Colin Hanna

Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring

The purpose of our teleconference is to give some of our nation's top pro-life leaders, who are the commentators on this call today, the opportunity to discuss the results of a nationwide poll on abortion coverage and healthcare reform. This will significantly impact the pro-life community and citizens across the nation and provide the press with important information for publication and for use in all electronic media. Our agenda is as follows. First an introduction of the commentators, secondly a chance for the commentators to make statements and give analysis about the nationwide poll, then the question and answer session as the end.

Our commentators today are Marjorie Dannenfelser, who was an original organizer of the Susan B. Anthony List and she currently serves as president and chairman of the board. Marjorie served on Capitol Hill as staff director of the Congressional Pro-life Caucus, and previous to her work on Capitol Hill, she also worked at the Heritage Foundation.

Alex Bratty is a vice-president at Public Opinion Strategies, which is a leading national political and public affairs survey research firm.

And Dr. Charmaine Yoest is president and CEO of Americans United for Life, the first national pro-life organization in the nation. Dr. Yoest began her career in the White House during the Reagan Administration and recently served as a senior advisor to the 2008 Huckabee for President Campaign.


And now Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List, I would like to now turn the teleconference over to you for your opening comment.

Marjorie : Thank you so much. You know, everyone probably saw the speech by President Obama last night, and we're clearly at a tipping point in consideration of healthcare coverage. We're also at a tipping point in terms of information about abortion's inclusion in that healthcare coverage plan. Last night he said again publicly that he wanted to put to rest the myth there is abortion coverage actually in the plan.

Well, this has been refuted over and over again by mainstream outlets like Times Magazine, like CNN, factcheck.org, Annenberg Foundation. Over and over again his claim that it is not in any version of the bill at all has been refuted. It's even disappeared from the White House Reality Check website. The question we have to ask is why would he keep saying this? So we are at a tipping point when it comes to information getting out about whether abortion actually is in the bill or not and actually, despite his claims, the word is getting out.

We felt that it was important to take a look at what abortion coverage's actual inclusion in the bill will mean for the political chances for this bill and what does the president actually get out of insisting that it's not in there while quietly making sure that it is there along with the leader of the House and the self-proclaimed pro-life leader of the Senate. So we asked a series of questions with the help of Alex Braddy at Public Opinion Strategies, keeping in mind the women's take on this issue because we are the Susan B. Anthony List, and the actual terms of the debate going on right now over abortion coverage and the funding schemes that are applied to this bill to do so.

And the takeaway is this. There is no payoff nor advantage for the president to include government-backed abortion in healthcare reform. Not among women, not among Democrats, not independents, or anyone polled in this poll. Insisting upon abortion coverage really only gives the president and the Congress no increased political capital in any group but perhaps the board [meetings] of the abortion lobby.

Now, this may sound cynical, but it's actually true. He has promised this. He did it in 2007 to Planned Parenthood that he would include abortion coverage in any healthcare reform, and he's standing by that promise. But the inclusion of government-funded abortion in the president's healthcare reform plan actively turns off five times more voters than it gains. Now we see why it is staying below the radar with the help of the White House.

This explained why he obfuscated on the issue last night. He appears to be willing to jeopardize the whole plan for, frankly, an ideological fixation and because of his preelection commitments to the abortion lobby. But we say to remain so fixated, and this poll says to remain so fixated, is to run in the opposite direction of polling on the topic.

He and Democrats in Congress do remain so fixated at the peril of the entire bill because they lose more than they gain by including abortion coverage. But the numbers speak for themselves, and I want to give Alex an opportunity to go over those. They speak for themselves in the SBA List poll results that we have just released not so long ago today.

Alex Bratty: Okay. Thank you, Marjorie. This is Alex Bratty from Public Opinion Strategies. And as Marjorie mentioned we did recently conduct a poll for the SBA List. It was a national survey of 800 registered voters. It was conducted August 30 to September 1, and it has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. And what we did on this poll, we asked four very straightforward questions. The first question we asked was specific to the president's plan. And the results from this and the other questions are very telling.

