|
Pro-life
Movement Faces Opportunities,
Challenges in New Congress
WASHINGTON (January 3, 2005) – Encouraged by a
string of successes in the 2003-04 Congress and by wins in the November
election, pro-life leaders now see prospects for additional legislative
gains during the new 109th Congress, which convenes on January 4. Also
looming is the likelihood of one or more vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court
during the next two years, with bruising confirmation battles anticipated in
the U.S. Senate.
Anti-life forces are marshaling their formidable political resources to
resist pro-life initiatives and to prevent confirmation of judicial nominees
who are not to their liking.
The November 2 election saw the first re-election of a pro-life President
since Ronald Reagan won a second term 20 years earlier. The election also
resulted in gains in pro-life strength in both houses. (See
“New Pro-Lifers Added to U.S.
House and Senate,” November 2004 NRL News, page 1.)
The pro-life gains in the Senate are particularly consequential. Over the
past decade, important pro-life legislation has often been approved by the
House of Representatives, only to die in the Senate.
Even before the election, the 2003-04 Congress was the most successful ever
for the pro-life movement. Several major pro-life measures backed by
National Right to Life were enacted into law, including:
* The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the first federal ban on an
abortion method enacted since the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand
in its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
* The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which recognizes as a full
legal victim any “child in utero” who is harmed during commission of a
violent federal crime. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the
species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the
womb.”
* The Hyde-Weldon Amendment, which prohibits any federal, state, or
local government agency or program from discriminating against any
individual or institutional health care provider because the provider does
not provide, pay for, provide coverage for, or refer for abortions.
* The Weldon Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office from issuing a patent on any human embryo (including any human embryo
created by cloning).
(For further details on these legislative victories, see
“108th
Congress the Most Successful Yet for Pro-Life Movement,”
and “Congress
Approves Broad Shield to Protect Pro-Life Health Care Providers”)
These notable successes occurred even though the 2003-04 Senate did not have
a true pro-life majority. Indeed, in 2003 the Senate adopted an amendment
offered by pro-abortion Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to endorse Roe v. Wade,
52-46, (The pro-abortion side racked up higher majorities on some other
pro-life issues.) Despite the pro-Roe Senate majority, however, the pro-life
side ultimately prevailed on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act, and the other enacted measures, due to strong
support from the top Republican leadership in the House and Senate,
effective interventions from the White House and Administration officials,
and effective grassroots and Washington lobbying campaigns.
The November 2 election shifted the makeup of the Senate in the pro-life
direction from one to four votes, depending on the issue. In addition, in
the election the Republicans increased their Senate majority to 55-45, up
from the previously razor-thin 51-49. These gains improve the prospects for
enactment of additional pro-life legislation during the new Congress.
Susanne Martinez, vice president for public policy at the Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, told the Los Angeles Times that the organization is
“very concerned with the results in the election providing a shift in the
compilation of the Senate.”
However, Senate rules often work to the advantage of obstructionist
minorities. Senate rules generally allow unlimited debate (filibuster) and
unlimited consideration of amendments, unless 60 senators vote to end debate
(called “invoking cloture”).
During 2003-04, the Senate Democratic caucus used the filibuster to prevent
up-and-down votes on ten of President Bush’s nominations to federal courts
of appeals, and the threat of filibusters blocked some other pro-life
legislation.
With the increases in pro-life and Republican strength, it will be more
difficult for pro-abortion senators to mount successful filibusters, but
neither the pro-life numbers or the Republican numbers are yet sufficient to
ensure favorable outcomes.
“The outcome of key votes will be decided by the votes of senators who have
mixed voting records, and their votes on any given issue may be largely
determined by their perception of how many of their constituents will notice
or care how they vote on that issue,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas
Johnson.
Overall, “It should be a little easier, but it’s never less than a
struggle,” longtime pro-life leader Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Il.) told the Chicago
Tribune shortly after the election.
During the new Congress, the top Republican leadership positions will
continue to be filled by the same strongly pro-life senators as during
2003-04: In the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tn.), Majority Whip
Mitch McConnell (Ky.). and Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (Pa.); and in
the House, Speaker Dennis Hastert (Il.), Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Tx.),
and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.).
On November 2, pro-abortion Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (SD) was
defeated for re-election by pro-life John Thune. Subsequently, Senate
Democrats chose Senator Harry Reid (Nv.) as their new leader.
“The news media has labeled Reid as pro-life, but for years he has usually
voted against the pro-life side on the most important votes,” Johnson said.
