Pro-life leader lauds Brown's victory, discusses implications

Washington D.C., Jan 20, 2010 / 17:24 pm

Calling Scott Brown's victory “a political earthquake that will be felt across the United States,” Population Research Institute president Steve Mosher praised the newly elected senator's success and spoke on its wider implications.

“No one thought that a conservative Republican could possibly win in Massachusetts, the most liberal of American states and the long-time power base of liberal icon Teddy Kennedy,” Mosher told CNA on Wednesday. “But State Sen. Scott Brown did what no one thought possible.” 

“Even though Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one,” continued Mosher, “Brown won 52% of the vote to Coakley's 47%. Brown pulled in 1,168,107 votes to 1,058,682 for Coakley.”

Mosher explained his perspective on the wider implications of Brown's success and said that “His victory left the perfect, government-controlled world imagined by Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi in ruins,” and that  “It means the end of Obama's drive for government-run health care, with its public funding of abortion.” 

It also “means the end of cap-and-trade,” and “the anti-Global Warming bill, with its drive for more population control,” said Mosher, who specializes in population research.

The Brown victory, Mosher asserted, “also calls into question other Leftist projects which harm Life and families in the U.S. and overseas.” 

Speaking on the elections that will take place this November, Mosher called Brown's victory a “prelude.”

If Obama is smart, argued Mosher, he will abandon “his radical abortion and population control proposals, which threaten to crush his presidency into the ground.” However, “the definition of a fanatic is one who redoubles his efforts when he has lost sight of his goals,” he stated. 

Senator-elect Scott brown is not strongly opposed to abortion and has called it a “decision that should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor,” according to his website. His opposition to the Senate health care bill in its current form is based mainly on his aversion to a government-run health care system and its cost.