Abortion Politics

Double Speak

Both President Bush and Vice President Quayle now admit, in intimate interviews that, if a female relative were pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy, they would counsel her against abortion, but if she chose it, they would stick by her.

Considering the vehemence with which both these men support anti-abortion and all the consequences of denying women a choice, it comes as somewhat of a surprise that they would switch. Or is it? The polls are running heavily in favor of choice. This may be the year of the woman. More women than ever are running for the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The chickens may be coming home to roost on the abortion issue since women may well determine the outcome of the 1992 elections.

Consider another factor of the same problem. What difference does it now make for the President or the Vice President to indicate a mild leaning to choice? The heavy duty damage has already been done. There is already a solid majority on the U.S. Supreme Court ready and willing to overturn Roe v Wade. George Bush put two of these judges on that bench, but the abysmal treatment of Anita Hill during the hearings for one of them—Clarence Thomas, Bush's "replacement" for Thurgood Marshall—provided the impetus for women to run for political offices.

As long as the Supreme Court did not have the votes to overturn Roe v Wade, Republican women could vote for pro-life candidates. There was a sense of security in the knowledge that Roe v Wade was a secure decision. But with a majority of anti-abortions justices appointed by Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, the complacency has evaporated and women now have a sense of urgency over the potential loss of their fundamental right to privacy. What one Supreme Court does another can overturn.

If George Bush wins another term, pro-choice is dead without a veto proof Congress. There is no doubt about the fact that Bush's and Quayle's statements are political propaganda. Remember George Bush said he will do whatever it takes to win the presidency.

It seems fairly certain that the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade at some point. It may be nibbled at for a while, as is happening now with more and more authority for abortion relegated to the States. For the most part the States are hostile to women's rights, but eventually the ruling will be reversed. When that day comes, if the President and the Congress are not pro-choice, it will be difficult at best and impossible at worst to ressurect women's rights for some time to come.

If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, the task of providing choice will fall to the Congress. George Bush has not shown any indication in the last four years that he was willing to work with Congress on issues of importance to them but not important to him. I see no reason for him to change if he is elected with a plank that calls for a Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion altogether. I cannot see a veto proof Congress being elected with Bush. I am sure that will be the reason that many Republican women will switch and vote Democratic in the November elections. As the religious right has captured the Republican Party, at least as far as its platform is concerned, women are being driven to band together for their own survival. It's hard to believe that we are at the end of the 20th Century.

A united pro-choice government will have no trouble bringing the U.S. Supreme Court to some semblance of sensitivity on the question of privacy and women's rights. An adamantly refractory Supreme Court can be dealt with in the manner Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed when it obstructed legislation aimed at taking the nation out of depression. President Roosevelt proposed to increase the number of Justices on the Court from 9 to 15.

There is ample precedent for doing just that. There is nothing magic about the number 9 (it was 6 in 1789; 4 in 1801; 6 in 1802; 8 in 1837; 10 in 1861, 6 in 1866; 8 in 1869; and 9 at the present time). Fifteen would work just as well, perhaps better. One thing is abundantly clear from the Constitution: The Congress has the authority to establish the jurisdiction of the Court and establish the number of Justices who sit upon it. A Court that renders decisions that tend to alter our form of government from strong Federal to weak Confederation perhaps needs some direction from the Congress. We will have to wait for an united governments for that to happen, which is what I think the women of America are trying to arrange.

Abortion has been made a life-and-death issue by the Administrations of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. The issue of privacy should have been behind us as a nation by now, but it has been raised in order to make sure that the rights of individuals, particularly those of women, are not substantively enhanced. It has been raised as a national issue to divide us.

Well, we are in the end game of that divisiveness, and while the U.S. Supreme Court is ready to act, the eagerness of the anti-abortion seven has frightened women all over the land. Hence we see the backpeddling by Bush and Quayle, not in order to give women choice, but to win the election. It's going to be interesting to see how this ecological problem plays out.

...Ted Sudia...

© Copyright 1992
Institute for domestic Tranquility