Why Abortion Groups Ignored the Man They Hate

In Tennessee, a scandal-plagued Republican congressman’s seemingly inevitable defeat might have convinced some abortion-opponents they didn’t need to work against him. They were wrong.

Rep. Scott DesJarlais, left, takes a photograph with his iPhone during an oversight committee hearing
National Journal
Alex Roarty
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Alex Roarty
Aug. 7, 2014, 4:05 a.m.

Scott Des­Jar­lais slept with his former pa­tients, en­cour­aged one to have an abor­tion, and twice urged his ex-wife to have an abor­tion. But oddly enough, when it came time for the Ten­ness­ee rep­res­ent­at­ive to run for reelec­tion, the “pro-life” move­ment that had the most reas­on to des­pise him has in­stead giv­en him close to a free pass.

The vast net­work of in­flu­en­tial anti-abor­tion-rights groups, many of which are rarely shy about mak­ing their voices heard, have been re­mark­ably ab­sent from Des­Jar­lais’s primary, a re­view of the 4th Dis­trict con­test shows. In some cases, the groups haven’t provided even so much as en­dorse­ment against the in­cum­bent law­maker, much less con­tri­bu­tions or well-fun­ded in­de­pend­ent ex­pendit­ures.

Their ab­sence has eli­cited con­fu­sion and curi­os­ity among many Re­pub­lic­ans closely watch­ing the race, many of whom are won­der­ing why a law­maker who is the em­bod­i­ment of abor­tion-polit­ics hy­po­crisy hasn’t been more of a tar­get. By Fri­day, that might turn to an­ger: Once con­sidered a long shot, Des­Jar­lais is now seen by some loc­al polit­ic­al strategists as an even bet to win his Thursday primary against state Sen. Jim Tracy.

“This is a race that Tracy should eas­ily win, and he’s not [go­ing to],” said Chip Salts­man, a long­time GOP op­er­at­ive in Ten­ness­ee. “I think it’s a toss-up.”

If Des­Jar­lais does win, it’s a fair as­sump­tion that some of the post­game fin­ger-point­ing will be dir­ec­ted to­ward the anti-abor­tion groups, who will have squandered an op­por­tun­ity to take down a law­maker whose mere pres­ence in Wash­ing­ton opens the move­ment up to cries of hy­po­crisy.

The most glar­ing ab­sence from the 4th Dis­trict primary has been Right to Life, the in­flu­en­tial polit­ic­al group with both na­tion­al and Ten­ness­ee chapters. Neither has so much as en­dorsed Tracy.

In the case of the Ten­ness­ee chapter, Des­Jar­lais has be­nefited from its de­cision to fo­cus this year en­tirely on sup­port for an amend­ment to the state Con­sti­tu­tion that would makes it easi­er to leg­ally re­strict abor­tions. (Voters would have to ap­prove the amend­ment in Novem­ber.) The group’s polit­ic­al arm hasn’t made any en­dorse­ments this elec­tion cycle, ac­cord­ing to its pres­id­ent, Bri­an Har­ris, in part be­cause the time and en­ergy re­quired to sup­port can­did­ates would take away from the drive to pass the amend­ment. He ad­ded that he also feared that sup­port­ing Tracy over Des­Jar­lais would ali­en­ate some of the in­cum­bent’s sup­port­ers and si­phon their sup­port from the amend­ment.

“Across the board, we de­term­ined the best use of our time en­ergy and re­sources was pas­sage of a pro-life amend­ment to the Con­sti­tu­tion,” Har­ris said.

Why the Na­tion­al Right to Life PAC didn’t make an en­dorse­ment is less clear: The group has backed Sen. Lamar Al­ex­an­der in his con­tested primary on Thursday. On its web­site list­ing en­dorse­ments in Ten­ness­ee House races, it says only to “check back soon for up­dates!” Rep­res­ent­at­ives for the PAC did not re­spond to mul­tiple re­quests for com­ment.

Tracy has re­ceived en­dorse­ments from a hand­ful of groups that op­pose abor­tion-rights, in­clud­ing the Fam­ily Re­search Coun­cil PAC and Amer­ic­an Con­ser­vat­ive Uni­on. The so­cial-con­ser­vat­ive group Con­cerned Wo­men Polit­ic­al Ac­tion Com­mit­tee also bundled about $2,000 for the chal­lenger, and FRC’s PAC con­trib­uted $1,000. But in a con­test where Tracy has raised more than $1 mil­lion, those totals don’t do much to move the needle.

There’s no doubt that Des­Jar­lais’s per­son­al scan­dals al­most crippled his can­did­acy from the get-go. The rev­el­a­tions that he had twice en­cour­aged his former wife to get an abor­tion be­came pub­lic in Novem­ber 2012, a few weeks after his pre­vi­ous elec­tion. His per­son­al life had already been un­der fire from crit­ics, after court tran­scripts showed that Des­Jar­lais, a doc­tor, had once slept with a pa­tient and then urged her to get an abor­tion, and had car­ried on af­fairs with mul­tiple cowork­ers and oth­ers.

By early Janu­ary, Tracy had entered the race — far earli­er than most chal­lengers — and he car­ried the un­of­fi­cial im­prim­at­ur of the GOP es­tab­lish­ment des­pite run­ning against an in­cum­bent. Through mid-Ju­ly, Tracy had raised roughly a $1 mil­lion more than Des­Jar­lais, who had col­lec­ted only a mea­ger $440,000.

But Tracy’s early suc­cess might have ac­tu­ally worked against him, con­vin­cing most groups, in­clud­ing those fo­cused on abor­tion polit­ics, that their money would be bet­ter spent else­where.

“The repu­ta­tion around this race for a very long time has been that Jim Tracy was go­ing to run with it,” said Joe Hall, a Ten­ness­ee GOP strategist. “When that oc­curs, money will sit it out. And de­cisions are made to in­vest else­where where it will have a big­ger ef­fect.”

Oth­er Re­pub­lic­ans sug­gest the scan­dal’s tim­ing, com­ing al­most two years ago, has al­lowed Des­Jar­lais enough time to re­pair his im­age (aided by his 100 per­cent pro-life vot­ing re­cord this ses­sion.) He has been open about his pleas for for­give­ness, which res­on­ates in the heav­ily Chris­ti­an dis­trict, and has re­ceived a con­sid­er­able boost in sup­port from his cur­rent wife, Amy. Her un­waver­ing sup­port of his cam­paign has been cru­cial to his polit­ic­al re­hab­il­it­a­tion, Re­pub­lic­ans said.

“She just softens him up,” said one loc­al GOP op­er­at­ive, who has watched the race closely. “He’s been pretty smart — he car­ries her around all over the dis­trict be­cause she helps him.”

He’s also been helped in part by the dis­trict’s sharp Re­pub­lic­an lean, the kind of con­ser­vat­ive elect­or­ate where na­tion­al strategists don’t worry about hold­ing the seat re­gard­less of who the nom­in­ee is. It’s not ne­ces­sar­ily a slam-dunk that Des­Jar­lais would win reelec­tion in the fall — a source with­in EMILY’s List, the pro-choice Demo­crat­ic wo­men’s group, said they would con­sider back­ing his op­pon­ent should the con­gress­man be the nom­in­ee — but he’s still a strong bet.

Which would be much to the chag­rin of some Re­pub­lic­an crit­ics.

“I can’t be­lieve more pro-life groups didn’t work against Des­Jar­lais based on his lack of char­ac­ter,” said one per­son well con­nec­ted in the pro-life move­ment, who re­ques­ted an­onym­ity to speak can­didly. “The man’s a dirt bag.”

What We're Following See More »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
7 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
×