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

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

,

Pressure mounts as Catholic Relief Services fails to act on VP in gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Image
Rick Estridge, Catholic Relief Services' Vice President of Overseas Finance, is in a same-sex "marriage," public records show. Twitter

BALTIMORE, MD, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Nearly a week after news broke that a Catholic Relief Services vice president had contracted a homosexual “marriage” while also publicly promoting homosexuality on social media in conflict with Church teaching, the US Bishops international relief agency has taken no apparent steps to address the matter and is also not talking.

CRS Vice President of Overseas Finance Rick Estridge entered into a homosexual “marriage” in Maryland the same month in 2013 that he was promoted by CRS to vice president, public records show.

Despite repeated efforts at a response, CRS has not acknowledged LifeSiteNews’ inquiries during the week. And the agency told ChurchMilitant.com Thursday that no action had been taken beyond discussion of the situation and CRS would have no further comment.

"Nothing has changed,” CRS Senior Manager for Communications Tom said. “No further statement will be made."

LifeSiteNews first contacted CRS for a response prior to the April 20 release of the report and did not receive a reply, however Estridge’s Facebook and LinkeIn profiles were then removed just prior to the report’s release.

CRS also did not acknowledge LifeSiteNews’ follow-up inquiry later in the week.

“Having an executive who publicly celebrates a moral abomination shows the ineffectiveness of CRS' Catholic identity training,” Lepanto Institute President Michael Hichborn told LifeSiteNews. “How many others who hate Catholic moral teaching work at CRS?”

CRS did admit it was aware Estridge was in a “same-sex civil marriage” to Catholic News Agency (CNA) Monday afternoon, and confirmed he was VP of Overseas Finance and had been with CRS for 16 years.

“At this point we are in deliberations on this matter,” Price told CNA that day.

ChurchMilitant.com also reported that according to its sources, it was a well-known fact at CRS headquarters in Baltimore that Estridge was in a homosexual “marriage.” 

“There is no way CRS didn't know one of its executives entered into a mock-marriage until we broke the story,” Hichborn said. “The implication is clear; CRS top brass had no problem with having an executive so deliberately flouting Catholic moral teaching.”

“The big question is,” Hichborn continued, “what other morally repugnant matters is CRS comfortable with?”

While the wait continues for the Bishops’ relief organization to address the matter, those behind the report and other critics of prior instances of CRS involvement in programs and groups that violate Church principles continue to call for a thorough and independent review of the agency programs and personnel.

“How long should it take to call an employee into your office, tell him that his behavior is incompatible with the mission of the organization, and ask for his resignation?” asked Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher. “About thirty minutes, I would say.”

“The Catholic identity of CRS is at stake,” Hichborn stated. “If CRS does nothing, then there is no way faithful Catholics can trust the integrity of CRS's programs or desire to make its Catholicity preeminent.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Thousands of marriage activists gathered in D.C. June 19, 2014 for the 2nd March for Marriage. Dustin Siggins / LifeSiteNews.com
The Editors

, ,

Watch the March for Marriage online—only at LifeSiteNews

The Editors
By

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- At noon on Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and dozens of cosponsors, coalition partners, and speakers will launch the third annual March for Marriage. Thousands of people are expected to take place in this important event to show the support real marriage has among the American people.

As the sole media sponsor of the March, LifeSiteNews is proud to exclusively livestream the March. Click here to see the rally at noon Eastern Time near the U.S. Capitol, and the March to the Supreme Court at 1:00 Eastern Time.

And don't forget to pray that God's Will is done on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court hears arguments about marriage!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious beliefs’ against abortion ‘have to be changed’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

NEW YORK CITY, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Speaking to an influential gathering in New York City on Thursday, Hillary Clinton declared that “religious beliefs” that condemn "reproductive rights," “have to be changed.”

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” Hillary told the Women in the World Summit yesterday.

Liberal politicians use “reproductive health” as a blanket term that includes abortion. However, Hillary's reference echoes National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill's op-ed from last May that called abortion “an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”

The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

The line received rousing applause at the feminist conference, hosted in Manhattan's Lincoln Center by Tina Brown.

She also cited religious-based objections to the HHS mandate, funding Planned Parenthood, and the homosexual and transgender agenda as obstacles that the government must defeat.

“America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. The Supreme Court ruled last year that closely held corporations had the right to opt out of the provision of ObamaCare requiring them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to employees with no co-pay – a mandate that violates the teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.

Clinton lamented that “there are those who offer themselves as leaders...who would defund the country's leading provider of family planning,” Planned Parenthood, “and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced...not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are,” she added.

It is not the first time the former first lady had said that liberal social policies should displace religious views. In a December 2011 speech in Geneva, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”

While opinions on homosexuality are “still evolving,” in time “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.”

Her views, if outside the American political mainstream, have been supported by the United Nations. The UN Population Fund stated in its 2012 annual report that religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs had to be overcome. According to the UNFPA report, “‘duty-bearers’ (governments and others)” have a responsibility to assure that all forms of contraception – including sterilization and abortion-inducing ‘emergency contraception’ – are viewed as acceptable – “But if they are not acceptable for cultural, religious or other reasons, they will not be used.”

Two years later, the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child instructed the Vatican last February that the Catholic Church should amend canon law “relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted.”

At Thursday's speech, Hillary called the legal, state-enforced implementation of feminist politics “the great unfinished business of the 21st century,” which must be accomplished “not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

“These are not just women's fights. These have to be America's fights and the world's fights,” she said. “There's still much to be done in our own country, much more to be done around the world, but I'm confident and optimistic that if we get to work, we will get it done together.”

American critics called Clinton's suggestion that a nation founded upon freedom of religion begin using state force to change religious practices unprecedented.

“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion,” said Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

“In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is,” Ed Morrissey writes at HotAir.com. “Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change 'deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs' might be the most honest progressive slogan in history.”

He hoped that, now that she had called for governments to change religious doctrines, “voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.”

Donohue asked Hillary “to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge. Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value life from conception to natural death.”

You may watch Hillary's speech below.

Her comments on religion begin at approximately 9:00. 

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook