Abortion Rights Backers Show Alarm

AP via NYTimes.com ^ | 11/07/2002

[GeneD]

The Republican takeover of the Senate, a result of crucial victories by candidates opposed to abortion, has set off cautious celebration among anti-abortion activists and alarm bells in the opposing camp.

``The threat to choice is greater today than it has been in decades,'' said Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.

NARAL and its allies spent millions of dollars in the closing weeks of the campaign supporting Democrats for Senate who favor abortion rights against Republicans who oppose them.

But in the five most closely contested of these races -- Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri and New Hampshire -- the Republican won. That accounts for the GOP's recapture of the Senate.

Anti-abortion groups were encouraged by the victories, but made clear they expect concrete results in the form of legislation restricting abortions and confirmations of anti-abortion federal judges.

``Surely this must put an end to the notion by establishment Republicans that people who uphold moral values cannot win,'' said Sandy Rios, president of the conservative Concerned Women for America.

Rios contended that anti-abortion stands played a vital role in the Senate victories, including those by Jim Talent in Missouri and Norm Coleman in Minnesota. The lesson, she said, was that the Republicans should no longer be concerned about accommodating abortion-rights supporters within the party's so-called ``big tent.''

Judie Brown, president of the anti-abortion American Life League, said she would reserve judgment on the GOP victory until she saw how the Republican-controlled Congress performed. Her organization unveiled a ``wish list'' Thursday of nine bills it would like Congress to pass.

``It is our hope that they will fulfill their moral obligations to protect all innocent human persons from the moment of fertilization,'' Brown said. ``In the meantime, we will pray and watch.''

The deepest fear of abortion-rights groups is that President Bush might have a chance to replace one of the moderate justices who give the Supreme Court a narrow edge in favor of abortion rights. A new, conservative justice -- after winning Senate confirmation -- might enable the court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing abortion rights nationwide.

``Roe v. Wade hangs by a single vote,'' said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. ``Tipping the balance of the Supreme Court with one more extremist justice would ensure the loss of abortion rights for generations.''

In theory, Senate Democrats could filibuster to block anti-abortion bills and judicial appointments, but the tactic requires tight party discipline that has not always existed in abortion-related votes.

Though dismayed by the Senate results, abortion-rights groups sounded a combative tone as they looked ahead to the 2004 elections.

``There's no question we're in the toughest fight in the 30 years since I've been with Planned Parenthood,'' its president, Gloria Feldt, said Thursday.

Feldt said Republicans won the key Senate races because their base -- including many staunch foes of abortion -- turned out in greater numbers than the Democrats' base.

She said Democrats should have hit harder on abortion issues by stressing the possibility that Republicans would push through bills restricting access to abortions and weakening family-planning programs.

Feldt found some consolation in victories by abortion-rights advocates in several major gubernatorial races, including California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

NARAL's Michelman said many Americans who support abortion rights may have become complacent about the issue and will become galvanized only when those rights are threatened.

``It would be a big mistake for the government to misread these elections as a green light to roll back freedom of choice,'' she said.

While the timing of possible Supreme Court vacancies is uncertain, a battle may flare soon in Congress over the late-term procedure referred to by its critics as partial-birth abortion. Congress tried to ban the procedure in the late 1990s, but failed to overturn two vetoes by President Clinton.

Clinton, and many Democrats, opposed the legislation because it lacked an exemption in cases when the mother's health was at risk.

``I'd be shocked if we didn't see that bill reintroduced, and I think it would have the greatest chance of passage it's ever had,'' said Melody Rose, a political science professor at Portland State University who has studied the politics of abortion.

^------

Planned Parenthood: http://www.plannedparenthood.org

American Life League: http://www.all.org

[GeneD]

Oooooh! Fewer abortions! SOUND THE ALARM!!!!!

[St. Clair Slim]

Then maybe they will now get rid of the Planned Parenthood clinic not far from where my cousin used to live.

[Paul Atreides]

``The threat to choice is greater today than it has been in decades,'' said Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.

Boo hoo!

