SOURCE:
http://www.cofcc.org.
THE ROE EFFECT
The Empty Cradle Will
Rock
How abortion is costing the
Democrats voters--literally.
More than 40 million legal
abortions have been performed and documented in the 30 years
since the U.S. Supreme Court declared abortion legal. The debate
remains focused on the legality and morality of abortion. What's
largely ignored is a factual analysis of the political
consequences of 40 million abortions. Consider:
There were 12,274,368 in the Voting Age Population of
205,815,000 missing from the 2000 presidential election, because
of abortions from 1973-82.
In this year's election, there will be 18,336,576 in the
Voting Age Population missing because of abortions between 1972
and 1986.
In the 2008 election, 24,408,960 in the Voting Age
Population will be missing because of abortions between 1973-90.
These numbers will not change. They are based on individual
choices made--aggregated nationally--as long as 30 years ago.
Look inside these numbers at where the political impact is felt
most. Do Democrats realize that millions of Missing Voters--due
to the abortion policies they advocate--gave George W. Bush the
margin of victory in 2000?
The number of abortions accumulate in size and political
impact as the years roll along. Like an avalanche that picks up
speed, mass, and power as it thunders down a mountain, the
number of Missing Voters from abortion changes the landscape of
politics. The absence of the missing voters may not be noticed,
but that doesn't mean its political impact disappears. As seen
during a famine, what no longer exists becomes as relevant as
what does.
Let's begin with the obvious: Children born in any given year
arrive at voting age in 18 years; conversely, children not born
in a given year are "Missing Voters" 18 years later. Permanently
so, unless someone discovers a way to give birth to a teenager
in a nine-month gestation period. This table gives the number of
Missing Voters from abortion and election years affected:
Table 1: Abortions in
the U.S., 1973-90 |
Years
|
Abortions
|
Aggregated
|
Election
Affected
|
1973-74
|
1,643,200
|
1,643,200
|
1992
|
1975-78
|
4,939,800
|
6,583,000
|
1996
|
1979-82
|
6,202,800
|
12,785,800
|
2000
|
1983-86
|
6,314,800
|
19,100,600
|
2004
|
1987-90
|
6,325,400
|
25,426,000
|
2008
|
The question arises: Who would these Missing Voters have been if they
had reached voting age? What would their values have been? How
would they have voted? What impact would they have had on the
great debates in America, including the abortion debate? Here's
what we know from several generations of social science research
about children:
They tend to absorb the values of their parents.
They tend to have the same political views as their family
(parents, siblings, immediate relatives) and share common views
on political causes.
They tend to develop the same lifestyle as their family.
I remember the guy at my 30th high school class reunion who
looked over the people there and remarked, "I can't believe I
came in person, while everyone else sent their parents!"
With these factors in mind, the internationally respected
survey research firm Wirthlin Worldwide was commissioned to ask
2,000 respondents in a stratified random sample of adults the
following question: "As far as you know, has anyone close to you
had an abortion?" The emphasis here was on "close to you" in
order to bring to mind only those people inside the respondents'
circle of socio-demographically homogeneous family and friends.
Of the 2,000 respondents, 636 responded "yes." The various
socio-demographic characteristics of these respondents were then
imposed on the abortion statistics (Table 1, above), with a
special emphasis on the 2000 and 2004 general elections to see
what impact they likely would have made had the Missing Voters
been present to vote in those two elections.
There were 105,405,100 votes cast for president in the 2000
general election, representing 51.2% of the Voting Age
Population. The Missing Voters would have been 6,033,097 based
on that portion of the 51.2% represented by (at their lower
voting level) 18-24 year olds. This means that Missing Voters
would have been 4.48% of all actual voters in 2000.
Given the extremely close result in 2000, these voters could have been
a crucial factor in the outcome. This is borne out when viewed
by political party as defined in the Wirthlin survey.
There is a significant difference between Republicans with
someone close to them who have had an abortion, and Democrats
with someone close to them who have had an abortion:
Table 2: Missing
Republicans vs. Missing Democrats |
Party
|
% of total abortions
|
% of party w/abortions
|
Party as % of electorate
|
Party loss/gain
|
Republican |
35%
|
28%
|
39%
|
+4
|
Independent |
16%
|
30%
|
17%
|
|
Democrat |
49%
|
36%
|
44%
|
-5
|
This tells us:
Republicans have fewer abortions than their proportion of
the population, Democrats have more than their proportion of the
population. Democrats account for 30% more abortions than
Republicans (49% vs. 35%).
