Mock the Vote

In this election, record numbers of Catholics and young Evangelicals, the nation's traditional pro-life base, voted in unexpected ways. They voted to elect our second pro-choice President. Rather than induce reflection in staunch pro-life groups, they have instead reacted with denial and yet more extremism.

First the numbers. The New York Times reports that Obama inspired an 8% jump in Catholic supporters compared to those who voted for the Catholic John Kerry in 2004. And Obama doubled his support among young white evangelicals (those ages 18 to 29) compared with Kerry. The increase was almost the same for white evangelicals ages 30 to 44.

The Times reports that young Evangelicals were persuaded by "a broader agenda" than abortion. In the case of the pro-life movement, that broader agenda included rolling back access to contraception, and backing abstinence-only programs despite mounting evidence of its failures. They oppose contraception, stem cell and IVF treatment, all issues that find strong support even among self-described pro-life voters. Pro-life campaigns targeting these issues clearly alienated otherwise sympathetic voters; helping propel Obama into the presidency.

This election provides further evidence that the pro-life movement has lost resonance with voters. Oddly, pro-life groups have responded to defeats by redoubling their efforts - usually the exact same efforts - on behalf of this extreme agenda.

Three days after his election, for example, one anti-abortion group took aim at President-elect Obama's leadership on expanding access to contraception. The organization, the Population Research Institute (PRI), is best known for its mission to stop family planning in the poorest regions of the world. On Friday the group attacked Obama for having been the sponsor of Prevention First, legislation that would dramatically expand access to birth control in the United States. The organization's press release stated,

"Obama has pledged to pay for abortions with Americans' tax dollars, such as in the Prevention First Act which he co-sponsored in the Senate. The bill will "increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims." According to PRI, this language disguises the "ugly reality" that the legislation would "force insurance companies to fund, doctors to prescribe, and pharmacies to dispense, abortifacient contraceptives."

Despite the fact that the Prevention First legislation does not fund or expand access to abortion, PRI presses ahead with its transparent misinformation campaign claiming contraception can act as an abortion. They do this despite the evidence that such tactics helped drive many self-described pro-life Americans (those that know the difference between contraception and abortion) to vote for Obama. His proven-to-work prevention policies enjoy wide public support.

PRI is not the only pro-life group ignoring the writing on the wall. Those behind Colorado's Amendment 48, which was handily defeated, have only been encouraged by their spectacular failure. No less than seventy five percent of Coloradoans, including many prominent pro-lifers like Governor Bill Ritter, rejected the thinly veiled attack on contraception. After such a resounding defeat, you might think that campaign strategists would reconsider such an approach. Instead, one day after the election, Amendment 48's team apparently took this lesson from the failure: if it doesn't work once, try it again (and again). One day after the election the amendment's sponsor announced the launch of the same exact effort in 17 states. According to Life News, "Keith Mason, one of the Personhood Amendment organizers, says his group plans to take the measure to every state where citizens can put proposals on the ballot and to submit them over and over again until they win."

Such obstinacy in the face of public consensus appears to be trying the electorate's collective patience. In South Dakota, for the second time, the state's deeply religious and conservative voters rejected the ballot initiative that would have banned abortion. How did Leslee Unruh, the abortion ban organizer, respond? Like a stalker. "Third time's the charm," she told the LA Times, "We're coming back. We're not going away. "

The electorate may need a restraining order.

For breaking news on threats to birth control access and information visit birthcontrolwatch.org

Follow Cristina Page on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cristinapage

Comments

[RealityBaseCamp]

Hmmm, note to self (& everybody else): In the name "Population Research Institute," the word "population" refers to the verb "to populate", not to the noun "populatio­n." They appear not to be promoting the study of population growth, like various groups have since the 1960's, but the study of how to populate. Just another of those groups for whom you've got to remember the coded meaning.

[RumiSouth]

The problem with any extremist ideology is that it leaves no room for the real world to change. History is littered with such movements.

[Helmsey]

I am sorry to bring a practical, but probably insensative arguement to light. The world is getting more and more over populated and also as an effect of that more and more polluted. Let us face it, we ban abortions and some of these contraceptives, the population and pollution problems just get worse. What will eventually have to be inacted is some sort of population control. I think that possibly in our lifetimes this will become a reality. I feel that it is pretty much becoming clear, looking at these sky rocketing population in developing countries, that the best societies for human rights and prosperity, are societies that are modern with relatively smaller populations. In my opinion those are the kinds of ideals that mankind should be working toward. The individuals that adopt or go without children altogether, are the unsung heros of this day and age.

[FreethinkJen]

Everybody is proclaiming the end of the Religious Right. I'm not quite sure. These are the statistics I have heard recently. Evangelicals make up aobut 25% of the population. Approximately 22% of middle age evangelicals (age 30-44) voted for Obama, and 32% of younger evangelicals (age 18-29). Not many older evangelicals voted for him. So if say, 25% of total evangelicals voted for Obama, that still leaves 18% of the US populations firmly Religious Right. I know I'm being a little loose with these numbers. Republicans make up 32% of the population, so Religious Right makes up well over half of the Republican party, if I interpreted the statistics correctly. So I don't really think they are quite dead yet.

If Obama governs far left, they will be ENRAGED in 4 years. I know them - was RR for 20 years. It is fortunate that their attitude so far is "God will win us the elections - rational thought is optional." It's easy for people to see through all that. But if they put up a candidate who appears reasonable on the surface, who knows what will happen.

[NationalTreasure]

Cristina, Democrats, Liberals and Progressives:

Enought with the pointers and instructions to the republicans. Let them continue their divisive rhetoric and let the republicans preach about policies that Americans have rejected.

Enough with the suggestions to republicans about how they can rebuild their party.

Please, do not help the republicans in any way shape or form. They should be left alone to implode and to cease to be viable as a political party.

Let them hire their own consultants and spend their time fighting one another in trying to determine the next wave of their party.

Let's hope the republicans stay in the wilderness for the next 50 years ... or forever, who needs them?

[mommadona]

LET'S PUT THE NAMES OUT THERE

Population Research Institute

Fr. Paul Marx, O.S.B.
Founder

Steven W. Mosher
President

Colin Mason
Director for Media Production

Population Research Institute
1190 Progress Drive, Suite 2D
P.O. Box 1559
Front Royal, VA 22630

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: pop.org.org

- you can email them...
http://www.pop.org/main.cfm?r1=11.00&ID=92&level=1&r2=0.00

[watchingwaiting]

"The bill will 'increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.'"

I find nothing wrong with this - in fact it sounds safe, fair and justified. I've always been pro-choice but have understood the pro-life platform. What I can't get behind is their refusal of available contraception for all. The fewer unwanted pregnancies, the fewer abortions we will have. Why have they not made that logical step? It's time that they realize that people have sex out of wedlock and it's perfectly legal to do so.

In the final presidential debate, Obama talked about teaching the sacredness of sex. Isn't that a better option than abstinence-only education? I've known so many teenage girls who honestly didn't know that sex can lead to pregnancy because they were never allowed in sex ed class in school.

[SeanOcali]

Anyone who is a against contraception is PRO ABORTION - whether they realize it or not.

[northstar11]

30,000 kids died today of starvation. --- there is a cause where pro lifers can really help .

[anniegirl9]

I think we should be very concerned with this move to lable contraception as abortion. Many people don't give it much credit because it seems so fanatical and think it would never really go anywhere. That's what I though 18 years ago when I first had it explained to be by a pro-life person. Many pro-life individuals do not even fully understand the reasoning behind it and say that they are not a supporter of making contraception illigal. But if they heard the argument, they should be.

Basically, studies show that all hormonal contraception can act as an abortafaciant (meaning the body discards the fertilized egg) in up to 30% of women. Now there is some argument about the actual research, but if it holds true and you believe that life begins at the momnet of conception, that as a pro-life person, you should be against all hormonal contraceptives. IUD's as well because we know they doesn't prevent contraception.

If Roe v. Wade ever gets overturned and "life" is legally defined as the moment of conception - then expect that these contraceptions will effectively be eliminated as well - if the research bears out. The only birth control that will be available to us will be condoms, sterilization, or abstinance.

