by Sarah Weddle
2007 AUL Summer Fellow
A soap bubble floats peacefully across a well-manicured yard, complete with wind chimes, potted plants, and serenely situated Adirondack chairs. Against a backdrop of tranquil music a mother's voice gently intones that she knows her daughter would come to her with issues as important as pregnancy, and as a mother she would be there for her daughter to help her through that difficult time.
We then observe the bubble drift over the fence towards a neighbor's shabby house, and the viewer is struck with the sounds of shrill voices and breaking glass. A stern voice warns, "Some girls do not enjoy the relationship with their parents that you may have." The voice sagely cautions that Proposition 85 -- a California ballot initiative that would require parental notification before a minor may undergo an abortion -- would force girls to notify an abusive or violent parent that they are pregnant, and therefore put young women in real danger.
This television commercial played widely on major networks just before California voters went to the polls in November 2006. Funded by the deep pockets of Planned Parenthood, this ad campaign and others played a key role in framing this issue precisely as abortion proponents intended: Vote no on Prop 85 and you are protecting minors from a pervasive harm, vote yes and you are handing young women a modern-day Sophie's choice -- physical abuse or a back alley abortion.
An astute commentator on the issue noted that this child abuse argument is a strategic changing of the subject. If a clinic worker or guidance counselor had serious reason to believe that a pregnant girl's parents would assault her, that girl needs more than a confidential abortion. But in the minds of many voters, the issue becomes what the most powerful media presence says it is, and in this way state ballot initiatives can be vulnerable to the well-funded abortion propaganda machine.
A Two-Edged Sword
State ballot initiatives are a form of direct democracy, a politically neutral tool which may be used to defend life issues or to oppose them. Specific measures are put to a popular vote, and the battle is raged between "for" and "against" for the hearts and minds of those willing to go to the polls and make a choice. State ballot initiatives can be friend or foe in regard to life issues, as was illustrated in some highly controversial proposals that popped up in a few states in 2006.
California
So far, the incremental approach of chipping away at abortion-on-demand has been largely successful in legislatures across the country. This incremental approach was used in introducing the California parental notification amendment mentioned above, which would have limited abortion-on-demand by requiring physicians to notify parents when a minor daughter seeks the procedure. Unfortunately, Californians were inundated by deceptive ads bankrolled by abortion proponents with a financial stake in the outcome of the vote, and they defeated Proposition 85. Despite the media blitz and issue distortion, however, the win was not a slam dunk for abortion proponents: 46% of voters supported a parent's right to be notified prior to a minor daughter's abortion.
Oregon
Pro-life advocates in Oregon, likely tired of continued defeat in the state capitol, introduced a ballot proposal similar to California's in 2006. Measure 43 would also have required parents to be notified before their minor daughters obtained abortions. Early polls showed that Oregonians favored parental notification, but the mood changed after abortion rights groups "blitzed" voters with ads and mailings.2 The usual "parade of horribles" was strung before voters -- to require parental notification would be to force girls to confide in incestuous fathers and abusive mothers, and would corner girls from good families into jeopardizing their health by getting an illegal abortion rather than disappoint Mom and Dad. Planned Parenthood was once again member of a coalition sponsoring a spin campaign which led the measure to defeat, 54 to 46%.3
South Dakota
Unlike the state ballot initiatives in California and Oregon, in 2006 a referendum to repeal a law which protected life was placed on the ballot in South Dakota. In February 2006, the Legislature passed the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act, which would have made abortion illegal in South Dakota with an exception to save a mother's life. This act was signed into law, but immediately came under attack by a group whose leading supporters are none other than Planned Parenthood (owner of the state's only abortion clinic) and the National Abortion Rights Action League (now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America).4
Their referendum was successful in repealing the law, which had been described as a "full frontal"5 attack on Roe v. Wade. Abortion proponents coalesced in response to this "bluntforce" strategy of a total ban on abortion,6 and their media campaign focused on the law's lack of exceptions for rape and incest. In the United States, abortions performed as a result of rape and incest amount to just one percent of all abortions annually,7 but the usual distortion techniques were used to tell South Dakotans that a vote to repeal the ban was a vote of compassion for victims of these violent acts. The ballot initiative proved to be a useful tool for abortion proponents, and the ban was repealed by a vote of 55.6 to 44.4%.8
Missouri
The November 2006 elections brought stem cell research to the fore in Missouri, but they did not serve to clarify the debate. The euphemistically-named Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative purported to prohibit human cloning, but in truth it wrote legal protection for human cloning into the state's constitution by redefining the term.
Missourians were confronted with a media campaign which used celebrities to poignantly convey misleading messages: Actor Michael J. Fox claimed this was the "science that gives us a chance for hope," and musician Sheryl Crow stressed that voting for the amendment could "save the life of someone you love." This ballot initiative, supported by $30 million in funding by biotech special interests, masqueraded as a ban on human cloning and a cure-all for serious disease and became law in Missouri with less than 51% of the vote.9
Handle With Care
As the lessons above have shown, state ballot initiatives can be ally or enemy. They can be used to require parental notification just as easily as to repeal abortion restrictions. Whether a ballot initiative should be introduced will depend on the state -- the political climate, resources available, and local pro-life groups' preparedness to combat the abortion machine. Well worded, common-sense proposals that would likely succeed elsewhere will be more vulnerable in states that are traditionally pro-abortion, as was observed in California and Oregon.
It will always be difficult to contend with the abortion supporters' willingness to misrepresent the measures being voted on, in conjunction with well-funded media onslaughts. Despite this ever-present obstacle, where ballot initiatives can be utilized to protect human life in the states they should be employed to the fullest extent possible. At the same time, prolife advocates must be attentive as abortion supporters discover new ways to make use of this powerful tool.
Endnotes
1 Jennifer Roback Morse, "Aborting Child Protection", National Review Online (Oct. 23, 2002), available at http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-morse102302.asp (last visited June 26, 2007).
2 Michelle Cole, "2006 Election Winners and Losers", Oregonian (Nov. 11, 2006) at A01.
3 See, "About our Coalition", listing members of the Vote No on 43 campaign, available at http://www.noon43.com/about (last visited June 26, 2007).
4 See list of supporters of the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, available at http://www.sdhealthyfamilies.org/about-us.php (last visited October 14, 2007).
5 Monica Davey, "National Battle Over Abortion Focuses on South Dakota Vote," New York Times (Nov. 1, 2006) at A1. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/us/01abort.html (last visited October 15, 2007).
6 Stephanie Simon, "Election 2006: National Issues," Los Angeles Times (Nov. 9, 2006) at A21.
7 This is the statistic reported by the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood and an open supporter of abortion. This information is available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html (last visited October 15, 2007).
8 Monica Davey, "Liberals Find Rays of Hope on Ballot Measures," New York Times (Nov. 9, 2006) at P16. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09ballots.html (last visited October 14, 2007).
9 David Prentice, "Missouri's Stem-Cell Mistake," Christian Science Monitor (Dec. 27, 2006) at 9. Available at http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1227/p09s01-coop.html (last visited October 15, 2007).
