Marjorie Dannenfelser

President and Chairman of the Board, Susan B. Anthony List

The complete transcripts from the 3 press calls on 3/5 for Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania are listed below, as well as the press call from 3/4 which announced results from polls on abortion and healthcare. Headings are in BOLD - please scroll down.



Susan B. Anthony List Press Teleconference, March 5, 2010 – Polling Results for Ohio
11:30 a.m ET



Joy Yearout: Thanks for joining the call today. I'm Joy Yearout with the Susan B. Anthony List. I'll be your moderator this morning. The purpose of the teleconference is to announce the results of several polls we did on abortion and healthcare in select congressional districts. We'll discuss the results and how they're informing the Susan B. Anthony List's effort to leverage the pro-life grassroots.

The surveys toplines are now available online at www.sba-list.org/poll. Again, you can download the survey results at www.sba-list.org/poll. We're also in the process of posting the crosstabs for individual districts on that same page. Hopefully, those will be up by the end of this call. If you're not a speaker on the call, please press "start six" to mute your line. You can unmute for question and answer by just pressing "star six" again.

Our agenda is as follows. First, we'll have a brief introduction of our commentators. Second, a chance for our commentators to make a statement. Then we'll have an open question and answer session. We expect the call to last only 15 to 20 minutes, so you can meet your deadline. We can certainly go a few extra minutes for any members of the press who may have follow-up.

Because this call is being recorded, we ask that you announce your name and media organization, and direct questions to one of our commentators by name at that part of the call. As a reminder, you can mute your phone by pressing "star six" now.

Our commentators today are former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, who is the Project Director for the Susan B. Anthony List's Votes Have Consequences program. We also have Kellyanne Conway, who is the President and CEO of The Polling Company/WomanTrend.

One last note before we get started. We'll keep questions direct and answers up to about 60 seconds, so we can finish on time. An entire written transcription and full audio file will be completed and will be available tomorrow afternoon on the Web site www.newsguests.com. You can retrieve it there or also give me a call. My number is 703-380-6674. For anyone who missed it earlier, the full polling results we're about to discuss are available online at www.sba-list.org/poll.

Marilyn Musgrave of the Susan B. Anthony List, I'll now turn it over to you for opening comments about the polling today.

Marilyn Musgrave: Thank you, Joy. Susan B. Anthony List has been working in these congressional districts in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, monitoring things, letting voters know where these members of Congress stood when it came to the pro-life/pro-woman Stupak Amendment. It's very clear, after this time, how people in these districts feel about federal funding of abortion in Senate healthcare legislation. They are adamantly opposed to that. I know Kellyanne is going to go into great detail about the poll.

The Susan B. Anthony List has been communicating a message to pro-life democrats that voted for the Stupak Amendment. Now we have confirmation of exactly where the voters stand. Voters do not want abortion in any part of healthcare. Actually, Susan B. Anthony List work has included over a million dollars to generate over 800,000 letters and petitions to Congress. We've patched through constituent calls. There have been many spots on radio and in print media. So we have done a lot of work.

These members of Congress -- I know how they feel, having served in Congress -- have received a very clear message from their constituents, all the while getting great pressure from their leadership. We just want them to know we will stand with them, if they remain with their pro-life stand, as they voted for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. We also want them to know that there will be consequences at the ballot in November if they do not vote against the Senate healthcare legislation.

Joy Yearout: Great. Thanks, Marilyn. Now we'll turn it over to Kellyanne, who has some more specific details about the districts and the polling data.

Kellyanne Conway: Thank you very much, Joy. Thank you, Congresswoman Musgrave. Thank you all for your interest. First, if you need to get in touch with me after this presentation, my email is as follows: Kellyanne is one word, spelled K-E-L-L-Y-A-N-N-E @pollingcompany.com, P-O-L-L-I-N-G company, spelled out, .com; 202-667-6557.

Methodologically about the poll, we were in the field for three nights, with a minimum of two nights per congressional district. No overnight polling, and no robo-calls. We used only live interviewers. No touch-tone methodology.

The four Ohio districts were Ohio 1, Ohio 6, Ohio 9, Ohio 16. Each of those districts had their own disaggregated set of 300 interviews. The data have not been aggregated. If I report on one of those four congressional districts, I'm speaking only about the 300 interviews that were completed of registered voters in that respective congressional district. The margin of error for each of the congressional districts is net plus or minus 5.65 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.

The Susan B. Anthony List commissioned 12 total questions. Six are substantive. Six were demographic. All of them dealt with healthcare and abortion. The only one that was not strictly about abortion and healthcare and federal funding for abortion was simply, "What should be done now in healthcare reform: passed with minor changes, passed with major changes, start from scratch, or stop working on healthcare altogether?"

In the topline data, you'll see that they're organized in table format. This makes it easy to read each of the four congressional districts in fashion. That's particularly important, when some of the questions have four or five different response categories, for easy reading.

Let me give you some substantive highlights. I think the two main takeaways from these data: first of all, you see tripartisan support, majorities of republicans, democrats, and independents in each of the four congressional districts in Ohio opposing federal funding of abortion when asked two different ways.

When we asked, "Regardless of your personal position on abortion, do you support or oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions?" opposition outweighed support by more than four-to-one in each of the districts, with the exception of Ohio 9 where the opposition was 67 percent and 25 percent support.

Opposition was very high in Ohio 16 and Ohio 6. Eighty percent of voters in each of those places said they opposed using tax dollars to pay for abortions. Intensity of opposition was the majority of voters in each of the four congressional districts in Ohio, meaning more than 50 percent, and in a few cases two-thirds of voters said that they "strongly opposed using tax dollars to pay for abortions."

When placed in the context of taxpayer funding of abortion "as part of healthcare reform," opposition persisted, if not intensified, and crystallized where you saw very similar if not even higher numbers of voters in those four Ohio congressional districts saying no way, no how, no one, taxpayer funding of abortion "is part of healthcare reform." They simply do not equate the two.

When they think of healthcare reform, whether they want some form of that or not, they do not believe it should include federal funding of abortions. I've seen major media data that confirm that. When asked if people get government subsidies or government assistance to pay for private health insurance, "Do you believe that that money can be used to fund abortion? Should or should it not?" majorities of folks in CNN, the New York Times/CBS, and Washington Post polls all say it should not.