[Cristina Page - Huffpost Blogger]

Anniegirl19, There are no studies showing hormonal contraception can act to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. What "studies" are you citing? Even the anti-choice movement's own most respected physicians have come forward to say that there's no evidence to suggest that prevention of implantation is a known mode of action. Prevention of ovulation, yes. Prevention of fertilization, yes. These are the primary and secondary known modes of action. The right to life movement would like us to believe there is a third, however unlikely, and unproven mode to prevent implantation and this imagined possibility is the basis on which all of their campaigns to classify contraception as abortion are built. Please let us know what study you are citing--you risk giving the appearance of legitimacy to their fake science.

[ShinjiIkari]

The anti-contraception argument is not based on science at all (all hormonal contraception CAN act as an abortafacient, which sounds more iffy than any kind of rigorous scientific trial) but on dogma: the use of contraception, even the "rhythm method" flies in the face of the supposedly Divine Order to "be fruitful and multiply." The problem with the abortion argument is that it left science in the dust long ago and the anti-abortionists (many of whom are noticeably not pro-life in their support of capital punishment and wars of choice) are largely zealots; in the words of the Rabbi Bob Dylan, "you never ask questions when God's on your side."

What do the anti-abortionists recommend when an Ob/Gyn is faced with an ectopic pregnancy, which cannot be brought to term without causing the mother to risk bleeding to death? Abortions are a medical procedure, and not every abortion has to be weighed on a morality scale. The sooner the anti's realize this, the sooner we might all find common ground.

[Downing]

The big contradiction is that abortion opponents don't wan to prevent abortion, or they would be for real sex education and contraception.
They really want to be the anti fornication police.
Good luck on that.
How about taxing porn heavily to fund free contraception?

[FreethinkJen]

Taxing porn to fund free contraception - I like that idea.

[darthdarcy]

Jesus said: "Let the dead bury the dead, your time will come..!"

By this Jesus meant His Church was to be a church of the living, that cared for and nurtured and brought hope and faith to the living...

The more we care for and nurture our children and assist their potential and new mothers the more children we will see born into our world...

Simple as that...

[jacobomorales]

Maybe they are beginning to use their God given brains a tad more. What use is getting all worked up about "abortions" if the world is about to die from avarice and stupidity? Maybe they have made the connection between human endeavours and the future of mankind on earth.

[Kristen777]

War is not pro-life.

This Catholic votes democrat because pro-life, to me means respect for all stages and conditions of life.

[Bibbo]

Kristen777
You dont get to make that call.You vote democratic because you WANT to.Please dont put the words pro-life in any sentence that contain your name. The Catholic church has been poorly served in the last 20 yrs by a clergy thats been unwilling to pay the price a strong pro-life position demands. Its not a popular view because many are like Kristen777 and see things in a narrow a "whats in it for me" viewpoint. Things in Catholicism are changing..­.the seminaries are aware of the problems the current crop of clergy have allowed. Obama,an abortion president, elected by catholic voters.Its a disgrace.

[fedupinfla]

Gee, I thought the Catholic church was more poorly served with all the child-molesting priests than their pro-life views.

[Felicemente]

Bibbo:

I'm sorry - YOU, and people who think like you, are the problem and a disgrace to America.

This country was established by and on the principles of:
1.)individ­ual rights,
2.)toleran­ce of difference, and
3.)inclusi­on of ALL who seek inclusion

The reason that the Catholic church continues to fade into the background is because of their hard-line intolerance and refusal to accept the fact that a 2000 year old book doesn't provide all the answers for dealing with modern issues.

It has NOTHING to do with a "'what's in it for me' viewpoint", it has to do with a "how can we continue to survive and prosper as a collection of diverse people with diverse perspectives" viewpoint.

If you want to live in a totalitarian theocracy, please feel free to move to another country (I hear Iran has a kicking theocracy). However, if you'd like to stay in America, please understand that this nation is now, and always will be, a nation of inclusion.

[iusedtocare]

Our pastor said just about the same thing, "What were all those Catholics doing when they voted for him?" Well, I didn't and I didn't vote for McCain, either.

[northstar11]

SINGLE ISSUE VOTING is bad for democracy- the world is far too complex.

and besides the state should not be fighting church battles for them. the church should tend to its own flock.