In a March 3, 2013, poll conducted by the polling companyTM, inc., only 12 percent agreed with the statement, “Abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during a woman’s pregnancy,” and yet this is the extreme position held by EMILY’s List. National Right to Life’s Advantage flyer clearly demonstrates that only a very small percentage of the public supports the EMILY’s List position of unrestricted abortion.
Because of that, it is not surprising that EMILY’s List often leaves out the word “abortion” when it praises their candidates and disguises its agenda in many other ways. For instance, when describing their candidate, they say she’s “an experienced leader with a great track record of protecting veterans, women, and working families.” “Protecting women” is liberal code for abortion on demand.
In fact the American public is far closer to the pro-life position than to EMILY’s List’s. A poll released by Gallup on May 10, 2013 revealed that a total of 58% believes that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (20%) or “legal in only a few circumstances” (38%).
Outspent by Abortion Lobby (2006-2012) Twelve-to-One
Over the last four election cycles (2006-2012), EMILY’s List raised $178.7 million to elect pro-abortion women to federal and state offices. By comparison, over the election cycles National Right to Life raised about $15 million for political action; a 12-1 difference. But how has that difference affected elections?
National Right to Life vs. EMILY’s List – 2012 Election
Twenty-four of the 99 pro-life candidates supported by National Right to Life in 2012 were in highly competitive races against candidates supported by EMILY’s List. EMILY’s List raised more than $51 million for their 2012 election efforts, while National Right to Life spent less than $5 million in all 99 of their competitive races.
Despite that huge disadvantage, the NRL-supported candidate won in twelve of those twenty-four races (50%).
How about taking a longer perspective?
Head-to-head with EMILY’s List Candidates (2006-2012)
In the last four elections National Right to Life actively supported a total of 74 candidates who were in highly competitive races against EMILY’s List candidates. The pro-life candidates supported by National Right to Life won 48 of those 74 races (65%) despite being outspent 12-1.
What if we look back two decades?
NRL vs. EMILY’s List over Twenty Years (1992-2012)
So what does EMILY’s List have today to show for hundreds of millions of dollars over twenty years?
Looking at federal election successes from 1992 until 2012, there are 14 current U.S. Senators and 54 current U.S. House members in office who have been elected with help from EMILY’s List. In some cases, their “successes” were in solid Democratic districts who would have won their elections regardless of efforts on their behalf.
Looking at National Right to Life’s election successes over the same twenty year period (1992-2012), there are 39 current U.S. Senators and 160 current U.S. House members who have been elected with help from National Right to Life. These are office-holders in which National Right to Life was actively involved working toward their election.
NRL Outspent by Pro-Abortion Groups
National Right to Life has to be very selective in which races we are involved, and must be extremely frugal with our funds in order to reach millions of pro-life voters across the nation.
Unfortunately, in every election, competitive races must be dropped due to inadequate funding. It is a painful process of elimination, especially knowing that once we cross the race off our list, a pro-life candidate is less likely to win.
Months of research goes into determining which races are most competitive – the races where NRL can best use pro-life resources to either protect a pro-life incumbent, defeat a pro-abortion incumbent, or win an open seat.
In 2012, National Right to Life endorsed 290 candidates for federal office nationwide. Four out of five – 80 percent – won their elections. In the 99 most competitive federal races where National Right to Life focused, NRLC-supported candidates won 57 (58%). These remarkable results were despite being vastly outspent by pro-abortion groups like EMILY’s List.
In the face of this tremendous financial disparity, the sacrificial giving to National Right to Life and its entities by National Right to Life members was greatly needed and deeply appreciated. The funds, used wisely and efficiently, were effective in turning out pro-life voters to the polls and have been for more than 20 years.
The most important reason pro-life candidates benefit is because the American people are pro-life. Most people are mortified when they hear testimony about the atrocities in the Kermit Gosnell murder trial. Most are disgusted when they realize Gosnell’s utmost disregard for the woman, hear about the filthy conditions at his clinic, and learn about his brutal method of “snipping” the spinal cords of sometimes six pound babies who were born alive during an abortion.
When National Right to Life has the funds to be able to educate the public – to let them know that since 1973 more than 55 million defenseless babies have been aborted – more than 3,300 each day, 365 days a year, and when voters realize that when they stay home on election day, they allow atrocities like those seen in the Kermit Gosnell murder trial to continue daily across the nation, then they are more motivated to get to the polls and vote pro-life.
The violence of abortion, as displayed so graphically in the Gosnell case, is supported, without limitations or restraints, by EMILY’s List and the candidates they support. We will continue to win, with your help, and continue our tireless work to truly protect mothers and their unborn children.
LifeNews Note: Karen Cross is the political director for the National Right to Life Committee.