Looking at these four districts specifically, in addition to the tripartisan support, I would point out that voters are sending a very unequivocal message to their own representatives in Congress. It's one thing to say nationwide, "The data say X," or, "People are mad at Washington, or mad at Congress," or, "It's an anti-establishment year," but it's quite another for us in this poll to have asked the following question, which included the specific members of Congress' names.

Here's the exact verbiage of the question: Would you be more likely or less likely to vote to reelect Congressman or Congresswoman -- and we'd fill in the four names in Ohio -- this year if he or she votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion?

Total "more likely," total "less likely," total "makes no difference." So people even could have gravitated toward the, "I'm going to base my vote on other things. This doesn't much interest me," or, "I don't have enough information to judge," or, "It makes no difference to my vote for Congressman Driehaus or Congresswoman Kaptur."

Instead, total more likely: 23 percent Driehaus, 18 percent Wilson, 33 percent Kaptur, 14 percent Boccieri. Total less likely to vote for that specific member if they vote to support healthcare legislation including federal government funding of abortion: 55 percent less likely for Driehaus, 64 percent Wilson, 47 percent Kaptur, 62 percent Boccieri.

There is net negative political currency for Driehaus, net negative minus 32 on this; for Wilson, minus 46; for Kaptur, minus 14; and for Boccieri, minus 48 percent net negative political currency, meaning I take the total numbers of voters who say, "That vote to allow federal funding for abortion in healthcare reform legislation would make me more likely," and I subtract "less likely," and you get the net negative political currency.

I don't think that voters in Ohio are "sending a message" to these members on federal funding of abortion so much as stating a demand. The demand is very clear and unequivocal: "Do no vote for federal funding of abortion, period. But certainly don't vote for it as part of this healthcare legislation."

I think it's also a natural byproduct of the whole healthcare debate that's gone on for now one year, where you see very large, very strong numbers of voters everywhere, including in Ohio, saying, "We don't believe that healthcare should include X," whether that's the Cornhusker Kickback or the Louisiana Purchase, and in this case, a payoff for Planned Parenthood and the industry.

They're also deciding what they believe should be included in healthcare reform, and then telling the members of Congress, "We, the people -- not you, Washington -- will decide what should be in healthcare reform, and what should not."

Everyone's polls have shown real concerns over the price tag and other financing mechanisms of healthcare legislation. I think in the Susan B. Anthony List poll, it's shown that federal funding of abortion is another example of that, where people are putting on their green eye shadow and saying, "Regardless of my own personal position, whether I'm pro-life or pro-choice on abortion," I, the voter, do not believe, by and large, that federal funding has a place in healthcare reform.

I know we're going to take questions, and we're meant to be brief. Let me just also say that these members, if you looked at all the press accounts including some stories that you yourselves have written, they seem to be operating from a position of weakness on healthcare already. It seems that abortion just exacerbates that and intensifies the vulnerability of the healthcare issue right now, but certainly their vulnerability come fall with the poll. Thank you very much.

Joy Yearout: Great. Thanks, Kellyanne. Marilyn, was there anything you wanted to add before we open it up for questions?

Marilyn Musgrave: I think that these representatives, I'm assuming that leadership is putting incredible pressure on them. I would just like to say that they should not deny the intensity of this issue, government funding of abortion. As Kellyanne stated, it doesn't even matter whether their constituents are "pro-life" or "pro-choice." They do not want their tax dollars being used for abortion.

So there's a clear message coming here. And as leadership puts pressure on them, I dare say that this would be the time to stand up to leadership and stay true to their pro-life principles, and also to realize politically it's expedient for them to oppose this healthcare legislation with federal funding of abortion in it.

Joy Yearout: Okay. Thanks so much. We'll now open it up for questions to anyone on the line. I just ask that you direct your question to Kellyanne or Marilyn by name, so we can get that accurate. Anyone? Maybe we don't have any questions. It sounds like the two of you did such a great job that no one has questions.

Sabrina Eaton: Actually I have a question.

Joy Yearout: You do? Okay, great. Go ahead.

Sabrina Eaton: This is Sabrina Eaton from the Cleveland Plain Dealer. I guess my question would be to either of them. How many districts around the country did you guys do with this, and how did you pick those districts? I know there's some other members of Congress from Ohio who are also very concerned with the whole pro-life thing and whose districts you did not poll.

Kellyanne Conway: Hi, Sabrina. It's Kellyanne. That's probably a question for Marilyn. I'll let her take that.

Marilyn Musgrave: We decided to poll these particular districts. We looked at the record of the individual members of Congress on the life issue. With a specific amount of grassroots efforts, we have been working in these districts. We have invested a great deal of money there working, spending over a million dollars and generating that 800,000-plus -- it's an astonishing number -- of letters and petitions to Congress. We've been on the radio there.

We've done a lot of efforts. As a matter of fact, I toured these districts, went on a Midwestern tour, and met with pro-life individuals in that area. Constituents stood with me as we were outside of these congressional offices giving a clear message to these individuals that we would stand with them if they stayed pro-life in their vote; and if they did not, there would be consequences.

So this is a natural follow-up to our earlier efforts. These are the districts that we were most interested in. Quite frankly, the results are just astonishing, the intensity of this issue. Whether or not the constituents even call themselves "pro-life," they're opposed to government funding of abortion.

As a former member of Congress, I can only imagine what I would think if I'd had a poll like this done in my district. I would certainly respond to my constituents rather to the pressures of leadership, knowing full well that it would be doing the right thing, and getting reelected would not be mutually exclusive.

Sabrina Eaton: How many districts around the Midwest did you poll? You mentioned the four Ohio ones, but you said there were some in Indiana, a few others. Do you know what the total number was that you polled?

Kellyanne Conway: It's Kellyanne. The total number was eight. In addition to the four Ohio districts, it was Indiana 8, which is Brad Ellsworth, now running for the Senate; Indiana 9, Baron Hill; Pennsylvania 4, Jason Altmire's district; and Pennsylvania 11, Paul Kanjorski.

Sabrina Eaton: Thank you.

Kellyanne Conway: Sure.

John Amrhein: I had a question for Marilyn. This is John Amrhein from 640 WHLO in Akron, Ohio. Actually we serve Canton, which is in Congressman Boccieri's district. You mentioned this in your opening statement and in the follow-up question. How exactly does the Susan B. Anthony List plan to either campaign for or against these pro-life democrats depending on how they go on this issue?

