for Life PAC Responds to Republican Leadership Council Poll
Washington -- A poll released Thursday by the pro-abortion Republican Leadership Council backs up our assertion that most Republicans favor pro-life candidates.
When asked to choose between three hypothetical Republican candidates for office -- a pro-abortion candidate, a pro-life candidate "who focuses on the economy" and a pro-lifer "who focuses on family issues" -- 20.3% chose the family-issues candidate, while 36.8% selected the economically oriented pro-lifer and 39.5% selected the pro-abortion candidate.
The Republican Leadership Council is touting these results as meaning that pro-life Republicans do not fare well among the electorate or do not have strong support within the Republican Party. Their own polling data proves otherwise. Some 57.1 percent of respondents preferred a pro-life candidate to a pro-abortion candidate.
Furthermore, the polling question itself is specious. No pro-life Republican candidate focuses only on family issues. Pro-life candidates running for offices from President to state representative also discuss other issues that weigh heavily on the minds of voters -- from foreign policy to crime and from education to health care. A more accurate question would have focused simply on whether or not most Republicans favor a pro-life Republican versus a pro-abortion Republican candidate. In survey after survey the resounding answer has been yes.
More legitimate polls underscore the pro-life advantage.
A national poll of 1,008 voters conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide following last November's elections showed that if the Republican Party moves away from its pro-life position it will hurt its candidate's chances.
Voters were asked if they would be more or less likely to vote Republican if the Republican Party dropped its "stand that supports protecting the lives of unborn children and opposes both partial-birth abortion and the use of federal funds for abortion." The poll found that 51% would be "less likely" or "much less likely" to vote Republican while only 36% would be "more likely" or "much more likely." This represents a potential loss of 15% for the Republican Party if it would abandon its pro-life position.
Despite assertions by the media, the Wirthlin poll found that Republicans are united on the abortion issue. Sixty-four percent of Republicans took a pro-life position, while 32% took a pro-abortion position. Republican women gave equally pro-life responses, with 65% taking a pro-life position and 33% taking a pro-abortion position.
The Republican Leadership Council asked which of seven prospective Republican candidates for president they would support if the primary were held today; 40% chose Texas Gov. George W. Bush, followed by Elizabeth Dole with 27.2% and Dan Quayle with 9.3%. About 12% of respondents were undecided.
The Republican Leadership Council is looking to advance a pro-abortion agenda in the Republican party. Again, they need to look no further than their own polling to see that Republicans want a pro-life candidate. It's no coincidence that respondents chose either a pro-life Governor, a pro-life former Vice-President or a candidate who has intimated support
for a Human Life Amendment as their top three choices.
The real question for the Republican Leadership Council to answer is why no pro-abortion Republican candidate made the cut. This is precisely because grassroots Republicans are very strongly pro-life. In 1996, pro-abortion Governor Pete Wilson ended his failed campaign for President after only one month. This time around he bucked before getting out of the starting gate. This lends further credence to the notion that most Republican Party supporters still do not want pro-abortion candidates.
The Republican Leadership Council poll of 408 likely GOP voters was conducted Feb. 3. It has a margin of error of +/-4.85%. The Wirthlin Worldwide polling information was provided by the National Right to Life Committee.
The Republicans for Life PAC is a political action committee dedicated to promoting the right to life within the Republican Party and supporting pro-life Republican candidates for elected office. Please send your donations to the Republicans for Life Political Action Committee, P.O. Box 104, Chatham, IL 62629. For more information, email GOPLifePAC@aol.com
--Paid for by the Republicans for Life PAC. --
Senate Panel Passes Abortion Facility Regulation Bill
INDIANAPOLIS - Abortion facilities would be compelled to meet staffing and equipment standards required of outpatient surgery centers under pro-life legislation endorsed by a Senate committee on Wednesday.
The 7-3 vote by the Senate Public Health and Provider Services Committee came over the objections of Planned Parenthood of Central Indiana, which said some of the 11 abortion facilities in the state would have to close because of added costs.
