The anti-abortion policy Republicans don’t want to talk about

March 13, 2006

A week after South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds (R) signed legislation banning nearly all abortions in the state, reporters keep asking leading Republicans what they think about the development. At this point, the party that never hesitates to present itself as creating a “culture of life,” is remarkably shy.

As Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, flew to Memphis to attend the first gathering of potential GOP presidential candidates for 2008, a NEWSWEEK reporter asked him if he had anything to say about the South Dakota law. “No,” he said. Did he plan to make a statement on that topic at the Republican gathering in Memphis? “No” was the answer. Would he ever be willing to comment on the topic, other than to say that it’s up to the states to make their own choices on abortion? Again, the answer was “no.” The look on his face was more expressive. It appeared to ask, “Are you kidding?”

Mehlman is hardly the one top Republican suddenly reticent on abortion. Asked repeatedly about the South Dakota law last week, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan wouldn’t touch it. On Meet the Press yesterday, Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), a presidential hopeful, would only offer vague support for states having the right to “pass laws that reflect their values and their desires.” Even the alleged straight-talker was at a loss when asked about the South Dakota measure.

Asked whether he supported the South Dakota law, Sen. John McCain riffled through his mental notecards and said he didn’t know the “technical” details of the law. But he said he would support the measure if it were consistent with his long-held view that abortion should be banned except in cases of rape or incest — or to protect, as he put it, the “health” of the mother. His aides had to scramble to correct the record: he meant, they said, the life of the mother.

Great. John McCain is no longer clear about his own position on abortion. How encouraging.

Of the major players, only Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), another potential 2008 candidate, backed the South Dakota law. (“I’d have signed it,” he told Newsweek. “Rape and incest are horrible crimes, but why punish the innocent child?”)

It makes the South Dakota development even more complicated for the GOP.

In addition to risking a legal defeat and a political backlash in a country that generally supports abortion rights, the state law also pushes Republican leaders in an uncomfortable direction. How long will the GOP base tolerate reticence on the subject?

Ironically, Dems may be about as anxious as their Republican counterparts to talk about the issue.

In the upcoming midterm elections, the Democrats don’t plan to spend a dime on ads highlighting the abortion issue, according to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the savvy Chicago pol who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He wouldn’t spell out the reasons, but a top party staffer (who declined to be quoted out of deference to his bosses) told NEWSWEEK: “These guys are gun-shy because they’re used to getting clobbered on the issue.”

Dems are afraid to look like the pro-abortion party; Republicans are afraid to look like the anti-abortion party. Amazing.

If a state bans abortion and no one wants to talk about it, does it really make a sound?

It’s also worth looking at the new AP survey that shows there has been little to no change in public opinion on abortion, with a majority still backing Roe v. Wade.

  • Hmmmph. I’ve been saying it for years, and it’s nice to see it finally start to be proven right- overturning Roe v. Wade would turn the Republican Party into a minority almost overnight.

  • I hope more hillbilly states will take advantage of their current Republican majorities to overturn Roe v. Wade wholesale and outright. I agree with Castor Troy it will turn the GOP into a minority party overnight. And I seriously doubt these state-level “victories” will pass Supreme Court muster.

  • The smoke and mirrors party has problems when their ideological gestures become actual laws that impact voters.

    These guys don’t get the basic laws of cause and effect.

  • Abortion is not an issue the national GOP really wanted to deal with. They wanted it as a cudgel to beat up on Democrats, rally the base, bring in the $$ but they knew – though never were likely to say out loud – that this could very well bite them on the a**. Now the base is making them deal with it. If the GOP is lucky the law will be thrown out by a lower court and the Supreme Court will choose not to hear the case – thereby staying as far away from it as possible.

    For years, and years the GOP has used the bases issues for their own political purposes and never had to pay a price (with anyone much less the base) when the weasled out paying the piper. Eventually the Piper was going to force the issue and you (though more the base than the left and GOP political class who knew the truth of this long ago) are seeing the national GOP’s true colors.

  • I agree with Castor Troy it will turn the GOP into a minority party overnight. And I seriously doubt these state-level “victories” will pass Supreme Court muster.