Marilyn Musgrave: When we talk about campaigning, a better choice of words would be "educating the voters" as to where their member stands on this issue. We've gotten out information on the healthcare legislation when these members voted on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, the pro-life/pro-woman amendment. Their constituents knew about that. This is a natural evolution of informing the voters and then polling them and giving a clear message to that representative. There will be similar kinds of efforts.

Over the next three weeks, we are going to spend half a million dollars in these key districts, and we're going to mobilize the grassroots. We're going to keep up these efforts. I hope that these members of Congress realize the intensity of this issue. We're going to make sure their constituents know exactly where they stand on it. Come November, there will be consequences, either positive or negative, to their vote.

John Amrhein: I noticed under the question, "How likely would you be to vote to reelect the Congressman if they voted for abortion funding in healthcare?" the 16th district in Ohio, it was 50 percent said that they'd be much less likely. That's a pretty high number. Do you think that that will really follow through, and that that reflects people's passion for the issue?

Marilyn Musgrave: I do, if you're asking me again. This is Marilyn.

John Amrhein: Yeah.

Marilyn Musgrave: I think it's very reflective of the intensity of this issue. I know, as a member of Congress too, how polls work and how reliable they are. I think this is a very powerful message. I think at their own political peril, these members would ignore what their constituents are telling them.

John Amrhein: Thanks.

Kellyanne Conway: Hi, it's Kellyanne. I just wanted to make a comment about that. Polls operate in a vacuum, meaning I believe that when the voters express their sentiment here, it is very intensely held that then if people don't know about that vote, if the vote is not made public and they're not made aware of how their member decided on one way or the other with respect to healthcare legislation that would include federal funding for abortion, then it almost doesn't matter.

I think that's the whole point of what Congresswoman Musgrave is saying, that the Susan B. Anthony List will make sure people know either applauding the Congress members for their votes against such a bill, or sanctioning them for their votes for such a bill. It really matters if people end up hearing about it, otherwise the poll just operates in a vacuum.

Joy Yearout: Okay. Do we have any more questions before we close up? All right. Thanks everybody for being on the line. If you have any questions or follow-up, you can contact me, Joy Yearout, at the Susan B. Anthony List. My number is 703-380-6674. Again, that's 703-380-6674. To review all the polling results, and crosstabs are now available on the Susan B. Anthony List Web site at www.sba-list.org/poll. Thank you everybody for calling.

Marilyn Musgrave: Thanks.

[End of first teleconference at 33:38]




Susan B. Anthony List Press Teleconference – March 5, 2010, 12:00 pm ET, Indiana Polling Results




Joy Yearout: Good morning everybody. Thank you for joining the call. The Susan B. Anthony List and The Polling Company would like to thank everyone for participating in our teleconference today. I'm Joy Yearout, Communications Director for the Susan B. Anthony List. I'll be your moderator this morning -- or afternoon now.

The purpose of our teleconference is to announce the results of polls on abortion and healthcare that were conducted this week in Indiana in two congressional districts, Congressman Brad Ellsworth and also Congressman Baron Hill. We'll discuss the results and how they are informing the Susan B. Anthony List's efforts to leverage the pro-life grassroots.

You can find the survey toplines and crosstabs online today at www.sba-list.org/poll. Again, all the survey results are available at www.sba-list.org/poll. If you're not a speaker on the call, please press "star six" to mute your line at this time. You may unmute for question and answer later in the call by pressing "star six" again.

Our agenda is as follows. First, we'll have a brief introduction of the commentators. Second, a chance for commentators to make statements. Then we'll open it up for question and answer at the end. We expect the call to run 15 to 20 minutes, so you can meet your deadline. We can certainly go an extra few minutes for any members who may have follow-up.

Because this call is being recorded, we ask that members of the press announce your name and media organization, and direct the question to one of our commentators by name later in the call. As a reminder, you can mute your phone by pressing "star six" now.

Our commentators today are Marilyn Musgrave, former member of Congress and Director for the Susan B. Anthony List's Votes Have Consequences program. We also have Kellyanne Conway, President and CEO of The Polling Company Inc. and WomanTrend.

One last note before we get started. We'll keep questions direct and answers to 60 seconds in order to finish on time. An entire written transcription and full audio file will be available tomorrow on the Web site www.newsguests.com. You may retrieve it there or also by calling me at the Susan B. Anthony List. My number is 703-380-6674. Again, that's 703-380-6674. For anyone who missed it earlier, all the polling results we're about to discuss are available online at www.sba-list.org/poll.

I'll now turn it over to Marilyn Musgrave of the Susan B. Anthony List to make opening remarks about our polling and the Susan B. Anthony List mobilization effort.

Marilyn Musgrave: Thank you, Joy. Good afternoon, everyone. It's very clear from what we are finding out with these polling results that abortion is a very serious issue to the voters. It's an issue that can make them decide how they're going to vote. These pro-life democrats are really facing a stark choice.

As a former member of Congress, I believe that I can identify with the pressure from leadership that they must be facing right now. But really, to these constituents, their constituents that were contacted in their district -- and remember, this polling was done district-specific, name-specific -- these representatives will either be heroes or they will betray the pro-lifers in their district. So they're facing that very stark choice.

Nationally, we are seeing people self-identifying in a majority now with pro-life. I think more and more of these people are really expecting that their pro-life position will be translated into public policy that reflects that. The intensity of this issue cannot be underestimated.

Truly, the votes that these members will cast on this Senate healthcare legislation will have consequences. I believe that if they leave their pro-life position after having voted for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that was pro-life and pro-woman, I think that they will do it at their political peril.

We have been working very hard at Susan B. Anthony List communicating all of these issues on healthcare legislation and federal funding of abortion over the past six months. Now this polling really is just confirmation of where the voters stand. They do not want abortion in any part of the healthcare legislation.

We've invested a lot of effort and money into these districts in the Midwest. We spent over a million dollars. We have generated an amazing 800,000-plus letters and petitions to Congress. That's like nothing I've ever seen. We've done patch-through constituent calls. We've done radio advertisements, and worked on a Midwest tour to inform the voters of how their representatives voted and exactly what's in this healthcare legislation.

We are not going to let up. Over the next three weeks, we'll spend another half a million dollars in these key districts, and we will mobilize the grassroots to make sure that the representatives understand the consequences of their vote. We will be there to stand with pro-life democrats that have stood up to leadership. We'll make sure that the voters are well-informed on this issue.

