Bush Veto: Politics Over Equity

President Bush’s decision to veto legislation to allow federal financing for abortions for poor women who have been victims of rape or incest is a sad commentary about the gap between political fairness and perceived political comfort.

It has been widely reported that Bush was looking for a way to avoid the veto, knowing it would inflame the increasingly active and vocal advocates of choice. He also likely was looking for a way to avoid a veto because deep down he must know that it is inherently unfair to veto legislation that denies poor women the same options he favors for the middle-class and wealthy.

After the House of Representatives recently reversed a 1981 ban and passed legislation allowing federal funding, Bush tested the waters by indicating he might be flexible. The anti-abortion movement protested strongly, or as Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) described the reaction, “the roof nearly fell in on him.” The President then announced he would veto the bill.

Bush, apparently concerned about appearing to waffle on his abortion stand, obviously feels he cannot afford to alienate a focused and vocal anti-abortion movement--ironically, at the very time the pro-choice movement is flexing its political muscle as never before. Although the Senate this week affirmed the earlier House approval, it’s highly unlikely that Congress could override a presidential veto.

Thus, although many Republicans also opposed the veto, Bush has dropped a powerful equity argument into the laps of Democrats for the 1990 elections.

Bush in effect acknowledged the equity issue prior to 1980, when he supported the option of federal funding for abortion in the cases of rape and incest. But in 1980, Bush switched his position and said he no longer supported federal funding for rape and incest, although he did not oppose abortion under those circumstances for women who could pay for it.

Already Medicaid funding is allowed for abortion if a woman’s life is in danger. It naturally follows that incest and rape are extreme circumstances that merit special consideration. The argument of some anti-abortion advocates that women and girls would make false criminal accusations of rape and incest just to get a free abortion is thoroughly cynical and unsubstantial.

It is unfortunate that the President felt that he could not switch an abortion position that already has undergone significant evolution during his public career. His approval of federal funding for abortions in the case of rape or incest would not be without its political price. But the equity argument--that poor women under those traumatizing circumstances should have the same options as the rich--would be far more palatable to many. With a veto banning federal funds for poor women who are victims of incest and rape, President Bush would be left to explain to an American public uncomfortable with overt inequity why he is comfortable with it in this case.