January 22, 2008 12:12 am
—
By Derek Spellman
dspellman@joplinglobe.com
Today marks the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. It has persisted as a charged political issue since 1973, and there is debate about how large it will loom in this year’s elections.
National polls show abortion has been eclipsed by a number of issues, including the economy, the war in Iraq and health care, as subjects that are of the greatest concern to Americans in the presidential primaries and November’s general election.
In a Gallup poll released late last year, only 1 percent of respondents cited abortion as one of the top priorities for the president and Congress to address, compared with 62 percent for the war in Iraq, 29 percent for health care and 18 percent for the economy.
Several developments have stirred debate about whether abortion will factor larger in Missouri than in other states.
A proposal could appear on the state’s November ballot that abortion-rights advocates contend would virtually outlaw abortions. Anti-abortion groups say their members have traditionally been active in Missouri politics, particularly at the grass-roots level.
But there also is the chance that Missouri voters, whose diversity has arguably made the state into a microcosm of the country, will simply mirror the national trends.
“I don’t think Missouri is that different,” said Tom Simpson, a professor of political science at Missouri Southern State University, of voting trends.
Ballot measure
Late last month, a lawsuit financed by Planned Parenthood was filed in an effort to bar an abortion proposal from appearing on the November ballot.
Officially called the Prevention of Coerced and Unsafe Abortion Act, the proposal would make it illegal for doctors to perform an abortion at any time in a woman’s pregnancy unless “the doctor determines, either immediately or after extensive and documented emotional, psychological, physical, situational, and demographic evaluations, that the procedure is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious medical risks,” according to the ballot language.
The proposal would allow a woman who later regrets an abortion to sue the doctors or nurses on allegations that they failed to screen her for risk factors or evaluate whether she was coerced into having the abortion.
The case is pending in court, but foes of the measure have argued that it should be stricken from the ballot because it would make virtually all abortions illegal, in defiance of federal rulings.
Proponents, although they have objected to the way the ballot question has been worded, counter that the proposal only establishes a way for women to get full disclosure of the risks, and to redress negligence in pre-abortion screening and counseling.
Pamela Sumners, executive director of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Pro-Choice Missouri, an abortion-rights group, said the proposal is a political ploy to draw anti-abortion residents in the coming elections. She also cited a task force assembled by Gov. Matt Blunt to explore how abortions affect women.
“He clearly needed a ‘get-out-the-vote’ device,” Sumners said, pointing to Blunt’s sagging approval ratings.
Sumners said the ballot measure, if it does make it on the November ballot, will “stir up a lot of people” and galvanize abortion-rights advocates.
The proposal was advanced by an organization called Stop Forced Abortions Alliance, which has ties to the Elliot Institute, an Illinois-based organization that seeks to show the negative impact of abortions.
Dave Plemmons, chairman of the Southwest Missouri region of the Missouri Right to Life chapter, said the organization has not taken a stand on the ballot question.
But Plemmons did say that Missouri contains what some call a “pro-life increment,” in which a majority of the people who vote on the basis of abortion vote for anti-abortion candidates. That group’s influence has been seen most notably in the 2002 and 2004 elections, in which Republicans generally edged their Democratic rivals, he said.
Bioethics
And questions raised by bioethics research, particularly in the areas of human cloning and stem-cell research, have added another dimension to the anti-abortion movement that could engage voters, he said.
On the surveys that Missouri Right to Life issues to political candidates, bioethics questions have about “equal time” with abortion questions, he said.
“It is not just abortion anymore,” Plemmons said.
John Putnam, chairman of the Jasper County Republican Central Committee, said he thinks bioethics issues are becoming part of the anti-abortion movement, although he thinks the movement might be “somewhat divided” on the issue of stem-cell research. Blunt, for example, supported a stem-cell research amendment in 2006, while many anti-abortion apostles voted against the measure, Putnam said.
Although that disagreement will not drive anti-abortion voters to the Democratic camp in this year’s gubernatorial election, it could mean those voters will be less enthusiastic campaigners unless Blunt’s position is clarified, Putnam said. The group is key, he said, because it is “one of the interest groups that works in the trenches to get the vote out harder than anyone else.”
If the issue does come up in this year’s election, there is the fear that both Republican and Democratic politicians will use women’s reproductive rights for purely political purposes, said Kellie Rohrbaugh, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Southwest Missouri.
Lawmakers, she said, tend to oversimplify the issue and thus polarize the two sides. That political landscape makes it hard for the two sides to search for common ground on contraception and sexual education that could render some abortions unnecessary.
“It’s not black and white,” she said of the issue.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
By the numbers
In a national Gallup poll released earlier this month, respondents were asked what type of change they would like to see the next president bring about. The question was open-ended.
A total of 26 percent said they wanted the president to end to the war in Iraq and/or bring the troops home; 19 percent cited health-care reform; and 18 percent said fixing the economy and/or creating more jobs should be the top priority. One percent of the respondents cited overturning Roe v. Wade and/or ending abortions.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.