The tea party candidates, nearly all Religious Right social conservatives, beat more established and establishment type pols all over the country. For the Senate alone, Rand Paul, Joe Miller, Sharon Angle, Ken Buck and Christine O'Donnell were among the most militantly antiabortion candidates for major office in history. Some Religious Right candidates downplayed their religious rightyness and rode the anti-tax, small government Tea Party narrative into many electoral successes. But the post election, Beltway Insider version of the narrative insists that religion had little to nothing to do with the election results.

Meteor Blades, writing at Daily Kos offers a set of facts that does not seek to measure the religiosity of the candidates, but illuminates the election results in practical terms. He wrote:

Without having tallied close races, NARAL's BlogforChoice put the anti-choice forces as of Nov. 3 clearly in control of the House, with 248 Representatives in the anti-choice column and 33 with a mixed record. In the Senate the lines are more closely drawn, with 46 anti-choice, 40 pro-choice and 14 mixed-choice Senators. In both houses together, that's a 60-vote gain for the anti-choice forces. [emphasis added]

If abortion is the premier issue of the culture wars, then clearly the antiabortion movement gained a smashing victory in battle of the 2010 federal elections. It is already well established that Religious Right initiated antiabortion legislation and regulation in the states, where most policy is made, has made great progress in recent years -- this, while Beltway Insiders were busy seeking common ground with anti-abortion activists. This was the subject of considerable discussion, and in the end, dubious outcomes. I would have thought that even Inside The Beltway, the discussion would have progressed. But if a recent blog post at Bold Faith Type is any indication, it may have regressed. Nick Sementelli writes:

There are numerous examples of common-ground ideas being adopted by political actors or introduced as legislative proposals. Notably, the Democratic Party added abortion reduction language in their 2008 party platform, then-Senator Obama mentioned it in his presidential nomination acceptance speech, the Ryan-DeLauro bill introduced last year incorporated a host of ideas about prevention and support for pregnant women aimed at the same thing, and the Affordable Care Act included $250 million in funding for programs supporting pregnant and parenting women and families.

Let's address the problems with this paragraph one at a time. First, the 2008 Democratic Party platform explicitly rejected abortion reduction language, as has the White House. Both use the general phrase and concept of seeking to reduce unintended pregnancies and thus need for abortion. In fact, the goal of numerical abortion reduction is a key strategic concept in the long term war of attrition the antiabortion movement has waged in the states.

Second, Obama's one line on abortion in his 2008 convention speech was consistent with the party platform: "We may not agree on abortion," he said, "but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country." To some, this may seem to be a distinction without a difference, but in the world of abortion politics, it is huge, and the result of hard fought negotiations in the Democratic Platform Committee.

Third, the Ryan-DeLauro bill, introduced to much fanfare, got zero support from leading antiabortion organizations (although some individuals did support the bill) many of which oppose contraception, which was a featured element of the bill, and in combination with sex education, the only proven method of reducing unwanted pregnancies. The bill went nowhere and its prospects are dim at best in the new antiabortion, Republican majority Congress. Indeed, the prolife cosponsor Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) was kicked off the advisory board of Democrats for Life for advocating the bill.

Finally, there was indeed money included in the health care bill to help women bring pregnancies to term. Unmentioned is that anti-abortion Democrats forced the most draconian antiabortion provisions since Roe vs. Wade in exchange for their support for the bill. On the point, Sementelli links to an article by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) who details how the bill is intended at reducing the number of abortions. What a coincidence.

Antiabortion forces are already moving the abortion reduction agenda in the health care bill through the states. For example, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice reports:

Ultra-conservative lawmakers took control of at least 10 additional state legislatures for a total of 26 and 10 additional governorships in the November election... In short, we’re up against a comprehensive assault on reproductive freedom. The target is the new state insurance exchanges created by health care reform.

Their immediate strategy is to exclude coverage of abortion services from the exchanges, including from women’s private insurance plans. But make no mistake, this is a systematic effort to ban abortion, even while Roe v. Wade still stands.