Posted on 11/07/2002 2:21:10 PM PST by 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
That's B.S. Overturning Roe v. Wade will just kick it down to each individual state to decide.
BTW, if abortion is a supposed to be "a decision between a woman and her doctor," as these women keep endlessly harping, then taxpayers shouldn't be funding this or any other so-called 'private choice'. You don't see the government paying for people to smoke, do you?
Planned Parenthood and NOW are just alarmed that the gravy train is stopping and they're going to be losing big bucks.
Nonsense. People have sex. Sometimes it results in conception, sometimes not. A baby can be planned and wanted, but there is no guarantee of conception, no matter how hard the parents try.
Witness so many people these days trying to become parents and battling infertility problems. They spend money on doctors and IVF but still fail to conceive for all those efforts. Even the doctors tell them there is no guarantee.
The irony of it is, many are pro-abortion, and they still don't get the connection that maybe God is trying to tell them something.
My point is that only God knows the exact moment that conception occurs. The parents generally don't. At that point, it is completely out of their control.
So it stands to reason that we are here by the will of God, whether we choose to believe it or not.
Well said.
You are not amiss. There will be spiritual consequences.
"The fruit of abortion is nuclear war. What you do to the unborn, you do to Jesus." -- Mother Teresa
In '73 the SCOTUS overthrew the laws of 50 supposedly sovereign states concerning abortion. At that time only 3 states allowed abortions under very limited, defined circumstances, like rape, medical emergency and the like.
The fact of the matter is, the minds of the people had nothing to do with the legalization of baby shredding and the minds of the people has little to do with whether the SCOTUS reverses itself. It ain't up for a vote in this system.
Do you believe you can dictate to others that they won't take human life post-partum? Do you believe you can dictate to others that they will not drink and drive?
I damn well intend to dictate to others that they cannot shred their preborn offspring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.