A determined, one-sided media together with a sequence of most unfortunate statements by candidates created a “perfect storm” that played into and greatly augmented the pro-abortion narrative in this election. This effectively neutralized the usual pro-life advantage.
The pro-life movement and pro-life candidates cannot ever let this happen again. We must see that the issue before the public is how and why abortion is actually used in this country, and, of course, the baby who dies. If this is done, then with a majority opposed to abortion on demand pro-life political victories will once again be the norm.
Much has been written about the effect of abortion on the 2012 presidential race and the apparent sudden shift in polls from the pro-life plurality (or majority, which we have seen in recent years) to a plurality or bare majority self identifying as pro-choice. What has not been reported is that 1) of those who voted on the basis of abortion, the pro-life vote for pro-life candidates essentially equaled the pro-abortion vote for pro-abortion candidates; and 2) basic attitudes on abortion itself have not changed. A plurality, or even majority, of the public continues to oppose the vast majority of abortions that are actually performed.
While much has also been written about the “women’s vote,” race and ethnicity was a much greater determinant of how people voted than gender.
The CNN exit poll found that Mitt Romney won 59% of the white vote while Obama won 93% of the black vote and 73% of the Hispanic vote. Significantly, Romney won 56% of white women and 51% of young white voters, 18-29.
Church attendance was also a predictor of how one voted. Fifty nine percent of those who attend church at least once a week voted for Romney while 62% of those who never attend church voted for Obama.
Pew Research reported that Obama won the overall Catholic vote 50% to 48%, but Romney won white Catholics 59% to 40%. This was an increase of 7% for the Republican candidate over 2008 when John McCain won 52% of white Catholics. This increase may be due to the Obama Administration’s mandate that some Catholic and other religious institutions provide insurance coverage for items they find morally objectionable, as well as the very visible pro-abortion campaign for Obama.
On the abortion issue both sides were very active. However the pro-life side was vastly outspent and the pro-abortion side, with substantial help from most of the media, was very successful in defining the abortion issue in terms most disadvantageous to pro-life candidates. They were also aided by unfortunate and politically disastrous comments by some candidates who oppose abortion.
A post-election poll conducted by the Polling Company for National Right to Life found that 25% said that abortion affected their vote and that they voted for candidates who oppose abortion while 24% said abortion affected their vote and they voted for candidates who favored abortion. So pro-life PACs, including the National Right to Life PAC and the National Right to Life Victory Fund, did deliver the pro-life vote.
In fact 27% recalled hearing or seeing something or receiving something in the mail from National Right to Life. This represented the largest such recall ever. And National Right to Life made one of the largest pro-life efforts ever. The NRL PAC mailed almost ten million pieces of mail to identified pro-lifers and the NRL Victory Fund and the NRL PAC collectively ran 41,513 radio spots, with 5,319 of them in Spanish on Spanish language stations. An additional 14,760 educational spots on the issue were run by NRL.
What changed was that the pro-abortion side greatly increased their vote. In 2010 22% said abortion affected their vote and voted pro-life while only 8% said abortion affected their vote and voted pro-abortion. In 2008 the numbers were essentially the same: 25% said their vote was affected by abortion and voted pro-life while only 9% said abortion affected their vote and voted pro-abortion.
So this year while there was a pro-life vote that was essentially equal to the pro-abortion vote, the pro-life advantage which in the past has consistently been delivered to pro-life candidates was nullified and no net advantage accrued to either side.
The Polling Company poll found the same result among the 4% who said abortion was the most important issue affecting their vote. These voters divided evenly between Romney and Obama.
Losing the net gain pro-life candidates have had in the past on this issue obviously hurt Romney, even if there was no net pro-abortion advantage for Obama. How did the pro-abortion side accomplish this? By being able to redefine in the public arena what pro-life and pro-choice mean and by being able to have their message amplified by vastly greater resources and a media eager to carry their message.
Early on, the Obama campaign and their allies at Planned Parenthood, EMILY’s List, and NARAL sought to define the abortion issue as a “war on women” and link it to contraception and family planning. This effort was assisted by the media furor that surrounded the campaign to defund Planned Parenthood in Congress.