“Indeed, in recent years Reid has played a key role in obstructing both
pro-life legislation and judicial nominees, and I expect he will attempt to
continue doing so.”
Abortion-Related Legislation
One top prospect for legislative action this year is the Unborn Child Pain
Awareness Act, first introduced in May 2004 by Senator Brownback and
Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ). The bill would require any abortionist to
provide specified information to any woman seeking an abortion at 20 weeks
or later, regarding the pain that would be inflicted on the baby, and to
obtain a signed form accepting or rejecting administration of pain-relieving
drugs to the baby.
A national poll in November by Wirthlin Worldwide described this legislation
and found 75% in support, including 51% strongly in favor. Only 18% opposed
the legislation.
(For more information on this issue, see “Bill Highlighting Unborn Child’s
Pain Introduced,” June 2004 NRL News, page 1, or visit the NRLC website
section on “The Pain of the Unborn” at
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/fetal_pain/index.html)
Prospects have also improved for the Child Custody Protection Act, which
would make it a federal crime to take a minor across state lines for a
secret abortion, in violation of the parents’ right to be notified
beforehand. This bill has been passed by the House in 1998, 1999, and 2002,
but it has remained blocked in the Senate.
Parental notification laws have very strong public support. The latest
evidence of this came in Florida, where an amendment to the state
constitution to advance parental notification for abortion passed 65-35% on
November 2.
Judicial Nominations
The four-seat Republican gain in the Senate has major implications for
future nominations to the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court.
Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry repeatedly vowed that
if elected, he would nominate to the Supreme Court, and perhaps even to the
lower courts, only those who were committed to Roe v. Wade. Pre-election
polls suggest that the issue worked against Kerry. In a Washington Post poll
conducted October 23-26, 49% of likely voters said they had more confidence
in President Bush to choose future Supreme Court justices, while 42% said
Kerry. Likewise, a Fox News / Opinion Dynamics poll conducted October 27-28
found that 48% of registered voters thought that President Bush “would do a
better job on . . . appointing justices to the U.S. Supreme Court,” while
40% thought that Kerry would do a better job.
Nevertheless, a coalition of advocacy groups – in which pro-abortion groups
like Planned Parenthood and NARAL are major players – will continue to
demand that senators attempt to obstruct any nominee to the Supreme Court
who does not make a commitment to the pro-abortion side, and will continue
to work to block selected nominees to other courts as well.
This coalition is expected to spend many millions of dollars on advertising
in opposition to any conservative nominee to the Supreme Court.
More than 10 years have now passed since the last vacancy on the Supreme
Court, and all of the current members are over age 65, except for Justice
Clarence Thomas. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, is currently under
treatment for cancer of the thyroid.
During 2003-04, the Senate Democratic caucus, under Daschle’s leadership,
used filibusters to prevent up-and-down votes on ten of President Bush’s
nominees to federal courts of appeals, and blocked additional judicial
nominees in other ways.
The nominees subjected to filibusters and other obstruction tactics, despite
their sterling legal credentials, are those targeted by a the coalition of
liberal groups. Many nominees who would not commit to vote for abortion were
targeted for such obstruction.
In late December, President Bush announced that in January he will
re-nominate all of the blocked courts of appeals nominees, except for a
couple who did not wish to be renominated. Liberal advocacy groups expressed
dismay at the announcement. So did Senator Reid, who said, “I was extremely
disappointed to learn today that the president intends to begin the new
Congress by resubmitting extremist judicial nominees.”
“The obstruction of judicial nominees was a major issue in the defeat of
Democratic Leader Tom Daschle in the South Dakota Senate race, which was the
first time in 52 years that a Senate party leader was defeated for
re-election,” commented NRLC’s Johnson. “The obstruction of judicial
nominees was also an important issue in races for a number of open Senate
seats, all of which were won by the Republicans. If Senate Democrats
continue to obstruct judicial nominees at the behest of liberal pressure
groups, they do so at their collective political peril.”
“I hope they'll receive better treatment than they did in the last
Congress,” pro-life Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx.), a Judiciary Committee member,
told the Associated Press. “We experienced unprecedented filibusters of the
president’s judicial nominees, which I believe the voters repudiated on Nov.
2, both by returning the president with a decisive victory and defeating the
chief obstructionist in the Senate, that was the minority leader.”