More than 4 in 10 voters, 43 percent, say they would be less likely to support the president's proposed health plan if the government pays for abortion. And importantly there's intensity around that. We had more than a third, we had 36 percent of voters say they would be much less likely to support the president's plan if it paid for abortions. Strikingly, only 8 percent said it would make them more likely to support the plan, so when Marjorie tells you that there's very little political gain here, she's not kidding.

So 8 percent say it would make them more likely to support it, the remainder, 46 percent, say it would make no difference to their support. What's really important in here is there's a notable lack of gender gap. Forty-one percent of men and 44 percent of women say they would be less likely to support the president's health plan if it included paying for abortions. And the plan also risks alienating independents, who we know are the all important subgroup. Independent voters track very closely with the aggregate data.

Forty-four percent say they would be less likely to support the plan and another 46 percent say it would make no difference to their level of support. You know, and before you kind of think, oh, well, gee, his base must be onboard, not so much. By two to one, Democrats say it would make them less likely to support the plan. So you have just 12 percent of Democrats saying it would make them more likely to support it versus 25 percent, which, you know, a quarter is certainly not insignificant in this respect, 25 percent say it would make them less likely to support the plan.

So right there you have -- the overall data is telling, in and of itself, but even when you dig deeper and you look at some of the subgroups who you would expect, oh, yeah, but, sure, you know, what's going on underneath? What's the balance? How does it work out? You find that these key voter blocks, there's nothing to be gained here by including government funding of abortions in this health plan.

We went on and asked three more questions. They were all on a scale of agree/disagree. We basically gave voters some statements and asked them if they agreed or disagreed with the statements. And in each case, all of them related to government funding of abortion, and in every single case the majority of voters said they don't want government involved. And just to sort of run through those quickly with you, a majority, 55 percent, agree with the statement: Whatever my opinion on the issue, I think it would be wrong for the government to pay for abortions.

Fifty-two percent agree: I do not want the government to help fund healthcare plans that cover abortion. And almost 6 in 10, we had 58 percent, disagreed with the statement: If the government is going to make a public health plan available for all Americans, it has an obligation to provide abortion services under that plan. And, you know, I can go through in more detail if you have questions.

But essentially what happens with this date is it is very similar to the original question in the sense that there are majorities of independents in each case that are against government funding of abortion, and in each case there are chunks of the Democrat coalition -- for example, 38 percent of Democrats agree with the statement: Whatever my opinion on the issue, I think it would be wrong for the government to pay for abortions.

And 39 percent of Democrats disagree with the idea that the government has an obligation to provide abortion services under any kind of public health plan. Thirty-two percent of Democrats agree that they don't want the government to help fund healthcare plans that cover abortions. And, again, on all three of these measures, there was literally no gender gap at all.

So, you know, this is very telling data, and it would certainly suggest, as Marjorie has said, that the government funding of abortion services is unappealing to voters, and there's certainly nothing in here that strategically could be viewed as a winner in terms of the proposed plan as it stands right now.

Debra Hamilton: Okay, Alex, thank you very much for that. I'd like to introduce Dr. Charmaine Yoest, who is the president and CEO of Americans United for Life. Dr. Yoest, would you now please give your statements to the press?

Charmaine Yoest: Well, thank you so much, and let me start by thanking Marjorie so much for the invitation to join you all today on the call. The Susan B. Anthony List is one of the most effective organizations out there, and one of the reasons I am such a big supporter of theirs is, as a woman, seeing them confront this idea that somehow the pro abortion groups are a voice for women -- they are really proving how inaccurate that statement is.

And, frankly, this poll is yet another example of their effectiveness in underscoring that point and really bringing data to bear to -- it's not just something [that we're saying], but we're seeing it turn up again and again in the polling data. And so I'm just very, very pleased to have an opportunity to make a few comments about the data today. I am going to come back and conclude with a couple of points about the female angle, because I think that is such a strong result that you're seeing out of this data.