Whether or not the “war on women” theme alone would have produced the results desired by Obama and Planned Parenthood became a moot question when Todd Akin, the Missouri Republican Senate candidate, made his comments on rape and abortion. From that point on for the media the abortion issue was ONLY about rape.
Pro-life candidates were microscopically examined on the question of rape and abortion. Mitt Romney’s pro-life position which contained an exception for rape was at times misrepresented and Paul Ryan’s position contained no rape exception.
The media coverage of the Republican convention was greatly dominated by the media’s response to Todd Akin’s comments and the Republican Party platform was sometimes misrepresented as calling for a ban on all abortions with no exception for rape. In fact the platform is silent on the question of exceptions and states general principles in favor of life, while calling for the reversal of Roe. Such reversal would allow the state and federal legislative branches to legislate on abortion within their respective jurisdictions.
Obama and other pro-abortion candidates had the luxury of having their position subjected to essentially no media scrutiny at all. Obama was not asked to explain his opposition to the bill to prohibit abortion for sex selection, or his position on late abortion after 20 weeks when the baby can feel pain, or his support for public funding of abortion or even his well documented opposition to protecting babies born alive during an abortion. All of which are positions at odds with the views of the vast majority of voters.
Why does this matter? Because an overwhelming majority believes abortion should be allowed for rape and if that is the issue that defines what it means to be pro-choice or pro-life, then a majority will side with the pro-choice label.
The Polling Company poll found that only 21% would allow abortion at most for life of mother cases. Another poll released October 24 by Grey Matter Research found that only 18% would prohibit all abortions and 71% supported allowing abortion in cases of rape.
Such figures are not new. Support for allowing abortion in cases of rape has been overwhelming throughout the years of the abortion debate.
The success of the pro-abortion side in temporarily redefining what it means to be pro-life or pro-choice has been reflected in numerous recent polls.
While a May 2012 Gallup poll found that 50% identified themselves as pro-life and only 41% identified themselves as pro-choice, the Polling Company post election poll found 51% now identifying as pro-choice and 43% as pro-life. The Resurgent America post election poll found 49% identifying as pro-choice and 43% as pro-life.
Does this mean that there has been a fundamental shift in how Americans view abortion? No! It means that at the critical time of the election the pro-abortion side and their media allies succeeded in focusing the abortion issue on the single most difficult aspect of it for the pro-life side with enough voters to wipe out the usual pro-life advantage.
The Polling Company found that:
• 9% would prohibit all abortions
• 12% would allow abortion only to save the life of the mother
• 28% would allow abortion only for life of mother, rape and incest
• 16% would allow abortion for any reason but only up to 3 months
• 12% would allow abortion for any reason but only up to 6 months
• 13% would allow abortion for any reason at any time
• 11% don’t know or refused.
Grouping the first three categories as pro-life and the next three as pro-choice you get 49% pro-life and 41% pro-choice with only 25% actually agreeing with what is essentially the current legal status of abortion. This is in the same poll in which respondents self identified as 51% pro-choice and 43% pro-life.
Significantly, 14% of those who identified themselves as pro-choice said they would allow abortion only in cases of the life of the mother, rape, or incest. At the same time a full 45% of those who identified themselves as pro-life said they would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest.
Clearly the pro-life movement needs this category of people who oppose over 90% of all abortions to be identifying and voting for pro-life candidates and not for candidates with the unlimited abortion position held by Obama and his allies.
Similarly, while Grey Matter Research found that 71% would allow abortion for rape, they also found that only 40% would allow abortion because “the mother just doesn’t want to have the child,” the true pro-choice position, or because “raising the child would be a financial hardship.” Only 33% would allow abortion because “the mother wants a child of a different gender.”
A determined, one-sided media together with a sequence of most unfortunate statements by candidates created a “perfect storm” thatplayed into and greatly augmented the pro-abortion narrative in this election. This effectively neutralized the usual pro-life advantage. The pro-life movement and pro-life candidates cannot ever let this happen again. We must see that the issue before the public is how and why abortion is actually used in this country, and, of course, the baby who dies. If this is done, then with a majority opposed to\abortion on demand pro-life political victories will once again behe norm.