The measure now moves to the full Senate, where its chances of passage appear strong given the committee's endorsement and one key vote on abortion in 1995. With bipartisan support, the General Assembly enacted a law that year requiring an 18-hour waiting period for abortions. That law, which was vetoed by pro-abortion Senator Evan Bayh (then Indiana's
Governor) has since been modified by a federal judge.
Pro-life upporters of the clinic standards legislation have said they want to ensure that abortion facilities are safe and protect women hurt by abortion.
Pro-life state Sen. Kent Adams (R) said abortion facilities now must only meet certain building code requirements. But there are no rules to ensure that such things as emergency procedures and sterilized equipment are in place, he said.
"It seems to me that veterinary clinics come under closer review than these clinics," he said.
But Delbert Culp, the president of Planned Parenthood of Central Indiana, said some clinics would have to be completely renovated to meet standards dictating such things as wide hallways and the configuration of surgical rooms. He said one architect estimated that a Planned Parenthood abortion facility would have to spend $600,000 to meet such standards.
"You would indeed be forcing us to raise that kind of money or close," Culp said.
For More Information Contact:
Indiana Citizens for Life
5001 Plaza East Blvd, Suite B
Evansville, IN 47715
Phone: (812) 474-3195
|Georgia: New Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Making Headway
Atlanta -- Pro-life legislators are seeking to strengthen the state's partial-birth abortion ban, charging that the state attorney general "gutted" the law to settle a lawsuit brought by abortion advocates (Walston/Mantius/Pruitt, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/24).
Supporters of the move already have gathered commitments from high-ranking lawmakers for a resolution asking Attorney General Thurbert Baker to explain his decision. But rounding up support to take up the entire partial-birth issue again could prove far more difficult.
"It appears to me silly to get involved in that now," House Speaker Tom Murphy told reporters this week.
He expressed skepticism about opening the floor up to another debate on the topic, noting that lawmakers have less than a month of work left and numerous pieces of legislation have not yet come up for consideration in the House.
The Georgia Legislature passed a law banning partial-birth abortions in 1997. The attorney general's decision came as part of the settlement of a court case with a group of abortion practitioners and abortion facilities, which had challenged the constitutionality of the 1997 law.
Faulting the law as imprecise, Attorney General Baker ruled that partial-birth abortions could be banned only after the "point of viability," which is not spelled out in the decision, rather than at any stage during pregnancy.
The settlement also defined partial-birth abortions as "intact dilation and extraction," -- a term pro-lifeleaders said was too narrow to prevent many of the partial-birth abortions from occurring.
The move to give new power to the ban has an uncertain fate, but the resolution asking the attorney general to explain his decision has important commitments from House Majority Leader Larry Walker, D-Perry, and House Minority Leader Bob Irvin, R-Atlanta.
"Considering how long this bill was discussed, how long it was debated, surely the attorney general had a sense that this was a priority piece of legislation for the General Assembly," said pro-life Rep. Brian Joyce (R).
"We'd like to know who, what, when and where the basis of his authority for rewriting this legislation (came from)."
When the partial-birth abortion law passed two years ago, it had support from across the political spectrum, Rep. Joyce noted. Even some legislators who supported abortion in many circumstances favored the ban, he said.
"We're not looking at legislation that was radical," he said. "The ones who voted against it were considered radical at the time."
Mary Boyert, Executive Director of Georgia Right to Life, supported a much broader interpretation than the one defined by the attorney general. She also said the 1997 law clearly intended to ban all partial-birth procedures, and that the "viability" of the unborn child was not an issue.
"The point of the law that was introduced before, and the (bill) that will be introduced is to make sure that any child that is partially born has the same rights you and I have," she said.
As many as 90 percent of partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, Boyert explains.
For More Information Contact:
Georgia Right to Life
Post Office Box
1245, Norcross, Georgia 30091-1245
Phone: (770) 300-0080
State Legislature Votes Down Late-Term Abortion Ban (Source: Feb 24 Denver
Denver -- This year's abortion debate in the state Legislature came to an abrupt halt Tuesday when pro-abortion Senators defeated a late-term abortion ban.
Tuesday's voting lets pro-life Gov. Bill Owens off the political hook. Owens opposes abortion but has not included it among his priorities for his first year in office.
The legislation would have blocked abortions when the fetus is considered "viable'' - when it would be likely to survive outside the womb. It was the only abortion restriction proposed this year.
Sen. Doug Lamborn, the Colorado Springs Republican who authored the bill, said he was disappointed in the vote. "This is truly a life-and-death issue,'' Lamborn said. "I'm going to have to regroup.''
Six Republicans, four of them women, sided with Democrats to defeat the bill 20-13.
The bill brought emotional testimony from the lectern. A pro-abortion Senator decried thelack of rape and incest exceptions in the bill.
Pro-life Sen. Marilyn Musgrave (R) responded with a true story of the "precious twin girls'' born to her friends' daughter, who was impregnated by a rapist. "Do we want to live in a culture where the children are punished for the sins of their father?'' Musgrave asked.
After 19 weeks, a woman seeking an abortion would have to seek a doctor's opinion on whether the fetus is viable. If so, the abortion could be done only if it was necessary to prevent the "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the woman,'' or save her life. Physicians could be prosecuted on misdemeanor charges if they violated the law.
If the procedure were done for life reasons, abortion practitioners would be obligated to try to keep the child alive. They could be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter if they didn't.
The bill differed from the partial-birth abortion ban defeated by Colorado voters in November. The restrictions would have been based on when the abortion was to be performed during pregnancy, not which abortion procedure was used.
Owens supports making abortion illegal except in cases of rape, incest and cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. He differs sharply fromhis Democratic predecessor, Roy Romer, who supported abortion on demand. Abortion advoctes criticized him as an extremist during last fall's campaign. He also has been criticized by some Colorado pro-life leaders
who want him to do more to ban abortions.
Plans Euthanasia Show Follow-Up
NEW YORK (AP) -- After hearing from angry viewers, CBS's ``60 Minutes'' will present an alternative to Dr. Jack Kevorkian.
This Sunday, the newsmagazine will do a follow-up story about patients living with Lou Gehrig's disease after many of them complained about being demoralized when the network showed Kevorkian giving a lethal injection to an ALS sufferer.
The program sparked widespread debate about euthanasia last November when it aired a tape of Kevorkian administering drugs to Thomas Youk, a Michigan man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
CBS also was criticized for airing videotape of a person dying on prime-time television, particularly since it came during a ``sweeps'' period when ratings are used to set advertising rates.
Largely unreported at the time was the ``furious'' reaction of other people with the disease, said Dr. Stan Appel, director of a treatment center for ALS patients at Baylor University. ``It angered a lot of our patients that the focus was so misplaced,'' Appel said.
Don Hewitt, executive producer for ``60 Minutes,'' said he and Mike Wallace decided to do the follow-up story after it was suggested to them by a caller on CNN's ``Larry King Live.''
Sunday's story, titled ``Choosing Life,'' will feature a handful of people who are living with the disease.
Viewers criticized ``60 Minutes'' because it ``never showed us people who made a choice other than Kevorkian,'' Hewitt said, ``and I thought that was a legitimate thing to show.''
The second story is not an indication that ``60 Minutes'' was having second thoughts about the Kevorkian segment, he said, nor does it indicate that its producers are particularly susceptible to public pressure.
Jerry Lewis, host of an annual Muscular Dystrophy Association telethon, was among the people who wrote to Hewitt complaining about the Kevorkian segment. Lewis said it ``amplified the fear'' of people who have the disease or who will get a diagnosis of it in the future.
Anti-euthanasia and pro-life groups also expressed outrage at the showing of euthansia on prime time televistion and indicated that CBS legitimatized euthanasia by doing so.
This page is reformatted and published by Christ's Faithful People from the News Letters of Steven Ertelt of Pro-Life InfoNet.
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of
pro-life news and
educational information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to:
firstname.lastname@example.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and
Children First (http://www.prolife.org/wcf). For more pro-life info visit
the Ultimate Pro-Life Resource List at http://www.prolife.org/ultimate and
for questions or additional information email email@example.com