Life Issues Institute is not a partisan political organization, but an educational foundation. However, within those limits we have certainly been able and active in educating our readers and listeners to the pro-life or pro-abortion positions of candidates for office. Clearly, Bush’s victory will be advancing the pro-life cause just as concretely as a Kerry victory would have been a serious setback for the pro-life cause.
Most of our readers have read various analyses, polls, etc, of the recent presidential voting. Among various classes, it was clear that Hispanic voters increased their support for the pro-life candidate Bush by about 10 percent over previous elections. African American voters upped theirs by over 5 percent, and women voters almost erased the earlier much-touted gender gap. The pro-life issue motivated most of these gains for Bush. The 22 percent of voters who voted on value issues, when broken down, revealed that the major value was abortion, and that these voters went almost 2 to 1 for Bush over Kerry.
This is probably not news to you, but let’s probe deeper. First, look across the board at who gets abortions regardless of class or ethnicity. According to Wirthlin Worldwide, as reported in First Things, Democrats account for 40 percent more abortions than Republicans. They have 49 percent compared to the Republicans 35 percent. Pursuing this statistically, the more liberal the Democrats are, the more abortions they have. The more conservative the Republicans are, the fewer abortions they have. Larry Eastland, in the June American Spectator, said, “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.” He further states, ”As Liberals and Democrats fervently seek new voters and support through events, fund raisers, direct mail and every other form of communication available, they achieve miniscule results in comparison to the loss of voters they suffer from their own abortion policies. This is a grim irony lost on them for which they will pay dearly in elections to come.”
Let’s look at this through another lens. Let’s look at ethnic votes. Hispanics have traditionally voted Democratic. This time (probably on values) they moved substantially toward Bush. African Americans remained overwhelmingly Democrat but also moved, probably on the values issues. Where did the white Euro-Caucasian vote come down? This group constitutes over three-fourths of all the votes cast. Clearly, a significant shift in the white vote can have far-reaching effects on future elections. So let’s look into the future. Let’s look at birth rate.
The three New England states of Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island, where Bush won less than 40 percent of the popular vote, just happened to be three out of the four states with the lowest birth rates among white voters. The 19 states with the highest white fertility were all won by Bush, and except for Michigan, which went for Kerry, out of the top 26 highest white fertility states, Bush carried 25.
That is the top. Let’s look at the bottom. There are 16 states at the bottom of the white fertility list; Kerry carried all of them. For instance, the mean fertility rate for the state of California is 1.65 babies per woman in her lifetime, and in New York it is 1.72. In order to maintain the current population in a developed nation like the US, the average woman must have 2.1 babies. These numbers speak for themselves.
As we look to the future, the demographic trend is clear. Grant that not all of these new children will adopt and vote on the same values as their parents, but studies have shown that the great majority will. Grant also that other happenings and factors may intervene, but there are tides in the affairs of men and this surely looks like one of them.
What might change this? There is ongoing discussion among Democrats as to the advisability of modifying the party’s position on abortion. Such a change certainly could affect this tide.
In summary, broadly speaking and across all lines, pro-life couples have 2 or 3 children per family. Pro-abortion couples have 1 or 2. It has been said that demography is destiny. If this pattern persists, we can look to the future and state without question that it is only a matter of time until pro-life voters substantially outnumber those who favor abortion.
Leave a Reply