Is Washington Finally Catching Up to Public on Abortion? By Richard Craig May 16, 1997

With the Senate debating a ban on partial-birth abortions this week, much of the familiar inflamed rhetoric from both sides of the abortion issue is echoing through the halls of Washington. In spite of this, however, there are signs of something brewing that would be a complete departure from the efforts of the last 25 years.

The compromise packages currently being formulated by some Democrats indicate that Washington may finally be figuring out what the public has known for years -- that abortion is a complex issue that deserves to be painted in shades other than black and white.

The current bill would ban the controversial late-term procedure, with the only exception being in cases where the mother's life was in danger. President Clinton has indicated he will veto such a measure, but what's encouraging is that Democrats are also pitching in with variations of their own. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle has drafted a compromise bill that would ban all forms of late-term abortions on fetuses viable outside the womb, with exceptions to save the mother's life or avoid "grievous injury" to her health. California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein have also put forth a plan of their own.

Though Clinton has indicated he would back the Daschle bill, many Republicans have claimed it is not strong enough and is simply an attempt on Daschle's part to make political hay. While this bickering is predictable, it is heartening to hear the language of compromise used on this issue in any way, in light of the previous stances taken by legislators.

For years, abortion has been an issue on which no middle ground was allowed, partially due to the tremendous political and fundraising power of both the pro-life and pro-choice movements. The movements each believe that abortion is a no-compromise issue -- abortions should either be available to everyone with no restrictions or not available under any circumstances. For legislators, deviation from either position has often meant being branded at best a spineless waffler, and at worst a turncoat. Either way, one risked loss of endorsements and campaign contributions by taking anything close to the middle ground.

This is a recipe for disaster by itself, but it's even more disturbing because the vast majority of the public doesn't fall perfectly into either camp. Public opinion polls on this issue in recent years have consistently shown that the majority of Americans actually fall somewhere between the two extremes. These polls, however, have both misled and informed the public. When people are only allowed to call themselves "pro-life" or "pro-choice" in polls, they're frequently forced into a category into which they do not comfortably fit.

When pollsters have asked more detailed questions, however, it has revealed just how complex the issue is. Many people who call themselves pro-choice show serious reservations about simply allowing abortion on demand, and many who say they're pro-life show understanding for cases in which abortion may be the best of several undesirable options.

Voters have come to understand that abortion is a moral issue -- one must be morally comfortable with any decision this important. But many people believe it is an issue of private versus public morals -- should the state ever be allowed to make the call, and if so, under what circumstances? At what point do we determine that the privilege is being abused? There are dozens of personal positions that fall somewhere within this framework, or just to the right or left of it, and none of these important voices has been represented in the Washington debate up to now.

While legislators have long feared deviating too far from the party-approved stances, they can't ignore their constituents forever. The increasing numbers who have voiced their moderate points of view on the issue have forced legislators to consider the notion that perhaps abortion is neither an absolute right nor an absolute wrong. While this may be unprecedented in Washington, outside the Beltway it's the common-sense approach to an issue whose extreme elements have gotten out of hand.

It's too early to say whether the current Republican-sponsored bill or any of the Democrats' compromise packages will end up becoming law, but the notion of a middle ground on this issue is nonetheless encouraging. The next step is for people with differing opinions on the issue to begin finding small bits of common ground, with an aim toward building a loose consensus on what we as a society can agree upon and live with.

In this pursuit, those who have become embroiled in the battles over the issue need to be reminded of one thing. Just because someone disagrees with you on one issue doesn't automatically make them evil.

©1997 Richard Craig. All rights reserved.

Unsubstantiated Facts Column Archive