I understand the pressure that leadership can exert on members, but we are looking for pro-life heroes. I think this poll clearly shows that people in the Midwest are looking for pro-life heroes in their representatives.

I'm excited that after this work that we've done, that these polling results are confirming what we believed. You can count on us keeping the voters informed. I can imagine how these representatives feel. I believe they're going to pay very close attention to these polling results. Thank you, Joy.

Joy Yearout: Great. Thank you, Marilyn. Now we'll turn it over to Kellyanne, who can speak in more detail about both of the polls that we're releasing today.

Kellyanne Conway: Thank you very much, Joy, and Congresswoman Musgrave, and all of you who have interest in this particular set of data. Just a couple of methodological points. We completed 300 interviews with registered voters in each of the two Indiana congressional districts: Mr. Ellsworth's district and Mr. Hill's district. That was over a minimum of two nights. We don't do overnight calling. We only use live callers, no robo or touchpad.

The margin of error for each of the districts is plus or minus 5.65 percent, and a 95 percent confidence level. All the data have remained disaggregated. We did not pool the responses together and then pool some kind of mean. Each of the actual districts was surveyed independent of the others.

There were 12 total questions in the survey instrument. Six were substantive, which I'll review now, and six were demographic. We also, for readability purposes, have posted the topline in table form, so that it's very easy for you to pool the two Indiana districts and look at them in a vertical fashion, match them up with the response categories across; and then, should you want to, compare them to the four Ohio districts and the two Pennsylvania congressional districts in which we were also active with surveying.

Let me just give you a few highlights. If I can pick out two major highlights from the poll, it would be that there's an unmistakable and tripartisan consensus in each of the two Indiana congressional districts against federal funding of abortion, and against federal funding of abortion of "part of healthcare reform legislation."

In fact, in Indiana 8, 80 percent say that they "oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions," and 81 percent say that they "oppose taxpayer funding of abortion as part of healthcare reform." Numbers are very similar in Indiana 9. Seventy-seven percent say they oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions, and 75 percent say they oppose taxpayer funding of abortion as part of healthcare reform.

From those strong opposition numbers, one could imagine that the support was very weak. It's 13 percent in Indiana 8 for each of those questions, and 17 and 19 percent, respectively, in Indiana 9 -- less than one in five voters in each of those districts, and in the case of Indiana 8, less than one in six. Closer to one in seven, frankly, are saying that they don't support taxpayer funding of abortion.

That opinion is clarified, if not intensified, when it is placed in the context of healthcare legislation. Simply put, ladies and gentlemen, people do not equate healthcare reform with abortion funding. That's been a very difficult equation for them to make in their own mind. And they're conveying that to their members.

They're conveying it to their members in a couple of questions that reveal -- when we ask the actual member's name, whether you will vote to reelect Congressman Hill or Congressman Ellsworth -- of course, he's running for the Senate now, for Senator Bayh's open seat -- but are you more likely or less likely to vote for that person? We name them. We don't say "new person" or "give someone else a chance," and all that other generic stuff. We actually name them.

"Would you be more likely, less likely to vote to reelect Congressman Hill or Congressman Ellsworth this year if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion?" Here, the results are unequivocal. In Mr. Ellsworth's district, 16 percent say they'd be more likely to vote for him based on his vote for federal government funding of abortion as part of healthcare legislation, but almost two-thirds, 65 percent, say they'd be less likely. That includes 53 percent "much less likely."

Similar numbers for Mr. Hill. One in five say they'd actually be more likely, if he were to provide federal funding of abortion in healthcare legislation. Sixty-one percent less likely. The intensity, again, five-to-one. Fifty-one percent "much less likely." Ten percent "somewhat less likely."

This particular data point is very startling to me in that people easily could have said, "It makes no difference," or, "I'm going to cast my vote according to other things," or, "I don't have enough information to judge." People do have enough information now.

We've been talking about healthcare as an issue for a year. Abortion funding has been covered very heavily, including by many of you in our outlets throughout the last couple of months, particularly with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, and then the Senate vote on Christmas Eve.

I think what voters are saying here, too, is they're not so much "sending a message" to their members as much as making a demand. They're stating a demand that any type of healthcare reform legislation that passes better either affirmatively protect against expanding federal funding of abortion from government subsidized healthcare, or to protect the current law, which is no federal funding of abortion.

I think they're also saying that abortion funding in healthcare is another example of a pet project, or a type of social agenda that they do not want funded through healthcare. They don't want to include it, and they do not want to fund it through healthcare reform legislation. We've seen many examples of this, upset over Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase, and this is really just a payoff for Planned Parenthood and the industry, for many of these voters.

You can also see in the crosstabs a lack of a gender gap, which is really startling. Men and women behave very differently with respect to different political questions, and certainly with respect to different policy questions. But there was a negligible difference between men and women in both of these districts in Indiana.

I also want to point out very strong tripartisan support, majorities of republicans, independents, and democrats all agreeing that taxpayer-funded abortion, particularly in the context of healthcare reform, should be rejected, and be rejected by their own individual members. It's very difficult to find tripartisan support, as you can appreciate, on almost any these days. But you have it here.

I would mention that these polling results do confirm not just want Susan B. Anthony List may be hearing in the field, as Congresswoman Musgrave stated indubitably true, but also other major mainstream media data. CNN poll, the CBS/New York Times poll, and the Washington Post poll all taken right before the Stupak-Pitts vote and right before the healthcare vote in November, asking the questions about whether government subsidies to buy private health insurance should or should not go to help pay for abortions.

In the New York Times/CBS poll, 56 percent said it should not. Forty-four percent strongly believed that. Similar results in the Washington Post and CNN poll with 61 percent in each of those polls say they oppose public funds for abortion.

What I would end in saying is all the press accounts I'm reading, including from some of you, indicate that the democrats have been trying to pass this healthcare legislation now, even through reconciliation, and even as a one-party maneuver, are already operating from a position of weakness, maybe not having enough votes.

But abortion inclusion just exacerbates that, and it intensifies the vulnerability of both the healthcare legislation and the vulnerability of members like Mr. Hill and Mr. Ellsworth come this fall if they, in fact, vote for it; and, in fact, if the voters do understand how their members behaved on this issue. Abortion is clearly an albatross for these pro-life democrats who four short months ago had an opportunity to stand against government funding of healthcare legislation. Thank you.

