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

[syriacus]

I voted straight RTL. I hope the message was well received.

[nicmarlo]

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

What is more pathetic, as Hannity likes to pound on, constantly, this is the only thing they are "pro-choice" about. They are against pro-choice with education vouchers, Social Security privatization, smoking, Ten Commandments and Christian religious displays, and a slew of other things. Republicans/conservatives have more "pro-choice" on all the issues.

[workerbee]

There's a clear heartbeat long before the 3rd trimester -- try 6 weeks or so (often before a women even knows she's pregnant). Neural activity way early, too. And who's to say surgery in-utero won't be possible that early someday, as well?

The problem of defining life in terms of convenience is that you must constantly revamp your definition of life. Conception is the one point where there's no question of life: what was not, now is. Complete, unique DNA from conception. After that, all you're quibbling over is how old the baby gets before you can't stomach killing it.

[fooman]

shhhh! slowly cook the frog. Roe v wade has been a non starter for 40 mm lives.

I would like to the libertarian freeper types on board.

[Joe 6-pack]

Read Bork for a deconstruction of the, "viability," argument....

[Woahhs]

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.

Your dismissive presuppositions belie a "fundimental" refusal to acknowlege the opposing position. Why aren't you a Democrat?

[fooman]

Ok, as I disclosed earlier I am a Catholic, so that likely means conception, which it does.

Its all about changing the terms of the debate. Banning at say 22 weeks where babies have clearly survived outside the womb is as good a place as any for me.

The key is to debate around when it is definatly a life, rather than debate removing someone's rights.

[blackie]

Right-on !!

[MHGinTN]

Some ground for compromise will have to be developed, but indices of consciousness isn't a good one. Let's look at the issue of abortion on demand as revolving around life support. If this is accepted as grounds for debate, then the issue becomes life support of what? A better indice would be the stage of development when all the basic attributes of the body are present, not all, just the basics, with beating heart and brain cells present, not consciousness, merely the brain in development. Why this stage?... Because we already use brain function as a proof when trying to decide whether to 'pull the plug'. Personally, I would that our society protect nascent life of the individual from implantation onward, but some compromise will have to be established until the society as a whole comes around to value individual human beings.

The brain begins to establish the hierarchy of cell development within the first two months, by differentiating tissue (brain cells are present within the first month from implantation, but establishing if a pregnancy exists is the snag for earlier bans). I would like to see a ban for all abortion past the first sixty days from implantation, except to save the life of the woman.

It will not be long at all before science develops the means to keep the little ones alive in artificial environs all the way back to the third month from implantation. Eventually, the entire process will be possible, from conception to 40 weeks. Now is the time to address these issues from a life support perspective. This perspective will also apply when addressing cloning issues, in order to stop ALL cloning of individual human life.

If we do not address this 'genie' of artificial life support now, through banning abortion on grounds of life support instead of a woman's right to privacy, then soon science will be cloning individual life, supporting that individual life, then arbitrarily harvesting the tissues from that cloned life.

What does abortion do? It kills an individual human life ... addressing 'how well developed an individual will be allowed for killing or protected by life support' is the way to end all abortion except to save a woman's life. Why? Because the people must accept that an individual life is present very early, before they will accept that such individual life is to be protected above selfish whim. The debate must follow a logical progression in order to reach the life-affirming end.

[fooman]

Wow, people on this board agree on tactics and that is good. Attacking Roe v wade head on is the way to energize NOW and eventually lose.

Making everyone realize its a life completely changes the dynamics of the debate.

Also life of the mother should remain a priority and we still need to deal with cases of rape and making people feel like their privacy is not violated.

But I want effitive action to stop aboritons, which I think are running at 1.5MM a year or so.

EFFECTIVE action can save lives now rather than the status quo.

[Joe 6-pack]

"The key is to debate around when it is definatly a life, rather than debate removing someone's rights."

Read the article I linked to above...there really is no debate as to when life begins. The verbiage, "banning abortion," and, "removing rights," is really left-speak, orwelian propoganda. Playing the left's game, we should really start referring to our efforts as, "eliminating the homicide loophole(s)," or, "protecting the rights of the unborn."

[MHGinTN]

"The key is to debate around when it is definatly a life, rather than debate removing someone's rights." I'm sorry to interject here, but the right to acknowledged individual life is fundamental. The right of the developing CHILD is what has been left out of the debate (sick pun intended). With switching to life support issues, the right of the already existing child will become the focus of debate, not the specious right of a woman to hire a serial killer.

[fooman]

I agree with your analysis, but still think a third trimester ban is best hope.

We need to get the left to 'visualize life' and bork's logical arguments has not cut it.

We need a pathos of 'Ok, look, theres my baby!'

Remember, the Germans did not beleive that the jewish works camps were bad in any way, until Ike SHOWED them

This is a way to show people, and gradually but surely making defense of death indefensible.

[MHGinTN]

Good analogy! Arbeit macht frei becomes Abortion macht frei

[Salvation]

From an email:

11/7/02

Dear Karen,

Don't wait for Dan Rather to tell you this...

But one of the key factors in yesterday's elections
was the abortion issue...

And in all the key close races in which abortion was
the issue, the PRO-LIFE candidate won!

Consider this...


--IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, pro-life Sen. John Sununu won
by a strong margin over his
pro-abortion opponent.


--IN COLORADO, pro-life Sen. Wayne Allard won by a
surprising margin over his
pro-abortion opponent.


--IN GEORGIA, pro-life Sen. Saxby Chambliss won by an
overwhelming margin over the
pro-abortion incumbent.


--IN NORTH CAROLINA, pro-life Sen. Elizabeth Dole won.


--IN OREGON, pro-life Sen. Gordon Smith won handily.


--AND IN MISSOURI, pro-life Sen. Jim Talent won by 23,401
votes over the pro-abortion incumbent
in the race that tipped the balance of
power in the Senate!!


Karen, your PRO-LIFE VOTES and your PRO-LIFE VOICE
made THE DIFFERENCE in this election!

Even in Arkansas where a pro-life incumbent was defeated,
incoming Sen. Mark Pryor ran on a family values and faith
platform and supported a ban on abortion in most instances.


THESE PRO-LIFE VICTORIES HAPPENED DESPITE THE FACT THAT
THE PRO-ABORTION LOBBY SPENT MILLIONS TO RALLY THEIR BASE!

And you can bet that if these key elections had gone
the other way, the top story in the news would be the
pro-life defeat.

Now think...
Have you heard ANY analysis like what you just read above?

[Joe 6-pack]

I agree that things must be handled incrementally...America's leftward swing did not happen overnight and the socialists were patient, taking one classroom and one courtroom over at a time over the course of decades. I think (pray and hope) that we've finally slowed their progress, and have started a push in the opposite direction. While in most areas, I'll be as patient as I need to be, this is one area my patience runs short while this is going on....

[fooman]

I know, I know. We have logos and ethos, but gotta work on pathos.

People are not going to admit they are wrong. The FIRST thing that elinor clift freaked out on at 8am after her loss was abortion.

There is just too many people vested and they have to be left off the hook, while we slowly educate people as to what is going on.

I had to watch silent scream as a kid. One girl passed out.

I would LOVE to see THAT as part of sex ed.

[Cicero]

Sensible pro-lifers don't mind taking it one step at a time. But the pro-life movement will never go away until the damage done by Roe v. Wade has been completely reversed. The sanctity of human life cannot be compromised.

[eccentric]

And in all the key close races in which abortion was the issue, the PRO-LIFE candidate won!

I guess we didn't make it a key issue in Kansas, the pro-abortion Sebelius won the governor race. :(

[St. Clair Slim]

Well, I've learned so far that the use of the English language has been turned upside down. "Planned Parenthood" has nothing to do with parenthood, and everything to do with avoiding being a parent.

I guess the sex to make the baby is okay, though.

Doing my own research, I've found that a lot of these "Planned Parenthood" clinics are located in lower class inner city black areas. And I see them as genocidal centers.

My eyes are now open. I've heard that you can't stop a rooster from crowing just because the sun has already come up. It's up. And he's crowing.