But there's a couple other broader points related to the substance and to the political terrain that I want to make first. The first is I really want to echo what Marjorie has said about the political showdown aspect that this data is pointing towards. There just really is some nonnegotiable elements to this debate that I don't think the media has fully explored yet in terms of how very, very difficult it is going to be for supporters of the current proposal to get the votes that they need to pass something that includes an abortion mandate.

And that leads me to the data point that I really wanted to focus in on because it was so striking to see that the single largest element of opposition, 58 percent of Americans, oppose the idea that the government has some sort of obligation to fund abortion. And this is really, really important in the context of the healthcare debate because I really have yet to see any kind of coverage at all about the abortion mandate, per se. The funding issues are really important, but I think because the mandate is broader and more philosophical, it hasn't captured the attention of the media, but it really needs to, because it's an underlying issue.

And this data shows that the American people do understand that. The question, in addition to the funding, is really are the courts going to define abortion as being healthcare, plain and simple. Americans United for Life is the legal arm of the pro-life movement, and we've documented over the last two decades, time after time after time, where the courts have come in and said that under Medicaid the minimum standards of care must include abortion.

And that's why we had to have the Hyde Amendment to make it explicit that Medicaid did not have to cover abortion. So that brings me to the point about the Hyde Amendment. So many people from the abortion lobby are saying, well, we've got the Hyde Amendment, you don't need to be concerned, there really is no abortion mandate. Well, frankly, I'd like to turn that argument on its head and say that the Hyde Amendment illustrates exactly why we need to be concerned. You can be very, very certain that the abortion lobby will litigate this issue to make sure that the mandate is there, no matter what gets passed.

And that's why it is so critical that we have to have an explicit exclusion of abortion. If that is not in there, if Congress does not speak to that issue, than the courts most certainly will. And they will end up imposing their will on the American people, which as this [terrific] data illustrates, the American people are not with whatsoever. The other thing about this polling data that I really have to underscore is it's really consistent with what we've seen, time again, of what the American people say about abortion.

The fact that, as Marjorie mentioned, that the independents are not swayed by abortion funding is fascinating. And the truth of the matter is that consistently over time the American people do not want to see their tax dollars going towards abortion. And, frankly, the president has talked about a lot of common ground, but that is certainly -- if there's any common ground, it is that, that the American people do not want to fund abortion.

So let me bring that back around and just conclude with what I started with, which is that I really want to underscore Marjorie's point about women. Speaker Pelosi put out a myth busters sheet this last week. Well, frankly, this is the biggest myth that needs to be exploded is the idea that somehow American women want to see abortion included in their healthcare.

It's simply not true, and that's really I believe the take-home message of this data that really, really needs to be explored more so that policymakers understand that including abortion in healthcare is not a women's issue. Really the bottom line is that women and unborn children deserve better than the healthcare proposals that we're seeing right now on the Hill.

Debra Hamilton: Thank you, Dr. Yoest, and Marjorie, you wanted to make a follow-up comment before we open it up to the press for questions.

Marjorie : Yes, so beautifully concluded, and I just associate all of my thoughts with Charmaine's. I mean, it's really why the suffrage leaders are at the center of the Susan B. Anthony List leadership, even in their deaths. Their comments will live through the ages, and they spoke for why we cannot treat another class of human beings as property to be disposed of, and we can never build human rights upon the broken rights of another class of citizens.

So thank you very much, Charmaine. And I would just add one point here. It's more of a common sense point to add to the actual data that Alex has provided us. And it is this. This is national data, clearly, dispersed across the country. But if this polling is true for the nation, how much more true, common sense at least tells me, having been involved in politics for longer than I'd like to say, how much it would be true in rural districts in Georgia, in Pennsylvania, in swing districts all over the country where reelections will be tough among Democrats.