Joy Yearout: Great. Thank you, Kellyanne. Marilyn, is there anything you'd like to add before we open it up for questions?

Marilyn Musgrave: Leadership may be asking these members to literally "walk the plank" if they're trying to force them to vote for this. I think we're at a time right now where people are already experiencing a great deal of anxiety about this healthcare reform legislation. Funding of abortion really is the tipping point. I think with the mood of the public, people are really looking for heroes in Congress that will stand up to leadership.

There's a great opportunity right here in the Midwest for these representatives to stand true to their pro-life beliefs, to stand on their principles, and to honor the pro-life beliefs of their constituents. If they do not, I truly believe there will be consequences in November.

Joy Yearout: Okay. Thank you so much, Marilyn. We'll now open it up for questions. Just remember, you can unmute your line by pressing "star six" to ask a question. Do we have any questions at this time?

All right. Seeing as there are no questions, as a reminder, everyone can get the results of the poll at www.sba-list.org/poll. There will also be a full recording and transcript of this call available tomorrow on the Web site, www.newguests.com. If there are any questions or follow-up for any of the commentators, you can give me a call, Joy Yearout at the Susan B. Anthony List, by calling 703-380-6674. Again, that's 703-380-6674. Thank you again for participating.

Marilyn Musgrave: Thank you, Joy.




Susan B. Anthony List Press Teleconference Call- March 5, 2010, 12:30 pm ET
Pennsylvania Polling Results




Joy Yearout: Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for joining the call. The Susan B. Anthony List and The Polling Company would like to thank everyone for participating in our teleconference this afternoon. I'm Joy Yearout, Communications Director for the Susan B. Anthony List. I'll be your moderator today.

The purpose of our teleconference is to announce the results of select polling in congressional districts in Pennsylvania. We'll discuss those results and how they're informing the Susan B. Anthony List's efforts to leverage the pro-life grassroots. The survey toplines and crosstabs are all available online at www.sba-list.org/poll. Again, you can download the survey results at www.sba-list.org/poll. We just posted the crosstabs today.

If you're not a speaker on the call, please press "star six" to mute your line at this time. You may unmute your line for question and answer by pressing "star six" again.

Our agenda is as follows. First, we'll do a brief introduction of commentators. Second, a chance for commentators to make statements. Then we'll close with a question and answer session. We expect the call to last only 15 to 20 minutes, so you can meet your deadline. We can certainly go a few extra minutes at the end for any members of the press that may have follow-up.

Because this call is being recorded, we ask that you announce your name and media organization, and direct the question to one of our commentators by name. As a reminder, please mute your phone by pressing "star six" now, if you are not a speaker.

Our commentators today are Marilyn Musgrave, former member of Congress, and Director of the Susan B. Anthony List's Votes of Consequences project; and Kellyanne Conway, the President and CEO of The Polling Company, Incorporated and WomanTrend.

One last note before we get started. We'll keep questions direct and answers to about 60 seconds, in order to finish on time. An entire written transcription and full audio file of this call will be available online tomorrow at www.newsguests.com. That's www.newsguests.com. You may also retrieve it by calling me. My number is 703-380-6674. Again, that's 703-380-6674. For anyone who missed it earlier, the full polling results we're about to discuss are available on the Susan B. Anthony List's Web site at www.sba-list.org/poll.

I'll now turn it over to Marilyn Musgrave, Project Director of Votes Have Consequences for the Susan B. Anthony List, to make opening comments.

Marilyn Musgrave: Good afternoon, everyone. As a former member of Congress, I can certainly identify with the pressure that's on these democratic representatives right now. As these polling results clearly show, these folks are facing a stark choice. They have the opportunity, when the Senate healthcare vote comes up, whether to really be heroes or to really betray the constituents that they have that strongly oppose government funding of abortion.

We're seeing trends nationally, as a majority of people now are identifying themselves as pro-life. As we look into these Midwest congressional districts, I believe that these constituents are saying, "We want our pro-life views to be translated into public policy that really reflects them." So there's an intensity behind this issue of government funding abortion. I think that it can be the deciding issue for voters in November.

We have been working very hard at Susan B. Anthony List informing voters in these districts about the healthcare reform legislation. We've told them how their members have voted on the pro-life/pro-woman Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Had a Midwestern tour; stood with other pro-life leaders in the area and the constituents of these members of Congress.

We've generated over 800,000 letters and petitions to Congress on the issue. We've patched through constituent calls. We've done radio advertising. We've done press campaigns. We've done a lot of work. These polling results will intensify our efforts. Over the next three weeks, Susan B. Anthony List is going to spend another half a million dollars in these key congressional districts. We're going to mobilize the grassroots folks. And we want these representatives to know that their votes do have consequences.

As I've heard Kellyanne say, polling results don't really matter very much unless the constituents are informed as to how their member votes. Believe me, we at Susan B. Anthony List are going to make sure that the voters in these districts know how their member of Congress voted, whether or not they stood true to pro-life principles, or whether they gave in to the pressures of leadership.

This isn't an easy time for these representatives, because they have to decide whether or not they're going to honor the wishes of their constituents, or do what leadership wants them to do. We're going to stand with them if they remain pro-life, if they oppose government funding of abortion. Or there will be consequences when election comes around if they do not. Thank you, Joy.

Joy Yearout: Thanks, Marilyn. I will now turn it over to Kellyanne Conway of The Polling Company, who can speak in more detail to the polling results we're releasing today. Kellyanne? Karen, are you there?

Karen: I'm here.

Joy Yearout: Do you think you can --

Kellyanne Conway: Joy?

Joy Yearout: There.

Kellyanne Conway: Hi, Joy. Can you hear me now?

Joy Yearout: Yes.

Kellyanne Conway: I just keep moving around the airport. Good. This is clear? Okay.

Joy Yearout: Yes. Go right ahead.

Kellyanne Conway: Great. Thank you very much, Joy, and certainly to Congresswoman Musgrave for that presentation. I'd like to thank all of you for your interest in these data. If I can just give you a way to get in touch with us after the call: 202-667-6557, or K-E-L-L-Y-A-N-N-E @pollingcompany.com.

