CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS / GOVERNOR : Van de Kamp Vows to Defend Abortion Gains

Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp pleaded with Democratic voters Monday not to prejudge him because he is a man, a Catholic and has gone to court to defend state actions unpopular with the abortion-rights movement.

Despite these “liabilities,” Van de Kamp told representatives of abortion and birth control clinics at a conference here that he is more dedicated to protecting abortion rights than his Democratic opponent for the gubernatorial nomination, former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein.

But Feinstein, in a separate speech to the same meeting of the California Reproductive Health Assn., said she is the only candidate who is “unswervingly committed” to the right of women to have abortions. And she said that it would be best for a woman to lead the fight to defend abortion rights, with men being “supportive” whenever they can.

The exchange illustrated one of Van de Kamp’s chief hurdles as the gubernatorial race enters its final five weeks: He must find a way to appeal to voters who might lean to Feinstein simply because they think it is time to have a woman in the governor’s office.

“I am a man who has worked for 20 years in support of equal rights for women,” Van de Kamp said. “So it is strange for me to have to ask hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters . . . who share those values to pause before they cast an instinctive vote on June 5. But that is exactly what I am asking.”

Van de Kamp said his Catholicism brings him “personal comfort,” but also can be a political detriment. He personally opposes abortion but has long defended the right of a woman to have one.

“Sometimes just in whispers, sometimes in public, it is suggested that, regardless of what I say, regardless of my record, a Roman Catholic can’t be trusted to protect a woman’s right to choose,” he said.

But Van de Kamp said Catholics who defy their religious leaders must have a strong commitment to abortion rights in order to withstand criticism from the church.

“We know what pressure is,” he said, lumping himself with Lucy Killea, the San Diego Democrat who was elected to the state Senate last year after her bishop banned her from receiving communion because of her support for abortion rights. “You may be sure that we do not hold our views lightly, for we have had to defend them in fierce, passionate debate.”

Van de Kamp faces a similar political dilemma with capital punishment, which is favored overwhelmingly by the voters. The attorney general personally opposes the death penalty, but vows that as governor he would carry out the law and not try to block executions.

Van de Kamp, who has been attorney general during Republican George Deukmejian’s two terms as governor, also said the power and responsibility that come with his office can be a “double-edged sword.” While he can use the office to defend abortion rights in court, Van de Kamp also is bound to represent the Legislature and the governor when they take actions with which he disagrees.

Such was the case, he said, when lawmakers passed a bill to require unwed minors to receive one parent’s consent before obtaining an abortion. Van de Kamp opposed the bill, but has defended it against court challenge. He did the same when Deukmejian cut $24 million from the state Office of Family Planning, which finances contraceptions and cancer screening for poor women.

“Having to defend laws which I regard as bad policy is not personally satisfying,” he said. “But it comes with the job.”

Feinstein, however, said Van de Kamp should have left the governor to fend for himself, particularly when Deukmejian cut the family planning budget by two-thirds.

She called Deukmejian’s action a “shortsighted move” that violated the law because, without legislative approval, it virtually eliminated a program that had been enacted by lawmakers and a previous governor.

“In my opinion, gutting the Office of Family Planning budget was a prescription designed to deny reproductive rights in California,” she said. “All women, regardless of economic circumstances, must be allowed to decide when and if to have children.”

The problem, Feinstein said, is that these decisions are left to “male-dominated political legislatures.” Women, she said, need to take matters into their own hands.

“I think the very real protection of reproductive rights rests basically with those of us who are women to be on the front lines, and those of us who are male to be consistently supportive wherever possible,” she said. “I am committed and unswervingly pro-choice.”

Later in the day, Van de Kamp questioned whether the financial interests of Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum, prompted her to endorse Proposition 104, an initiative sponsored by the insurance industry in 1988.

Blum has reported earning $7.4 million in 1989 in the investment business and disclosed that two insurance companies, Fireman’s Fund and Executive Life Insurance Co., were among his corporate clients. Other clients of Blum, who are individuals, have not been identified by the couple.

“I’d like to see full disclosure, who his clients are, who the interests are behind him,” Van de Kamp said. “It may well be that there are financial interests (behind Feinstein’s support for Proposition 104). It may well be that this is just a personal thing, that she just feels the industry should get special sweetheart treatment.”

But Bill Carrick, Feinstein’s campaign director, said there is no connection between Blum’s business and Feinstein’s support for the insurance initiative. Feinstein and Blum have already disclosed far more financial information than is required under law, he said.

Carrick dismissed Van de Kamp’s comments as “just a collection of sleazy innuendo that has no foundation in fact,” Carrick said.

He also noted that Van de Kamp supported Proposition 100, a rival insurance measure sponsored by the state’s trial lawyers. Both Proposition 100 and 104 were defeated by the voters.

Times staff writer Richard C. Paddock contributed to this story.