We are doing a lot of voter education right now in some of those swing states, including the leader of the Senate Harry Reid's state. We're doing some voter education about his support of this bill while claiming to be pro-life, and in many other places. Robocalls and television ads. They are beginning to feel the heat. And this polling data shows why. So that's my P.S.

Debra Hamilton: Okay. Great. All right. Now we can open up the call to members of the press for question and answers. And if you would just state your name and your organization and then direct your question to one of our commentators today.

Robin Encarian: I have a question. It's [Robin Encarian] from the [LA Times]. Can you hear me okay?

Debra Hamilton: Hi, Robin.

Debra Hamilton: Yes, we can.

Robin Encarian: maybe it's best directed to Alex, but I'm not sure. It seems like you didn't specifically address the issue that's been raised in the Caps Amendment, that is this notion that the money can be somehow separated or segregated. Do you think if you had phrased the question -- and this is of course hypothetical -- to people saying do you believe it's possible to segregate money so that money meant for plans that cover abortion does not -- for plans that do not cover abortion does not get spent on abortion? I know it's complicated, but this seems to be the kind of difficult place where the controversy is taking place. And I wondered if you had any thoughts about asking a question that reflects what the Caps Amendment purports to do?

Alex : Sure. Thank you for the question. And you're absolutely right. We did not address that. And, again, you're absolutely right, it's very complex. And that is part of the reason we did not put it on the survey, because it really does get very complicated in terms of trying to explain that kind of funding mechanism over the phone in a survey. And of course our job as pollsters is always to make things, you know, as easily understood as possible. And some things just -- they don't lend themselves to a survey, and that is the type of thing that becomes very complex.

It's also hypothetical for me to speculate on that, because we didn't ask the question, but what I will say is, you know, just in my work and focus groups, when I talk to voters, any time we kind of explore, you know, look, government funding, money being set aside within the government, what is it going to be used for, there is usually a good dose of skepticism that goes along with that, that there's this idea where, you know, okay, this little sliver or this big chunk of tax payer money is absolutely going to be used for this particular thing.

You know, in fact, voters would love that in a lot of cases, you know, in issues that don't even relate to abortion, they'd love that. If I knew my tax dollars were going to build roads, I would be happy to pay a little more. But the fact is that they don't have confidence that that ever happens, and they know it doesn't happen. And so I can't answer your question because we did not ask the specific question, but just in my other work and what I know in terms of just general attitude towards do people think that the government can kind of really set aside and earmark -- tag money as being used for a specific cause -- there is a lot of skepticism around that.

Robin Encarian: Thank you.

Marjorie : The other aspect of answering that question, not from a poll perspective, because, believe me, we tried to think about how to do that without performing so many back flips that people couldn't figure out what we were doing, but is this -- there are a lot of levels here. One is that a federal program backs up its conviction with money. And all of the checks for all of the healthcare plan will be coming from the federal government, whether it is in the so-called public option, any [sort of] co-op, or through private insurance companies through affordability subsidies.

So any check that has to be written to have an abortion performed will be written from the federal government. That is what government funds are. And that actually is not just my opinion, which you could discard. It's actually the opinion of the CBO, and the CRF has done a study of this also, because this does come up a lot. And it wouldn't really be such an issue if it weren't the abortion issue.

But if you think of it just on another common sense level, all of us would feel uncomfortable if the CIA were telling us, well, we're doing all sorts of public [funding -- everybody's excited about everybody -- but] we're going to spend some private funds on some of these other side projects. We just would never accept that. And for the same reason, there is no question that [it is] checks written out from the federal government to abortionists and that it's a federal program funding abortion coverage.

Robin Encarian: Thanks.

Alex : Do you mind if I just throw in an addendum, because I can't improve on what Marjorie just said about the funding streams. I would just add that the mandate is a separate issue, and, Robin, I just really don't think this has been covered and explained as clearly in the media that -- the Caps Amendment just frankly doesn't address the mandate at all.