Methodologically, there were two congressional districts -- Pennsylvania 4, Mr. Altmire; and Pennsylvania 11, Mr. Kanjorski -- where we were actively collecting data. There were 300 completed interviews of registered voters in each of these congressional districts. The data remain disaggregated, meaning it's not that we collected a total of 600 in the two districts and then came up with some kind of average. Rather, those surveys were conducted independently of each other.

Each of the surveys has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.65 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. And at The Polling Company, we only use live callers, none of this touchpad stuff or robo-calls. It's only live calling. The sample was a random sample.

There were 12 questions in all in the survey instrument. Six were demographic in nature, and six were substantive. I'd like to review the highlights from those six substantive questions. You will see, if you haven't already, when you pull up the topline data, that we've tried to put it in the most readable format possible in having covered eight congressional districts, so that in table form you can match up the two Pennsylvania districts shown on the right-hand most side of the eight, and you can match that up very nicely with the response categories, which also are listed vertically.

I think the main two takeaways I see in these data are, first, that voters in each of these two congressional districts in Pennsylvania are sending a very clear and unequivocal message to their two members of Congress: number one, no tax dollars to pay for abortions; and number two, no tax dollars to pay for abortions as "part of healthcare reform legislation." You will see the support for using tax dollars to pay for abortions is 18 percent in Pennsylvania 4. It is 22 percent in Pennsylvania 11. It's got very anemic single-digit "strong support."

We all know in polls intensity of opinion is what matters. The intensity is on the side of the opponents, where 61 percent strongly oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions in Altmire's district, and 55 percent strongly oppose it in Mr. Kanjorski's district. Of course, you've got more than three-quarters totally opposing it in Altmire; and you've got 71 percent, seven in 10, opposing it in Pennsylvania 11. Similar results we're seeing when we put taxpayer funding abortion as part of healthcare reform to them in the next question. There you see very similar levels of opposition.

And may I say when you look at the crosstabs, some of the most amazing similarities comes between the genders. There's very little, if any, gender gap, which is quite remarkable for any political or policy question these days. And you've got tripartisan support, self-identified majorities of republicans, independents, and democrats all expressing opposition to federal funding of abortion, and federal funding of abortion as "part of healthcare reform."

What should the members do about it? That's the second big takeaway here. We asked a very traditional political currency question, but we did it by inserting the actual member of Congress' name. In this case in Pennsylvania, voters heard the following question: "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote to reelect Congressman Kanjorski or Altmire this year if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortions?"

The results are pretty stark. Twenty-one percent said that they would be more likely to vote for Mr. Altmire based on an affirmative vote to federally fund abortion as part of healthcare legislation; 24 percent in Pennsylvania 11. Fifty-eight percent say they would be less likely to vote for Altmire; 53 percent less likely to vote for Kanjorski.

What I really was surprised to see is how few people took the comfortable out of, "It makes no difference," or, "I don't know, because I base my vote on other things." You basically had about one in five demur and say, "It makes no difference, because it's not important to me," or, "I'd rather not say," or, "I don't have enough information about healthcare." People have plenty of information about healthcare a year-plus into the national debate.

I think that when I read even many of your accounts on what's going on with healthcare reform in Washington right now, it seems that the democratic leadership is operating from a position of weakness now, trying to whip up the votes. But that position of weakness is intensified, if not exacerbated, by this component which would federally fund abortion.

There was a lot of coverage on Stupak-Pitts before the vote last fall. I think that abortion is the albatross for many of these pro-life democrats, including in Pennsylvania, who four short months ago were asked to vote their conscience on this issue.

And frankly, to vote not just their constituents' consciences, but their constituents' pocketbooks, because as you can see from such strong numbers, you have a fair amount of self-identified pro-choice voters in Pennsylvania 4 and Pennsylvania 11 also saying, "I may be pro-choice, but I'm against federal funding of abortion, and certainly in the context of healthcare reform."

Simply put, people do not equate healthcare reform legislation with abortion funding. It's just not a nexus that they make in their own mind. It's not an expectation they have of healthcare reform. I think these data don't send a message to Mr. Altmire and Mr. Kanjorski so much as state a demand of them, which is absolutely no federal funding for abortion as part of this healthcare legislation.

And if groups like Susan B. Anthony List do their job and make sure the message is conveyed, that these two gentlemen either voted for legislation or against legislation, and they make their constituents aware, then this issue alone could have some pretty hefty political currency come the fall.

If I may say, we all see people are looking at the whole healthcare legislation through green eye shadow, as well. And people are telling pollsters all across the country, in everybody's polls, they're very concerned about the funding mechanisms; they're very concerned about the financial impact; very concerned about things like the so-called Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase.

This is just a payoff for Planned Parenthood and the industry, and this would fall under the same category of people being upset about special interest giveaways as part of healthcare reform legislation, or about using money that people really may want to have meaningful free market healthcare reform legislation but it's going to this instead, something that they clearly have said to these members in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, "Don't do it." Thank you, Joy.

Joy Yearout: Thank you, Kellyanne. Marilyn, is there anything you'd like to add before we open it up for questions?

Marilyn Musgrove: I would like to just add you can count on Susan B. Anthony List getting the message out. We are going to make sure that these voters in these districts know exactly how their members have responded to whether or not they will support government funding of abortion. Again, we're going to make a huge investment in these districts to mobilize the grassroots folks. This is just continuing the work that we've been doing for the last six months.

So the polling results have sent a clear message to these members of Congress. And you can count on Susan B. Anthony List to make sure that their voters know exactly where they stand on government funding of abortion. Thank you.

Joy Yearout: Okay. We'll now open it up for questions. As a reminder, you can unmute your line by pressing "star six." Please identify your name and media outlet. One last call for questions. All right, then.

Thanks to everyone for joining us. For more information and complete poll results, it's all accessible on our Web site at www.sba-list.org/poll. If there are any follow-up requests, I can be reached at 703-380-6674. Again, that's 703-380-6674. A complete transcript and audio file of this call will be available tomorrow on the Web site: www.newsguests.com. That's www.newsguests.com. Thanks everyone for joining us. Have a great day.



Susan B. Anthony List and the Polling Company Release Poll on Abortion Funding In Healthcare Bill - Press Call 3/4/10




Joy Yearout: Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for joining us on the call. The Susan B. Anthony List and The Polling Company would like to thank you for participating in this teleconference today. I'm Joy Yearout, the Communications Director for the Susan B. Anthony List, and I'll be the moderator.

