CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS: GOVERNOR : Nuances Important as Abortion Rights Support Is Affirmed

All the major candidates for governor support a woman’s right to obtain an abortion.

But that is not all there is to it.

Affirmation of abortion rights has become standard cant, a promise oft-repeated but seldom debated in this important race for governor. Along with yes-I-want-the-death-penalty-enforced, one of the most worn phrases heard from the candidates is: I’m for a woman’s right to choose.

But lengthy interviews with the three major contenders find some subtle differences on this powerful and inflammatory issue so fraught with moral and constitutional import.

“They all have warts,” Robin Schneider of the California Abortion Rights League said of the candidates.

Or, in the words of Jan Carroll, of the Western region of the National Right to Life League: “Californians are mainly opposed to most abortions today, and they will support restrictions on abortions. Most candidates will support some restrictions--so we’re in quite a good position to begin restoring rights for the unborn.”

Democrat Dianne Feinstein, for instance, has traveled widely in China, where strict population controls led to the use of abortion for gender selection. She said it would be an “abuse” of rights in California for a woman to use abortion to select the sex of her children. And if such abortions became prevalent, she continued, “Government could take a look at it”--meaning consideration of new, groundbreaking restrictions.

“I don’t believe today there is any doctor who would legitimately perform such an abortion,” said Feinstein, the former mayor of San Francisco, the only woman candidate for governor and the Democratic front-runner.

This was an unexpected departure from Feinstein’s otherwise straight-line statements of support for abortion rights.

“I am pro-choice, irrevocably,” she said at the beginning of the interview. “I would veto any legislation that would interfere with a woman’s right to choose. . . . And I believe this right is best protected by a woman who is strongly pro-choice.”

John K. Van de Kamp, the state attorney general and the other Democrat in contention, and Republican candidate Pete Wilson, the U.S. senator, are likewise steadfast in drawing their positions.

Van de Kamp: “I am pro-choice. I believe it is an individual decision that each woman must make; it’s between her, her doctor and her God. It’s one that should not be dictated by the government.”

Wilson: “Because it is the woman who will make the choice, I think it is an unwise law that would compel her to choose to have an abortion illegally. . . . In other words, I have watched men walk about the Supreme Court carrying placards. They will never carry a child. And they shouldn’t be making the decision.”

But both men fall short of the 100% commitment that some desire.

In the case of Van de Kamp, there are concerns about his personal views against abortion and his past legal defense of anti-abortion legislation. As for Wilson, the purists worry about a voting record that shows some support for anti-abortion maneuvers in the Congress.

Van de Kamp is a Catholic and career public service lawyer. The combination has put him at odds with his political position on abortion.

“I hold two views,” he said. “One, that each person has to make the decision for himself or herself. But in my personal life, I do not urge or promote abortion or encourage abortion. . . . I do not impose my personal views on others and I do not think that government should either.”

As a Democratic attorney general representing the Legislature and Republican Gov. George Deukmejian, Van de Kamp over the years has defended the passage of a state budget designed to limit abortion rights--notably annual efforts to end public Medi-Cal financing of abortions. Only this past year, after repeated court rulings in favor of Medi-Cal funding, did Van de Kamp declare the exercise futile and refuse to accept the case again.

Van de Kamp explains that his role as attorney general is to represent the duly elected officers of government, and not to let his political views (for abortion) or his personal views (against abortion) interfere.

Leaders of women’s groups by and large accept his reasoning. And among many of these leaders, Van de Kamp is viewed as the strongest candidate to represent abortion rights. Recently, he sought to bolster that reputation and take a bold step into tomorrow’s abortion fights by proposing that California speed up state approval of the French abortion pill RU 486.

Feinstein and Wilson threw their support to the proposal, although Wilson noted that California can use its special authority to approve experimental drugs only if a local manufacturer seeks to test the product. And so far, none has.

“At some point in the future,” Wilson said, “all the turmoil and anguish that has been expended by both sides will become academic by the widespread use of some kind of pill like this one.”

During seven years in the U.S. Senate, Wilson has cast votes on all variety of abortion amendments, pro and con. And along the way, he has defied his party platform and earned the reputation as a reliable--but again not 100% so--vote in favor of abortion rights. In any other race at any other time, Wilson would probably be dogged by conservatives for these abortion rights votes.

But in a year where the right wing of his party has been kept uncharacteristically silent, the spotlight is shined on those occasional votes against abortion rights.

He voted, for instance, against federal funding of abortion in some cases, although for it in others. Wilson said that he prefers to use private funding when it is available because abortion is such a divisive issue. “But where it is not available, I would support (taxpayer) funding to ensure equal access,” he said.

In California, Wilson added, there is no need to debate the subject because two state supreme courts, one appointed by Democratic Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. and the second appointed by Republican Gov. Deukmejian, have ruled unanimously against any funding restrictions for the poor.

Wilson is criticized by abortion rights activists for two other votes. One was to ban abortions for women in federal prisons except when their life is in danger. The other was to exempt individuals and institutions from having to perform abortions when to do so would be repugnant to their moral views. “This is the same as we honor conscientious objectors,” he said.

Feinstein has less of a record than Van de Kamp and Wilson. During her years as a San Francisco supervisor and mayor, critics fault only two things: She did not sign a 1983 resolution commemorating “reproductive rights day” and only in this campaign has she stepped forward to champion abortion rights as a political issue. Until the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion ruling was challenged last year, “there really wasn’t an issue,” Feinstein said.

She may have opened a new controversy, however, with her interview remarks on government regulation of abortions for gender selection.

Experts in the field, such as ACLU attorney Margaret Crosby in San Francisco, agree that few if any abortions are done for mothers who want to try again to get a child of the different sex. But, Crosby continued, to even consider asking women their reasons for an abortion and then having the government determine that some are not legitimate “would be as serious an assault on abortion rights as we’ve seen in this country.”

In other important areas, there is virtually no debate because all the candidates agree:

* Teen-agers should be permitted to go to court and get a judge’s permission to obtain an abortion without notifying parents. All three said, however, that they reached this view with great reluctance.

* Government should not honor any right of a father to stand in the way of an abortion.

* “Viability testing” of fetuses is a murky arena and probably should not be established as an impediment to abortion.

* Family planning programs deserve government support.

One important area on which there is disagreement is Proposition 115, the Victims Bill of Rights. This is a June ballot measure sponsored by victims groups and Wilson.

Proposition 115 does not mention abortion, even indirectly. But Van de Kamp and some women’s groups fear it could have an unwitting and profound effect on the security of abortion rights.

The right to an abortion is guaranteed by the state Constitution’s privacy clause as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Proposition 115 would amend the state Constitution and eliminate all special privacy protections in criminal cases.

Abortion is not a crime, so the right to obtain one could not possibly be affected, argue Wilson and the measure’s other sponsors. “A smoke screen,” said the senator.

Feinstein supports Proposition 115 and Wilson’s reasoning.

Van de Kamp and feminist groups like the National Organization for Women see it differently. If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, the landmark case legalizing abortion, then states would be free to impose criminal penalties. If the Legislature and governor subsequently acted to make it a crime, Van de Kamp argues, then the privacy protections might be rendered moot by Proposition 115.

Abortion Battle: Businesses are getting caught in the cross-fire of the battle over abortion. B1