NRL News

Why Mitt Romney Must Be Elected

by | Oct 31, 2012

Editor’s note. This editorial appears in the fall issue of National Right to Life News.

Pro-life Mitt Romney

This edition of NRL News is important, which is why much of the NRLC staff has contributed prodigious amounts of time, insights, suggestions, and stories to make this special Election Issue an outstanding edition. My most fervent hope is not just that you and your family benefit—as important as that is—but that you also share with pro-life friends and associates all the information contained in an issue that is bursting at  the seams.

We have addressed in enormous detail the dramatic contrast offered by pro-life Mitt Romney and pro-abortion Barack Obama. President Obama himself (as does Mr. Romney) often talks about completely different “visions.” Nowhere—NOWHERE—are those competing worldviews more stark than on the issue of life.

On abortion Obama wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants his hyper-pro-abortion base to be motivated to beat the drums but file away out of sight all the radically anti-life actions and behaviors and winks and nods that make him the heartthrob of NARAL Pro-Choice America, PPFA, EMILY’s List, and kindred souls.

The goal is to obscure that when NARAL says “jump” Obama says “how high?” (not that he needs any persuasion) and to keep the electorate’s eye off of Obama’s record going back to when he was an Illinois state senator and opposed a bill that would have provided legal protection to babies who survived abortion!Everything he has done to further the abortion agenda—as a U.S. senator and as President—flows from an ideological commitment that is as unyielding and as far-reaching as it is scary. He has followed the logic of abortion to its logical endpoint.

In late August after the love fest to abortion known as the Democratic National Convention, there was a lot of talk about how Democrats now “owned” the abortion issue. But this embrace of the agenda of the most militant pro-abortionists was camouflaged in a two-piece suit: “respect for women’s rights” and the by-now tiresome “war on women” meme.

Compare and contrast: The Republicans’ strongly pro-life plank was caricatured into absurdity—this in spite of a definitive debunking from which titled its story, “Another blatant abortion falsehood from Team Obama.” But the Democrats’ platform, which literally contains no limitations on abortion and requires your tax dollars to grease the skids, largely received a free pass.

Why is exposing the truth about Obama so incredibly important? In September, The Polling Company conducted a survey which found that when voters in four swing states still up for grabs are exposed to the real story about President Obama’s support for abortion and his mandate violating religious freedom, it really hurts him.

The poll’s findings were potentially explosive.

By a 2–1 margin, these voters from the swing states of Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Florida were less likely to vote for the President when told “the health care legislation known as ObamaCare contains provisions that allow for taxpayer funding of abortion.”

And “54% of swing voters said they would be less likely (35% much less likely) to vote for President Obama after learning that he voted against a law to give equal treatment and constitutional protections to babies born alive after a failed abortion,” according to the poll.

“The president’s record on the Born-Alive issue costs him support even among his supporters: Nearly half (49%) of voters leaning towards voting for President Obama said they would be less likely to do so after learning about his record.” This latter result is highly instructive because even 43% of self-described “pro-choicers” were less likely to vote for the President.

Put another way, pro-abortion President Obama is attempting to thread the needle: embrace abortion with the kind of a zealous passion only Planned Parenthood and NARAL could love all the while pretending it is pro-life Republicans Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan who are the real “zealots.” And it’s hardly surprising that Obama believes he can laud ”reproductive rights” and beat the drums for a phony ”war on women” without paying the price that would be exacted if the electorate understands that Democrats accept any and all abortions up until birth. How often does CNN or the New York Times or the Washington Post call him to account? Never!

One other consideration which may seem odd, since it comes from Canada! Our northern neighbors live in a land that has no abortion law and hasn’t for decades. This is a nation that rejected a call to establish a parliamentary committee to ask if it makes any sense to say (as Canada’s Criminal Code does now) that a child does not become a “human being” until the moment of complete birth!

Canadian pro-abortionists are increasingly frustrated, angry, and—this is no exaggeration—hysterical, even though they beat back the motion to establish the committee. Why? For the same reason they went ballistic over another bill (also thwarted) in 2008 to make it a criminal offence for someone to attack a woman with the intent of killing her unborn child.

In the most revealing quote, perhaps of all times, Joyce Arthur, executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, explained her opposition: “If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion,” she told the National Post.

Forget abortion. To even say that it is criminal behavior for someone to kill a woman’s wanted baby is absolutely u-n-a-c-c-e-p-t-a-b-l-e. “Bleed into people’s consciousness”—what a remarkable confession.

And this absolutist mentality is not confined to Canada. Don’t forget that pro-abortionists fought our own “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” tooth and nail even though it, too, was crystal clear that it did NOT apply to abortion. Acknowledging in any context that “it” is not an “it” makes the anti-life crowd in any nation sweat bullets.

Coming back to the November 6 elections, it would difficult to overstate how important is the outcome. Obama may be wishy-washy on a lot of subjects, but he is unyielding when it comes to abortion. If Obama wins a second term, in all likelihood he would have the opportunity to replace a minimum of two justices on the Supreme Court.

The composition of a High Court which has finally given evidence of being open to reason and logic and new data about the extraordinary toll abortion exacts not only on unborn babies but also on their mothers would be altered by a man for whom support for unlimited abortion—at any stage and for any reason—is as natural, as spontaneous as breathing.

Obama must be defeated by pro-life Mitt Romney.

Paid for by National Right to Life PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee

Categories: Mitt Romney