untitled

The New York Times > Washington > For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Runs
Risks

The New York Times

February 16, 2005

For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Runs Risks
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 - In their search for middle ground on the subject of
abortion, Democrats are encountering a mixture of resistance and retreat
from
abortion rights advocates in their own party.

Since its defeats in the November elections, nothing has put the fractured
soul of the Democratic Party on display more vividly than abortion. Party
leaders,
including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and the new chairman,
Howard Dean, have repeatedly signaled an effort to recalibrate the party's
thinking
about new restrictions on abortion.

Adding to that, Congressional Democrats named a professed opponent of
abortion rights, Harry Reid of Nevada, as the leader in the Senate. Some
Democrats
supported another abortion opponent, Timothy J. Roemer, for the party's
chairmanship.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has actively recruited at least
two abortion opponents to run for the Senate in 2006. And perhaps most
symbolically,
the party is seeking to enlist Robert P. Casey Jr., Pennsylvania's
treasurer, to challenge Senator Rick Santorum, a stalwart foe of abortion
rights.

Mr. Casey is the son of former Gov. Bob Casey, a hero to abortion opponents
inside and outside the Democratic Party. After trying unsuccessfully to have
the party's 1992 platform state that Democrats did not support "abortion on
demand," Governor Casey denounced the party for refusing to let him speak at
its convention in New York on behalf of other Democrats who shared his
views.

In contrast, the younger Mr. Casey said that Senator Charles E. Schumer of
New York, chairman of the party's senatorial campaign committee, had
encouraged
him to run as an opponent of abortion rights.

"He was very welcoming and very candid about the party's need to speak for a
broad section of Americans," Mr. Casey said in an interview.

But Mr. Schumer's overture has roiled party loyalists who remain unyielding
in their support for abortion rights, exposing a deepening rift in the
party.
Abortion rights groups that are major financial donors to Democratic
campaigns say they may fight Mr. Casey in a primary with a candidate who
shares their
beliefs.

Karen White, political director of Emily's List, a group that raises money
for female candidates who support abortion rights, said the group was "very
excited"
about possibly backing an abortion rights supporter, Barbara Hafer, a former
Pennsylvania treasurer.

Emily's List and other groups have also sounded alarms about the direction
the party leadership is taking over all. During the search for a national
Democratic
chairman, Ms. White posted a rallying cry on the group's Web site: "We
fought like mad to beat back the Republicans. Little did we know that we
would have
just as much to fear from some within the Democratic Party who seem to be
using choice as a scapegoat for our top-of-the-ticket losses."

Emily's List is circulating a study it commissioned by the pollster Mark
Mellman stating that abortion "was not a factor in voters' decision-making"
in
the November elections.

Ann Stone, president of Republicans for Choice, an abortion rights group,
said her organization's members had not been re-examining their positions,
as
their Democratic counterparts have. Ms. Stone added a cautionary note that
cut across each party's support base.

"The Democrats have to be very careful about this because they could end up
undercutting themselves with the donor base," Ms. Stone said. "The
pro-choice
donors in both parties tend to be the more wealthy."

Mr. Schumer, for his part, said abortion rights groups should worry about
Republicans, not Democrats, if they want to preserve Roe v. Wade, the 1973
Supreme
Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. "What we
find is that even the most pro-choice Republican senators just vote down the
line
for judges that are chomping at the bit to overturn Roe," he said.

Another large abortion rights group, Naral Pro-Choice, is reversing course,
saying it will drop its opposition to the proposed Unborn Child Pain
Awareness
Act, a bill that would require doctors to offer anesthetic for the fetuses
of women seeking abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice, said the organization was
saving its ammunition to fight judicial nominees who might overturn Roe v.
Wade.
"We are standing strong in the next Supreme Court battle," Ms. Keenan said.

There are "bigger issues to fight," she added, "to draw attention to the
broader issue of reproductive health." For example, in this week's edition
of the
conservative Weekly Standard, Naral placed an advertisement asking abortion
rights groups to "please, help us prevent abortions" by increasing access to
birth control.

But Carol Tobias, political director for the National Right to Life
Foundation, dismissed the invitation as an effort "to get the pro-life
movement into
a debate over birth control," on which her organization takes no position.
Ms. Tobias called the Democrats' talk "pulling the wool over the eyes of
voters."

Still, Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, a champion of abortion
opponents and the sponsor of the fetal-pain bill, said he was watching the
Democrats'
steps with great interest. "Just the language that allows for the Democrats
to open up and even encourage people to run for office as a pro-life
candidate
is an enormously positive development for me," Mr. Brownback said, adding
that Naral's decision not to oppose his fetal-pain bill made him much more
optimistic
about its passage.

But abortion rights advocates warn of a bigger revolt within the party if
its members start compromising on new abortion restrictions like parental
notification
laws or the fetal-pain bill. Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned
Parenthood, said some of her allies were saying that "to the degree that the
Democrats
move away from choice, that could be the real birth of a third-party
movement."

But Ms. Pearl added, "When the day is done, I don't believe they will
backslide," in part because of the importance of abortion rights advocates
to the
party's base of activists and contributors.

In a New York Times poll last month, 36 percent of respondents said
abortions should be generally available, 35 percent said the procedure
should be available
but under stricter limits, and 26 percent said abortions should not be
permitted.

The financial balance sheet is much more one-sided. Single-issue abortion
rights groups gave over $1.4 million in the 2004 elections to candidates for
national
office, more than twice as much as the total from groups opposed to abortion
rights, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In addition,
Emily's
List raised $34 million for female candidates who support abortion rights,
according to the center. By comparison, the National Right to Life
Committee,
the largest donor opposed to abortion rights, raised about $1.7 million.

Senator Reid said that he welcomed the new "emphasis on recognizing the
diversity of the party." He added, "We have had a lot of pro-life Democrats,
but
the pro-choice folk haven't reached out to them and haven't protected them."

He acknowledged some complaints from abortion rights groups about the
party's shifting rhetoric. "They have to keep their folks geared up, just
like people
who work for more highways," Mr. Reid said. "That is what they do, just like
the pro-life groups."

Copyright 2005

Possted by Miriam V. 2/16