    And if this happens without serioulsy impacting the liberty of millions of american Women, I’m all for it. But if the right to control their own body must be sacrificed in order for this to possibly occur, I think its too high a price to pay. Laws must not be passed that make women into second class citizens.

  • Abortion issues aside for a moment, by what criteria are we to consider Rahm Emanuel to be “savvy”? What has he acomplished to earn that sobriquet?

  • Those who have used the abortion issue to mobilize voters have a vested interest in keeping the issue right where it is. It was in NARAL’s interest to have a closely divided Supreme Court, and it’s in the “pro-life” camp’s best interest not to ban abortion. SD legislators and the gov actually believe they should do something about an issue that (they think) got them elected. Time for Karl to set them straight: It’s a wedge issue, not a real platform, rubes!

  • This is the perfect metaphor for the current incarnation of the GOP. They want the issue, the wedge, the thing they can beat you over the head with; they don’t want to win the fight, they want the fight.

  • Farinar X,

    I think Emanuel has earned the title “savvy” because of the deft way he straddles the fence on every single issue. He can’t be critized for his policy decisions because no one knows where the hell he stands.

    And this is the guy they put in charge of winning the House for the Democrats.

  • Edo- sometimes there will be sacrifices. That’s human nature. Nobody appreciates what they have until it is gone. That’s why the rhetorical arguments of the past three decades regarding abortion have been b*&ls*&t- nobody really expected that Roe v. Wade might actually get overturned, and force people to take a principled stand- on either side of the aisle. Now that it is a possibility, we may see some ugly results. But, if we can’t stomach any set-backs, then we have already lost.

  • Castor,

    Now that it is a possibility, we may see some ugly results. But, if we can’t stomach any set-backs, then we have already lost.

    I see your point, but as a man, I feel like its all a bit theoretical. And thus, I don’t want to just sit back and accept it as a fait accompli. Real women will suffer if the theocrats win. Cheering the outrageous laws on, based on an analysis that concludes we’ll be able to reverse all the draconian changes after we take power seems callous and optimistic–especially given the current makeup of the supreme court and our pathetic Senate Judiciary committee. And its all very sad.

  • ET is on to something.

    I’ve thought overturning Roe v. Wade was an issue Republicans and right-wing groups exploited to fire up the base and milk contributions from. The national GOP and their allies never intended on banning abortion. They just wanted to string the fundie rubes on a little bit longer. I guess no one bothered to fill in the crusading state legislators.

    But I disagree that the Supreme Court will refuse these cases. With Alito writing mash notes to James Dobson and Clarence Thomas’ disdain for precedent, anything could happen.

  • I think you guys have nailed it. All that “culture of life” stuff the cons spouted was just rhetoric to rally their base. A state of perpetual war was what really mattered to them, not who won or lost.

  • “But I disagree that the Supreme Court will refuse these cases. With Alito writing mash notes to James Dobson and Clarence Thomas’ disdain for precedent, anything could happen.” — prm

    If I remember correctly, it only takes four justices to bring a case before the court. If Alito and Roberts don’t vote to bring South Dakota’s appeal before them (I expect it to lose in the lower courts, as they do) then the Theocratic Base will know they have again failed to put pro-life justices on the court and will sulk at home in 2008 (maybe even in 2006?).

    What is disgusting about this Law and all its supportors is the comments the author made proposing exceptions for Rape if the victum was a virgin of good morales. I’m not going to try to link back to CB’s article on this, but it does show that the Theocratic reactionaries want first and foremost to enslave the wombs of women of ‘lower morales’ to create more adoptiable badies for their barren wives.

  • I don’t know what you all mean by “just rhetoric” because it looks to me like they really mean to go through with this theocratic agenda.

    I don’t see how they have to give it up as a wedge issue in the event they are successful. We have seen how persistent these folks’ persecution complex is and what sore winners they are. Believe me, they will continue to raise funds on the abortion issue til the end of time no matter where the pendulum is at.

    To put the shoe on the other foot, could you imagine liberals purposely taking a dive on some important issue in order to keep it alive as a wedge? I can’t.

    I worry that the supporters of reproductive freedom are taking false comfort in the notion that the Republican party doesn’t really want Roe v Wade overturned. So much so that I wonder if it isn’t a myth propagated by the religious right themselves, to make their opponents let down their guard.

    • Comments are closed.