Whether or not the Supreme Court`s 5-4 decision in the recent Pennsylvania abortion case was based on sound legal reasoning, it struck many Americans as fair and reasonable.
That`s not good news for the movements that support either abortion on demand or a ban on all abortions. (And it certainly seemed odd that two groups with such diametrically opposite views could both declare crushing defeat at the hands of the court.)
Opinion polls suggest that if any popular consensus can be found on abortion, it will be one that supports the right-but not the unfettered right- to seek an abortion. Such restrictions as parental notification requirements or modest waiting periods have considerable support, even among many who identify themselves as pro-choice.
Yet the formal debate on abortion remains dominated by the two extremes and, thus, stubbornly cast in uncompromising terms.
Congress now has rushed to put its own imprint on the debate. But the efforts in the House and Senate to pass a Freedom of Choice Act, although ostensibly about securing a right to abortion, are not really so.
In fact, they are designed to score political points. The supporters know that President Bush will veto the legislation; in fact, they have calculated the timing of final passage so it will precede the Republican National Convention and be a front-burner issue early in the fall presidential campaign.
By pressing for an abortion bill that precludes the states from applying any regulations like those mentioned above, a bill that is more expansive than most Americans are comfortable with, the sponsors are guaranteed to provoke confrontation and defeat.
If Congress truly were concerned with reflecting the will of the public, it would focus on a bill that secures the right to abortion but also gives states room to apply reasonable guidelines or restrictions. The standard for such state statutes would be, as the court`s majority opinion stated it in the Pennsylvania case, an ”undue burden” on the right to abortion.
Such a federal law would return some decision-making on abortion to the states-appropriately. It would begin to get the Supreme Court out of the vortex of abortion politics. It would allow the American people to begin resolving this deeply vexing issue in the only arena in which it ever will be resolved: the political branches of government.
As long as the abortion debate is framed for purposes of confrontation, such a middle ground will probably remain untenable politically.
There was no room for debate about the topic at the Democratic National Convention. Party officials refused Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey`s request to speak to the convention because Casey opposes abortion rights. Casey might have exposed the fact that Democrats have some differing opinions on abortion. It seems incredible that Democratic nominee Bill Clinton risked further alienating a Democratic governor in a key state-a governor who was re-elected with 68 percent of the vote in 1990-to keep up the pretense of party uniformity on the issue of abortion.
What makes it even more puzzling is that Clinton himself has supported abortion restrictions. As governor of Arkansas, he signed legislation requiring teenagers to notify their parents or get a judge`s permission before having an abortion.
The presidential nominee ultimately may find that the governor of Arkansas was a better judge of public sentiment on this very complex, emotional issue.
