Prochoice, out of touch

JOAN VENNOCHI - Boston Globe Columnist

HELLO, NARAL? It is getting easier to ignore you. The same is true of Planned Parenthood.
These abortion rights advocates have not adjusted their tone or message to 21st century political realities.

First obvious reality: George W. Bush, not John Kerry, won the last presidential election. With Bush in the White House, the best-case scenario for abortion rights supporters is a Supreme Court justice who agrees, at minimum, that there is a constitutionally protected right to privacy. That is the underpinning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision, which extended the privacy right to abortion.

During last week's confirmation hearings, John Roberts said there is such a privacy right. It is also true that Roberts refused to state whether he believes that privacy right specifically includes a woman's right to abortion. But did NARAL Pro-Choice America or Planned Parenthood Federation of America really expect a Bush nominee to do that? Again, they got the best they could expect. Regarding Roe, Roberts said, ''It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis" (Latin for ''to stand by that which is decided").

Next political reality: Respect for precedent is not an absolute commitment to it. With conservatives controlling all three branches of government, expect greater restrictions on abortion at the national level. That makes every state an important battleground. Electing prochoice legislators and governors becomes vitally important to protecting a woman's right to an abortion. Access to abortion can end up being an accident of geography.

But the biggest political reality is how much the abortion conversation is changing on the pro-choice side -- and how little prochoice groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood seem to understand the change and the challenge.

The right-to-lifers contend they have God on their side. Minus a deity, the left needs something. How about reason and logic, the opposite of hysteria?

Senator Hillary Clinton of New York defined a new dialogue last January in a much-discussed speech. The right to abortion should be protected, she said. But it also should be exercised as little as possible. ''There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under Constitution either does not have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances," Clinton said.That is not going to satisfy antiabortion zealots. But it can strike a chord of sensibility with Americans who want abortion to be safe and legal, but agree that fewer abortions are a good thing.

Groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood say their mission encompasses women's reproductive health, and pregnancy prevention as well as abortion rights. But that is not the first thing that comes to mind with either group, despite Planned Parenthood's moniker. ''It's a challenge we struggle with," acknowledged Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. ''It's a hard thing to change."

Change or die is the motto of corporate America; it applies to liberal advocacy groups, too. NARAL got off to a terrible start with its campaign against Roberts when it released an ad that falsely sought to link Roberts to abortion clinic bombings. That ad was pulled. But its website and subsequent press releases, along with those of Planned Parenthood, continue a tone of forboding about what to expect from Roberts. They are urging senators to vote against him. Perhaps these advocates are right.

Maybe it is naive to believe a man who says, under oath, ''I am not an ideologue." Roberts also describes himself as open-minded and agenda-less, an umpire, not a pitcher or batter. Similarities between Roberts's testimony and that of Clarence Thomas during his Senate confirmation hearings may indeed foreshadow what is to come. ''Thomas also gave grandiose remarks about respecting precedent and the right to privacy during his confirmation hearings. One year later, Justice Thomas voted to overturn Roe v. Wade," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a press release.

Which gets us back to political reality. What did anyone expect from an antiabortion president?
Abortion rights supporters need a new, nonhysterical campaign that taps effectively into the country's continued backing for legalized abortion. These advocacy groups need to shed their shrewish image and find a way to connect with people who may not appreciate the right they have until it begins to be stripped away.
Otherwise, these advocacy groups bemoan themselves into irrelevancy.

No comments: