"I haven’t sorted out the penalties…of course there’s got to be some penalties to enforce the law, whatever they may be." So spoke George H.W. Bush, in one of the major gaffes of his first presidential run in 1988, during a debate with his opponent, Michael Dukakis. Bush, who had only recently begun to trumpet his antiabortion sentiments to dubious Republican social conservatives, was responding to a question about appropriate punishment for women who would obtain illegal abortions should Roe v Wade be overturned. The next morning, after frantic late night discussions, Bush’s handlers called the press for a "clarification." Bush meant to say doctors who performed abortions, not women who received them, should be jailed in such a situation.
Twenty years later, Mike Huckabee, running for the Republican nomination, makes no such missteps. With none of the discomfort that Bush I showed, Huckabee at his rallies gets the party line of the antiabortion movement right: if Roe is overturned, doctors who perform abortions should be punished, while the recipients of such abortions must be seen as "victims."
But Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher and the candidate of choice of evangelicals, is an exception in the clarity and consistency of his position on abortion. There is a long history of "evolution" on abortion from politicians in both parties. For example, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, both from Southern states, had mixed records of support for abortion early in their careers before they each went on to become staunch allies of the abortion rights movement. But in the campaign of 2008, it is mainly the Republican candidates who are squirming.
Mitt Romney’s notorious flip-flops on the issue–reminiscent of
another hapless Massachusetts politician, Romney was for abortion
before he was against it–-may ultimately be seen as a key factor that
led to voter disillusion with his candidacy.
Rudy Guiliani, who is attempting the daunting task of winning a
Republican nomination with a record of support for abortion and gay
rights, astonished observers across the political spectrum with his
nonchalance when he stated, in response to a question about his
feelings were Roe to be overturned: “It’d be ok to repeal it. It would
also be ok if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent.”
Fred Thompson, in the
early stages of his campaign, first denied and then admitted that he
had worked briefly as a lobbyist for an abortion rights group. The “straight-talking” John McCain has also changed his position on
abortion. Several years ago, he was on record as saying reversing Roe
would not be a good idea, because of the likelihood of women resorting
to illegal and dangerous abortions; today, he calls for the immediate
overturning of Roe.
The abortion issues in the Democratic campaign have thus far been
much more low profile. To be sure, Dennis Kucinich, who for most of his
political career was against abortion, suddenly became converted to a
prochoice position when he first ran for president.
And in the final days of the New Hampshire primary, the Clinton
campaign sent out a mailing accusing Obama of not being a sufficiently
reliable prochoice vote when he served in the Illinois legislature.
But in fact, the positions of the top three Democratic
candidates are nearly identical on abortion. All three spoke out
against the most recent Supreme Court decision on abortion, Gonzales v
Carhart, announced in April 2007–decrying the fact that for the first
time the Court held that an exception to protect the health of a woman
was not constitutionally necessary in abortion legislation. But since
Gonzales also upheld a ban on intact Dilation and Extraction, a rarely
used method of performing certain second trimester abortions–
sensationalized by opponents as “partial birth abortions”–-it is
certain that antiabortion forces will target whoever becomes the
Democratic nominee for his or her statement on that case.
So how
big a role will abortion play in the upcoming election? An economy in
recession, not to mention ongoing wars in two fronts, presumably will
command far more attention than abortion. But abortion plays too
central a role in American politics to disappear altogether as an
issue. In particular, if Mike Huckabee is the nominee (or, more likely,
the vice presidential candidate), then abortion will inevitably have a
higher profile. Even if Huckabee is not on the ticket, if either McCain
or Guiliani becomes the presidential nominees, he will likely choose a
running mate who can energize the Religious Right segment of the
party–and that means talking about abortion.
What can the
Democrats do? This time around, the Democratic candidates have an
excellent opportunity to do more than be defensive about their support
for abortion, especially the controversy around later abortions , which
account for a tiny proportion of all abortions performed in the
U.S.(90% of all abortions occur within the first ten weeks of pregnancy
and less than 2% occur after 20 weeks).
The record of the Bush presidency with regard to sexual and
reproductive policies is so egregious, because of the relentless quest
to please the Religious Right, that there is a real opening to expose
the extent to which the Republican party is out of step with mainstream
values of the American electorate.
If baited about "partial
birth abortions," here is how a nominee might respond. "Leading medical
organizations have testified that sometimes this banned method is the
safest one for the woman–and I want women to have access to the safest
procedure possible. But this infrequently used procedure is not the
main issue here. I want to know if my opponent, should he be president,
will continue to support abstinence only sex education–on which our
government has wasted over a billion dollars to date, and which has
repeatedly been shown to be ineffective. I want to know if my opponent,
on record as opposing abortions, will continue George Bush’s policy of
cutting funding for family planning programs? I want to know if my
opponent agrees with the Bush policy of posting incorrect information
about condom effectiveness and other reproductive health issues on
government websites? I want to know if my opponent will continue with
the Bush policy of making one third of all U.S. HIV/AIDS assistance
funds in the developing world go to abstinence programs–-a policy
decried by public health experts? And since we are talking about
reproductive issues, why is my opponent on record as supporting George
Bush’s veto of the expansion of S-Chip–that wonderful health care
program for children?"
In short, abortion is best defended when it is discussed in the
context of a larger vision of reproductive justice–one that speaks to
the many different ways a compassionate government can help its
citizens to achieve the family lives they wish for. And the woeful Bush
record of the last seven years offers a perfect opportunity to present
this vision.
Carole Joffe is a professor of sociology at the U.of California, Davis. She is the author of Doctors of Conscience: the Struggle to provide Abortion before and after Roe v Wade (Beacon Press, 1996). She is currently at work on a book about contemporary abortion provision.
Beacon Broadside 
Leave a comment