The purpose of this teleconference is to announce the results of eight polls on abortion and healthcare that were conducted this week in select congressional districts. We'll discuss the results and how they are informing the Susan B. Anthony List's effort to leverage the pro-life grassroots in the healthcare debate.

The survey toplines are now available online, and you can find them at www.SBA-list.org/poll. Again, you can download the survey results at www.SBA-list.org/poll. If you're not a speaker on the call, you can press "star six" to mute your line at this time. You can unmute for questions and answers later by pressing "star six" again.

Our agenda is as follows. First, (a report by) the commentators. Second, a chance for commentators to make statements. And then we'll have a question and answer session at the end that will be in [OpenLive]. We expect the call to last only 15 to 20 minutes, so you can meet your deadline. We can certainly go an extra 10 minutes at the end if there are any members that would like to stay on longer. We'll play that by ear.

The call is being recorded, so we ask that you announce your name and media organization during question and answer time, and direct questions to commentators by name. As a reminder, you can mute your phone by pressing "star six" at any time, and unmute by also pressing "star six."

Our commentators today are Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List; and Kellyanne Conway, who's the President and CEO of The Polling Company/WomanTrend.

One last note before we get started. We'll keep questions direct and answers to about 60 seconds in order to finish on time. An entire written transcription and full audio file will be completed and may be retrieved by tomorrow at the Web site www.newsguests.com. You can retrieve it there, or you can also call me at the Susan B. Anthony List. My number is 703-380-6674. That's 703-380-6674. And for anyone who missed it earlier, the full polling results we are about to discuss are available online at www.SBA-list.org/poll.

Marjorie from the Susan B. Anthony List, I'll now turn it over to you for your opening comment.

Marjorie Dannenfelser: Thank you, Joy. And thanks everybody [in advance]. Just so you know what we do, the Susan B. Anthony List has about 280,000 members, and we represent pro-life women and the political process. To give you a sense of our mission, we've spent just shy of $8 million last election cycle mobilizing/educating voters, and electing women and men to public office.

Since last June, on healthcare, we've spent over $1 million enabling around 860,000 grassroots activists to contact their senators and congressmen about the abortion in healthcare issue. It is true across the board that Americans reject the idea of abortion in healthcare, and that includes women. Women are very strongly opposed to it, and realize that, no, it is not legitimate healthcare. We've also spent a lot of money on radio and TV and robo-calls in targeted districts across the country and in the Senate, key Senate seats.

Now this issue. Because the President and this Congress leadership has been so ideologically committed to the abortion issue, despite the will of the people, he has made this the pivot point for the entire healthcare bill.

The group of people that hold the fate of that healthcare bill in their hand more than any other issue are a handful of pro-life democrats in the House of Representatives who believe that you can't say in one sentence that you want to help the vulnerable through healthcare while you are eliminating the most vulnerable of citizens in their mothers' wombs.

The poll that we decided to do here targets the districts of eight of these congressmen this week who voted for the Stupak Amendment. And they had a long tradition of being pro-life democrats. The purpose of the poll is to help them, remind them to be the people that their constituents elected to represent them on this issue.

The truth is you don't really know the flavor of the tea until the water starts to boil. And the water is boiling now. There is pressure. Everything is heating up. All of America is looking to see how this handful of pro-life democrats will vote.

They have a choice. They will either be a hero to the constituents that elected them, and reject abortion funding at a time when everyone is watching. Or they can choose to betray their constituency, betray their own principles, and lose votes at the election box. Speaking for the Susan B. Anthony list, I can say losing votes at the election, at the polls, is a promise, if any of these men or women decide to go against their principles and vote abortion in healthcare.

We asked Kellyanne with The Polling Company to do this polling for us. She's going to present this to you, and then I'll let you know what we plan to do to take that to the districts. Kellyanne?

Kellyanne Conway: Thank you very much, Marjorie and Joy. Thank you all for your interest in this survey work. Just to give a couple logistics, Kellyanne -- K-E-L-L-Y-A-N-N-E@Pollingcompany.com, P-O-L-L-I-N-G, "company" spelled out, .com, 202-667-6557. Please ask for me or Karen Steward, S-T-E-W-A-R-D, if you have follow-ups.

A few logistic and methodological points about the polls. As Marjorie mentioned, this was eight congressional districts. I can read them out to you with the attending member. The Susan B. Anthony List selected those districts based on those individuals' votes on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. These democrats are all pro-life, with varying degrees. The eight districts, each featured 300 completed interviews over a minimum of two nights' calling.

So the entire project was in the field for three nights. Each of the districts required at least two nights' calling. We don't prefer to do overnight calls. We use live callers only, live interviewers. And the sample was randomized.

The margin of error for the entire poll is plus or minus 5.65 percent at the 95 percent confidence level, which essentially means in 19 out of 20 cases, had we replicated the same survey instrument over the same survey population -- in this case, registered voters in each of these eight congressional districts -- you would get similar data points within plus or minus 5.65 percent in either direction.

The eight districts were: Ohio 1, Congressman Steve Driehaus; Ohio 6, Charlie Wilson; Ohio 9, Marcy Kaptur; Ohio 16, John Boccieri; Indiana 8, Brad Ellsworth; Indiana 9, Baron Hill; Pennsylvania 4, Jason Altmire; and Pennsylvania 11, Congressman Paul Kanjorski. Senator McCain carried five of those eight districts. Then-Senator, now-President Obama carried three of them: Kanjorski, Steve Driehaus in Ohio 1, and Marcy Kaptur's district in Ohio 9.

Each of the surveys were run independently of each other, and the data have not been aggregated. The data stayed disaggregated, so that we're actually looking at 300 interviews for each of the eight districts.

The key findings. I should tell you that there were six demographic questions, and six substantive questions. I will review the key findings to the six substantive questions in the following order. First, the question about what to do with healthcare now generally, apart from the abortion component.

Then we had three questions dealing specifically with how people feel about federal funding of abortion, federal funding of abortion as part of this healthcare reform legislation, and then how they feel about the propriety of abortion and abortion funding being involved in healthcare legislation at all, just as a general principle.

Then finally, two questions on what I refer to as voter preference for their member of Congress in voting on this piece of healthcare legislation moving forward, and political currency. What type of asset or liability can be expected to be incurred by any of these eight members of Congress as they face reelection this fall based on their vote on healthcare legislation, and particularly healthcare legislation that does not contain an amendment to prevent federal funding of abortion.