Judicial nominations are reviewed first by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In the new Congress, Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) will assume the
chairmanship of this powerful committee, based on his seniority. In
November, NRLC and other pro-life groups urged that the other Republican
members of the committee override seniority and select another senator as
chairman, but Specter held on to the job after promising his colleagues that
he would expeditiously move the President’s judicial nominees to the Senate
floor. (For further details on these developments, see
http://www.nrlc.org/Judicial/SpecterPromise.html)
Because of the Republican gains in the election, one Democratic seat has
been removed from the committee, which in the new Congress will consist of
ten Republicans and eight Democrats. All of the Republicans are pro-life
except Specter, while all eight Democrats are pro-abortion.
In December, pro-abortion groups expressed alarm when they learned that
Senator Brownback, the Senate pro-life leader on several major issues, had
exercised his seniority to take one of the Republican seats on the
committee, and that newly elected Senator Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) had also won a
seat on the committee. Coburn, a physician, had a strongly pro-life record
during his previous service in the House (1995-2000).
NARAL President Nancy Keenan told the Washington Post, “It appears the far
right is massing troops on the border of Roe v. Wade.” Ralph Neas of the
group called “People for the American Way” said, “The color code for
potential threats to the Constitution just went from orange to red.”
Protecting Human Embryos
The new Congress will also see renewed clashes on issues involving the
creation and use of human embryos in laboratories.
In August, 2001, President Bush announced that his administration would not
allow federal funding of research that requires killing human embryos,
including embryonic stem cell research. During 2004, supporters of embryonic
stem cell research stepped up their challenges to the President’s policy.
Reps. Mike Castle (R-De.) and Diana DeGette (D-Co.) introduced a bill to
require federal funding of research using human embryos created by in vitro
fertilization and later “donated” by their parents. This bill gathered 191
cosponsors in the 435-member House. In addition, 58 of the 100 senators
signed a letter to President Bush in June, 2004, urging him to relax
restrictions on such research.
The advocates of embryo-destructive stem cell research are sure to step up
their efforts during 2005.
While defending the President’s pro-life policy, pro-life forces also will
renew their efforts to enact a national ban on the creation of human embryos
by cloning. The House has passed such a ban twice, in 2001 and 2003, but so
far supporters have been unable to muster sufficient support to pass it in
the Senate.
Many of the pro-cloning senators have rallied behind counter-legislation
sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.),
referred to by pro-life groups as “the clone and kill bill.” The
Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow human embryos to be created by cloning, and
penalize anyone who allows such an embryo to develop past the 14th day.
During the 2003-04 Congress, neither the Brownback-Landrieu bill nor the
Hatch-Feinstein bill had enough votes to overcome procedural obstacles –
resulting in a protracted standoff. This standoff has amounted to a tactical
win for the pro-cloning forces, since in the absence of a federal ban, human
cloning remains legal in most states. However, researchers in the U.S.
apparently have not yet overcome technical problems that have prevented them
from creating human embryos.
“The group of newly elected pro-life senators will increase the level of
Senate support for the Brownback bill,” commented NRLC’s Johnson. “However,
the bill will continue to face stiff resistance from the Biotechnology
Industry Organization (BIO) and others who wish to use cloning to create
what President Bush has aptly called ‘human embryo farms.’”
Polls have shown lopsided opposition to the creation of human embryos for
research. For example, an International Communications Research poll (August
13-17, 2004) asked, “Should scientists be allowed to use human cloning to
create a supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical research?,” to
which 80% of a national sample said “no.”
(For more information on regarding human cloning and other issues pertaining
to human embryos, see
http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/index.html)
Up-to-Date Congressional Information
and Congressional Scorecards
on NRLC Website “Legislative Action Center”
In order to help pro-life lobbying efforts in Congress, use your computer to
frequently visit the NRLC website at
http://www.nrlc.org.
The website features a Legislative Action Center that provides up-to-date
alerts and background information on pro-life issues under consideration in
Congress. The Legislative Action Center includes easy-to-use tools for
sending timely e-mail messages to your federal representatives in support of
specific pro-life legislative goals, and provides guidance on other things
you can do locally to advance pro-life legislation.
The Legislative Action Center also includes always-current listings of which
members of Congress have cosponsored major pro-life and anti-life bills. In
addition, you can refer to complete NRLC “scorecards” on the voting records
of members of Congress from 1997 through 2004. New congressional votes are
added to the scorecards soon after they occur, and they are also published
in NRL News. |
