Sections
Home
Search
Pro-life advocates pray March 20 in front of the Planned Parenthood Surgical Center in Albuquerque. (Rose Marie Nalburg)
| Nov. 20, 2013
Albuquerque Pro-Life Measure Defeated, But Important Lessons Learned
Susan B. Anthony List's president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said pro-lifers ‘were able to educate thousands of citizens about fetal pain and the reality of late abortion.’
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Although a pro-life ballot measure in Albuquerque, N.M., did not gain enough votes to pass, pro-life activists say the initiative was able to educate citizens about the reality of late-term abortion.
“Months ago, most Albuquerque residents had no idea their city had become a national hub for late abortion,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, in a statement.
“Despite being outspent four to one, pro-life grassroots activists were able to educate thousands of citizens about fetal pain and the reality of late abortion,” she continued. “This was no small feat in a deep blue city that chose Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by a 15-point margin.”
Dannenfelser’s comments come in response to the Nov. 19 defeat of a citizen-initiated ordinance to ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy in Albuquerque. New Mexico currently has among the most lax abortion regulations in the country, allowing the procedure up until the day of birth.
The measure garnered 27,000 signatures, allowing it to come before the citizens for a vote. However, the ballot initiative was rejected by a 55%-45% margin.
In the weeks leading up to the election, abortion activists worked to counteract support for the initiative, raising more than $200,000 for television advertisements and activism, according to Susan B. Anthony List.
Pro-life advocates noted that the campaign to promote the ballot initiative has drawn awareness and support to the growing movement to ban late-term abortions across the country. Efforts to ban the procedures have been introduced at both the state and federal levels.
Protect Albuquerque Women and Children, a group supporting the measure, explained in a Facebook post that “all is not lost” because the battle “shed a light on the horrific practice of late-term abortion.”
“We will continue fighting to protect women and children from the barbaric and unnecessary practice of late-term abortion,” the group said, adding that it is not the end, “but only the beginning of eliminating” the practice in Albuquerque and beyond.
Comments
Posted by Jerry on Friday, Nov, 22, 2013 5:16 PM (EDT):
You’re welcome, Mark. Pro-lifers need to be more savvy and “trendy.” They think all they need is to get as little money as possible, spend as little as possible, do stupid things and have Jesus take care of the rest. Well, how has that worked in Albequerque?
Posted by Mark on Thursday, Nov, 21, 2013 5:05 PM (EDT):
Jerry,
I’m Catholic, but completely agree with your perspective. Thanks for the comments!
Posted by JD on Thursday, Nov, 21, 2013 7:30 AM (EDT):
According to a NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/us/albuquerque-voters-defeat-anti-abortion-referendum.html?_r=0), “A trolley shuttled students from the University of New Mexico campus to polling places all day.” And, “Eli Wilson, 20, a sophomore majoring in English and philosophy, who delayed a trip to the library to board a trolley, said, “‘I believe women have the right to have an abortion if they choose to, so I’m voting against it.’” So, one likely reason the proposal lost was that college students - tending to be ignorantly liberal and from out-of-state but registered to vote in their college town - were brought to the polls.
The article also mentions that voter turnout was 25%. That’s only 1/4 of the city’s voting population (though it’s apparently an historically high figure). How many anti-abortioners are kicking themselves for not going to the polls.
Posted by Jerry on Wednesday, Nov, 20, 2013 7:54 PM (EDT):
The defeat in the bill in Albequerque should be another hard-earned lesson for pro-lifers. It failed because pro-lifers failed in delivering the message in a professional way. Were the pro-lifers grossly outspent by the pro-abortionists? Of course. Pro-abortionists are more in the end of “high-income.” They’ve got the loot. Rich people aren’t nice; the consider themselves “entitled” because of their wealth and abortion is one of their entitlements. It’s PC to them, but it’s also something they “need” to keep and expand their wealth. They can’t have little buggers, whether their own or others, getting in the way of their making and keeping the moola. But beyond that, the important thing is how pro-lifers deliver the message. It’s all in the marketing and, sadly, pro-lifers have been very unprofessional when it comes to that. It’s not slick and being slick is necessary. And jamming religion into it ain’t gonna work. This is a secular nation, even for those with a religion, and when trying to make it religious is a big fault. Be slick. Stick to science and medicine. Keep gods out of it. I, as a pro-life Atheist, don’t want anyone telling me what I can or can’t do because somebody’s god says so. And if pro-abortionists who believe in gods try to make it a religious issue by saying that certain religions support abortion (as all mainline Protestant religions do), I go after them and tell THEM to keep their gods out of it. Science and medicine determines the facts of human life, not what they believe. No one’s gods have any voice in this, not the pro-lifers, not the pro-abortionists. And then there were the Albequerque pro-lifers who did really stupid things, like slipping in stuff in trick-or-treaters’ bags on Halloween about this bill. Totally stupid. If I had kids and someone used an opportunity based upon kids to promote some political cause, I’d be royally p*ssed and would consider going the opposite way. Learn a lesson from this, pro-lifers. You blew it in Albequerque. Learn why you did.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.
