GOP Again Confronts Divisive Abortion Issue

WASHINGTON —  The Republican governors of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California recently declared they intended to challenge the party’s longstanding platform language on abortion. A reporter then gave the impression that Ralph Reed, executive director of the Christian Coalition, might allow some change in the Republican abortion position; but when this was printed, Reed quickly denied it. Meanwhile, speculation abounds as to whether the silent Sen. Bob Dole will use the issue of abortion as a vehicle for his anticipated trip to the center. The possibility of a split over abortion should cause the GOP to review the issue carefully.

With Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court found that women have a constitutional right to have an abortion. Although the decision has been criticized by some legal scholars, many of whom have no quarrel with the result, it’s precedent.

The only way to extinguish this right would be to amend the Constitution. To simply pack the Supreme Court with appointees pledged to overturn Roe vs. Wade would result in undermining the principle of precedent; but extinguishing the constitutional right to an abortion would not make the practice illegal. For this to be true, each of the states, and the District of Columbia, would have to outlaw it. Most larger states would not, the vast majority would allow it with some restrictions, and only a few, less populated states might abolish it entirely.

Even if abortion were illegal in every jurisdiction, abortion would not become extinct--only inconvenient. There were plenty of abortions before Roe vs. Wade erased state laws preventing it, many done by competent physicians who recorded the operation falsely, others by amateurs whose butchery often resulted in the death of the potential mother as well as a potential child. To drive the practice underground again would not seem a worthwhile goal for those who oppose it. No great ethical or moral purpose is served by pretending evil conduct has ceased to exist.

But I am amused by the arguments of those who demand that the right to an abortion be unrestricted and totally the decision of the woman. Women had a right to control their own bodies, but the proper time to exercise such control is just before you let some man you have little interest in impregnate you. Absent rape, incest or evidence of duress, it seems logical that a woman has waived at least a portion of her control, and the man involved should have some say in, and be forced to take major responsibility for, the outcome of the pregnancy.

Recent studies also indicate that abortion is not a simple, risk-free solution to an undesired pregnancy. For many, if not most, women seeking an abortion, the decision is reached in a lonely setting under circumstances of fear, anxiety or guilt. Counseling would seem to be in order--not only to acquaint the patient with other options, but to allow her to prepare for possible feelings of recrimination.

In politics, I would accuse pro- and anti-abortion interests, who both claim to treat the matter seriously, of not treating it seriously enough. Pro-abortionists often sound extreme when they contend that any restraint on the constitutional right to an abortion cannot be tolerated--even late in pregnancy when the form of a child is easily detected. The anti-abortion forces sound noble when claiming to prevent the killing of innocent babies, but seem to care little about unwanted children once they leave the womb.

Luckily, in spite of the heated rhetoric on both sides, the vast majority of Americans don’t take abortion seriously as a political issue--at least at the presidential level. For about 75%-80% of the electorate, a presidential candidate’s position on abortion ranks low on the list of determining factors. For those who claim the issue has more importance, pro- and anti-abortion sentiment is about equal. Reflecting the strong American attitude that most decisions should be left to the individual, a healthy majority of Americans support the right to have an abortion. Less well publicized is the fact that, when asked whether this right should be restricted, an even larger majority says yes.

Should the Republican Party change its platform position on abortion? Yes. If nothing else, it is wrong to mislead voters who oppose abortion into thinking a constitutional amendment is possible or that packing the Supreme Court would bring an end to abortion.

The real battleground involves whether federal funds should be used to pay for abortions and whether they should be performed in federal facilities--questions upon which anti-abortion sentiment can still have a strong impact. In addition, recent Supreme Court decisions have broadened the ability of states and localities to place certain restrictions on abortion, providing anti-abortionists with a new avenue to pursue.

Should the GOP change its position at its national convention? No. Dole, its putative presidential nominee, has strongly supported the party-platform language, and his participation in any revision would only further erode his already shaky credibility. The one thing Dole doesn’t need is any more evidence that he doesn’t mean what he says.

Abortion has become a political football, used by one side to express its dismay over declining sexual mores and by another to offer women the same sexual irresponsibility that men are presumed to enjoy. Yet, the decision to obtain an abortion is a highly personal and serious one, involving the physical and mental health of a potential mother and the fate of a potential child.

The right or wrong of it is a matter of conscience, to be judged by a higher power. It would be nice if both sides in the abortion debate could remember that perhaps they are not the final authority on what should be permissible.*