Feminists Take Abortion Fight to Mainstream

Caught between fear and enthusiasm, the women’s movement has embarked on an ambitious political effort on an issue it admittedly let slip from its grasp: abortion rights.

One month after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision, Webster vs. Missouri, that restricted some abortions and invited states to make further inroads, plans are being drawn for intensive lobbying, a publicity-garnering gathering at the Lincoln Memorial and maneuverings intended to wrest the political edge from the better-organized anti-abortion forces.

Targeted for Defeat

At its weekend convention here, the bipartisan National Women’s Political Caucus announced that it will target for defeat anti-abortion legislators in 10 states where hard-fought battles are expected over the divisive issue.

The 77,000-member organization also plans to support pro-choice women gubernatorial candidates in several states, including California, where former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein is seeking to replace Gov. George Deukmejian in 1990.

As the struggle over abortion shifts to the states, a loosely affiliated coalition of groups that wants to preserve the right to abortion is attempting to shrug off the political naivete that doomed its last major effort--ratification of the equal rights amendment.

Political observers agree that the time is ripe for a resurgence of the women’s movement.

“This issue does for them what no other issue has ever done--it makes them relevant to the mainstream,” Times political consultant William Schneider said.

But with the caucus’ hopes for mainstream success comes public bickering over tactics and a potential schism in the abortion rights alliance itself.

Rift Surfaces

The National Organization for Women’s call last month for a study on the formation of a women’s political party--which would, in theory, battle both Republicans and Democrats--sparked private concern in many women’s groups and called into question the ability of the alliance to unify.

Publicly, prominent leaders here played down the notion of a developing rift.

“If the Rotary Club is coming out in one position and Lions (Club) is doing something else, is that bad for men in the country?” asked Ann Richards, the outspoken Texas state treasurer and 1990 gubernatorial candidate, whose barbed address at last year’s Democratic National Convention made her a feminist favorite.

Unlike NOW, the bulk of the abortion rights coalition clearly favors for this fight more traditional and low-profile political tactics.

In efforts now under way, the National Abortion Rights Action League and the Women’s Legal Defense Fund are lobbying politicians and drafting legislation protecting abortion rights.

The National Women’s Political Caucus, according to President Irene Natividad, will seek women who favor abortion rights to run against male anti-abortion incumbents in selected legislative seats in 1990. After developing a list of pro-choice voters, NWPC volunteers will isolate those voters for an intensive get-out-the-vote operation.

Among the most sought-after will be young women, who favor abortion rights.

Targeting Legislatures

“What we hope to accomplish is increase the number of women pro-choice state legislators,” Natividad said. “For us, one woman pro-choice state legislator is worth 10,000 lobbyists.”

The states currently targeted are Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota and Wisconsin, she said. Others may be added in coming months.

Separate efforts in support of women gubernatorial candidates are expected in California, Iowa, Texas, Massachusetts and Alaska.

Abortion rights activists said that they have been heartened, even stunned, by both the public swelling of interest and the political repercussions that have followed the Supreme Court’s July 3 decision in the Webster case.

In Virginia and New Jersey, the two states with 1989 gubernatorial races where the warring forces hope to demonstrate early strength, Republican anti-abortion candidates have moved markedly toward the center in an apparent search for voters.

Pro-Choice Victory

And last week, in a move that delighted many here, the U.S. House of Representatives rebuffed an effort to bar the District of Columbia from funding abortions with its tax money. The victory for abortion rights lobbyists came after 18 House members switched their voting positions from 1988, when the amendment passed.

“That’s clearly an example of what can happen in an atmosphere where there’s fear of pro-choice (voting power),” said the NWPC’s Natividad.

Using fear of that voting power is a concept lifted directly from the playbook of the anti-abortion forces, who swept to political power on the strength of financial donations and a proven record of voter turnout.

“(Abortion rights) women have been complacent,” said Marion Goodman, a 48-year-old caucus member and mother of two from Lafayette, Calif. “It’s sort of like, if you don’t go out, their voice gets louder and they’re the majority.”

The failure to recognize such political realities marred the struggle to ratify the equal rights amendment in America’s statehouses--the same place where the upcoming abortion battles largely will be fought.

“We thought if you marched enough, if the polls all showed the right level of support, that we would win,” said Natividad. “And then we discovered one or two conservative senior legislators voting wrong--and we lost it.”

Need to Focus Debate

To secure a victory in the abortion rights battle, pro-choice advocates say that they must succeed in the difficult task of keeping public debate focused solely on the issue of a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion without state interference. Polls show that most Americans, when asked who should make such a decision, believe that it rests with individual women.

But abortion opponents have made clear that they will attempt to limit access to abortion by pressing for restrictions on corollary issues such as whether teen-agers seeking abortions should have their parents’ consent. Public polls reflect a dramatic public ambivalence about such restrictions.

Hoping to put their opponents on the defensive, abortion rights candidates also plan to attack as hypocritical the general reluctance of many anti-abortion conservatives to back liberal-inspired programs for prenatal care, childhood nutrition, education, homelessness and the like.

If the highly charged atmosphere surrounding abortion calls for a less combative public strategy, that dovetails with a desire among many feminist groups to use the mainstream tactics that they have learned the hard way.

In some circles, the decision by NOW’s membership to study formation of a third political party hits hard because it conjures up a more radical image that many in the women’s movement believe they have successfully shed.

Political Savvy

“We really have turned away from the tactics of demonstrations and have become very savvy political operatives,” said Ellen Malcolm, president of Emily’s List, a 4-year-old fund-raising concern that last year raised $650,000 for women congressional candidates.

Leaders of several major women’s groups--while stressing that NOW’s goal remains the same as theirs--criticized the move as a poorly-thought-out diversion.

NOW President Molly Yard, in an interview from her Washington, D.C., office, appeared to strike a conciliatory tone, saying that the third-party study has been delayed for the time being. According to Yard, NOW’s energies have shifted to organizing a Nov. 12 women’s gathering at the Lincoln Memorial and a women’s caravan that will travel to various states to drum up support for abortion rights.

But the third-party spat is not the only sign of fraying within the abortion rights coalition. In Nevada, one of the expected battlegrounds, pro-choice coalitions were peacefully formed in the northern and southern parts of the state. A meeting to join the two groups, however, dissolved into an argument over what to name the new entity.

The experience left Nevada caucus member Alicia Smalley nervous about the odds of arranging a cohesive national alliance:

“That’s what scares me,” she said.

Capable of Disruption

If the abortion rights forces can manage to mesh smoothly, many observers believe that the movement not only can affect abortion policy, but that it will be able to disrupt the coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats that has given the GOP the White House in the last three national elections.

Consultant John Deardourff, who advises both GOP candidates and organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League, suggested that Republican candidates may find it in their best interests to ease away from a strict anti-abortion position.

“Everyone is groping,” he said.

But Susan Carroll, a senior research associate with Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics, cautions that it is premature to predict voter behavior on such a divisive issue.

“The Republican Party is fairly divided on this issue,” she said, “and while the Democratic Party is more pro-choice on the issue, there is some division.

“It’s way too early to tell.”

No Firm Position

Pollsters also caution that much of the American electorate has yet to come to a firm and unyielding position on abortion rights and the connected moral and legal repercussions.

But in the pro-choice camp, the threat to abortion rights reverberates strongly, and at nearly every turn its potential for dividing American society is equated with the struggles to end the Vietnam War and establish civil rights.

“This issue us a lot broader and a lot bigger than just about abortion,” said Mary Louise Smith, former chairman of the Republican National Committee and an abortion rights activist.

“It’s about freedom. And it’s about equality.”