Pro-Choice Intensity Puts Politicians to the Test : Abortion: The issue is a conflict of values--faith vs. reason--so profound it could force realignment of the U.S. political parties.

The pro-choice movement lost a vote and won a victory in the House of Representatives last week. Supporters of abortion rights fell far short of the 290 votes needed to override President George Bush’s veto of a bill authorizing government-funded abortions for poor women who are victims of rape or incest.

By losing the vote, they gained an issue. With a stroke of his pen, Bush cut off Medicaid funding for these women. It is a position he will never be able to explain. It defies common sense. It will be his Willie Horton.

While pro-choice forces failed to muster the two-thirds majority necessary to override the President’s veto, they did have enough votes to pass the bill for the first time in eight years. Medicaid funding for victims of rape and incest passed the House in a dramatic 216-206 vote earlier this month.

“No matter what happens, the pro-choice movement is going to win,” Rep. Les AuCoin (D-Ore.) predicted before the override vote. “If we get momentum beyond 216, it will be another benchmark in the dramatic forward march of the pro-choice forces and will set the stage for a knockdown, drag-out campaign next year.” The vote to override was 231.

Anti-abortion forces have been on the defensive ever since they prevailed in the Supreme Court’s Webster decision in July. That decision is turning out to be the costliest victory since the United States won the Tet Offensive in Vietnam.

In Webster, the Supreme Court invited states to limit and restrict abortion rights. Millions of pro-choice voters were outraged--and energized. Politicians are now responding to the mere threat of retaliation by supporters of abortion rights. A Louisiana Republican who switched to the pro-choice side said, “There’s been no time that public awareness of this matter has been as high as it is now since I’ve been in public office.”

The abortion issue is shifting the tectonic plates of U.S. politics. Many issues are capable of swinging votes--peace, prosperity, corruption. But abortion is different. It belongs to the small category of issues that can change voter loyalties. Issues of this nature--like race, religion and class--involve more than public opinion. They involve conflicts of values, “us” versus “them.” Conflicts of values give rise to partisanship. To be a partisan, after all, means to take sides.

The greatest conflict of values in U.S. history was sectional--North versus South. That resulted in the Civil War. And it solidified voter loyalties that endure today, more than a century later.

The civil-rights issue realigned voter loyalties in our own era. The Democratic Party rescued blacks from segregation in the 1960s, and black voters rewarded the Democrats with their solid support. At the same time, the Democrats gave up a huge number of white voters, Northerners as well as Southerners, who could not remain in a party committed to protecting black interests.

The abortion issue, too, involves a basic conflict of values. Polls show that the best-educated Americans are the most pro-choice. The most religious Americans--whether Protestant, Catholic or Jewish--are the most anti-abortion. It’s the oldest conflict in the books--faith versus reason.

Moreover, there is no mystery about which political party is on which side. The Democratic Party is explicitly committed to protecting abortion rights. And the Republicans have had a plank in their platform since 1980 calling for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions.

This does not mean, of course, that all Democrats are pro-choice and all Republicans are anti-abortion. It means right-to-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans are out of step with their respective parties. So far, the Democrats have been the big losers. Anti-abortion Democrats have been unhappy with the status quo since 1973--when the Supreme Court handed down its Roe vs. Wade decision establishing abortion rights. Since 1980, those Democrats have been welcomed into the GOP--and many have gone.

Now, as a result of the Webster decision, pro-choice voters feel threatened. Many are beginning to feel out of place in a GOP dominated by fundamentalist religious values. Religion is to the Republican Party as race used to be to the Democrats: Whenever the issue comes up, it tears the party apart.

Under Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democratic coalition included blacks, Jews, liberals and Southern white racists. The party could hold only as long as it kept a historic silence on civil rights. But the Supreme Court forced the race issue on the national agenda in 1954. After that, the Democrats were doomed to divide.

Under Ronald Reagan, the Republican coalition included religious fundamentalists, white ethnic Catholics, upper-middle-class suburbanites and yuppies. They could hold together only as long as they didn’t have to talk about abortion. Now the Supreme Court has forced the issue on the national agenda. And the Republicans are doomed to divide.

As a Democratic political consultant recently pointed out, Bush’s veto of the Medicaid abortion bill “is a line in the sand.” The consultant explained, “A lot of younger voters who’ve been voting Republican since Ronald Reagan are going to walk over that line and say, ‘You don’t share my values.’ ”

Republican candidates are clearly on the defensive in the two contests for governor this year--in Virginia and New Jersey. An adviser to J. Marshall Coleman, the GOP candidate in Virginia, said, “We’re hurting, and we’re hurting because of abortion.” Coleman accused his Democratic opponent, Lt. Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, of trying to turn the Virginia contest into a one-issue campaign. That is remarkable, when you consider that Wilder is black and Coleman is white. Yet the issue that seems to be dominating the campaign is abortion.