The more ideologically Democratic the voters are
(self-identified liberals), the more abortions they have. The
more ideologically Republican the voters are (self-identified
conservatives), the fewer abortions they have.
This isn't particularly surprising given the core
constituencies of both political parties. But translating
percentages into numbers for the purpose of evaluating their
impact on politics makes the importance of these numbers real.
It's one thing to quote percentages and statistics, it's quite
another to look at actual human beings. For example:
There are 19,748,000 Democrats who are not with us today.
(49.37 percent of 40 million).
There are 13,900,000 Republican who are not with us today.
(34.75 percent of 40 million).
By comparison, then, the Democrats have lost 5,848,000 more
voters than the Republicans have.
These Missing Americans--and particularly the millions of
Missing Voters--when compounded over time are of enormous
political consequence:
Table 3: Missing voters
by political party, 2000 general election |
Republican |
2,096,406
|
Independent |
958,086
|
Democrat |
2,978,605
|
Total |
6,033,097
|
Let's look at the 2000 election to see what those 6,033,097
Missing Voters meant to its outcome. What would these Missing
Voters have meant to the election in Florida?
Table 4: Florida 2000,
with and without Missing Voters |
Candidate
|
Vote
|
Missing
voters
|
Combined
vote
|
Bush |
2,912,790
|
107,799
|
3,020,589
|
Gore |
2,912,253
|
153,163
|
3,065,416
|
In the actual popular vote for president in the 2000 general
election in Florida, George W. Bush was declared the winner by
537 votes. But if the 260,962 Missing Voters of Florida had been
present to vote, Al Gore would have won by 45,366 votes. Missing
Voters--through decisions made in the 1970s and early 1980s,
encouraged and emboldened by the feminist movement at the height
of its power--altered the outcome of the U.S. presidency a
generation later, in a way proponents of legal abortion could
not have imagined.
Examining these results through a partisan political lens,
the Democrats have given the Republicans a decided advantage in
electoral politics, one that grows with each election. Moreover,
it is an advantage that they can never regain. Even if abortion
were declared illegal today, and every single person complied
with the decision, the advantage would continue to grow until
the 2020 election, and would stay at that level throughout the
voting lifetime of most Americans living today.
The next question is: What do these numbers tell us about the
2004 election? If we use the seven closest states from the 2000
election as our guide, we can see what these Missing Voters
would do to the vote in each state. This is important because
most analysts today believe that the 2004 election is likely to
be a replay of the 2000 election, except with an incumbent
Republican president this time. Given the usual advantages of
incumbency, the swing of marginal states from 2000--shoring up
Republican victories and tipping the scales from Democrat to
Republican in Democratic states--may very well determine the
popular and electoral outcome in 2004.
The popular vote in these seven states, with 63 electoral votes in
2000, was less than 1% apart between the two candidates. By
adding the votes of the Missing Voters, Democrats could have
picked up Florida, and solidified their vote in the other six
states (where election challenges could certainly have been
seriously considered). The Democrats could have increased their
popular and electoral count beyond the scrutiny of the courts
and "the court of public opinion."
Table 5: The seven
closest states from 2000, with Missing Voters added |
State/EVs
|
Bush 2000
|
Gore 2000
|
Missing voters
|
2000/revised 2004 totals
|
Florida
25 (27) |
2,912,790
|
2,912,253
|
R: 107,799
D: 153,163 |
'00: R by 537
'04: D by 45,366 |
Iowa
7 |
634,373
|
638,517
|
R: 23,556
D: 33,469 |
'00: D by 4,144
'04: D by 14,057 |
Nevada
4 (5) |
301,575
|
279,978
|
R: 10,762
D: 15,291 |
'00: R by 21,597
'04: R by 17,068 |
New Hampshire
4 |
273,559
|
266,348
|
R: 9,992
D: 14,196 |
'00: R by 7,211
'04: R by 3,006 |
New Mexico
5 |
286,417
|
286,783
|
R: 10,608
D: 15,072 |
'00: D by 366
'04: D by 4,830 |
Oregon
7 |
713,577
|
720,342
|
R: 26,536
D: 37,703 |
'00: D by 6,765
'04: D by 17,932 |
Wisconsin
11 (10) |
1,237,279
|
1,242,987
|
R: 45,900
D: 65,216 |
'00: D by 5,708
'04: D by 25,023 |
This table shows the
actual vote from 2000, then shows what the change would
be in 2004 with all else remaining the same, except that
the Missing Voters were added. Numbers in parentheses
are 2004 electoral votes. |
A similar scenario can be constructed for the U.S. Senate
races this fall. The Republican advantages are real: more
Democrats (19) are up than Republicans (15), more Democrats are
retiring than Republicans (and from advantageous states for
Republicans), and Republicans usually do better in a
presidential election year. Generally accepted "givens" are:
Incumbents typically win. In fact, 96% of incumbent U. S.
Senators win re-election. The McCain-Feingold legislation will
not change this. No legislation passed in the name of
reform--including the 1974 post-Watergate campaign finance
reform legislation--has ever increased the challenger advantage
or lessened the incumbent advantage, no matter what the intended
goal.
In open-seat contests, the party vacating the position
cannot "hand over" the seat to the new party nominee.
Traditional factors are far more important, such as a strong
candidate, solid organization, appealing issues and sound
finance. Still, long-term party allegiance is a major factor.
Consequently, the impact of Missing Voters could be
considerable in states where the electorate is evenly divided
between the two parties over a period of elections. Consider the
open seats whose incumbents have chosen not to run for
re-election. The following figures represent all votes cast in
those states in 1996 and 2000 in the last two presidential year
general elections for candidates to Congress--a traditional
bellwether for predicting base federal candidate vote.
Table 6: Open Senate
seats, 2004 |
State
|
Incumbent
|
Party
|
GOP adv/disadv
|
Colorado |
Ben Nighthorse Campbell |
R (R) |
1.122
|
Florida |
Bob Graham |
D (D) |
1.202
|
Georgia |
Zell Miller |
D (R) |
0.970
|
Illinois |
Peter Fitzgerald |
R (D) |
0.941
|
Louisiana |
John Breaux |
D (D) |
0.981
|
North Carolina |
John Edwards |
D (R) |
1.050
|
Oklahoma |
Don Nickles |
R (R) |
1.151
|
South Carolina |
Fritz Hollings |
D (R) |
1.096
|
The party of the
retiring senator is listed first; the party of the
state's other senator is in parentheses. |
If voting patterns in the past two presidential elections
(combined) hold true for 2004, then five of these states should
be an advantage for the GOP: Colorado, Florida, North Carolina,
Oklahoma and South Carolina. Conversely, three states would lean
Democratic: Georgia, Illinois and Louisiana.
What do the Missing Voters take away from the Democrats in
each state?
Table 7: Missing Voters
(net) in 2004 open Senate races |
Colorado |
12,013
|
Florida |
37,783
|
Georgia |
17,783
|
Illinois |
78,845
|
Louisiana |
15,520
|
North Carolina |
48,980
|
Oklahoma |
20,983
|
South Carolina |
22,005
|
Most major reporting and analyzing institutions would rate each of the
open seats, with the possible exception of Illinois, as "too
close to call" at this stage of the campaign. When election time
comes, these Missing Voters will be missed. The most expensive
campaign a candidate will ever run, the adage goes, is the one
he or she loses. For half of these candidates, this will be that
most expensive campaign.
Abortion has caused missing Democrats--and missing liberals. For
advocates so fundamentally committed to changing the face of
conservative America, liberals have been remarkably blind to the
fact that every day the abortions they advocate dramatically
decrease their power to do so. Imagine the number of followers
that their abortion policies eliminate who, over the next
several decades, would have emerged as the new liberal thinkers,
voters, adherents, fund-raisers and workers for their cause.
Table 8: Missing by
ideology |
Ideology
|
% of pop
|
% of total abortions
|
% of group
having abortions
|
Liberal |
37%
|
47%
|
41%
|
Moderate |
5%
|
5%
|
31%
|
Conservative |
59%
|
48%
|
26%
|
Look at the results:
Six out of 10 Americans call themselves conservatives. Only
a quarter of them are having abortions.
A little more than one-third of Americans call themselves
liberals. More than four in 10 are having abortions.
This means that liberals are having one third more
abortions than conservatives.
By combining party and ideology, an even sharper contrast
comes into focus:
Table 9: Liberal
Democrats vs. conservative Republicans |
Ideology/party
|
% of pop
|
% of total abortions
|
% of group
having abortions
|
Liberal/Democrat |
40%
|
48%
|
38%
|
Moderate/Independent |
11%
|
10%
|
30%
|
Conservative/Republican |
49%
|
41%
|
27%
|
Liberal Democrats are having both more abortions--and more
abortions as a percentage of their ideological and political
group--than either of the other groupings.
As liberals and Democrats fervently seek new voters and
supporters through events, fund-raisers, direct mail and every
other form of communication available, they achieve results
minuscule in comparison to the loss of voters they suffer from
their own abortion policies. It is a grim irony lost on them,
for which they will pay dearly in elections to come.
|