In part 1, I proposed that the GOP could reclaim the debate over abortion by (1) de-emphasizing overturning Roe v. Wade, (2) recognizing privacy rights, but noting they are not absolute, (3) using “choice” against pro-choice arguments, (4) emphasis on the purported goals and importance of responsibility and (5) using science to determine when life begins.  There are other aspects that lend themselves to a winning strategy for the GOP in this area:

6. Stem Cell Research:  The controversy over stem cell research needs to be extinguished.  Using 2005 numbers provided by the CDC, that year there were 820,000 abortions performed in the U.S.  Even the most rational pro-life advocates would allow for abortion in the case of rape, incest, and maternal or fetal health concerns.  According to the CDC statistics, these account for 7.2% of the reasons for obtaining an abortion.  At that rate, it represents over 59,000 “acceptable” abortions.  That is over 59,000 potential sources of new stem cell lines a year.  Does it matter whether they end up in a research laboratory or in a medical waste container?  Through informed consent and release, surely the problem of “new lines of stem cells” could be addressed to the satisfaction of the scientific community.  Secondly, is the Federal or any state government in a financial position to actually fund stem cell research?  Experts claim this is the most promising area of medical research and could be the answer to the sufferers of about 70 medical conditions.  If so, then it would clearly be to the benefit of genetic engineering, biotech and pharmaceutical concerns to engage in the research, not the government.  Although the government has the mandate to foster the sciences, they have that mandate through patent laws.  There is no mandate to fund scientific research.  And while they can formulate guidelines for the research under the Commerce Clause, actual funding is not necessary.  That should be left to the private interests who stand to benefit financially.

7. Stress the cost of abortion:  Although somewhat difficult to gauge, there are studies that estimate that since Roe vs. Wade, the US economy has suffered a $7.0 trillion loss in GDP through potential lost tax revenue and productivity.  An aborted fetus cannot grow up to work and pay taxes.  Conversely, liberals will contend that the aborted fetus was saved a life of poverty or an abusive household or any other horror they can conceivably conjure up. No doubt, there would be such cases, but on balance there is most likely a net loss to the American economy.  Additionally, the liberal view is somewhat short-sighted in that it assumes people cannot overcome poverty or abusive households.  They argue that abortion on demand is economically good because it lessens the potential additional burden on social services.  Regardless, the CDC statistics indicate that 21.3% of abortions are performed for financial reasons- the mother could not afford having a child.  Even if we assume all 21.3% of those fetuses will not overcome poverty (and “financial reasons” does not even necessarily equal “poverty”) and become a drain on social services, that would still represent a $5.5 trillion hit to the American economy.  That might be enough to bail out another bank or car company in Obamaland.

8. Disentangle contraception from abortion:  Some pro-life advocates want to go further and condemn contraception and view it as akin to one of the purported reasons for abortion regulations in the first place- that it is encourages premarital promiscuity and sex.  Others argue that it prohibits a potential human life.  Potentialities and actualities are two different things.  An egg sitting in an ovary or a sperm sitting in a testes is not human life.  It only achieves that status when they successfully combine.  If a bank robbery is foiled before the robbers get in the bank, you cannot charge them with bank robbery.  That being said, government dictates to local schools regarding the content of sex education curriculum- on either side- makes no sense whether done through mandate or by using the power of the purse.  If the federal government is to fund public education at all, it is with the ostensible purpose of raising educational standards.  How does mandating what is taught in health class improve math performance?  All it does is create a vehicle to force a liberal or a conservative viewpoint on a locality.  If New York wants to distribute condoms, that should be their choice after thoughtful, deliberative debate.  If Florida wants to teach abstinence-only sex education, that should be their choice.  If Oregon wants to teach some hybrid approach, then that should be their choice.  Tying federal educational aid to the content of sex education courses makes little intuitive sense.  A moratorium on this practice is what is needed.  Return curriculum content to its rightful place- the states and localities.

9. Take advantage of the ethnic disparities:  One of the unfortunate aspects of the entire debate is the rate of abortions among ethnic minorities.  According to the CDC, the rate among blacks is 49 per 1,000 while that of Hispanics is 33 per 1,000 compared to 13 per 1,000 among white, non-Hispanic women.  This should be seen as an opportunity by the Republicans to reach out to these groups in order to engage community leaders to help reduce these rates, thus reducing the overall rate of abortion in America.  Quite frankly, the GOP suffers among black and Hispanic voters and community outreach in this area would show empathy with these groups while moving towards the overall goal of reducing abortions.  Naturally, this will not create a shift in party preference necessarily in the short term, but the foundations for long term improvement would be laid.  Certainly black and Hispanic community leaders see these rates of abortion- particularly repeat abortions- as a plague in their communities that needs to be addressed.  Whether the problem is of a larger societal nature or that these communities simply lack the resources for contraceptive education, it would not hurt the GOP to reach out.  Initiate an empathetic dialogue.  Perhaps, in these cases, an end-justifies-the means attitude or policy is required first before a sea change adjustment in attitudes and social mores occurs with respect to reproductive responsibility.  These facts create a unique opportunity for the GOP to mend the perceived wounds within these communities.  You are not going to win the black vote or even put a dent in it with a black Presidential candidate, but you start to lay a foundation for the future.

10. Look at the numbers:  A recent Gallup poll in 2009 showed that for the first time in recent history, a majority of respondents were “pro-life.”  The liberal response was to attack the methodology of the poll, not the results.  Regardless, several polls taken by a variety of sources have shown that public opinion wavers ever slightly.  For example, a CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP poll showed that from 1996 to 2003, when asked about the availability of abortion by trimester, the relative responses for each category changed within a very narrow range in a 7-year period.  Not surprisingly, a 2003 CBS/New York Times poll found respondents in the west and northeast were more liberal in their attitudes towards abortion on demand despite the reason or the stage of development while a 2007 CBS poll found that only 36% of Americans in general agreed with abortion on demand despite the reason and stage of development.  Taken as a whole, this abortion on demand attitude is generally the minority.  The majority of Americans are accepting of abortion with greater restrictions than currently exist.  If the result of these restrictions is to reduce the abortion rate, a stated goal of the GOP, then the Republican Party sides with the majority of Americans.  I would like to see a poll of how the parties are perceived on abortion by Democrats, Republicans and independents and to use those results to educate the misinformed.  The GOP should be framing their position.  The Democratic Party should not be framing the position for them.

11. Criticize Obama by name for his hypocrisy:  Either Barack Obama had a moral epiphany between his campaign and time as a legislator and his speech at Notre Dame, or he is just plain pandering to his audience yet again in eloquent words on a teleprompter which tingle the legs of Chris Matthews and have Keith Olberman in tears.  Given his history, it is almost certainly the latter.  This is a man who received 100% ratings from NARAL in 2005 through 2008 for his pro-choice views and legislative record.  He erroneously stated or lied that abortions under Bush increased when they actually decreased.  In 1997 in the Illinois Senate, he voted against SB 230 which would have prevented partial birth abortion.  He did so, he claims, on constitutional grounds even though a Federal identically-worded law survived constitutional review.  He additionally, on two occasions, blocked similar legislation in committee not even allowing a full Illinois Senate vote on the bills.  On 3/30/01, he was the only State Senator to rise and argue against a bill designed to protect born-alive abortions and again nuanced his stance later raising constitutional arguments.  Five times at the request of Planned Parenthood, he voted “present” in the Illinois Senate to avoid taking a clear-cut position on abortion regulations which allowed him an “out” in his upcoming run for President.  In 2000, he voted against a bill that would have banned state funding for late-term abortion (with exceptions for medical reasons) yet in 2008, his campaign literature (another moral epiphany?) stated that states have the right to restrict late-term abortions.  That same campaign literature touts his consistent pro-choice at any costs stances.  In 2006, he voted against a law designed to prevent minors from obtaining abortions across state lines circumventing parental notification laws which survived constitutional scrutiny and  again he voted against similar legislation in 2008.  Finally, in 2008, he voted against SCHIP coverage for unborn children.  Taken as a whole, Obama’s clear policy is that he is for protecting children as long as those children are outside the womb.  Even then, he considers there may be cases where they are not deserving of State protection.  Obama is equal master of oratory and equal master of hypocritical action.  Barack Obama needs to be taken to task by name for this hypocrisy.  We know he is in the pocket of NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood; we need to stress that they also possess his mind.

By concentrating on the goal of reducing abortion in America and removing the underlying rhetoric and appealing to logical solutions which stress personal responsibility, Obama and his minions could be taken to task.  If he really meant what he said at Notre Dame, then his feet have to be held to the fire.  This could be achieved absent constitutional amendments and the like and done at the State level. There is talk of a Federal law which would essentially circumvent and over-rule state abortion statutes to the delight of pro-choice constituencies.  Where Obama stands on this blatant Federal power grab will be interesting to see.  The onus of responsibility is on him and the Democrats as they have control of the White House and Congress and the bully pulpit.  My guess is that money will do the talking and that money will come from NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood.  Greater than 800,000 human lives depend on his decisions annually.  If he fails in his task, then he sacrifices 800,000 to medical waste bins making him worthy of the political waste bin.