While the outcome of 2012 is bitterly disappointing, we can learn from it and emerge stronger, more focused and more effective. Fortunately the actual political balance of power remains much the same and there are many opportunities for educative and life saving legislation at the state level, and the U.S. House remains in pro-life hands.
Most important, recent reports indicate that the number of abortions continues to drop and lives are being saved. That is what this struggle is really about, why we in the pro-life movement do what we do and why we will keep doing it–only better.]]>
National Right to Life Launches Ad Buy:
Just Where DOES Planned Parenthood Get Their Money
This morning, listeners of radio stations in Northern Virginia and in Columbus and Cleveland, Ohio, started hearing a new ad from National Right to Life explaining where Planned Parenthood gets some of their $1 billion budget.
Currently Planned Parenthood’s political arms are running more than $500,000 worth of radio in the same markets.
Listen to the ad now!
Because National Right to Life factchecks everything we put out, we have the facts from Planned Parenthood’s own annual report to back up the ad. Check out these key factsheets citing Planned Parenthood’s OWN data:
Planned Parenthood: Abortion
Planned Parenthood: Money
Planned Parenthood: Politics
Help us spread the word about Planned Parenthood’s money! Facebook it, tweet it, email it. The American public deserves to know the truth about the nation’s largest provider and promoter of abortion.
By the way, here’s the full script of the ad:
Planned Parenthood’s political arms are spending nearly TWELVE MILLION dollars trying to elect politicians who support giving Planned Parenthood more of your tax money. How can they spend nearly TWELVE MILLION for politics?
Planned Parenthood has an income of over ONE BILLION…YES BILLION…dollars a year. And they want more!
Where do they get all of that money? According to their own reports, Planned Parenthood gets over FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY MILLION a year from government grants and reimbursements… your tax money. And there’s more!
Their own reports show Planned Parenthood performs over THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND abortions a year. At an estimated $450 dollars per abortion, that’s more than ONE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE MILLION dollars a year in…and 325,000 lives out.
And, by the way, they don’t do mammograms.
So Planned Parenthood spends millions to elect politicians who will give them millions.
But that’s just politics…at it’s worst.
These are just the facts from National Right to Life. For more information, visit nrlc.org today.]]>
A number of recent “mainstream news media” stories have taken the line that Mitt Romney has now shifted to a “moderate” position on abortion. Please don’t be fooled and remember that with very, very few exceptions, the media are simply an extension of the Obama campaign. The goal of this latest media spin is to get pro-lifers to abandon Romney and help the media elect Obama.
Mitt Romney’s position on abortion has been consistent throughout both his 2008 and his 2012 campaign and he has not changed that position. He believes Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and he believes abortion should only be allowed in cases to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest. He is running a television ad to that effect in part to counter the media’s earlier attempt, beginning with the Republican convention, to distort his position and imply that he would seek to ban abortion in cases of rape or incest or perhaps in all cases, including life of mother cases.
The media are quite happy for you to either think that Mitt Romney is too extreme on abortion or is too moderate on abortion, just as long as you don’t support him and help elect Obama.
Of course you will never see the media delving into Obama’s own position and record which includes 1) voting against a bill in Illinois that would have protected babies born alive during an abortion, 2) co-sponsoring a bill that would have made partial birth abortion legal again, and 3) opposing a bill to ban sex-selection abortion–not to mention the abortion promoting elements of Obamacare.
Obama can be defeated and a pro-life administration can be elected IF pro-lifers remain focused, disciplined and ignore whatever the Obama media try to whisper in our ears.
The following can be attributed to Carol Tobias, President of National Right to Life:
Beginning with an unapologetically pro-abortion platform and ending with the nomination of the most pro-abortion President this country has ever seen, the 2012 Democratic National Convention was truly an abortion convention. With the invitation of speakers such as Nancy Keenan and Cecile Richards, the DNC proudly showed their dedication to an extreme no-limits abortion policy.
Barack Obama has never wavered from his pro-abortion views, despite how far out of touch they are with mainstream Americans. His Administration has relentlessly attacked the pro-life position, and has fought all protections for unborn children, even for those in the sixth month or later who are capable of feeling excruciating pain during abortions, or for the unborn girls who will be aborted merely because they are girls.
