Family Research Council
January 23, 2008
FRC Action, the legislative action arm of Family Research Council, has released the results of a commissioned national survey showing that a clear majority of voters would be less likely to support a candidate who proposes a national health care plan that includes universal abortion coverage. The scientific survey by Wilson Research Strategies asked the following question of 801 likely voters: If a candidate for the Presidency proposed a national health care plan with universal coverage of abortion at taxpayer expense, would you be more or less likely to vote for that candidate?
A clear majority of voters (56%) signaled that they would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate proposing universal abortion coverage compared to (31%) who would be more likely to support such a candidate. Intensity runs strongest among those opposed to the idea, with 45% indicating they would be much less likely to vote in favor of a candidate whose plan forced taxpayers to pay for abortion, compared to 19% who would be much more likely to endorse such a candidate. Opposition to universal abortion coverage crossed nearly every demographic including sex, race, region, and age.
Some of the polls most interesting findings include the following:
- Independent voters of all ages and sex would be less likely to vote for a candidate that proposed a national health care plan with universal coverage of abortion at taxpayer expense.
- Although a majority of Democrats would support a candidate that proposed a national health care plan with universal coverage of abortion at taxpayer expense, the support is soft at best (51%).
- Resistance to abortion coverage is consistent between both sexes and all ages. Women aged 55 or older are the most opposed to such coverage (59% are less likely to vote for a candidate endorsing it), men of all ages follow in opposition (57% less likely to vote for a candidate endorsing it), and the majority of (51%) of women aged 18-54 are less likely to support such a candidates.
- Widespread disapproval of candidates who support taxpayer-funded abortion coverage spans all but one region of the United States New England.
Files Available for Download [PDF]
January 22, 2008
Many thanks to all of the bloggers who were our guests today at FRC for the 2008 Blogs for Life conference. It was a great event, and FRC gives special thanks to all of our excellent speakers, and bloggers who made it a success.
Here’s a (unfinished) list of bloggers present:
I’m sure that I’m leaving many people out, so if you were here today, make note in the comments and I’ll highlight you.
We had some “technical difficulties” with the webcast initially (Murphy’s Law plays when most convenient), which were thankfully sorted out before the event’s conclusion. Our apologies to those who had problems.
If you missed the event, check back here later this week for archived footage.
January 22, 2008
Here’s the current schedule for today’s Blogs for Life Conference:
NOTE: The live webcast of the event can be accessed here.
More information on the conference can be found at www.blogs4life.com.
January 19, 2008
Just when I thought CNN was starting to treat Evangelicals fairly they let Jack Cafferty out of his cage. On Thursday he went on a tear accusing Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee of wanting to put more God-like stuff in the Constitution. The God-like stuff that he was referring to was amending the constitution to ensure the right to life and to prevent the courts from redefining marriage. Cafferty went on to say that Evangelicals are the reason George Bush was in office for eight years and, therefore, they are responsible for all of Americas troubles. Cafferty then said that Huckabee is trying to bring out those Evangelical voters, to get them to the polls by using the God-like stuff talk. Cafferty didnt even try to cloak his disdain for Christians, leaving me to think he would much rather be reporting on bringing out the lions or staking Christians to the poles instead.
This all started when Mike Huckabee, in a speech last Monday night in Michigan, said he supported a Constitutional amendment ending abortion. [I]ts a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God and thats what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so its in Gods standards, rather than try to change Gods standards. Huckabee made a similar comment about his support for a marriage amendment several weeks ago, but not being a front-runner at the time little was said about that statement.
I was on both CNN and MSNBC this week responding to Huckabees comments. The overreaction to them can be attributed to one of two things. Some in the media simply dont understand Evangelicals, not to mention history, or they just willfully twist their statements. It all suggests an anti-Christian bias as they try to further the ludicrous notion that Evangelicals want to establish a theocracy in America. .
Mike Huckabee is not the first to say that Gods definition of life and marriage should prevail in our culture. In fact, the Declaration of Independence with its references to the law of Nature and of Natures God makes it pretty clear that the Founders held a very similar view. As for the U.S. Constitution, that secular document Huckabee purportedly wants to defile with God-like stuff, a majority of Americas agree with him that life and marriage are worth protecting and that if it takes amending the constitution, then so be it.
Again let me state for the record that I am not supporting Gov. Huckabees candidacy. I have not endorsed a candidate, but I consider attacks on any Christian candidate because of his or her faith an attack on all of us. I also predict, again, that these attacks by the media and others only serve to help Huckabee as more and more Evangelicals put policy concerns aside to lock arms with a man who is being attacked for publicly standing for the values they hold most dear.
January 18, 2008
Yesterday in the Washington Update I wrote about the fact that Republican voters, including evangelicals, are distributing their votes among three leading candidates Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and John McCain handing them victories at the ballot box in the hope that one or more of the GOP candidates will fully embrace all three parts of the conservative coalition social, economic, and defense.
On the eve of the voting in South Carolina, the race may be wide open, but the base is not wide open about its agenda for unity. Not everyone is sounding this theme. Yesterday the economic conservative Club for Growth assembled a team led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey that crisscrossed the Palmetto State attacking Mick Huckabee as, in Armeys words, a misguided populist.
The candidates themselves seem to be trying harder to generate unity. Huckabee used a speech in Tigerville, South Carolina, to emphasize his nine-point immigration plan that one anti-illegal immigration group hailed as the strongest no-amnesty, attrition plan of any of the candidates.
McCain took the opportunity to personally address the sanctity of life in Greenville, South Carolina, saying, “Im proud of my pro-life record in 24 years in the United States Congress … and I believe that some of the most sacred words ever uttered were that all of us were created equal … and that applies to the unborn as well as the born. He also said that the best way to protect the family and the unborn is “to appoint judges who strictly interpret the Constitution, and that he would “nominate the closest thing to a clone of (Chief) Justice John Roberts as I can find.”
Romney for his part has actually carried a three-legged stool with him to campaign stops for months, citing the need for family values to be an integral component of a conservative message. He is dividing time between South Carolina and Nevada, which holds caucuses of its own this Saturday.
Finally, Fred Thompson, for whom South Carolina may prove to be a breakwater or a backbreaker, hit all the coalition themes, denouncing budget excess, saying, “We’re spending ourselves into oblivion, asserting his dedication to the sanctity of human life, and even plastering unity on his campaign posters.
To a remarkable degree, the messages of these four candidates are now converging.
January 8, 2008
FRC will host the third-annual Blogs For Life conference on January 22nd, 2008 at Family Research Council Headquarters in Washington, D.C. beginning at 8:00a.m. This event will precede the March for Life, which will mark the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.
A webcast will be available for those who can’t make it to D.C..
Speakers to include:
Details and registration are developing, so check back for more details after the new year.
UPDATE: Registration is here.