So in order. We first posed to the folks, outside of any talk of abortion and abortion policy whatsoever within healthcare legislation: What should be done now in healthcare legislation? Respondents were presented with four possible options as to what the next step should be.

Should the healthcare legislation be passed with minor changes? Passed with major changes? Should the Congress start over from scratch? Or should the President and Congress stop working on the issue altogether? And the results were as followed. I can highlight any of the districts for anyone who wants that. I just know that we're short on time. I'm happy to do that for anyone who wants it.

Across the eight districts, in six of the eight surveyed, pluralities of voters prefer that Congress start from scratch on healthcare reform. In fact, upwards of 59 to 57 percent prefer that Congress either stop working on it or start from scratch altogether. The low watermark was 39 percent saying start from scratch or stop working altogether in Marcy Kaptur's district.

In fact, just 24 percent of respondents favored Congress [unintelligible] these questions have been asked, including those polls that have been commissioned by, conducted by, and also reported by some of the very media outlets that are on today's call.

But, you see, the strong opposition is really very clarifying. It's not jarring. Fifty-two percent all the way up to 69 percent of voters across these eight congressional districts being represented currently by pro-life democrats are saying that they, "Strongly oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortion."

That opposition persists and actually in some cases intensifies when the next question is asked -- abortion funding within the context of "healthcare reform legislation," where the question is, again, "Regardless of your personal position on abortion, do you support or oppose using taxpayer funding of abortion as part of healthcare reform?"

Again, no fewer than 66 percent, and upwards of 81, 79, 79 percent in three districts saying they oppose the intensity -- all solid majority saying they strongly oppose taxpayer funding of abortion "as part of healthcare reform." I think that many of these members are already operating from positions of weakness with respect to healthcare reform legislation.

Everybody's polls show that most Americans don't want what's currently being talked about. However, that is completely crystallized and intensified when the abortion component is added to what is already generically being referred to as "healthcare reform."

To give you a couple of the demographic breakouts and key cross-tags with respect to these questions, majorities of voters in all congressional districts not only opposed, but strongly rejected. Support averaged 20 percent across the eight districts to include abortion in healthcare reform. An average of one in five voters across these eight congressional districts say that they actually approve or support. There's that range of 13 percent support in Indiana 8, to 28 percent in Ohio 9. Those were the low and high watermarks.

At least three in five voters in all eight congressional districts agreed that "abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation." Majorities strongly agreed in all of the districts except Pennsylvania 11. However, more than 70 percent of voters agreed in four of the districts. And disagreement peaked at 35 percent in Pennsylvania 11, Kanjorski's district, but was below 30 percent in more than one-half of the districts surveyed.

At least two-thirds of voters in each of the congressional districts opposed using tax dollars to pay for abortion. Respondents were told that the version of healthcare reform passed in November 2009 "including the amendment with bipartisan support that would prevent a new government-run healthcare program from paying for abortion."

Then respondents were presented with three options and asked which they would recommend their member of Congress to do as they vote in the coming weeks on a new piece of healthcare legislation. So they were told, the three choices are: Vote for the bill even if it excludes the amendment that would prevent federal funding of abortion; vote for the bill only if it contains such an amendment; and vote against the bill regardless of whether or not the amendment is included.

In response, no fewer than upwards of 51 percent, and no fewer than 37 percent said that they would prefer that the democratic member vote against the bill, regardless of whether the amendment for or against abortion funding is included in the final bill.

Somewhere between 24 and 29 percent say, "Vote for the bill, but only if it has the amendment preventing federal funding of abortion." An average of about 18 percent said, "Vote for the bill even if it allows for funding of abortion." The lowest was 14 percent; the highest was 27 percent. Average is about 19 or 20 percent.

[Unintelligible] that, number one, we actually inserted the member of Congress' name. So this is not just generic "member of Congress," or "your member of Congress" versus "new person/elect someone else." It's none of that. It's, "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote to reelect Congressman, for example, Kanjorski, or Congresswoman Kaptur this year if he or she votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion?"

What's so startling to me is, number one, we have their name in there, and these numbers are so dramatic; and number two, how few of the voters actually went for the neutral position and just said, "I don't know. It makes no difference," or, "I'm going to cast my vote based on other things." Only an average of 12 to 13 percent actually took that comfortable out and said, "It makes no difference. I vote on other things."

The net negative political currency of those who are more likely to vote for versus less likely to vote for their member of Congress in their reelection campaign this year based on them [unintelligible] healthcare reform legislation that includes federal funding of abortion is as follows. Ohio 1, net negative 32; Ohio 6, net negative 48; Ohio 9, net negative 14; Ohio 16, net negative 47; Indiana 8, net negative 49; Indiana 9, net negative 41; Pennsylvania 4, net negative 37; Pennsylvania 11, net negative 29.

If I could spend a moment talking about the so-called gender gap and do a spotlight on the independents. Very little evidence of any dramatic gender gap through these data. And men and women behave very differently at the ballot box. Men and women have had very different opinions since the beginning on whether healthcare reform legislation should pass.

We've all seen over the past six to eight months a real narrowing of the gender gap on some of the chief components of the healthcare legislation, certainly with respect to the package in totem. At least 68 percent of men and 65 percent of women in all eight congressional districts opposed "using tax dollars to pay for abortion." At least 65 percent of men and 66 percent of women "opposed taxpayer funding of abortion as part of healthcare reform" in each of the eight districts.

Majorities of men and women in every district agreed that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation. And both men and women in every district expressed that a vote for healthcare reform by their member of Congress that includes abortion funding carries negative weight to them looking toward the elections this fall.

Spotlight on independents. Independents behaved much more like republicans than democrats in terms of their opinions with respect to the eight members of Congress here, and with respect to federal funding of abortion. And all congressional districts' majorities -- not pluralities -- majorities of self-identified independents opposed both using tax dollars to pay for abortions, and taxpayer funding of abortions as "part of healthcare reform."

In fact, that was 63 percent of independents opposing the first [unintelligible] in [unintelligible] district, and at least 62 percent, and much higher in some of the districts opposing the second [unintelligible]. I'm giving you the low watermarks, not the high ones. And then majorities of self-identified independents in every congressional district agreed that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation.

I s