Polling has shown time and again that most Americans, and most women, support protections for unborn children and their mothers; a position that is not shared by the current administration or the Democratic Party.]]>
The following can be attributed to Carol Tobias, President of National Right to Life:
As another day of the Democratic National Convention draws to a close, it remains painfully clear that the Democratic Party is unabashedly committed to their policy of abortion without limits.
The Democratic Party’s obsession with unlimited abortion is illustrated by the invitation to Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, to speak. As the nation’s largest provider and promoter of abortions, Planned Parenthood clinics perform more than a quarter of all abortions annually in the United States. More than 300,000 unborn children are killed by abortion in Planned Parenthood clinics annually. Ms. Richards never came within a light year of acknowledging this systematic application of violence to the most defenseless members of the human family, although it is really what the argument is all about.
As the Democratic Convention continues, you can expect to hear from more pro-abortion heavyweights, but with equally little attention to the grisly realities of abortion. You won’t hear any details about the different methods of abortion and what they do to unborn members of the human family. You won’t hear about sex-selection abortions, or President Obama’s opposition to the bill to ban sex-selection abortions. You won’t hear about abortions on unborn children who are capable of feeling pain. You won’t hear about the countless women who have suffered physically, emotionally, and mentally because of abortion. You won’t hear about Barack Obama’s endorsement of a bill that would invalidate virtually all state and federal limits on abortion, and that would make partial-birth abortion legal again (the “Freedom of Choice Act”).
Nor will many in the “mainstream news media” raise these issues, because although they have inexhaustible interest in exploring the outer parameters of the abortion-related policy positions of pro-life Republican candidates, even where this involves remote, theoretical scenarios, they continue to demonstrate a near-total disinterest in putting the spotlight on the outer parameters of the “abortion rights” positions embraced by President Obama, even on matters under current legislative consideration.]]>
WASHINGTON – The following statement can be attributed to Carol Tobias, President of National Right to Life:
It’s not surprising that speakers tonight at the Democratic National Convention made no attempt to disguise the abortion extremism of the Democratic platform and President Barack Obama.
NARAL President Nancy Keenan used her speech to make DNC 2012 the abortion convention as she proudly proclaimed the Democratic Party’s support for abortion. It’s understandable given the shared and unwavering dedication of NARAL and the President to the policy of abortion on demand without limits. Following Keenan, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius praised Obamacare, which will lead to expanded insurance coverage for abortion.
Every day, more than 3,000 mothers across the country have abortions. These women and their children deserve better than a violent procedure that leaves one dead and one wounded. But you won’t hear that at this year’s DNC. Look no further than their platform to see how extreme and out of touch with Americans they truly are. Even with 59% of Americans opposing the vast majority of abortions, and still more than 1.2 million abortions annually in this country, the Democratic Party has never seen any limit on abortion they liked, or any abortion they opposed.
As the DNC begins to showcase their pro-abortion extremism in Charlotte, the differences between Barack Obama and the pro-life ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have never been more clear.]]>
Barack Obama, pro-abortion extremist — and why the news
media avoid tough scrutiny of Obama’s abortion history
This is an update from the National Right to Life Committee in Washington, D.C., issued Thursday, August 23, 2012.
“The new obsession is the platform of the Republican Party on abortion, which is an obsession,” [Republican National Committee Chairman Reince] Priebus said Wednesday on “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” on Fox News. “What about the obsession about a guy who believes in partial-birth abortion? I mean, what about that obsession? I mean, why aren’t we talking about that very, that minority view of abortion in our country that this president holds dear to his heart? We’re not talking about that.”
(“Reince Priebus attacks Obama on abortion,” by Kevin Robillard, Politico, August 23, 2012.)
In the opinion piece below, “Obama the abortion extremist,” published today byPolitico, National Review Editor Rich Lowry asserts, “The Democrats and the press habitually travel in a pack, but never more so than when a social or cultural issue is involved, especially one touching on sexual morality. Then, it’s not a matter of mere partisanship or a rooting interest. It’s personal.” Lowry goes on to discuss how this hostility to the pro-life position manifests as a proclivity for subjecting pro-life Republican candidates to intense scrutiny on abortion-related issues, while ignoring or glossing over the extreme positions that Barack Obama has taken throughout his political career on abortion-related issues.