Both Coleman and Jim Courter, the GOP candidate for governor of New Jersey, have tried to waffle on the abortion issue by claiming that, though personally anti-abortion, they would not necessarily support restrictive new legislation. As a result, both were criticized by anti-abortion leaders without picking up much support from the other side. When basic values are at stake, it is never good to fudge your position.

Bush undoubtedly realized that when he vetoed rape and incest funding. “Bush wins by holding firm,” said one GOP supporter. “The worst political position you can be in is to be waffling.” It’s like trying to remain neutral in a civil war.

The abortion issue terrifies politicians because no matter which side they take, they are bound to lose votes. And if they try not to take any side, they end up making everyone angry and losing even more votes. The safest thing a politician can do is to vote his principles. Provided he can figure out what they are.

The polls do not reveal any sharp increase in the number of pro-choice voters since the Webster decision. What has increased is their intensity of commitment. As a right-to-life activist observed, “The pro-life movement has been organized and active for 20 years, and some of us are tired. The pro-choice movement is fresh, so they’re operating with a much greater energy reserve. They’ve really rallied in light of Webster.”

The pro-choice movement has to prove it has the power to punish politicians who go against them. The right-to-life movement has claimed to be able to do that for years. Actually, there are only a few cases where it can be proved conclusively that a candidate was defeated on the abortion issue. But facts don’t matter. Perception does. And perceptions can be manipulated. The right-to-life movement claims to have won the special election for a House seat in Miami this summer. True, the anti-abortion candidate won. But the winning candidate was also a Cuban-American running in a heavily Cuban district in a campaign where Cubanness was the only issue.

The pro-choice movement needs a big victory that can be used for demonstration effect. The National Abortion Rights Action League has already targeted nine races in next year’s midterm elections. The leader of the organization issued the following warning: “To elected officials, we say: If you remain out of step on abortion rights, you will soon be out of a job.” Actually, the best opportunity to demonstrate their clout may come next month. If Wilder wins, he will be the first black elected governor--and in Virginia, of all places. The conventional wisdom will be that he won because of the pro-choice issue.

Then maybe the pro-choice movement will get some respect, like the right-to-life movement and the gun lobby. As Polly Rothstein, the director of the Westchester County (N.Y.) Coalition for Legal Abortion, put it, “Why are gun owners so politically powerful? There are more uterus owners than gun owners. And when uterus owners begin to vote this issue, we will win.”

In fact, the pro-choice movement should learn a lesson from gun-control advocates. The gun lobby is always there. Cast a vote in favor of gun control, and they’ll go after you. The gun-control movement is not always there. They show up when gun violence is in the news--when a celebrity gets shot or children are massacred by a maniac with an assault rifle. But when the heat is off, the gun-control movement seems to disappear. So it’s not safe to vote for their cause.

The lesson of the gun-control experience is: You have to be there, even when the issue is not on the front pages. The battle to protect abortion rights will be hard, and the question is whether the pro-choice movement can sustain its current momentum over the long haul. What happens if there are setbacks? Or if they win a string of victories and the threat appears to diminish?

Opponents of abortion are sustained by religious faith. They vow to keep fighting for the cause even if it takes 100 years. David O’Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee, said, “If members (of Congress) are perceiving a change . . . over the past two months, they’re simply in error. We may have to go through another election cycle before they realize that, but they’re wrong.”

The United States is one of the most religious societies on earth. We are also the best educated. Both faith and reason are deeply rooted in American culture. Neither is likely to conquer the other. So don’t look for any quick or easy resolution to the abortion issue. After all, the Supreme Court tried to settle the issue in 1973 and failed. What makes anybody think the politicians can do a better job?

Think of it this way: If the Supreme Court had turned the issue of civil rights over to the politicians, we’d still be debating school desegregation in every legislature in the country.

NEXT STEP

Several states are proposing laws that require women to be informed of the fetus’s development, advised about alternatives and required to wait 24 hours before the procedure. Other laws require consent of one or both parents for a minor. Pennsylvania: The House of Representatives passed a stringent bill aimed at challenging the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The bill must still pass the state Senate and be signed by the governor. Michigan: The state Senate last week approved parental-consent legislation, but Democratic Gov. James J. Blanchard is expected to veto the bill. Wisconsin: A parental-consent bill is due to be sent to the state assembly floor early next month.