umbrella organization. They seek to impose the feminist and homosexual agenda on every nation around the world through the policy of gender mainstreaming and LGBT-rights.

Dear friends, we are indeed facing a global ‘anthropological revolution’, as Pope Benedict XVI termed it – one which attacks the very roots of human existence. This revolution has five political cornerstones:

  1. Elimination of fatherhood and motherhood
  2. Deprivation of the material basis of the family
  3. Legalization of abortion
  4. Homosexual “marriage,” including adoption and artificial child production
  5. Sexualization of children through obligatory comprehensive sexual education.

All this requires a response. In fact, faced with the demographic crisis in the West, and the moral and social breakdown of the family, we need a global movement that creates conditions under which the deepest longings of the human heart can be fulfilled. Such a movement should include:

  1. Re-awakening to the sanctity of fatherhood and motherhood
  2. Provision of the material basis of the family
  3. Protection of life – from conception to natural death
  4. Legally defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman
  5. Education of children and youth for marriage and family

As far as I can see, Russia is today the only country where there may be the possibility for church and state to rebuild the foundations of the family.

This International Forum could have a significant role in the global battle for a culture of life and the defence of marriage and family. May our political leaders be guided by wisdom and a commitment to the common good of humanity in the present political situation.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook