Abortion’s New Battlefields

As candidates gear up for the first major elections since the Webster decision, abortion is once again a political hot potato.

Across the nation, candidates are maneuvering their way around the abortion issue with an eye to how it will play out in the November 6 elections. Obviously, in any given election, there are a number of important issues. But in the first major election since the Supreme Court’s Webster decision, which gave states more power to regulate abortions, abortion is emerging as a key factor in many races.

Gubernatorial candidates especially are feeling the heat for the first time. In the past, many could be vague about their positions, or give lip service to an unattainable constitutional amendment that did not directly concern them. Now, with the abortion battlefield moving to the states, governors are playing an increasingly important role. Over the past year, several pieces of prolife legislation, passed by legislatures, were vetoed by governors—including by those who had claimed they were prolife (see “Abortion Scorecard Since Webster”). And next month, voters in 36 states will make choices for their state’s top office.

• When queried on his abortion position, prolife Ohio gubernatorial candidate George Voinovich (R) has a ready response. He pauses, gives a slight smile, and says, “I stand where Tony Celebrezze stood for 25 years.” Celebrezze, the Democratic candidate, was among the spate of politicians who changed abortion positions soon after the Supreme Court’s Webster decision last year. He is now aggressively campaigning on an abortion-rights platform.

• At campaign stops across Idaho, Gov. Cecil Andrus (D) is often met by prolife picketers, despite the fact that he calls himself a prolife politician. Andrus drew the ire of prolife citizens in March when he vetoed a bill that would have given Idaho the most restrictive abortion law in the country. At the time, he said constitutional questions and not a change of heart prompted the veto. Nonetheless, prolifers have targeted him for defeat and are supporting Roger Fairchild, who also claims to be prolife.

• When the Maryland legislature was locked for days in an acrimonious filibuster over abortion this spring, Gov. William Donald Schaefer (D) was silent on how he viewed the issue. Last month, ten days after state primaries in which several prolife politicians targeted by proabortion forces were defeated, he issued a statement: Schaefer the individual is prolife, but Schaefer the politician is prochoice. He denied the primary results had any influence on his decision. Next month he faces an underdog prolife challenger.

• Soon after Joan Finney (D) of Kansas won a primary upset of former governor John Carlin, she was invited to meet with women’s groups working for more elected female officials. Finney was offered several thousand dollars of support for her gubernatorial campaign if she signed a pledge to support abortion rights. She flatly refused, walked out of the meeting, and went uninvited to prolife offices for advice on how to handle the abortion issue. Aggressively pressing the prolife position, Finney is currently beating prochoice Republican Mike Hayden, the incumbent, in the polls.

Political Hazard

What is the best strategy for a candidate handling the abortion issue? That depends on the actions of the candidates, activists, and the news media, according to a new study by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. The study says the abortion issue “could be hazardous to a candidate’s political health or it could be a prescription for campaign success.” At a Washington press conference, Eagleton professor Ruth Mandel said the key is voter education. “Voters say abortion is an important issue, but that doesn’t guarantee that they will base their votes on it,” she said. “Someone has to make them see how pulling the lever for a particular candidate can affect abortion policy.”

Prolife political consultants say the two gubernatorial races of last year are examples of what not to do. Republican candidates Jim Courter of New Jersey and Marshall Coleman of Virginia were both prolife going into the races, but appeared to panic in the weeks after the Webster decision was handed down. Courter, who had a solid prolife record in the House, announced he would not seek or sign abortion restrictions. Coleman backed away from the issue, refusing to clarify his position and allowing his opponent to run weeks of unanswered television ads framing the issue as one of individual freedom. Both lost.

Races to Watch

Senate

Iowa: Tom Harkin (D) versus Tom Tauke (R). Abortion has been a flashpoint in this race, which the Republican party has termed its “hottest” challenge. Tauke, the popular congressman, has held to his prolife position, despite pollsters’ warnings that the majority of Iowans are prochoice. Harkin has tried to portray himself as both prochoice and “prolife” because he is concerned about the life of a woman forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. The National Abortion Rights Action League has targeted Tauke and is running a series of TV ads for Harkin.

Oregon: Mark Hatfield (R) versus Harry Lonsdale (D). Hatfield, running for his fifth term, was once considered a shoo-in, but some analysts are beginning to wonder. Last month, Campaigns and Elections magazine called Lonsdale the “best candidate for shocker of the year.” Lonsdale has been emphasizing his abortion-rights position, banking on polls that show 73 percent of Oregonians are prochoice. Hatfield has been running the low-key, independent campaign that has typified his brand of politics.

North Carolina: Jesse Helms (R) versus Harvey Gantt (D). Helms, the longtime conservative gadfly of the Senate, has been under serious challenge by former Charlotte mayor Gantt. Gantt’s campaign has been heavily financed by national groups that would like an end to Helms’s crusades against abortion, pornography, and homosexual rights. At press time, pollsters were calling the race a dead heat.

House of Representatives

Michigan’s 12th District: David Bonior (D) versus Jim Dingaman (R). As the fourth-ranked Democrat in the House, Bonior is the highest-placed prolife politician in a party that has not been hospitable to an antiabortion position. Sitting on the powerful House Rules Committee, Bonior has been staunchly prolife in the face of intense party pressure. Dingaman is also prolife, but holds the more permissive position of allowing abortion exceptions for rape and incest.

New York’s 6th District: Floyd Flake (D) versus William Sampol (R). Flake, pastor of the Allen African Methodist Church in Queens, has been immensely popular in his district, and even arraignment on federal charges of conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion are not expected to hurt his race against political newcomer Sampol. Indicted in August for allegedly diverting funds from his church’s housing project for the elderly, Flake has strongly denied the charges. Flake, who was once prolife, has taken a “politically prochoice” position.

Note: Incumbents are listed first.

On The Offensive

National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) representative Nancy Myers told CHRISTIANITY TODAY that she believes “a lot of candidates—at least the smart ones—have learned that they need to stake out a position, stick with it, and actively talk about it.” Fatal mistakes for prolifers, Myers said, are equivocating, shying away from the issue, and are allowing opponents to define their position. The best strategy, she said, is going on the offensive and explaining what the “extreme position of choice,” embodied in Roe v. Wade, really means in terms of unrestricted abortion.

David Medema, campaign coordinator for the JustLife Political Action Committee, agrees the offensive can be most effective. “Where they can do it, we encourage candidates to debate the issue on the feminists’ turf, to cite historical feminist views that abortion oppresses women, … and to be very clear on support for alternatives to abortion,” he said.

But, Medema added, strategy can depend on the “political make-up” of the state. “For many Democrats, being very visible on their prolife position may incur a higher political risk,” he said. This doesn’t mean they should water down their positions, he emphasized, but just “pick their battles,” and not appear “to be on a crusade.” JustLife has endorsed 58 candidates and targeted seven races for deeper involvement, including volunteer help, financial contributions, radio advertising, and direct-mail solicitations. Each of JustLife’s candidates subscribes to the organization’s broadly prolife view that includes antiabortion, arms control, and economic-justice planks.

NRLC’s Myers said prolife activists are pleased with how many candidates have been handling the issue. In the Wisconsin governor’s race, Republican Tommy Thompson is running “textbook” television ads emphasizing that opponent Thomas Loftus’s abortion-rights position means abortion on demand, for any reason, she said. In the Senate race in Iowa, Republican Tom Tauke is doing a “good job” of not letting incumbent Tom Harkin get away with calling himself “broadly prolife” while supporting unrestricted abortion, according to Medema.

In the Ohio race, both candidates have been aggressively using the issue. Voinovich is attempting to capitalize on his opponent’s switch, running ads that question Celebrezze’s credibility, noting that he once called abortion “murder.” For his part, Celebrezze has been unapologetic about the switch. “Tony Celebrezze would not take away a woman’s right to choose,” his ads say.

“We’ll be happy to make Ohio a test case of the abortion issue any day,” Celebrezze’s pollster told reporters earlier this year.

Biting The ‘Silver Bullet’

But whether any one race will prove to be a national test case remains to be seen. In all races, a combination of factors comes into play. And despite regions of consensus, the overall electorate remains deeply divided on the issue. (Witness an Illinois legislative primary earlier this year where abortion was the dominant issue. In September, after months of dispute, the state’s supreme court ruled prolife incumbent Penny Pullen the winner, by a margin of six votes.)

Yet, according to Washington Post commentator Mark Shields, one thing sure to come out of this year’s elections is the discrediting of a “silver bullet” theory that says unrestricted support for legal abortion “almost guarantees” a candidate’s victory. Already, he said, many primary races where prolife candidates did surprisingly well “gave that theory a severe drubbing.”

Nancy Myers agrees. “We will absolutely find out in November that being prolife is not the political liability the media have tried to portray,” she said.

Meanwhile, despite the prominence of the abortion issue, Medema cautions Christians against letting heightened national attention turn them into single-issue voters. “The sanctity of life is an interwoven theme in the Scriptures,” he said. “Evangelicals need to act in the area they feel called to … but they also need to exercise their citizenship, having thought through the linkage of issues.”

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.