Both sides on the abortion-rights issue are watching Tuesday`s special election to fill the U.S. House seat vacated in February by the death of Silvio Conte (D-Mass.).
According to figures supplied by each group, the National Abortion Rights Action League is outspending the anti-abortion coalition at least 10 to 1 in the race between abortion-rights candidate John Olver, a Democrat, and anti-abortion candidate Steven Pierce, a Republican.
For NARAL, it`s an opportunity to send an additional vote to Washington to help its fight for passage of the Freedom of Choice Act, which says in part that states ”may not restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability ….”
For the National Right to Life Committee and its Massachusetts affiliate, it`s a battle to replace one loyal anti-abortion politician, Conte, with another, Pierce.
The fight began long before election day.
NARAL spent $70,000 to help defeat Linda Melconian, a state senator and abortion foe, in the April 30 Democratic primary.
”We knocked her right out,” says Kate Michelman, NARAL executive director, who characterizes Tuesday`s balloting as a tough race in which abortion and taxes rank as top issues.
NARAL spokesman Rene Craven says the Washington-based group is spending
”a similar amount” on behalf of Olver against Pierce.
In contrast, Anne Fox, chairman of Massachusetts Citizens for Life Political Action Committee, says her group spent ”less than $5,000”
altogether on Pierce and Melconian during the primary, and approximately $8,000 on Pierce`s solo campaign.
The difference, Fox says, ”is because that`s all we have. We have plenty of people to work on the campaign, but not a lot of money.”
Fox accuses NARAL of using money raised outside the state to influence Massachusetts voters: ”Coming in from Washington and trying to buy the election is not as democratic as I would hope.”
Fox says ”the reason NARAL is spending so much money on this Olver campaign is that the Freedom of Choice Act is stalled in Washington.
”They want to use this election as a public-relations boost to get attention to that bill again,” she says.
Michelman says the federal legislation is NARAL`s biggest goal: ”We need to pass the federal legislation because of the assault on our rights on the state level.”
”The fundamental right to privacy should not depend on the accident of your residency,” Michelman says, adding that the alternative is a patchwork of state laws all treating women differently.
Since the current Supreme Court has been narrowing rights granted by 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, Michelman says, ”we must look to Congress. That means targeting races where we can add a pro-choice member to Congress.”
Toward that end, NARAL already is looking to candidates for office in 1992.
”Some we have targeted already,” Michelman says.
”For example, the governor`s race in Missouri, where Atty. Gen. William L. Webster, of the famous Webster Supreme Court decision, is considering running for governor against a pro-choice Democrat. We`ll definitely be doing what we can to defeat Webster.” The high court`s Webster decision in 1989 gave states greater power to restrict abortion.
And in terms of congressional races, Michelman says NARAL wants to make sure Sen. Tim Wirth (D-Colo.) is re-elected. ”He`s a very important pro-choice lawmaker and was looking vulnerable,” she says.
Also on NARAL`s re-elect list is Sen. Brock Adams (D.-Wash.).
The NRLC says it maintains no target list, though its aim in general is to elect candidates who believe abortion should be outlawed.
Nancy Myers, NRLC director of communications, says, ”Our strategy has always been to talk about abortion, how it kills unborn children and how it hurts women.
”We educate voters on abortion itself and let them know where candidates stand on abortion. It may not sound as sexy or juicy as `targeting` a candidate, but that`s the way we operate. We don`t target races, we get involved in races.”
Semantics aside, both organizations are looking to November 1992, when all 435 U.S. House seats will be up for grabs and 34 senators will be elected. Because governors can play a pivotal role in state abortion legislation, both coalitions also are watching the 12 gubernatorial races slated in 1992.
A spokesman for one of those senators, Alan Dixon (D-Ill.), says he ”is personally opposed to abortion in most cases, with limited exceptions.” A spokesman for Illinois Sen. Paul Simon, who won re-election to a six-year term last fall, says the Democrat supports the right to abortion.
This summer the Cook County Board is expected to take up whether to rescind an 11-year-old ban on elective abortions at Cook County Hospital.
