Sen. John Kerry and the Abortion Issue

By Michael I. Krauss and Robert A. Crisell
Special to the Herald
(From the issue of 3/11/04)

Forgotten in the clamor preceding the now inevitable nomination of Senator John Kerry as the Democratic candidate for president is a thorough vetting of his position on abortion.

Obviously, Kerry is pro-choice — this has been the mandatory ticket to the dance for Democrats at the national level for decades. The important question is how Kerry will spin his uncompromising stance on abortion — no limits at any time for any reason — so as not to alienate undecided voters who support restrictions on the procedure.

Abortion is still a hot election-year issue 30 years after Roe v. Wade essentially removed it from democratic debate. Recent polls indicate a trend away from the liberal view on abortion. National support for Roe v. Wade is now under 40 percent and waning. According to a 2003 Zogby poll, 61 percent of Americans think either that abortion should never be allowed or that it should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest or to protect the mother’s life. Only 36 percent believe that abortion should be allowed for other reasons or for any reason. A recent CNN/USA Today poll showed that a majority feels abortion should be legal only in a "few" circumstances, if ever.

The national Democratic Party’s internal decision to embrace the extreme position on abortion has hurt them. Since Roe, most voters seem to want a president who is either "pro-life" or moderately "pro-choice." If Democrats hope to make inroads with the tens of millions of voters who view abortion as an evil, they must either alter their party’s platform or nominate candidates who can convince such voters that the platform has been shelved. The choice for Democrats on this issue, in other words, is between substance and subterfuge.

In 1992, candidate Bill Clinton famously opted for subterfuge. As part of his "Third Way," Clinton endlessly repeated his mantra — that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" — in 1992 and throughout his presidency. This rhetoric helped persuade many moderate and conservative voters to vote for him, especially in southern states. If these voters squinted hard enough, they saw in Clinton a Democrat who basically disapproved of abortion and would acquiesce to the wishes of the majority of Americans by endorsing popular limitations such as parental notification, mandatory waiting periods and a ban on partial-birth abortion.

Of course, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other abortion-rights organizations correctly saw the "Third Way" on abortion as the old way with a southern accent and a big hug. During his tenure, Clinton did everything to guarantee that abortion remained legal and nothing to ensure that it became rare. He filled the federal judiciary with pro-choice judges and vetoed attempts by Congress to pass even relatively mild restrictions on abortion.

The fact that Clinton’s "Third Way" on abortion turned out to be illusory, however, does not mean that it didn’t help him get elected. On the contrary, Clinton successfully neutralized the abortion issue by blurring policy differences between himself and President Bush the Elder.

John Kerry faces the same options Clinton did with regard to abortion: He must either alter his party’s abortion plank or make voters think he disagrees with that plank. The first option is impossible for the four-term Senator from Massachusetts. The question, then, is can Kerry convince a significant number of voters that he is a moderate on abortion?

The short answer is he can’t. Unlike Clinton in 1992, Kerry has a long and widely known record of support for abortion rights. He voted five times against the partial-birth abortion ban that was passed over a Clinton veto in 1999. Kerry scored a 96 percent pro-abortion rating with Americans for Democratic Action. Planned Parenthood gives Kerry a 100 percent rating on its "Congressional Scorecard." Kerry won’t be able to sweep these public accolades under the rug in the general election.

One bit of subterfuge on abortion that Kerry has tried in the past involves his faith. Kerry has stated that, as a Catholic, he is "personally pro-life," but is compelled to be professionally pro-choice as a legislator. Such a nuanced position may have appealed to certain kinds of wishful-thinking undecided voters a generation ago, but it sounds tired and insincere today. Kerry may want to avoid such a strategy for the additional reason that it draws attention to the very slender connection he has to his professed Catholic faith.

Perhaps because he realizes that he will not be able to portray himself as a moderate on abortion, Senator Kerry seems increasingly committed to adopting the traditionally Democratic posture on the issue.

In a remarkable speech on Jan. 21, 2003, at the National Abortion Rights Action League’s annual dinner in Washington, Kerry joined five other contenders in commemorating the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The fact that Kerry even chose to speak to NARAL at all — something Bill Clinton never did — was significant.

In his speech, Kerry lambasted the Republican administration for its "assault" on women "in their citizenship here at home and in their womanhood around the globe." He then lauded NARAL president Kate Michelman as "one of the most effective and important civil rights leaders in our time." Kerry noted that he did not wish to "diminish or disrespect anybody’s belief or sense of morality." He quickly added, however, that those who did "impose (their) articles of faith on someone else" were "forces of intolerance." Finally, he upbraided the "bunch of men" in the White House and Congress who "claim rectitude" in passing legislation restricting abortion. The Senator finished with a paean to Harry Blackmun’s terribly crafted opinion in Roe v. Wade.

It is almost impossible to imagine Bill Clinton delivering such a speech in 1992 or 1996. Kerry’s approach to abortion illustrates a shift among Democrats from at least pretending to listen to the majority of Americans to dismissing such voters as bigots. Of the six candidates at the NARAL dinner, only one, Senator Lieberman, resuscitated Clinton’s "safe, legal and rare" slogan. Kerry and the other candidates still insisted on abortions that are "safe" and "legal" but "rare" in the context of the abortion debate has apparently begun to sound too judgmental.

After all, it’s exactly what the "forces of intolerance" would want to hear.

Copyright ©2004 Arlington Catholic Herald.  All rights reserved.