Abortion-rights advocates hope to change the terms of the debate so that greater emphasis is placed on preventing unintended pregnancies.

SPECIAL REPORT: The New Congress National Journal looks at demands by traditional liberal interest groups as Democrats begin to map their long-term agenda for the 110th Congress. Environment · Labor · Education · Gun Control · Entitlements · Minorities · Gay Rights · Trial Lawyers

By Kellie Lunney, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2007

In September, less than two months before the 2006 midterm elections, a nonpartisan group called Third Way issued a memo suggesting how abortion-rights supporters should frame the controversial issue. "Progressives' position on abortion should be: We must reduce the number of abortions while protecting personal liberties."

The memo, titled "A New Direction on Abortion for Progressives: Winning the Battle of Reasonableness," crystallized a strategy that Democratic lawmakers have begun to latch onto with the help of abortion-rights interest groups -- emphasizing ways to prevent unintended pregnancies instead of terminating them. Depending on one's perspective, the message is either a significant shift in the contentious abortion debate or a smoke screen to divert attention from the moral issues raised by the abortion procedure. Regardless, the change in emphasis could be important politically, given most Americans' uneasiness with abortion and their overwhelming support -- and use -- of birth control.

Organizations that support abortion rights abound: advocacy groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice America; traditional health care organizations that have become increasingly political over the years (Planned Parenthood); established grassroots groups with a focus on women's rights (National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority Foundation); political action committees that help elect candidates who support abortion rights (EMILY's List, Republicans for Choice PAC); associations representing a specific constituency (Catholics for a Free Choice, National Abortion Federation); and legal and research centers that produce the policy and data frequently cited in the abortion debate (Center for Reproductive Rights, Alan Guttmacher Institute).

The Democratic takeover of the House and Senate allows the groups to emerge from a defensive crouch on abortion rights and to focus on increasing sex education and women's access to birth control and health care -- issues that they have always supported but that have not, they contend, received a fair hearing on Capitol Hill under Republican leadership. The groups have "strategic differences," as Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, puts it. But as far as a congressional agenda goes for the 110th Congress, they appear to be singing in harmony.

"I think there is an opportunity now to separate politics out of the health care debate," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, said in a January interview during which she largely avoided using the word "abortion." "We would just like to get back to the business of being a health care provider, and in making sure that, in particular, there is access to women who increasingly can't find access anywhere else. Too much time has been wasted."

Richards and others point out that even with Democrats in power, abortion-rights advocates can't count on majorities in either chamber. According to statistics compiled by NARAL Pro-Choice America, what it calls "anti-choice" House members outnumber "pro-choice" House members 219-165, compared with 234-142 in the last Congress. Fifty-one House members are considered "mixed choice." In the Senate, "anti-choice" members hold a 48-35 advantage, with 17 senators considered "mixed choice."

Congressional Democrats are putting the groups' prevention message into play. As one of his first acts as Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, who opposes abortion rights, reintroduced his Prevention First legislation, which debuted in the 109th Congress. Reid's bill includes more funding for Title X, the federal law that provides family-planning services; an expansion of teen pregnancy prevention programs; a public awareness campaign for emergency contraception, also known as the morning-after pill and Plan B; and equity in prescription insurance and contraceptive coverage.

In the House, Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, who opposes abortion, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., an abortion-rights advocate, are gearing up to reintroduce their bill, the "Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act." Its provisions include federal funding for comprehensive sex education, expanding adoption assistance through tax credits, and repealing a provision in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, which gave states the authority to exclude family planning from the package of benefits offered to some Medicaid beneficiaries. It would also increase funding for family-planning services and for birth-control information targeted at new mothers. "Our bill was focused on making sure women can plan their families," Ryan says. "If we can focus on that, we can reduce the number of abortions in the U.S."

Ryan, who is Catholic, acknowledges that persuading some lawmakers to support expanding access to birth control won't be easy. "I know some members strongly associated with the Catholic Church who are against birth control. I am in disagreement with the Holy Father on that position."

