With a sympathetic president in the White House and an ardent supporter headed for the court, these should be the glory days for advocates of choice. But these very gains seem to be weakening the political will of moderate legislators. Politicians have always hated the issue of abortion, since any position is bound to alienate some constituents; with Roe relatively secure, there is less incentive than ever to cast an unpopular vote. Polls show that most Americans believe abortion should remain legal but subject to such restrictions as parental consent or waiting periods. Now legislators on both sides of the issue seem to be joining their constituents in the muddled middle. “I don’t find that my view or the consensus view in America is represented by extreme positions of pro-life or pro-choice,” says Rep. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat.
The centripetal forces were evident in a key vote last month. Despite administration efforts, the House voted 255 to 178 to retain the Hyde amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde, the original sponsor, made a “pragmatic decision” to expand the exceptions to the ban to include rape and incest. But the size of the victory revealed just how many moderate members of Congress were sympathetic to the less extreme right-to-life arguments. Rep. Dan Glickman, a Democrat from Kansas, explains: “I’m pretty typical of people who generally have a choice voting record but have felt that the issue of funding is different, because there is such an enormous schism in society on this issue.”
That doesn’t bode well for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Last month House and Senate committees both passed the bill, which would codify the basic provisions of Roe and nullify many state restrictions. The president promised he would sign it. Now it looks as though FOCA may never even come up for a vote before the full membership. Opposition to the bill comes not only from moderates and pro-lifers but also from committed pro-choicers who think FOCA stops far short of real protection. Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun said she was withdrawing her sponsorship because the bill, which would permit parental-consent requirements and makes federal funding optional, “allows the states to discriminate against young and poor women.”
There are more skirmishes ahead–and one major battle: what will happen to abortion in President Clinton’s health-care package? Pro-choice legislators have argued that excluding abortion would be tantamount to sexual discrimination. “Women will have to rethink whether they will vote for health care at that point,” says Colorado Rep. Patricia Schroeder. Abortion foes know what they will do if abortion makes it into the plan -“We’ll fight it very aggressively,” says New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith. If recent votes are any guide, most legislators will scurry toward the center -but when health care and abortion collide, taking cover may not be easy.