As the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) observed in an August 20 release, “The mainstream news media is again busy ginning up stories exploring the outer parameters of the abortion-related policy positions of pro-life Republican candidates, even where this involves remote, theoretical scenarios — while demonstrating a near-total disinterest in putting the spotlight on the outer parameters of the ‘abortion rights’ positions embraced by President Obama, even on matters under current legislative consideration.”
The August 20 NRLC release is here.
In October, 2008, NRLC published a detailed article examining the news media’s collaboration in allowing Obama, during the post-nomination phase of the 2008 campaign, to rewrite his history on various abortion-related issues, including legislation dealing with infants born alive during abortions. The article, which is here, also explores the news media’s near-total disinterest in examining the implications of Obama’s endorsement of the most extreme pro-abortion measure ever proposed in Congress, the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act,” which would invalidate virtually all state and federal limits on abortion, and re-legalize partial-birth abortion.
An NRLC “white paper” documenting Obama’s actual history on the born-alive infants legislation is here.
An NRLC statement on President Obama’s recently announced (but virtually unreported) opposition to the pending legislation to ban the use of abortion for sex selection is here.
To view “Video: Obama Says He’s ‘Pro-Choice’ on Third-Trimester Abortions,” by John McCormack, The Weekly Standard blog, August 22, 2012, click here.
For further information, contact the NRLC Federal Legislation Department at 202-626-8820 or firstname.lastname@example.org
[the Rich Lowry essay follows:]
Obama the abortion extremist
By: Rich Lowry
August 23, 2012 04:33 AM EDT
If NARAL has a man of the year award, it should go to Todd Akin.
Not only did the newly minted Missouri Senate candidate express his position on abortion in the most discrediting way possible, he threatens Republican hopes to take the Senate. By throwing away a winnable seat, he could preserve a Democratic majority that will sooner desecrate the American flag on the Senate floor than restrict abortion in any manner.
Predictably, the Akin flap has created a feeding frenzy. In recent days, the national political debate has seemingly telescoped down to the question of whether abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. The Republican platform is silent on these exceptions, while Paul Ryan opposes them, stoking Democratic attacks and media analysis about the renewal of the fabled “war on women.”
The Democrats and the press habitually travel in a pack, but never more so than when a social or cultural issue is involved, especially one touching on sexual morality. Then, it’s not a matter of mere partisanship or a rooting interest. It’s personal.
From a strictly down-the-middle, neutral perspective, if one side of a debate is “extreme,” the opposite and countervailing side is equally “extreme.” It would never even occur to the media to apply this standard to abortion. Under the guise of upholding abortion rights, Barack Obama could favor denying legal protection to babies after they are born and the press wouldn’t bat an eyelash. In fact—he did.
In the Illinois legislature, he opposed the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” three times. The bill recognized babies born after attempted abortions as persons and required doctors to give them care. Obama’s stalwart opposition to the bill came up during the 2008 campaign, and his team responded with a farrago of obfuscation and distortions.
The bill was supposedly redundant. Except it wasn’t. Protections for infants who survived abortions were shot through with loopholes, which is why the bill was offered in the first place. (Abortion doctors were leaving infants to die without any care.) The bill was supposedly a threat to abortion rights. Except it wasn’t. Obama opposed a version that stipulated it didn’t affect the legal status of infants still in the womb.
About a year after his final vote against the bill, Obama gave his famous 2004 Democratic convention speech extolling post-partisan moderation. But he couldn’t even bring himself to protect infants brutalized and utterly alone in some medical facility taking what might be only a few fragile breaths on this Earth. Some moderation. The federal version of the bill that he opposed in Illinois passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. Some post-partisanship.
President Obama is an extremist on abortion. He has never supported any meaningful restriction on it, and never will.
He opposed a partial-birth abortion bill in Illinois, even as the federal version passed the House with 282 votes and the Senate with 64 votes and was signed into law by President Bush in 2003. He arrived in the U.S. Senate in time to denounce the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the ban.