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, supports both pieces of legislation and says that they reflect the kind of commonsense approach that Americans want to see from their policy makers. "They've got two years to deliver and prove to the American public that they get it," she says of Democrats in Congress. "That they understand that people want solutions and are tired of the divisiveness."

Most Americans are indeed weary of the political posturing on abortion. A July 2006 Pew Research Center poll revealed that 66 percent of Americans support finding "middle ground" on abortion. Gallup polls also consistently show that while the majority of Americans still oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, many support some restrictions on the abortion procedure. The prevention strategy thus makes sense politically for Democrats. "It's a way to talk about issues that have pocketbook effects," says Celinda Lake, a Democratic political strategist and the president of Lake Research Partners. "It puts us on the side of working-class families."

Agenda advocates have their work cut out for them. Funding for the Title X family-planning program has remained relatively flat since fiscal 2005; it's currently funded at $283 million. Shortly after the November elections, President Bush sparked criticism when he appointed Eric Keroack as deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at the Health and Human Services Department, making him the overseer of Title X funding. Keroack, an obstetrician-gynecologist, worked at A Woman's Concern, a Massachusetts nonprofit clinic that opposes contraception and promotes sexual abstinence until marriage. And the newly configured Supreme Court is set to weigh in soon on the constitutionality of the 2003 federal ban on "partial-birth" abortions.

The states remain at ground zero for abortion restrictions, and that's where many interest groups continue to target their efforts and resources. In a ballot initiative in November, South Dakota voters rejected a ban on virtually all abortions. But plenty of other states are eager to chip away at Roe v. Wade, including Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. "We are a grassroots organization; that's where our focus always is," says Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "The members on the Hill meet with us because they know we are back in their districts." NARAL alone spent $2.5 million on the 2006 elections -- more than $500,000 of it going to individual federal campaign contributions and the rest used for television advertising, voter identification, and polling to promote the election of favored candidates.

An increased hostility toward political interference in families' personal decisions -- call it the Terri Schiavo effect -- is also having an impact on how the public views abortion, abortion-rights leaders said. "Let's not romanticize South Dakota," says Donna Crane, NARAL's chief lobbyist. "It's not like we went there, and everybody thought, 'Oh, we are so glad you are here. We are actually pro-choice, even though we are conservative.' They are actually conservative, and mostly pro-life. And they looked at this [ban] and still said no." Richards agrees. "We saw that in the Schiavo case -- the beginning of a shift in the country where people are saying, 'There is just a point at which politicians shouldn't be involved in the most-personal decisions that families make,' and that's what I think we saw in South Dakota."

The political connections of abortion-rights leaders also are factors in how successful they are in pushing their legislative agenda. Keenan, Richards, and Gandy all have well-established feminist pedigrees. Keenan is a former Montana state legislator who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2000; Richards, the daughter of the late Texas Gov. Ann Richards, is a former deputy chief of staff to now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; the media-savvy Gandy steadily rose through the ranks of NOW, doing grassroots work in Louisiana before coming to Washington to lead the feminist organization.

Abortion-Rights Groups Key Players: NARAL Pro-Choice America; Planned Parenthood; National Organization for Women; National Abortion Federation On the Front Burner: Protect a woman's access to abortion; increase funding for federal family-planning services; expand sex education and teen pregnancy prevention programs; provide greater access to birth control, particularly to low-income women; educate the public about emergency contraception; require federally funded hospitals to inform victims of sexual assault about Plan B Sleeper Issue: Overturn federal and state laws that prohibit health insurance companies from covering abortion services or that require women to pay an extra premium for abortion care coverage -- Kellie Lunney

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Need A Reprint Of This Article?
National Journal Group offers both print and electronic reprint services, as well as permissions for academic use, photocopying and republication. Click here to order, or call us at 877-394-7350.