Pro-life stance paid off for GOP: though not touted as a hot-button topic in the 2002 midterm elections, the abortion issue appears to have played a key role in shifting control in the Senate

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Dec 24, 2002 | by Jennifer G. Hickey

Some said it was homeland security, stupid. Others believed it was the economy, stupid, But with a number of 2002 midterm contests decided by less than 10,000 votes, both issues were politically potent. Hardly slipping off the lips of analysts, however, was the always-contentious issue of abortion and the key role it played in a handful of Senate races and, as a result, in shifting control of the chamber from Democratic to Republican hands.

"Basically, you had a number of close races so anything that moved a few thousand voters moved mountains. On [the abortion issue] it looked like the intensity was on the life side and clearly that was what our polling data indicated," says pollster John Zogby, who conducted a postelection telephone survey for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

The survey, which was conducted in nine states--Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota and Texas--found cumulatively 41 percent of voters said the candidate's position on abortion affected their vote. Of that group, 55 percent supported a pro-life candidate, compared with 39 percent backing the pro-choice candidate.

"You had a majority of voters who said it was among the most important issues, and of those who said it was a top issue more were on the life side. In addition, it was clear that those voters had received [a mailing or phone call] and they obviously paid attention to it," Zogby says.

Nationally, the conservative representation at the polling booths was reflected in exit surveys conducted by Fox News, which found that 16 percent of all voters called identified themselves as part of the "conservative Christian political movement." Their showing proved vital to the electoral success of Republicans in key Senate contests. For instance, in Missouri the candidate's stance on abortion (17 percent) ranked second only to the economy (21 percent) as most important issue. Republican challenger Jim Talent won those voters by a 4-to-1 margin.

Despite airing ads in key districts and states, pro-choice interest groups such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), had mixed success. Although nine of the 19 Senate candidates endorsed by the NARAL won, all but one (New Jersey) were incumbents defending safe seats. In the 10 races in which the NARAL-endorsed candidate lost, six were open seats.

Kate Michelman, president of the NARAL, expressed disappointment with the low turnout of pro-choice voters in November but attributed it to overriding security issues and a general lack of awareness among voters about what was at stake.

"I think the national-security, national-defense and the personal fears that Americans feel post-9/11 really overwhelmed every other issue in the elections, including the threat to a woman's right to choose," says Michelman, who notes pro-choice candidates fared better on the gubernatorial level, where only three NARAL-endorsed candidates lost.

"Those who are devoted to taking away the right to choose knew that with a House dominated by anti-choice leadership, they were within striking distance of having a landscape which was more friendly to achieving the goal of taking away the right to choose," adds Michelman, who contends pro-choice voters did not "know that there is a threat to losing the freedom to choose. They didn't know how close it is in the Supreme Court. The threat just didn't loom large."

As both sides of the abortion debate are well aware, to the victor go the spoils--or, at least, the opportunities. "Certainly we saw [in the 107th] Congress a number of bills passed [in the House] by large bipartisan margins, each of these reflecting a strong majority of public opinion," says Douglas Johnson, legislative director with the NRLC. "But I would not predict all will pass the Senate, particularly with a supermajority being needed to pass any piece of legislation. The biggest change is now these types of issues will at least be considered by the Senate." Incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) already has promised to bring a ban on late-term abortions to the floor for a vote.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 4965) was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 24 by a 274-151 vote. Similar legislation had passed both the House and Senate in prior sessions but were vetoed twice by former president Bill Clinton. The most recent measure was drafted to reflect legal questions raised by the Supreme Court in its 2000 rejection of a Nebraska state ban.

In addition to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, NRLC's Johnson expects some action to be taken on four other bills which were passed by the House in the 107th Congress. They are:

* Legislation to ban human cloning, including the cloning of human embryos (HR 2505 and S 1899). A ban was passed by the House on July 31, 2001, by a 265-162 vote, but was left unaddressed in the Senate.

* The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (HR 503), which recognizes as a legal victim any unborn child who is injured or killed during commission of a federal crime, was passed by the House on April 26, 2001, by a vote of 252-172.