 |
|
New York Times, December 2, 2004 Changing Senate
Looks Much Better to Abortion Foes DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 Abortion opponents have long considered the Senate to be a daunting roadblock for new abortion restrictions and conservative judicial nominees, halting many of the initiatives of a sympathetic House and a president committed to ''a culture of life.'' But now, both sides in the abortion struggle agree, the Senate is changing. As a result of November's election, the next Senate will have a bigger, more conservative Republican majority and several new opponents of abortion -- including some of the most intense abortion foes in politics, like Tom Coburn, a doctor and newly elected senator from Oklahoma, who campaigned as ''a committed defender of the sanctity of life in all of its stages.'' With those additions, on top of their gains in the 2002 election, anti-abortion leaders say several abortion restrictions previously introduced on Capitol Hill have a better chance for full consideration and passage. These include an array of incremental, carefully focused restrictions, like a bill to make it a federal crime to circumvent state parental consent laws by transporting a minor across state lines for an abortion. ''Certainly, we'd hope to see some action on some of the bills blocked in the Senate in the past, either by filibuster or other forms of procedural obstruction,'' said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, who cautioned against overestimating his side's gains. Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, countered: ''The Senate is much worse than it was before the election for reproductive health and rights. It was already pretty bad, and it's definitely even worse now.'' The change in the Senate is not just about the increase in the number of anti-abortion votes, which may amount to only a handful. In general, anti-abortion leaders think the political tide is gradually turning their way. They had already achieved a major legislative success in the last Congress, with the passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. They are euphoric over the results of last month's elections, including the defeat of Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader who became the symbol for conservatives of Democratic ''obstructionism,'' particularly of judicial nominees. Perhaps most important, the anti-abortion movement now faces the prospect of a possibly significant turnover on the Supreme Court with a strong ally in the White House and a Republican majority in the Senate that will grow to 55 votes from 51. Already, the movement is flexing its muscles. Its allies inserted an anti-abortion provision into the omnibus appropriations bill last week, which would withhold federal money from states and local governments if they require health care providers or insurance companies to perform, pay for or provide referrals for abortion services. At the same time, anti-abortion groups conducted a high-profile and successful campaign to get Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, a supporter of abortion rights who is in line to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to promise speedy votes on President Bush's judicial nominees. Anti-abortion leaders say they are simply seeking common-sense restrictions and regulations that have broad support from the American public and are long overdue. ''The country is moving pro-life,'' said Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican who is a leading abortion opponent. ''I just think you're seeing that reality now reflected in the politics.'' Abortion opponents say there is particularly strong support for one of their newest legislative initiatives, the proposed Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, which would require women seeking abortions after 20 weeks to be told that Congress has determined that the fetus can feel pain and to be offered pain-relieving medication for it. ''It would be my hope that a number of women, once informed of the pain in the womb that the child will experience, will hopefully say, 'I just don't want to do this,''' said Mr. Brownback, a sponsor of the legislation. ''But if they do choose to move forward, at least it's more humane for the child.'' Abortion opponents hope that such legislation, like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003, educates the public about what they assert is a much-too-unfettered right to terminate pregnancies. The ''partial-birth ban,'' aimed at a particular type of second- and third-trimester abortion, was struck down by lower federal courts, but is now on appeal. The exact political contours of the new Senate will become clear only when it begins to vote on these measures. Mr. Johnson, a veteran in the abortion struggle, estimates his side has gained ''roughly three votes,'' depending on the specifics of the legislation. Abortion-rights lobbyists say the net pickup for the anti-abortion side is probably only one seat, since some of the new abortion opponents are replacing senators who also opposed the practice. But the strengthening of Republican control and the addition of senators for whom the abortion issue ranks very high, like Mr. Coburn, Representative David Vitter of Louisiana and former Representative John Thune of South Dakota, could have a deeper effect on the Senate than a simple vote count suggests. In fact, several leaders of the abortion-rights movement indicated in interviews that they felt very much on the defensive these days, both in terms of fending off new legislation and in dealing with the prospect of a Supreme Court nomination fight, given new urgency by the illness of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. ''We are all expecting a battle on the Supreme Court,'' said Nancy Keenan, the new president of Naral Pro-Choice America. And, she added, ''The number of anti-choice restrictions will be increasing. We'll be fighting that day in and day out.'' Many analysts speculate that Mr. Bush could end up appointing as many as three justices to the Supreme Court; depending on the justices replaced, that could have major implications for Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that declared a constitutional right to abortion. Mr. Bush said during the campaign that he would not impose a ''litmus test'' on his nominees, but his conservative supporters clearly expect him to name someone who opposes Roe. Abortion-rights advocates say their primary challenge these days is to highlight the stakes. They argue that the anti-abortion movement's incremental restrictions are just part of a long-term plan to marginalize and undermine the constitutional right. ''This issue has to be brought to the American people in a very straightforward, clear way,'' said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, an abortion-rights advocate. ''All these other things that they've been doing is dancing around the basic issue, which is they want Roe v. Wade repealed and to take away a woman's right to choose,'' Ms. Boxer added. To underscore that point, she and Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, said they planned to seek a vote next year on a Senate resolution expressing support for the Roe decision. It would be nonbinding, but it would force senators to take a stand on the fundamental issue, the supporters said. Mr. Harkin obtained a vote on a similar resolution in March 2003, when the Senate endorsed Roe by a vote of 52 to 46. Ms. Boxer said it might not get a majority next year. Naral Pro-Choice America now considers 50 members of the new Senate to be ''anti-choice,'' 21 to be ''mixed'' on the issue, and 29 to be fully ''pro-choice.'' In the previous Senate, that Naral tally was 49 ''anti-choice,'' 22 ''mixed'' and 29 fully ''pro-choice.'' Abortion-rights groups say they are convinced the public is with them on the basic right. Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster who has worked for Naral, said: ''No one can deny that the Senate has gotten harder for proponents of abortion rights. That's undeniable. However, I don't believe the country fundamentally changed on this issue.'' Still, abortion-rights veterans are uneasy as they head into the new Congress. ''I have a sense of deep foreboding,'' said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, ''unless the choice movement is able to once again come alive, and clearly define what a woman's right to choose means.'' << New York Times -- 12/2/04 >> Home About Us Newsletters News Archives Donate
|