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

[ellery]

I'm pro-choice up until the point of viability, after which I am decidedly anti. To me, that means no third-trimester abortions...I wish the focus on partial birth (a specific medical approach) would be extended to ALL late-term abortions.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Let them shake in their boots I am damned tired of the leftist democrats representing good as bad and bad as good all awhile saying they care for the underdog and poor folks and are 'for the people.'

They are pro death under the guise of women's 'rights' and then scream about death and want to take guns away! Such hypocrites! America has cought on to their lines of lies of utter evil vile and hate!How many partial birth and abortions was an uncounted vote?

[F.J. Mitchell]

Isn't it a twisted conception of reality, when these pro-baby murder ghouls, refer to those who are grieved to the soul over the 100 million babies, that have died because of the perverted supreme court decision called "Roe vs Wade, as extremist?

[luckymom]

be careful- "viability" not only is a matter of interpretation, but changes (gets earlier) all the time.

[dwills]

I don't know about zarf, but I am FOR abortions up until the indices of consciousness that you describe. Whether it's under 16, 20 or 24 months I don't know, but until that time I am PRO abortion (not just pro choice). I'm sick to death of unwanted or defective children coming into the world and of folks fearing Republicans' insistence that it not be prevented.

God doesn't choose to send new humans into the world, people do. Those required to pick up the tab for these new lives should have a say as to how this choice is exercised: Severe punishment of drug-addicted mothers who deliver defective children (depraprovera contraception and free abortion to avoid this consequence), mandatory adoption of new babies born to chronically welfare-dependent mothers, etc. This is a conservative position on reproductive rights.

There's no taxpayer who's natural interests are served by membership in the Democrat party, but so many have fled to them over the abortion issue. Their fear is irrational, since early-term abortions are so strongly favored by the American public that, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, no state would outlaw the procedure today. If those of you with an absolutist position on this issue want your minority religious beliefs respected, then work to comfort those dealing with the traumatic experience and persuade people to use alternatives.

[Lurking2Long]

They're coming to take me away, ha-ha (the abortionists, that is)!

[dwills]

umm, i obviously mean weeks, and a time earlier than viability--that time at which they fetus registers anything on the order of sensation

[stands2reason]

Exactly. We need to educate peopl. Why can't we at least have abortion laws like England? What's so wrong with that?

[luvtheconstitution]

BUMP

[Steve_Seattle]

It has been obvious to me that preserving Roe v. Wade has been the central operating principle of the Democratic Party since the mid-1980's. Preserving Roe v. Wade at any cost is what has turned the party into a party of liars and thugs. The anti-Bork campaign, the Clarence Thomas hearings, the rabid defense of Clinton, the party line vote against Charles Pickering - all of the ugliest episodes in the history of the modern Democratic Party can be traced back to Roe v. Wade. The Dems should change their name to the National Abortion Rights Party. Then maybe aging Catholics like my parents (who vote 100% Democrat) would finally get it.

[No Left Turn]

"What will come of this country if we can't kill babies?" fretted Planned Parenthood president, Gloria Feldt.

[Steve_Seattle]

"no state would outlaw the procedure today"

I'm not sure about that, but I am sure that first and possibly second trimester abortions would be legal in MOST states.

[fooman]

Respectable position indeed.

[Aric2000]

Sorry to tell you all this, but NOTHING is going to happen with abortion, it is one of the 3rd rail of politics.

The only thing that we might get now is a ban on partial birth abortions, but the fact of the matter is, it ain't gonna change until the peoples minds are changed. Hitting them upside the head with laws is not gonna change anybodies minds, and shooting abortion doctors just makes it worse.

Nothing is gonna happen with abortion, either way.

It is in a deadlock and will remain where it is for quite a while yet.

[John W]

I'll just say,its a good thing we don't use "indices of consciousness" as a measure of whether or not to let adults live.

[PennsylvaniaMom]

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.

Referred to by its critics? That is what the procedure is actually called by those who provide this grisly 'choice.' Infanticide would be what its critics (myself included) would call it. Further impartialitiy from those who edit the AP wire...

[fooman]

Lots of good points and reasons why limiting ergregious abortions is not as black and white as people may first think.

[MHGinTN]

uh, have you noticed how Bush has addressed one of the other rails, social security? Abortion is next, in some manner.

[Steve_Seattle]

"nothing is gonna happen"

Probably true. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the Supreme Court would ever ban abortion on the grounds that it is taking a human life without due process. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, the issue would fall back to the states, and most states would retain legal abortion in some form or another. But Constitutional purists such as myself would love to see Roe v. Wade overturned anyway, because it is such a flagrant and unconscionable lie.

[fooman]

I agree with abortion being third railish. But I think that 3rd Trimester ban is doable once more and more people see live SHARP pictures of thier babies with the new 4D sonograph from GE.

Clearly, this is a hearts and minds campaign.

Also who could argue with a law that allows doctors to follow the traditional hippocratic (sp) oath?

In other words, if a hospital or individual does not want to perform abortion, it should not be required to.