[MHGinTN]

From the article: Anti-abortion groups were encouraged by the victories, but made clear they expect concrete results in the form of legislation restricting abortions and confirmations of anti-abortion federal judges. And that is the essence of what the supporters for serial killing are left to defend ... reductions are characterized as extreme when the wholesale slaughter now occurring is actually the extreme defended as enlightened social policy! Can someone say 'blood of the innocent on their hands'? You bet we can!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The Republican takeover of the Senate, a result of crucial victories by candidates opposed to abortion, has set off cautious celebration among anti-abortion activists and alarm bells in the opposing camp.

They're moving to France???

[ClancyJ]

Maybe they need to go out and get their abortions today while they can. Or, maybe check on layaway options.

Such a crisis! What is a woman to do in these times of no birth control, no pills?

Such power in denying their future son or daughter its only opportunity at life. How can they possibly give up that power?

[Robert_Paulson2]

"Tipping the balance of the Supreme Court with one more extremist justice would ensure the loss of abortion rights for generations"

<< gasp >>

ain't it a bitch?
put some ice on it....

[pabianice]

We need to use correct terminology. They are PRO abortion, not 'abortion rights.' Let's remember that here on FreeP.

[coramdeo]

I'm a little slow, and it's been a long time since I studied formal logic, so let me see if I got this right.

1. In every Senate race where the pro-aborts spent millions of dollars making abortion an issue, the PEOPLE voted for the right-to-life candidate and rejected the pro-abort candidate.

2. The pro-aborts now fear that this might allow the Senate to confirm "one more extremist justice" who is not a pro-abort.

3. Thus, the majority of the voters in all five of those states are "extremists."

Everyone understand now?

[zarf]

I am a pro-choice Republican, but I'm against partial birth abortions.

What is pathetic is that the Democratic Party's only rallying issue is abortion.

It is the only issue that motivates them to go to the polls.

Taxes? Defense? Social Security? Homeland? Defense? Do the Demonrats have any substantive views on these issues?

Ann Coulter was right....they should change their name to the abortion party.

[goo goo g'joob]

...it's been a long time since I studied formal logic...

if p then q (as I recall)

[MHGinTN]

Zarf, I would be interested in reading your particulars of 'pro-choice' yet against partial birth abortion. If you like, Freepmail me and we will discuss it further.

[fooman]

Are you for third abortions? After which....

1) The baby can be operated on per the drudge picture

2) There is a clear hearbeat.

3) British scientists have shown clear neural and mental activity.

I think that legislation getting rid of third term abortions should be next, NOT Roe v Wade.

Peoples postions on this must evovle over time

[fooman]

Should say 'third term abortions...'

[americanMel]

``Roe v. Wade hangs by a single vote,'' said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. ``Tipping the balance of the Supreme Court with one more extremist justice would ensure the loss of abortion rights for generations." Extremist justice? Who are they calling extremist? PUHLEEEZE. Take a pill and get over it already. We've taken our country back (hopefully).

[HelgaHawk]

I've always found that the term "Planned Parenthood" is so ironic. What kind of planning is invoved there? I thought planning meant deciding when was a good time to have children, and knowing how to avoid having them when you don't want them. No planning parenthood in abortion, no way. By then, they are in reactive mode instead of proactive mode.

[nutmeg]

FYI

[Atlas Sneezed]

What exactly are these folks worried about? What laws do they think a Republican Senate would pass?

What rulings do they think conservative judges would make?

Their worst case would simply be that states decided for themselves, and few states would outright ban the procedure, as this would be unpopular almost everywhere.

What they are is abortion-hustlers, who profit pesonally and politically from the illusion of emergency they create.

Ask a pro-abort what they think is the moral distinction between a mother killer her "fetus" moments before birth and killing her baby moments after. I have never heard a coherent answer to this.

[fooman]

I want to play it quiet on Roe v Wade and not prematurely energize the bad crowd.

As bush said, hearts have to change.

The way to do that is show lots of the 4d sonogram baby pictures and work for a SECULAR ( I am Catholic) banning of third term abortions.

We should also eliminate laws that require hospitals and doctors to perform abortions.

[Notforprophet]

Well said, both of you. BTTT