[to read the rest of the Lowry essay on the Politico site, click here.]]]>
WASHINGTON (July 18, 2012) — The Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives today approved legislation to end the current legal policy in the nation’s capital, where abortion is currently legal for any reason until the moment of birth.
The committee voted 18-14 to favorably report the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803), which would make abortion impermissible in the federal District after 22 weeks of pregnancy (22 weeks LMP, equivalent to 20 weeks fetal age), unless necessary to prevent the death of the mother.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Az.), currently has 215 House cosponsors.
Today’s committee vote was along party lines.
“A vote against this bill amounts to a vote to ratify the extreme policy currently in effect in the nation’s capital, where abortion is completely legal for any reason until the moment of birth,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. “Under the Constitution, members of Congress, and the President, are ultimately accountable for this extreme policy.”
By more than a 2-to-1 margin (58-27%), American adults would be more likely to vote for lawmakers who support the bill approved by the committee today, according to a nationwide live telephone poll of 1,010 adults (MOE +/-3.1%), conducted July 12-15 by The Polling Company, Inc./WomanTrend. In response to a separate poll question, respondents favored, by a 3-to-1 margin (63-21%), a policy of not permitting abortion anywhere “after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain,” unless it is “necessary to save a mother’s life.”
In the bill, Congress adopts findings that by 20 weeks after fertilization (if not earlier), the unborn child has the capacity to experience great pain. The bill then prohibits abortion after that point, except when an acute physical condition endangers the life of the mother. Expert testimony was presented at a May 17 hearing on the bill showing that at 20 weeks fetal age, 6% of infants born spontaneously now survive long term in good neo-natal units. The long-term survival rates are 26% at 21 weeks fetal age and 55% at 22 weeks fetal age. (To convert to the alternate “LMP” dating system used by ob-gyns and abortion providers, also known as “weeks of pregnancy,” add two weeks to each figure.)
A Senate companion bill (S. 2103) has 30 cosponsors. Seven states have already enacted similar legislation.
The NRLC website contains much documentation on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and on the scientific evidence that unborn children, by 20 weeks fetal age if not before, have the capacity to experience great pain, here. The abortion method most often used at this stage, the “D&E,” is depicted in a medical illustration, here.]]>
Strong U.S. House majority votes to ban sex-selection abortion
NRLC says Obama and 168 U.S. House members “complied with the political demands of pro-abortion pressure groups, rather than defend the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized by sex-selection abortions”
WASHINGTON – The U.S. House of Representatives today conducted a roll call vote on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 3541), a bill to make it unlawful to perform or coerce a sex-selection abortion. The vote was 246-168 in favor of the bill – a strong majority, although short of the two-thirds vote required under the fast-track procedure utilized today. In a statement obtained exclusively by ABC News late May 30, the White House acknowledged that President Obama opposes the bill. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of state right-to-life organizations, issued the following statement after the roll call:
“We are heartened that a strong majority of House members voted to ban performing or coercing abortions for the purpose of eliminating unborn babies of an undesired sex – usually, girls,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. “Shamefully, President Obama, and a minority of 168 House members, complied with the political demands of pro-abortion pressure groups, rather than defend the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized by sex-selection abortions.”
Among the organizations that warned House members not to vote for the bill was the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the nation’s major abortion provider. PPFA sent an email memo to House members on May 29 warning of its “intent to score” a vote for the bill as a vote against “women’s health.” Also on May 29, the Huffington Post reported that “no Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortions (Arizona, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Illinois).” So, for PPFA, abortion for sex selection is just another menu option, except where it is illegal – and PPFA vehemently opposes making it illegal.
“We commend the House Republican leadership for bringing this bill to the floor today under the fast-track procedure,” Johnson said. “Today’s groundbreaking majority vote was a stepping stone to this bill ultimately becoming law – perhaps after the replacement of some of the lawmakers who today were unwilling to protect victimized women and their unborn daughters from sex-selection abortions, because they were more concerned with maintaining favor with the abortion industry, pro-abortion advocacy groups, and Hollywood donors.”
NRLC’s letter to House members in support of the bill, and links to academic studies demonstrating the prevalence of sex-selection abortions (often coerced) within certain immigrant communities in the United States are posted on this page: http://www.nrlc.org/Sex-