It's meant to be a clever accounting scheme that temporarily confuses people into thinking that the issue has been addressed. But the bottom line is you can't have a system where from Planned Parenthood's perspective -- if you go to their website, one of their very first nav bar links is Health, and the very first category underneath it is abortion. From their perspective, they view abortion as being synonymous with healthcare.

Robin Encarian: But you could argue that it's alphabetical, though, also.

Alex I suppose you could.

Robin Encarian: Just devil's advocate here.

Alex : Yeah. Well, I just use that because I think it's a really clean, clear example. I think it's pretty clear from the statements they've made. You know, you go over and look at Lori Rubiner's post on Huffington Post [and all]. It's very clear that that's their ultimate objective. They will take it to the courts, and the courts have already proven through their Medicaid rulings that that's the direction they plan to go.

Debra Hamilton: Okay.

Marjorie : Debbie, can I just interject?

Debra Hamilton: Sure.

Marjorie : I meant to say in the beginning that to get the polling data off our website -- do go there to sba-list.org -- there's a button right on the homepage called New Survey Results, just released, so that's a quick way to get it if you need it.

Debra Hamilton: Okay, and I'll repeat that again at the end, too, Marjorie.
Robin Encarian: Yeah, if there are no other questions, I really don't want to be a press conference hog, but I do have one other question. May I ask it?

Debra Hamilton: Sure, you go ahead.

Robin Encarian: Okay. It's Robin again. You know, the Zogby poll that is frequently quoted, putting the number of Americans who do not want government paying for abortions or who do not want the Hyde Amendment overturned or do not want American health insurers to be forced to offer abortion coverage is often pegged at 70 percent. Now, do you think the difference between that figure, the 70 percent figure, and what you're finding now represents any kind of change, or would you ascribe that just to it being slightly different questions?

Alex You know, I'm not familiar with the data that you're talking about, but they are very different questions, but I know just by what you're saying that they're different questions. So that's sort of -- I appreciate what you're trying to do, but that comparison would be apples and oranges.

Marjorie : Language is everything. Alex knows that better than anybody. But we're talking in this poll -- because we wanted to gear the language of the poll towards the language of this debate so that we're being accurate about this particular point in time. We used government -- we didn't say taxpayer funding -- taxpayer [unintelligible] elicits a much higher response. Alex, do you agree with that?

Alex : Right.

Marjorie : In my experience, taxpayer-funded -- because it looks attached to an individual -- my gut is why that comes out higher in that. But government is an impersonal way of asking the same thing.

Alex : Right. And the other thing, too, to note when you look at these questions -- when you download it and look at it, you know, in more detail, we were very careful about our language, and we were very careful to put in a conditional clause -- if the government paid for abortions. So we weren't even saying, you know, this is going to happen and what do you think about it? We were very careful to be, you know, as neutral as we could. You know, we often call it AP language.

You know, sorry, no offense [LA Times], but what we mean by that is we're just, you know, when we try to describe something and get a straight up and down read on it, we're trying to be as neutral as possible. I say it tongue-in-cheek, but we say, okay, how would the AP draft this? So that's kind of how we look at this to say, you know, we put in that very important conditional clause: If the government funded it, how would this make you feel? And so we left it entirely up to voters to make that decision. We did not tell them it was going to happen or that it wasn't going to happen. We said if it did, what would you think?

Robin Encarian: Okay. Thank you.

Debra Hamilton: We thank everyone for joining us today on this teleconference call. You may download its complete transcript and audio file later this afternoon at www.newsguests.com. If you have any more questions or would like to interview any of the commentators, please contact Joy Yearout at Susan B. Anthony List. And her phone number is 703-875-3370. Her email is jyearout@sba-list.org. And then complete polling data and analysis is available at the Susan B. Anthony List website, and that is www.sba-list.org, under the tab New Survey Results. Thank you again for joining us, and God bless.

[End of recorded material.]