by Steven Ertelt
November 1, 2004
The following editorial was written by Steven Ertelt, the Editor and CEO of LifeNews.com.
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The women’s vote is up for grabs again this year, but something surprising is happening. According to polls, President Bush is doing a better job of appealing to women voters than Republican presidential candidates have done in previous years.
John Kerry’s lower numbers, compared to past Democratic candidates, can be attributed to the fact that women are not concerned about making sure abortion is legal. And Kerry’s record on abortion, from a women’s perspective, doesn’t help.
A late October poll conducted by comScore Networks showed Bush with a narrow 1.7% lead among women voters nationwide, 47.6 to 45.9 percent.
And when it comes to the issue of abortion, women overwhelmingly support the president.
About 5 percent of women selected abortion as one of their top issues they are evaluating when it comes to their vote for president. Of those five percent, women voters back Bush over Kerry by a 67.5 percent to 27.6 percent margin.
Kerry’s record explains much of this.
In one of the most offensive votes to women during his tenure in the Senate, Kerry voted against a measure that would protect pregnant women from violent assaults.
Criticized for spending too much time on the campaign trail and missing votes in the Senate, Kerry made a special effort to return to Washington to vote against Laci and Conner’s law.
That bill, named for Laci and Conner Peterson and signed into law by President Bush, tells pregnant women that attackers who violently assault them are not going to get a slap on the wrist for killing or injuring their baby. Any criminal who kills or injures a woman’s unborn child during an assault receives two sentences instead of just one.
Without the law, criminals could assault a woman and kill her baby and quickly find themselves back on the street after a light sentence, plea bargain or early parole. That’s a travesty of justice the bill corrects.
However, Kerry is so beholden to abortion advocacy groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood that he voted against the measure — despite its broad bipartisan support.
Meanwhile, when it comes to an invasive surgical procedure like an abortion, parents want to be involved and help their daughters make good decisions. After all, parents must be allowed to be involved in decisions such as teenagers seeing some movies or getting an aspirin from a school nurse.
However, as a member of the Senate, Kerry has voted repeatedly against parental involvement measures that require abortion business to allow parents to help these young women when they find themselves pregnant.
Kerry also opposes a bill that would stop secret teen abortions.
In states where there is no parental involvement law, abortion businesses routinely advertise this fact in neighboring states and bring teenagers in to have abortions. Parents are then left to pick up the pieces when their daughter suffers an emotional breakdown or is hospitalized for complications following the abortion.
Had they been told beforehand, parents could have helped their daughters make a better decision.
What also boggles the mind is why Kerry wants to restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund. The UNFPA has been cited as supporting China’s population control policy that includes forced abortions and sterilizations.
President Bush was right to cut off that agency’s funding for four years straight because it refuses to disassociate itself from China’s human rights abuses. But Kerry, again at the behest of abortion advocates, says he will restore funding on his first day in office.
How does it help women to tell them that they must submit to beatings, imprisonment, forced abortions, job loss, and to see their families tortured and jailed — all because they want to have an additional child?
John Kerry fancies himself as a woman’s advocate. But, on abortion, his record proves otherwise.